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

[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.

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.

Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

[1714806809]

1714806809

[mobodick]

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.

Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The pictures show a dev board and not a device as defined by the bet.
Funny how you seem to elaborate on the realy unimportant stuff.

You were also fully aware of the bet and were actively plotting with BFL make this not be a fail for BFL.
You are most certainly party in the bet, one way or another.

[blockbet.net]

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

[JordanL]

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.

Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?

[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.

Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

[mobodick]

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.

Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

I think you're smarter than that.
This whole BFL thing smells of fail on a rail anyway.

[KGambler]

There was a (now locked) thread in the Mining forum asking how BFL is allowed to run their misleading ads on this forum.  Luke stopped in yesterday to again spread more disinformation.

Ignore the trolls. I've had my Little Single (ASIC) for nearly a week now, and it's working fine.
Even if the rest of the devices haven't shipped yet, it's obvious there is a product and only a fool would claim they aren't going to deliver.

Funny how he not only keeps using deceptive language, but also refers to those components on a table as a "Little Single".  BFL doesn't even offer the "Little Single" for sale anymore.

As he points out, its been about a week since he claimed to receive his "Little Single".  No one else has received so much as a tracking number.

Luke must think people are really stupid.  As if we can't see that this whole thing was cooked up between him and Josh Zerlan...

[MPOE-PR]

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

Actually, they shipped him to the item rather than the item to him.

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.

This is a point. Scammer tag currently does more damage as the entire usagi "I am not scammertagged therefore I am well trusted" pseudoargument.

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

[muyuu]

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

...and comedy gold.

[Syke]

But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The only reason the bet was called into question was due to your deceitful post. So, yeah, you are a party to the scam.

[BR0KK]

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.

Maybe because you posted and participated your bet here on bitcointalk.org.
They weren't doing this here; the bet took part at bob own service website.
If incorrect point me to a link

[Este Nuno]

Josh and Luke attempted to scam the bet. How the stunt they pulled could be classified as anything but a scam is beyond me.

As for Bets of Bitcoin:

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

Is the pictured device one of those 3 products?(aside from the fact that nothing was shipped)

No.

Therefore it is irrelevant whether you think the subsequent two conditions were met or not.

Only other possible explanation is for Bets of Bitcoin to publicly state that they believe that the pictured device is one of the 3 items that qualify for the bet.


PS
I mean the picture was taken at BFL, ffs this is such an obvious slam dunk scammer tag for at least one person that if it doesn't get issued here it should probably be retired.

[Este Nuno]

And I have no financial involvement in anything related to this at all.

It's just infuriating to read what has happened here and see that nothing is going to be done. If people can get away with doing things like this and suffer no consequences nothing is ever going to change.

[blockbet.net]

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

4) And post the images after midnight EST, thus making the bit TRUE. This fact, and this fact alone, should have been the only proof needed to declare the bet appropriately, yet was brushed aside by coinjedi, declaring a draw. Totally motherfuckin' amazing!

From a random contest to illustrate a point: http://www.hpj.com/archives/2009/mar09/mar30/USWheatAssociatesannouncest.cfm

Entries postmarked before Aug. 1, should be mailed to Steve Mercer, U.S. Wheat Associates, 3103 10th Street North, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201, 202-263-0999.

Assuming the best photo, bar none, was mailed in and could have easily won this contest, the submitted photo would not qualify. Why! BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED LATE. Every other aspect of the contest may have been met, but this entry would not qualify.

What the fuck is so motherfuckin' unambiguous about this?

Speaking of unambiguous, why not a peep from Josh about this since this issue arose?

[Luke-Jr]

Last 3 trolls seem to be missing the fact that the bet deadline was at the end of April 1, not the start of it.

[blockbet.net]

Last 3 trolls seem to be missing the fact that the bet deadline was at the end of April 1, not the start of it.

Oh cool, a brand new explanation. Yes, the word "before" in "before April 1st" is quite ambiguous and should have been defined better.

[Minor Miner]

Hey Luke;

I do not care about the bet, wish it would go away and people just learn from it.   I would ask that you answer one question directly though.   While you were at BFL, how many employees did you see?   Were there 22?   Or was it closer to 5?   Please let us know so we can figure out if they can even possible ship anyone beyond the first day of orders.

[Luke-Jr]

While you were at BFL, how many employees did you see?   Were there 22?   Or was it closer to 5?   Please let us know so we can figure out if they can even possible ship anyone beyond the first day of orders.

There were at least 14 I can think of off-hand.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Last 3 trolls seem to be missing the fact that the bet deadline was at the end of April 1, not the start of it.

I have to state that you are wrong on this issue, Luke.

http://betsofbitco.in/help

What is the difference between deadline and event date?

Deadline day is the last day bets are allowed.
Event day is the day statement refers to.
Deadline must be at least one day, at most four weeks before the event day. All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time.

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

Info

Opening date: Sept. 23, 2012
Bet deadline: March 4, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: April 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 213.82
Total disagree bets: 334.53
Total weighted agree bets: 233413.233
Total weighted disagree bets: 605930.295

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.