Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 03:56:45 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 27271 times)
Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:00:08 PM
 #41

Sorry.... I had to..... could not resist....


Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
1511063805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511063805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511063805
Reply with quote  #2

1511063805
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511063805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511063805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511063805
Reply with quote  #2

1511063805
Report to moderator
1511063805
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511063805

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511063805
Reply with quote  #2

1511063805
Report to moderator
ordy
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:01:02 PM
 #42

+1 - especially point 1 which is totally unambiguous and overlooked in this fray

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.
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:16:40 PM
 #43

Sorry.... I had to..... could not resist....



Even BFLs house and garden publication "Bitcoin Magazine" does no longer talk about the thing having been shipped.

Here's how the article about Luke's device broke and is as of this moment still referenced in Google's Index.



Note how it said "he received the first Butterfly Labs ASIC to reach the hands of consumers."

Now go to one of these URLs like this one: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/category/technical/

and you will see how the text has been changed to "that a prototypes Butterfly Labs ASIC is now hashing".

tl;dr - not even the retard-o-zine will acknowledge this as a shipment.

PS: Also note how the articles former title "Bitcoin developer receives first Butterfly Labs ASIC"
as evidenced in the article url http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitcoin-developer-receives-first-butterfly-labs-asic/
has been changed to "Bitcoin developer Confirms Butterfly Labs ASIC"
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:25:08 PM
 #44

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.

I find it strange that you have put a bet on something that you find ambiguous afterwards.
Zotia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 303



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:28:51 PM
 #45

Did coinjedi take part in this bet?


That is the only way that his actions would make any sense.


▄█▄
▄██▀██▄
▄██▀███▀██▄
▄██▀███████▀██▄
▄██▀██████▄████▀██▄
▄██▀██████████▄████▀██▄
▄██▀███████████▀██▄████▀██▄
▄██▀███████████████▀██▄████▀██▄
▄██▀███████████████████▀██▄████▀██▄
█████████████████████████████████████
████▄███████████████████▄██▀████▄████
██████▄███████████████▄██▀████▄██████
████████▄███████████▄██▀████▄████████
▀█████████▄██████████▀████▄█████████▀
▀█████████▄██████▀████▄█████████▀
▀█████████▄███████▄█████████▀
▀█████████▄███▄█████████▀
▀█████████▄█████████▀
▀███████████████▀
▀███████████▀
▀███████▀
▀███▀
 


██
██
██
██
██░░░▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
██▀▀▀█░░░░░░░░░▀█▄
██▀▀▀░░░░░░▄▄▄░░░▀█
██░░░░░░░░░█░█░░░░▀█▄
██░░░░░░▄▄▄█░█▄▄▄░░▀█▄
██░░░░░░█░░░░░░░█░░░░█
██░░░░░░▀▀▀█░█▀▀▀░░░░█
██░░░░▄▄▄░░█░█░░░░░░░█
██░░░░█░█░░▀▀▀░░░░░░░█
██░░░░▀▀▀░▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░▀▌
██▄▄▄▄████░░░░░█░░░░░░█
██░░░░░░░▀█▄░░░░█░░░░░█
██░░░░░░░░░▀█▄░░░█░░░░█
██░░░░░░░░░░░▀█▄░░█░░░█
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀█▄░█░█▀
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀
PLAYKEY.IO
DECENTRALIZED CLOUD GAMING PLATFORM   
   
   
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:37:32 PM
 #46

Did coinjedi take part in this bet?

That is the only way that his actions would make any sense.
That wouldn't make sense, but it would make sense if the losing side offered to pay more for cancellation of the bet than the value of the lost commissions. The loss of public image might not be worth it by coinjedi in the long run though.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:42:46 PM
 #47

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.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 494


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:45:46 PM
 #48

GIVE THEYMOS A SCAMMER TAG!!!!! BE HONEST, HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING YOU, THEYMOS???

J/k.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
 #49

This is very funy because....

Quote
BitBet is owned by Mircea Popescu I believe, also known as MPOE-PR on BitcoinTalk (who pretends to be a female (Hannah Wiggins)). He's a known troll and repeated liar and I suspect that bet is his... I've repeatedly called out his lies on Bitcointalk and he's a sad panda that no one will listen to his constant stream of false information... so he's taken to try and convince people that BFL is a scam. Honestly, I wouldn't trust BitBet unless someone can show that it's not owned by Mircea Popescu who would likely not payout the 250 BTC when he loses the bet.

Please be advised, I have not actually verified that Bitbet is owned or not owned by Mircea Popescu personally, I'm just going off third party information... so do your own due diligence I will be doing my own when I have enough time, but I wanted to warn people in the interim.

Story here being, Inaba had a little pump scheme going with the betsofbitco.in muppets to make fake "anti" bets (much like Meni Rosenfeld's Pirate-propping pseudo-"short" assets). Easy money for them: either win or push the bet, all the while benefiting from the false image of fake favorable odds (real easy to bet fiddy billion on delivering when you know you'll never lose). This is casebook pumping, and when (not if!) BFL ends up on trial this specifically will translate into moar years.

In the meanwhile, certainly this calls for a scammer tags for both Inaba and coinjedi.

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.

You're too irrelevant to be contacted. Kindly go look for Taaki somewhere in the sticks.

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

Activity: 910


Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 12:46:31 PM
 #50

I wont be using this service anymore.

Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:48:15 PM
 #51

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.

How unambiguous does a bet need to be before you decide its unambiguous?
The bet refers to a device as anounced in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886
It is quite clear that the device in the photos Luke posted is not what is defined as a device in the advertisements on BFLs webpage. So in fact no device as defined by the bet was demonstrated to be in hands of a non-BFL employed customer before 01 april.
So at least one term of the bet was not met.
This in not ambiguous!

You have not examined this carefully and your decision is flawed.
So please give some better reason for your decision than: "We have carefully examined both sides of the argument. "
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:50:53 PM
 #52

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.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.
miter_myles
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
 #53

+1

BTC - 1D7g5395bs7idApTx1KTXrfDW7JUgzx6Z5
LTC - LVFukQnCWUimBxZuXKqTVKy1L2Jb8kZasL
hanti
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 01:08:39 PM
 #54

+1 but maybe tag he is a scammer is too harsh
best would be not using this site anymore

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 01:13:21 PM
 #55

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.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.

I wonder what's more useless, scammer tags or posters with arguments that consist entirely of strawman fallacies?

GO!

Edit: I'm just kidding, it's obviously you.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 01:36:23 PM
 #56

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.
Technicaly your right but isn't the tag there to warn others from a scammer? Since we have one here why is this one given a special right ......

Is there a definition or a bill that states what is a scammer or are you mods (bitcoin org owners) deciding per incident?

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
 #57

Technicaly your right but isn't the tag there to warn others from a scammer? Since we have one here why is this one given a special right ......

Is there a definition or a bill that states what is a scammer or are you mods (bitcoin org owners) deciding per incident?

They're winging it, pretty much.

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

Activity: 1162


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
 #58

-1 on scammer tag. That's not what the scammer tag is for, and it's incredibly silly to expect forum moderators to intervene in this situation. If you don't like how coinjedi runs his betting site, you are free to choose a different one.

Disclaimer: I use betsofbitcoin occasionally, but I don't have anything at stake for this bet.

BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 03:11:41 PM
 #59

-1 on scammer tag. That's not what the scammer tag is for, and it's incredibly silly to expect forum moderators to intervene in this situation. If you don't like how coinjedi runs his betting site, you are free to choose a different one.

Disclaimer: I use betsofbitcoin occasionally, but I don't have anything at stake for this bet.
Then some of the scammer tags given here would apply to this .... MNW, Pirate, Cablepair...etc.

This is why we need a comitee or sorts (at least a Bill of "rights") to hand out tags, not mods on the loose :/ ?
(no offense)

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 03:29:07 PM
 #60

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.

<with all due respect, theymos>

Example only---> Even if it's proven that payola is accepted to influence the outcome of a bet?

Also, is there a screenshot of the Bitcoin Magazine article prior to the changes? Is there an editor note of such changes? I'm just asking here, but find this worrisome, for I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag. This will sadden me greatly.

~Bruno K~
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!