coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet

[greyhawk]

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]

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]

Did coinjedi take part in this bet?


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

[Beepbop]

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]

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.

[Nancarrow]

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

J/k.

[MPOE-PR]

This is very funy because....

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.

[Isokivi]

I wont be using this service anymore.

[mobodick]

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]

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]

+1

[hanti]

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

[BadBear]

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.

[BR0KK]

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]

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.

[dacoinminster]

-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]

-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]

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~

[greyhawk]

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~

No editor note. Proof is in the Google index and the article title (a word press article URL is built from the articles title; if the article title is changed later, the url stays the same)

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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.

Exactly what I just penned a couple posts above this one, for I recognized the same thing prior to reading your post, Beepbob.