Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 04:39:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet  (Read 27275 times)
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 11:03:27 AM
 #181

Does anyone here think I wouldn't have gotten a scammer tag if I labeled my bet "a draw"?

1511109577
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109577

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109577
Reply with quote  #2

1511109577
Report to moderator
1511109577
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109577

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109577
Reply with quote  #2

1511109577
Report to moderator
1511109577
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109577

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109577
Reply with quote  #2

1511109577
Report to moderator
Once a transaction has 6 confirmations, it is extremely unlikely that an attacker without at least 50% of the network's computation power would be able to reverse it.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511109577
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109577

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109577
Reply with quote  #2

1511109577
Report to moderator
1511109577
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511109577

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511109577
Reply with quote  #2

1511109577
Report to moderator
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 11:16:13 AM
 #182

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Theymos, I know both you and Luke are sound guys, but you are making a disservice to the site by not putting at least a warning tag on this guy. Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

On top of that, you have been advertising BFL products as final here for a while. Products that don't exist in any shape or form as advertised. You have a certain degree of responsibility now, I know people who have assumed BFL actually shipped these products because of ads in this site.

This is Wild West bitcoin world at its worst.

PS: guys, stop betting on BFL stuff as they will fail to reliably own up and the burden of proof will be on you. Bet only on events you can prove (and not in dubious sites like betsofbitco.in who have already proven themselves).



Luke is a sound guy?
Luke? The guy that helped BFL do their trick with BoB?
If BoB deserves a scam tag than Luke deserves his own fork.
I think that as a bitcoin developer he did a great disservice to the community by taking part in this deceptive deal.
Luke, in my book, has shown himself to be far from sound.
For someone relying on logic so much he sure knows how to pick his logics conveniently.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 04:16:23 PM
 #183

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 04:47:22 PM
 #184

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.

Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:09:56 PM
 #185

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:30:50 PM
 #186

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The pictures show a dev board and not a device as defined by the bet.
Funny how you seem to elaborate on the realy unimportant stuff.

You were also fully aware of the bet and were actively plotting with BFL make this not be a fail for BFL.
You are most certainly party in the bet, one way or another.
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
 #187

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
JordanL
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:39:40 PM
 #188

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.


Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:45:13 PM
 #189

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?
Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:59:11 PM
 #190

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?
Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.
I think you're smarter than that.
This whole BFL thing smells of fail on a rail anyway.
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 06:27:59 PM
 #191

There was a (now locked) thread in the Mining forum asking how BFL is allowed to run their misleading ads on this forum.  Luke stopped in yesterday to again spread more disinformation.

Quote
Ignore the trolls. I've had my Little Single (ASIC) for nearly a week now, and it's working fine.
Even if the rest of the devices haven't shipped yet, it's obvious there is a product and only a fool would claim they aren't going to deliver.


Funny how he not only keeps using deceptive language, but also refers to those components on a table as a "Little Single".  BFL doesn't even offer the "Little Single" for sale anymore.

As he points out, its been about a week since he claimed to receive his "Little Single".  No one else has received so much as a tracking number.

Luke must think people are really stupid.  As if we can't see that this whole thing was cooked up between him and Josh Zerlan...
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
 #192

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

Actually, they shipped him to the item rather than the item to him.

The mods should stop this whole scammer tag nonsense. There no policy that can be used as a guideline and they currently do not give out the scammer tag consistently. The mods also have too many conflicts of interest. Having BFL/betsofbitco.in in good standing on this site brings in ad revenue and site hits (more ad revenue), why would they harm their golden goose? The mods should not be determining who is a scammer and who is not, they should only ban accounts that violate the forum's TOS.

This is a point. Scammer tag currently does more damage as the entire usagi "I am not scammertagged therefore I am well trusted" pseudoargument.

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:18:55 PM
 #193

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

...and comedy gold.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 08:44:48 PM
 #194

But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The only reason the bet was called into question was due to your deceitful post. So, yeah, you are a party to the scam.

Buy & Hold
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 08:50:05 PM
 #195

Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the double-standard. What did they do differently than I did in my November prank?

I received a scammer tag on "principle" because "everyone knew what the bet was about despite [my] wording". I do not object to this, I deserved it and it was in poor taste.

Why then is this a different situation? What was the point of my scammer tag (what lesson was I supposed to have learned)? "Matthew, don't do that again or you'll get a scammer tag.. oh but Betsofbitco.in can do it, that's alright. Do as I say, not as I do."

It's very clear that Betsofbitco.in pulled a "Matthew" and got away with it.

Maybe because you posted and participated your bet here on bitcointalk.org.
They weren't doing this here; the bet took part at bob own service website.
If incorrect point me to a link Wink

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


amarha


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:00:29 PM
 #196

Josh and Luke attempted to scam the bet. How the stunt they pulled could be classified as anything but a scam is beyond me.

As for Bets of Bitcoin:

The first line of the bet stated:
"This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886 "

Is the pictured device one of those 3 products?(aside from the fact that nothing was shipped)

No.

Therefore it is irrelevant whether you think the subsequent two conditions were met or not.

Only other possible explanation is for Bets of Bitcoin to publicly state that they believe that the pictured device is one of the 3 items that qualify for the bet.


PS
I mean the picture was taken at BFL, ffs this is such an obvious slam dunk scammer tag for at least one person that if it doesn't get issued here it should probably be retired.

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


amarha


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:04:16 PM
 #197

And I have no financial involvement in anything related to this at all.

It's just infuriating to read what has happened here and see that nothing is going to be done. If people can get away with doing things like this and suffer no consequences nothing is ever going to change.
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 09:10:43 PM
 #198

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
 #199

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

4) And post the images after midnight EST, thus making the bit TRUE. This fact, and this fact alone, should have been the only proof needed to declare the bet appropriately, yet was brushed aside by coinjedi, declaring a draw. Totally motherfuckin' amazing!

From a random contest to illustrate a point: http://www.hpj.com/archives/2009/mar09/mar30/USWheatAssociatesannouncest.cfm

Quote
Entries postmarked before Aug. 1, should be mailed to Steve Mercer, U.S. Wheat Associates, 3103 10th Street North, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201, 202-263-0999.

Assuming the best photo, bar none, was mailed in and could have easily won this contest, the submitted photo would not qualify. Why! BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED LATE. Every other aspect of the contest may have been met, but this entry would not qualify.

What the fuck is so motherfuckin' unambiguous about this?

Speaking of unambiguous, why not a peep from Josh about this since this issue arose?
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
 #200

Last 3 trolls seem to be missing the fact that the bet deadline was at the end of April 1, not the start of it.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!