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

[darkmule]

The circumstances were completely different, but I feel just as upset, therefore it's exactly the same.

I'm not upset by either, just commenting on them.

I didn't bet with MNW, and I didn't bet on your scam site, either.

[1714786932]

1714786932

[1714786932]

1714786932

[1714786932]

1714786932

[1714786932]

1714786932

[MPOE-PR]

Well this will be interesting.... Lets see if BoB try to Push this one

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352

Butterfly Labs Will Ship Before Mid-April 2013
Butterfly Labs (BFL_Josh) have stated that the first shipment will be dispatched before the last week of March 2013.

To qualify as a 'Agree', a Butterfly Labs customer must acknowledge receipt of an ASIC unit, test it and have it perform within advertised specifications by the 14th April 2013. The post confirming the status has to be on either BitcoinTalk or Butterfly Labs forums with conclusive evidence (video etc)

All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted.

1: Although 1 person has 'received' a BFL ASIC (Luke-Jr) he is an affiliate at this point in time (as a developer working on software for the ASICs).

2: "Must perform within advertised specifications"..... well BFL changed the advertised specs today (https://products.butterflylabs.com/ upping the price whilst dropping the specs..... classy!).

3. At the time of the bet opening it was not known that the power consumption was over the limit (another failure for advertised specs).


I will be interested to know if a Push will be declared.

I submit that paying out or not paying out on a 4 BTC bet has no relevance when discussing a 500 BTC scam.

[ziomik]

I bet. I won but have undone me obviously missed. They were fools and ridiculous to me have closed. Fuck them and their site of betting.

+1

[creativex]

I bet. I won but have undone me obviously missed. They were fools and ridiculous to me have closed. Fuck them and their site of betting.

Well said! ...I think...

[xan_The_Dragon]

+1 scammertag for coinjedi
-1 scammer tag for bets of bitcoin, i bad admin does not = bad company however if bets of bitcoin stands behind coinjedi i wll change my vote to +1 scammer tag for BoB

[Dusty]

I had no stake in this bet ... but

This

The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.
Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !

And this:

If I understand correctly that MNW was given the tag because people hedged their position against Pirate and lost, then the same exact consideration would apply here if only I person (though possibly more) lost out due to them hedging their position.

+1, or remove the scammer tag to MNW(EDIT: I didn't know that was already done )

Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.

[Bogart]

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

Sure, I made mistakes when I made the bet (which BoB had an opportunity to correct when they approved the bet), but I still feel like "True" is pretty clearly the correct outcome, based on multiple points.  Some of those being:

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

My position appears to be overwhelmingly supported by public opinion on the forums. [4]  Opinion Coinjedi solicited I might add.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?






[1]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1726858#msg1726858

[2]: http://betsofbitco.in/help, in "What is the difference between deadline and event date?": "All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time."

[3]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1729969#msg1729969

[4]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.0

[creativex]

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?

Yip. That's a bunch of bs. That coin was yours.

[BR0KK]

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

Sure, I made mistakes when I made the bet (which BoB had an opportunity to correct when they approved the bet), but I still feel like "True" is pretty clearly the correct outcome, based on multiple points.  Some of those being:

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

My position appears to be overwhelmingly supported by public opinion on the forums. [4]  Opinion Coinjedi solicited I might add.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?






[1]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1726858#msg1726858

[2]: http://betsofbitco.in/help, in "What is the difference between deadline and event date?": "All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time."

[3]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1729969#msg1729969

[4]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.0

Definitely your coins. YOU WON THE BET!

+1 Scammer for bob, coinjedi

[Luke-Jr]

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?

I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

[AndyRossy]

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?

I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

What a douche.

[Micon]

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.

this post is a great example why bettors should never gamble at a site run by this man.

"Lawyer-talk" demands an extremely high price because it makes sure that bullshit like this doesn't happen.  That is valuable to humans and has been for years.  "Laywer-talk" is likely your simple words for "a clearly written contract with explicit terms"

You are not qualified to run a site where you will certainly be called on again to make judgement calls. 

Can you not see the unified voice here screaming that you fucked up and got it wrong?   No compensation?  don't feel the need to explain yourself in the face of 100+ angry posts from bettors that feel you are a scammer?

[BR0KK]

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?

I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

What a douche.

More doing a MNW here ...

[Syke]

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

Irrelevent. The bet clearly stated the 3 products. BFL did not ship any of them. The 75% hashrate requirement was not met. The bet should have been declared won for this point alone. There's no way you can honestly disagree.

[Beepbop]

Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

The bet was approved by the site administrators before being opened for betting. "Discovering" that the bet was "ambigious", when it clearly wasn't since it failed numerous criteria, after the outcome had occured, is all BoB's fault. Actually you, Luke-JR, can't actually be much blamed for this point. You're just the soccer player who raises his arm after the other teams scores a goal and claims that it was off side when everyone in the stadium saw that it was nowhere near off side. While your soccer career would be tainted forever due to the association with this referee corruption scandal, it was actually the referee who annulled the goal who was the truly corrupt and will get punished, since your raised arm didn't really influence his decision.

"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".

In the case of Avalon, both hand-delivery to customers and turning units over to the bulk shipper, would count as "shipped". However, for the sake of a bet, it would be hard to verify that it was shipped, and what the boxes actually contained, until it actually was in the hands of at least one customer - thus some additional requirements where needed.

The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

The title is part of the definition of the bet, as admitted by BoB. The additional terms just mean that shipping doesn't count until the additional requirements are also met. It had to be shipped, and hashing within certain specs as proven by posting by a non-employee customer on the forum.

By your attempts to finangle the meaning of "shipped", you might just as well have claimed that if BFL took the board on a boat trip on a lake, it was shipped. Likewise that a room full of GPUs counted as an "ASIC".

Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-credible.

The conditions were there to make sure that the product was actually in the hands of a non-BFL employee, a customer. Since the pictures were taken by a BFL employee, the essence of your post was actually made by BFL Josh.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

It's clearly listed in the conditions. Since you consider both the title and the additional conditions all to be "technicalities" it shows that you're just pretending that the bet doesn't exist. The only thing in there that would be interpreted as a technicality, and actually be a subject of serious debate, is the time zone thing - but since the BFL side already lost the bet on so many other points the time zone question would never need to be decided.

It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

If this ever were to make it to court, this might actually be a point that never would need to be argued, due to the more obvious criteria already mentioned (like that it never was even shipped, and that Josh took the photos on the test bench). But if they make it to the employee question, the fact that BFL are paying your expenses and sending BTC to you from their test bench would probably end up with you being considered an employee in the context of this lawsuit where the obvious intent of the non-employee clause is that the evidence is provided by a third party not under the control of BFL. However, if this was a lawsuit between you and BFL about whether or not you have a right to workman's comp, health insurance, etc. then you might have been found to be a contractor doing work for them instead.

No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

You lost face the second you posted that thread. That BoB decided to use your thread as an excuse for cancelling the bet made your loss of face even more memorable, but as I said that part wasn't really your fault.

I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

You can never define a bet, contract or a piece of legislation to protect it against people who redefine what the words mean after the fact. The only way to protect against that is to have judges/referees who use a conservative, strict constructionalist interpretation of what was written, rather than the types who redefine what things mean based on their whims.

[dirtycat]

+1

Also +1 Luke-jr scammer tag

+1

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I had no stake in this bet ... but

This

The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.
Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !

And this:

If I understand correctly that MNW was given the tag because people hedged their position against Pirate and lost, then the same exact consideration would apply here if only I person (though possibly more) lost out due to them hedging their position.

+1, or remove the scammer tag to MNW(EDIT: I didn't know that was already done )

Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.

What the FUCCKKKKK!!! I demand that he get it back, for now I have nothing, nothing I say, to compare similar scams to.  

[Entropy-uc]

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.

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

[theymos]

I actually considered betting on the true side of this bet several months ago, but I decided not to do so because the wording was far too ambiguous and general. I thought at the time that the bet was created by a BFL supporter and written to be very difficult for them to lose...

Even though it's clear that BFL didn't really "ship", the false side has a very good case according to the bet's conditions. So I think that Bets of Bitcoin did the right thing.

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

[greyhawk]

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

The ads running on the forums mention product specs that BFL is no longer offering.

They've specced down all of their products earlier today.