bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[MPOE-PR]

is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?

To that part there's of course the now famous BFL/Vleisides interview he ran back in September that'd have to be contended with.

[1714629625]

1714629625

[1714629625]

1714629625

[1714629625]

1714629625

[MPOE-PR]

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

Yeah, right, because if it's not going to be favorable to the scam you wish to push then it should not be allowed. Get a life. Scammer.

[Inaba]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

[sgbett]

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

The fact that you had to jump on to an IRC channel to get that vital information instead of it being presented in the actual bet proves that BitBet misled it's users. If BitBet were an advertiser, that would be the equivalent of false advertising, and Ofcom would bitch slap them for it.

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

Exactly. By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications. I know that, you know that and BitBet also knows that. BitBet simply ignored this fact, and used the specifications from about 6 months earlier.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

You've already pointed out that the specs had changed by the time the bet was made.

Don't misrepresent what i say it discredits your argument. The words I say are the words I meant, your interpretation, and then rephrasing of what I say are your words, and are most definitely not what I meant.

As I said about riker, I say about you, you are arguing semantics.

You say "BitBet misled it's users". I say when the bet was created there was no confusion about the spec.

You say "By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications" they had not. So when you claim that I know that, that is patently false.

You then go on to reiterate this falsehood, like you have some how proven it. You have not.

Specs were announced, at no point prior to the creation of the bet (30th march) had there been any indication that BFL were changing the spec of the products they were shipping.

BFL had made announcements that the prototype was using more power, and they had also stated that they were working to reduce this power. That does not equate to "We have changed the spec".

You are failing at basic reading comprehension. That is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact as evidenced by the fact that you read words and then claim those words mean something they do not. As you fail at reading comprehension, then you are ill qualified to have any sort of credible opinion on this subject.

Unless of course you do comprehend the meaning of words, but are attempting to intentionally misrepresent them, merely to further your own argument.

Which is it?

[sgbett]

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

Here's an official video from the 30/03/13 demonstrating the ASIC and clearly showing the power consumption. This is the video mentioned in the 28th March update I guess.

Here's a thread on the BFL forum discussing the revised power consumption. Those discussion seem to based on statement made in the ShoutBox. You can see the transcript here.

The video shows power consumption, I agree. Where in the video does it state that this is the new spec?

The forum thread discusses power consumption, I aree. Where in the thread does it state this is the new spec?

Comprehension is critical. You fail it.

[sgbett]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh.  

Can I have an opinion too?

If you allow a bet that does not nail down what is being delivered, then the bit can quite easily be rigged by BFL sending out a shoebox the day before.

The bet was made 30th March. The revised jalapeño spec was put out in April. At that point you could argue the spec had 'officially changed' should you want to.

[ThickAsThieves]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

[sgbett]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

https://twitter.com/BFL_News/status/318601948678983681

To be fair they said they were honouring it.

[MPOE-PR]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

https://twitter.com/BFL_News/status/318601948678983681

To be fair they said they were honouring it.

To be even fairer they also said 1 W = 1 Gh/s, and that they'll be honoring that too.

As far as I recall it was never a matter of BFL deciding which Vleisides-run scamrity they're giving 1000 imaginary BTC to.

For that matter it's probably worth pointing out that BFL has a grandiose history of using shells and shills. Consider the case of the non-interview promoted by that Perry fellow, consider the simple case of Betsofbitco.in, where they made bets about how they were going to deliver in full knowledge that if they don't they'll have the bet pushed and their BTC refunded. False sense of security induced in the sort of muppets who actually buy Mem's, Perry's & Coinjedi's lies? Ka-ching. Costs? Whatever scraps this sort of people take, half a bitcoin split in three.

[rikur]

I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

[MPOE-PR]

I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

[Inaba]

To be even fairer they also said 1 W = 1 Gh/s, and that they'll be honoring that too.

As far as I recall it was never a matter of BFL deciding which Vleisides-run scamrity they're giving 1000 imaginary BTC to.

For that matter it's probably worth pointing out that BFL has a grandiose history of using shells and shills. Consider the case of the non-interview promoted by that Perry fellow, consider the simple case of Betsofbitco.in, where they made bets about how they were going to deliver in full knowledge that if they don't they'll have the bet pushed and their BTC refunded. False sense of security induced in the sort of muppets who actually buy Mem's, Perry's & Coinjedi's lies? Ka-ching. Costs? Whatever scraps this sort of people take, half a bitcoin split in three.

Another awesome set of lies by MOPE.. I mean MPOE.

We will be donating 1000 BTC to charity, sorry it's not on the high priority list, you know, above getting product out.  If you think it's easy to choose who to give $100,000+ to, you'd be wrong.

BFL has zero history of shells and shills.  I don't even know what the hell you mean by that.  BFL has nothing to do with Betsofbitco.in, that is utterly ludicrous.  BFL made no bets for or against anything.  Just another of the long list of fails in your book.  How's that "net worth" of your little company working out?  Still worth more than the entire bitcoin network, even though it loses money each month? heh

[rikur]

I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

You guys do have an online gambling license, right? And you are aware that a limited liability company is not allowed to sell shares of their company, even less so the shares of other companies.

If I had shares held in MPEx, I'd consider cashing out.

[420]

at the end of it all...Atlas just shrugged

[sgbett]

I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

You guys do have an online gambling license, right? And you are aware that a limited liability company is not allowed to sell shares of their company, even less so the shares of other companies.

If I had shares held in MPEx, I'd consider cashing out.

You use the words gamble, and sell. To me that implies money being involved, are you saying that?. Are you sure bitcoin is legally money?

[rikur]

The authorization/organization of the activity of gambling in Romania is governed by State monopoly.

The State can grant the right of setting up the activity of games of chance according to the law, on the basis of a license, for the organization of each type of games of chance. The games of chance are classified as follows:

• Games of chance whose winning conditions are dependent upon random elements, with the use of gambling machines which are operated manually, mechanically, electrically, electronically, video automatically or in other similar ways. In order to play and win these games, they require the player’s ability or dexterity, light hand and also the chance, the hazard (the type of Atlantic pusher, Niagara);
• Casino games of chance
• Bingo, Keno type of games of chance, which take place in special game rooms;
• Sports Bets, Lotteries and Raffles , along with television Bingo and Keno;
• Contest-Games, with any type of wins, organized through telephone lines or any other means of telecommunication.

An organizer of games of chance can be any company, legally registered in Romania and authorized to unfold the activity of games of chance in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution no.251/1999.

The competent authority to release the authorization so that a company can unfold the activity written in Cod CAEN as: 9271: games of chance, belongs to the Ministry of Economics and Finances, the Commission for the Authorization to Conduct Games of Chance.

http://www.rolegal.com/romania-gambling-license.html

But then again it was only the first google hit, didn't look much further so not 100% sure. I would definitely look into this if I was running BitBet.

[rikur]

Restrictions on Trading

Limited Liability Companies are not permitted to:
- Undertake banking or insurance activities or any other activity that might suggest an association with same, without a licence.
- Undertake investment business other than the investment of the company's own assets without a licence.
- Neither solicits funds from the public nor offer their shares or membership to the public without a licence.

http://www.ocra.com/jurisdictions/romanian-limited-liability.asp

I was wrong about issuing shares though (max 50 shareholders).

[rikur]

Don't stop with the cocky remarks now.. You were having such a good run, all the way to being the best customer rep in the world.

[MPOE-PR]

Another awesome set of lies by MOPE.. I mean MPOE.

My uncle I say, that seriously burned. Please no more of this clever use of letter-changing-around and blinkenlichten, I give.

http://www.rolegal.com/romania-gambling-license.html

But then again it was only the first google hit, didn't look much further so not 100% sure. I would definitely look into this if I was running BitBet.

You should move on to a better internet community college if all they teach you is googlelaw. The better programs go deep into wikipedialaw from what I hear.

[mem]

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

Hello Josh, thank you for weighing in here.

So they rejected a bet where the power was specified as part of (or not part of) the performance in favour of a misleading bet that would potentially confuse users. Sounds like a scam to me.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh.  

Not surprising in the least, when arrogant racism is one of your core defining traits like MPEx then you cant expect many good (if any) personal traits.

bitbet.us should have followed betsofbitco.in's example and rulled the bet invalid.
Its my firm opinion if the result is open to interpretation then it should automatically be ruled a draw.
Site operators like MPEx should spend less time typing up their racist rants and more time ensuring the quality of their sites bets.

Please PM me with any further details, I shall also be monitoring this  thread periodically.