Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 06:21:52 AM *
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 27279 times)
Justin00
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:33:59 AM
 #21

how can it be a draw..

they either shipped or they didn't...

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511158912
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511158912

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511158912
Reply with quote  #2

1511158912
Report to moderator
TradeFortress
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:35:35 AM
 #22

-1.

Call it a poor decision on BoB's part if you like. But unless you have some sort of proof of their collusion with Josh and Luke, it's not a scam. Nor is it stealing. Unless you are a serious gambling addict.

Yep. BoB gets less money from a draw than a win or lose.
Unless Inaba bet some coins, or CoinJedi bet some coins.
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:35:51 AM
 #23

As a side note, I can hardly believe that I'm agreeing with Luke.

Vomit-inducing, isn't it?  Grin
But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him. Luke (the whore) is under the impression that BFL clearly WON that bet. No word yet on what kickbacks Josh is giving him to continue insisting on that line. Whereas you (and I) merely hold that a draw is a marginally acceptable outcome.

But I [sarc]really hope[/sarc] that the battle lines continue to be hardened and that my so-far utterly non-descript reputation on these boards becomes dependent on which side of the Josh/Luke-Micon axis I must apparently jump in to defend.  Roll Eyes

ETA: re the suggestion that CoinJedi may have placed on that bet - well obviously if that was the case there'd be a serious conflict of interest and I'd join everyone else in calling for a scammer tag for CoinJedi.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:49:37 AM
 #24

Id be willing to guess that BFL or affils bet on bets "that they will ship" to increase customer interest/convince that they will/self-disbelief.

I'd love to be able to see who bet they'd actaully ship (which they didnt)

Anyway, obvious scam tag.
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:56:24 AM
 #25

+1 on "scammer tag" for this site and guy!  If MNW gets one he should get one to

- The device wasn't shipped.
- An employee(Josh Z) took the photo displaying a working ASIC (could be fake)
- Status of Luke-Jr as a BFL employee is not clear
- Little SC wasn't part of the bet! Only the jalapeño, the Single SC and the Rig take part in the bet!


I have no stake in this bet.

talbitcoin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
 #26

I don't know if I would call this a scam, not just yet. But clearly a bad and unjust call by the referee which decided the game against those who actually scored the goals and rightfully deserved to win it.
As for Luke - By siding with the losing side on this with his supposedly-clever word-playing, he comes off, at the very least, as a major a bull***t artist. It's the same kind of bull***t artistry I got used to seeing from BFL over the time I've been following them since I ordered (and now - waiting for my refund).
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:04:23 AM
 #27

As a side note, I can hardly believe that I'm agreeing with Luke.

Vomit-inducing, isn't it?  Grin
But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him.

Oh, thank god science, you're right.

ETA: re the suggestion that CoinJedi may have placed on that bet - well obviously if that was the case there'd be a serious conflict of interest and I'd join everyone else in calling for a scammer tag for CoinJedi.

Agreed.
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 10:15:57 AM
 #28

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement
Quote
Title: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

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

• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.

Lethos Designs | UK BTC Seller -  Local Bitcoins | BTC OTC Rating | 1EFhXfX9uXsbXBF3LC69GiVfS3SHCsyMR1
FPGA: 2x Quad XC6SLX150 Boards
bitvientiane
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:22:15 AM
 #29

You must be a shill to judge BFL shipped here. +1 to the scammer tag, but I doubt it will happen.
Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:31:12 AM
 #30

BFL_Josh was called out about this on the BFL forum as well.

One thing has been bothering me though thinking about it.....

In BFL_Josh's video (at BFL) you see the setup (plugs, voltage meter, multimeter etc). In Luke-Jr's pictures (after 'shipped to Luke-Jr') you see the same set up, just from a different (and closer) angle.

Josh's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSI
Luke-Jr's Pics: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=755&d=1364793240 (https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html)

Both have a kill-a-watt voltage meter, both using Lenovo laptops, both the multimeter and the voltage meter are the same distance away from each other in the multiplug.



But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him. Luke (the whore) is under the impression that BFL clearly WON that bet. No word yet on what kickbacks Josh is giving him to continue insisting on that line. Whereas you (and I) merely hold that a draw is a marginally acceptable outcome.

Of course he would.... they're mining on his pool! At ~$250 a day wouldn't you?

Quote
Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 31 Mar
eligius.st pool stats page for Luke's ASIC:  http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1CdcYVP4T4hjHwt353pEnGHrigeDLvuvZL …



The topic obviously has ramifications for http://www.betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352 as well (shipping before mid-April)...
However the "All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted" means that Luke-Jr would be discounted to be fair.

Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:44:51 AM
 #31

I think this accusation is too ridiculous to spend time typing up a defense (it's obviously bogus), but if any moderator is taking it seriously for any reason feel free to contact me.

Seems like you have something to hide.
What would you have tell the mod behind the scenes that you cannot tell us?

Moreover, what makes you think this bet was a draw despite your weesely and unsuccessfull attempt to meet the criteria.
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:28:20 AM
 #32

I had no stake in the bet.
betsofbitco.in admitted that the title of the listing is part of the bet. Getting a consultant who you pay expenses for, to post photos of a prototype that's still sitting on the test bench, obviously doesn't count as shipping a unit. It might be enough to show that a BFL ASIC is able to hash, but it doesn't count as shipping.

Any argument that betsofbitco.in didn't make a commission on this bet, and thus didn't earn anything from it, is bunk because this decision is obvisouly corrupt. Who knows how much the losing side (those who bet that BFL would have shipped by now) paid betsofbitco.in to settle in their favor?

+1 scammer on both coinjedi / betsofbitco.in and Luke_Jr
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
 #33

+1 scam on both coinjedi / betsofbitco.in and Luke_Jr
I had no stake in the bet.
betsofbitco.in admitted that the title of the listing is part of the bet. Getting a consultant who you pay expenses for, to post photos of a prototype that's still sitting on the test bench, obviously doesn't count as shipping a unit.

Any argument that betsofbitco.in didn't make a commission on this bet, and thus didn't earn anything from it, is bunk because this decision is obvisouly corrupt. Who knows how much the losing side (those who bet that BFL would have shipped by now) paid betsofbitco.in to settle in their favor?

It's also a freeroll for BFL that bet on it being shipped
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:39:18 AM
 #34

Theft, plain and simple. Really hope they don't get away with it.

(I had no stake in the bet)

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!
vampire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:45:55 AM
 #35

If "ALL" of the conditions of the bet didn't happen then the bet is lost.

According to http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701

Bet: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

Quote
Editor's note: We have carefully examined both sides of the argument. First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products, therefore other bets are still open.

Second:

The customer doesn't have the product, Luke-JR post a picture of the hashing unit right now with the timestamp.

Third:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0 It was posted AFTER April 1st (EST)

Fourth:

I want my money back for this bet, since the errors was DISCOVERED, nowhere in the bet it says that they should be confirmed.

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=139

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/02/thats-embarrassing-faster-than-light-neu.php

GIANNAT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1035


Bitcoin entrepreneur and Pro Trader


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
 #36

The unit hasn't been shipped at all. We have just seen a photo of a prototype. Ergo bet result is TRUE. He deserves the scammer tag

coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:49:14 AM
 #37

Our reasoning is already on the page, so I will not repeat it here. We do our best to judge by the user written descriptions of statements. Unfortunately sometimes the outcome is not as unambiguous as we want. I guess that is why lawyer-talk evolved to be so convoluted. This particular case does not meet the unambiguity criteria we set ourselves.

Everybody got their full bet back, including the original submission fee. We could choose to select one side and earn a significant commission, enough to buy a nice laptop these days, but we didn't.

I respect everybody who thinks that we didn't judge well enough, but scamming is a different matter. I hope at least some of the bettors understand and respect our decision when the dust settles.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:52:46 AM
 #38

"lawyer-talk"? This would never fly in a real court of law, and I think you know that. You've already confirmed that the title is part of the bet, and BFL did not ship. You owe the winners their winnings, but how you'll be able to come up with the money to pay them is anyones' guess.

Are you Matthew N. Wright of Something Awful dot com? I seem to remember his pirate savings and trust bet ending up with similar word games after the fact. The meaning of the bet is obvious to anyone, and it's just the losers who are coming up with after the fact rationalizations of how they didn't lose. Probably paid you more than the commission to reverse the bet too.
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:55:35 AM
 #39

Our reasoning is already on the page, so I will not repeat it here. We do our best to judge by the user written descriptions of statements. Unfortunately sometimes the outcome is not as unambiguous as we want. I guess that is why lawyer-talk evolved to be so convoluted. This particular case does not meet the unambiguity criteria we set ourselves.

Everybody got their full bet back, including the original submission fee. We could choose to select one side and earn a significant commission, enough to buy a nice laptop these days, but we didn't.

I respect everybody who thinks that we didn't judge well enough, but scamming is a different matter. I hope at least some of the bettors understand and respect our decision when the dust settles.

So instead, how much equity did the winners of the bet lose?

How much equity did we ever have? Luke or anyone from BFL could of made same pictures/bs post at any time.
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:56:15 AM
 #40

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement
Quote
Title: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

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

• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.


Fully agreed.  +1 to a scammer tag for BoB/coinjedi, and I think Luke-Jr should maybe get one too for his involvement.  I've lost a lot of respect for him over this.

On a side note, why would BoB come on here and solicit feedbeck on the bet for a day, and then ignore the overwhelming opinion and rule like they did?  Seems like they set themselves up for this.  I think a poll thread will illustrate this more clearly:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.msg1730049

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
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!