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

[Matthew N. Wright]

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

[BR0KK]

Can't believe this ...

[muyuu]

+1 scammer tag

[00null]

+1 scammer tag

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.

Then please remove the scammer tag from pirateat40, it's none of your business how he decides to repay. No? Rightly so, but why the double standard?

Actually this is a horrible precedent, and everyone against giving a scammer tag should be ashamed.
Say someone hits a royal flash on a gambling site. By using the same logic that have applied here that gambling site should just call it a draw and refund the stakes. They now even can go public and praise their decision stating they would have earned commission if they had accepted the bet.
And the best thing is theymos has already stated that this behavior would never get you a scammer tag. How convenient.
This whole ruling is a huge invite for all sites to scam. Of course only big time, the tiny little sub 1BTC scammer (and Korean trolls) will be grilled as always.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

I guess you haven't seen their CEO's desk.

[Pharaoh]

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.

[niner]

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

[Micon]

There are a few hundred users that think it's an easy decision, some of which are betting against me in other BFL-facing wagers.  You see 2 giant threads calling them scammers.  Really think a few hundred of us are just irrational and angry at losing fair and square?  This one is so lopsided what is right and what is wrong, and once again a situation proves Theymos is not impartial.

It has seemed to me, for a long time, for whatever reason, this community makes a lot of pro-BFL decisions.  Theymos has made them in the past, as has gmaxwell, and now coinjedi makes a pro-BFL move that will destroy his site.  This is not something that is shocking to me or should be to you guys.  

It is plain and simply outright theft.  There is unlikely to be any punishment except what will certainly be a very noticeable absence of action at BoB.

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

There were also lots and lots ofusers who called you a troll, and begged for you to.be banned, should we have caved just because there were more of them than those who defended you? Majority rules isn't always right.

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

what the fuck are you talking about?  Pirate?  Do you remember me screaming that it's such an obvious scam to save ppl coins and shut it down so it doesn't further infect the btc world?  you are saying somehow that was wrong or I should be thankful you didn't side with obvious scammers?  You have no point there, none at all.

This 1 is clear as day. 

Everyone sees it, this is not a group complaining about losing money - ppl lose huge bets all the time on BoB and elsewhere - no one complains unless there is an outright, obvious fraud like there is here.  I wouldn't expect a "Global moderator" to be anything but massively pro-BFL, as they ship you guys another $3k for another week's worth of ads...

your post is transparent and embarrassing.

[Luke-Jr]

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

It's not the same bet. One customer is not "customers" - and it wasn't within 10%.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.


Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates.

You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.

The first line in the body is completely irrelevant, hence crossing it out. Now, what the fuck is a first batch BFL ASIC?

[Luke-Jr]

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.


Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?

[muyuu]

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).

[muyuu]

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?
[/quote]

"Shipped" before a deadline, in past tense, would mean completely shipped.

I think that's clear enough, although you may need a lot of clarification when dealing with dishonourable people like BFL who would look for loopholes to avoid owning up to their responsibility.

I think you are big on the "social contract" idea, right? Well, these people you are working with... not so much. So careful there.

[Beepbop]

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

That those who didn't bet anything are overwhelmingly on one side should tell you something, but I guess if you're not able to see what side is correct just from the undisputed facts, you wouldn't care that only a small cabal of BFL associates agree with you.

Well then you clearly don't even know what you're talking about, I even posted in Lukes thread (before coinjedi finalized his decision) stating that for the purposes of the bet, I thought BFL did NOT ship. But don't let little facts like that get in the way  .
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1720394#msg1720394

I see. You're still furthering a logical fallacy, by pretending that everyone who was against it had a stake in the bet. A popularity argument is sometimes wrong to make. Your example of Micon being right against the masses of Pirate invstors was a good counter-argument. Pretending that everyone who disagreed was those who lost money, was not a good counter-argument. If you had left out the first sentence of your post I would have agreed with it.

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

[Beepbop]

Your wording left no loopholes. You just redefined what it meant after the fact. The only difference between the two scams is that while MNW redefined what his own bet meant, it was whoever paid coinjedi to call a draw that redefined what this bet meant rather than the guy who defined the bet (Bogart).

[Matthew N. Wright]

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

[mobodick]

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]

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]

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.