Scammer: Inaba

[Xian01]

Happy 1000-views-and-no-mod-comment, thread.

Theymos, could we please get a comment from you about this ? Your prolonged silence is disconcerting

[1714947678]

1714947678

[1714947678]

1714947678

[1714947678]

1714947678

[00null]

All this bitching about BFL will not get them to ship faster.

Please stop the nonsense and get a refund if you dont want to wait anymore.

Everyone knew the game before they entered it.

Since you apparently missed the topic:

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

[surebet]

All this bitching about BFL will not get them to ship faster.

Please stop the nonsense and get a refund if you dont want to wait anymore.

Everyone knew the game before they entered it.

I'm not waiting on a BFL product. In fact I hope BFL keeps dragging it's feet, I thrive on schadenfreude. However this isn't about their shitty products, it's about a very specific bet.

The fact is though that a C-lever officer from BFL made a grand gesture about their magic money machine being better than the other magic money machine, even though it got beat to market twice. They also promised somewhere between 120 and 260 thousand dollars to charity depending on when they announced that they failed their electrical target by an order of magnitude.

So, what, it's ok that they just decide to not do it?

You know what's worst then bitching about BFL? White knighting them after a year. Srsly.

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.

Awesome, 3 weeks later neither was done.

[surebet]

*cough*

[YipYip]

*cough*

Personal bet of 1000 btc
Charity Bet BFL CTO  1000btc

Whats the story... oh thats right they have paid u off ..

[kodo]

Probably is a scammer watch out

[surebet]

Woo! 1500 views, still nothing.

[00null]

Can we bet somewhere that regardless of all his scams Inaba will never be scammer tagged by theymos?
I even heard rumors that this new trust system was implemented so that theymos has an excuse for not tagging Inaba.

[server]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

[00null]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

[CasinoBit]

Seems like a pretty f-d up situation.

[BadBear]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

[00null]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

[BadBear]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

Showing newbies that the account they're trading with has no trust or rep is 'working' don't you think?

And BFL is hardly the only one to not get a scammer tag, going by your standards coinabul and bitinstant should probably have one as well. Not speaking for theymos, but the acammer tag isn't appropriate for businesses in general, shouldn't be judged by one action. Newegg and amazon would probably have scammer tags if everything was as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

[smoothie]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

Showing newbies that the account they're trading with has no trust or rep is 'working' don't you think?

And BFL is hardly the only one to not get a scammer tag, going by your standards coinabul and bitinstant should probably have one as well. Not speaking for theymos, but the acammer tag isn't appropriate for businesses in general, shouldn't be judged by one action. Newegg and amazon would probably have scammer tags if everything was as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

1. How is the scammer tag not appropriate for businesses? Bitinstant from what I can tell actually resolves their customers' issues. Coinabul well that is another story, but BFL is blatantly not exempt from a scammer tag.

2. "Shouldn't be judged by one action". Well BFL has approximately 20k+ preorders and that is being quite conservative. Should I assume that taking PREORDERS for 11+ months by many thousands of customers as ONE ACTION? Come on that shouldn't even be used in the same page of text when writing about BFL. ONE ACTION? Hardly...

You know BFL and Josh needs a scammer tag but are delaying the inevitable for what reason I do not know.

The TWO 1000 BTC bets that are unresolved are TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS MADE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED TO DATE .Thus a scammer tag is warranted.

[00null]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

Showing newbies that the account they're trading with has no trust or rep is 'working' don't you think?

And BFL is hardly the only one to not get a scammer tag, going by your standards coinabul and bitinstant should probably have one as well. Not speaking for theymos, but the acammer tag isn't appropriate for businesses in general, shouldn't be judged by one action. Newegg and amazon would probably have scammer tags if everything was as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

Let me quote the topic for you

Scammer: Inaba

Why do you trying to shift this to something about BFL? To get Inaba out of the line? He personally (and not BFL) made a bet and it is crystal clear that he has no intention to pay despite losing it. So please stop trying to derail this by bringing BFL into the mix.

And BTW, since when is pointing out that someone isn't the only scammer a valid excuse? By your standard I can murder someone and get free by pointing out that others have done similar things.

[oakpacific]

I am generally not tagging scammers anymore. Use the trust system.

Do you know if Inaba sponsored this development?

Have you not seen the huge amount of scams lately? Especially alt coin related, there's far too many to keep going with the scammer tag system. It would be a full time 24\7 job to take care of them all. It's squarely in the hands of the users now, as it should be.

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

For a scammer tag, the accused person needs to have promised to do something and then failed to deliver on the promise.

Hm, this one is about 1000 BTC and done on this very forum. And strangely enough it was very much ignored by every forum staff until theymos could say "use the trust system". One don't need a tinfoil hat to smell what is going on.
Regarding alt coins, a lot of the scams there are done with very new accounts while the trust system works only for mature accounts.
Don't get me wrong the trust system is a good thing, but everyone can easily see the double standard that is used for Inaba.

Showing newbies that the account they're trading with has no trust or rep is 'working' don't you think?

And BFL is hardly the only one to not get a scammer tag, going by your standards coinabul and bitinstant should probably have one as well. Not speaking for theymos, but the acammer tag isn't appropriate for businesses in general, shouldn't be judged by one action. Newegg and amazon would probably have scammer tags if everything was as black and white as it seems to be in your world.

The trust system has a drawback: if someone only ever scam a single person, he should be considered a scammer already, yet he could still receive high trust score, probably because he is nice to everyone else. So I believe Theymos should still hand out scammer tags.

[BadBear]

1. How is the scammer tag not appropriate for businesses?

Just my opinion. I don't think the forum should be the judge, jury, and executioner in situations where we don't have access to all the information. Courts work because they can order records and compel information, we can't/won't. Scammer tag was never intended for these types of situations, and trying to make the square peg fit in a round hole will probably do more damage than it will solve.

2. "Shouldn't be judged by one action". Well BFL has approximately 20k+ preorders and that is being quite conservative. Should I assume that taking PREORDERS for 11+ months by many thousands of customers as ONE ACTION? Come on that shouldn't even be used in the same page of text when writing about BFL. ONE ACTION? Hardly...

I don't care about preorders. If they were denying refunds as well, or making zero progress (they have made some) that would be a different story, but they aren't. People are more than capable of getting their money back any time they please. And yes I know it's dollar denominated, every business does that, even outside the "bitcoin world". Kinda seems hypocritical to ask for a scammer tag, while at the same time willingly allowing them to hold onto your money (yes I know you don't have an order with them, I mean in general).

Let me quote the topic for you

Scammer: Inaba

Why do you trying to shift this to something about BFL? To get Inaba out of the line? He personally (and not BFL) made a bet and it is crystal clear that he has no intention to pay despite losing it. So please stop trying to derail this by bringing BFL into the mix.

And BTW, since when is pointing out that someone isn't the only scammer a valid excuse? By your standard I can murder someone and get free by pointing out that others have done similar things.

I never bought his bullshit excuse of separate forum accounts. Inaba=Josh=whatever he is of BFL.
I brought up that there are many others deserving of scammer tags who don't have them because you acting like they're special or unique. I guess if you only spend all your time in the custom hardware forum it might seem like a big special deal to you, but it barely registers in the big picture. I don't know how it can be considered a bet when nobody even took it, there was no counterparty, so scammer tag seems a little extreme.

And yes, murder is totally comparable  . Get a grip.

The trust system has a drawback: if someone only ever scam a single person, he should be considered a scammer already, yet he could still receive high trust score, probably because he is nice to everyone else. So I believe Theymos should still hand out scammer tags.

Might be an issue, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. For now I think it's a good replacement for the scammer tag system.

[00null]

1. How is the scammer tag not appropriate for businesses?

Just my opinion. I don't think the forum should be the judge, jury, and executioner in situations where we don't have access to all the information. Courts work because they can order records and compel information, we can't/won't. Scammer tag was never intended for these types of situations, and trying to make the square peg fit in a round hole will probably do more damage than it will solve.

What is interesting is that this point of view only emerged once BFL would have been tagged. Pirate, Matthew, and a gazillion other scammers have all been tagged, sometimes withing hours and almost without evidence. But as soon as the main income of the forum was in danger of being tagged...

2. "Shouldn't be judged by one action". Well BFL has approximately 20k+ preorders and that is being quite conservative. Should I assume that taking PREORDERS for 11+ months by many thousands of customers as ONE ACTION? Come on that shouldn't even be used in the same page of text when writing about BFL. ONE ACTION? Hardly...

I don't care about preorders. If they were denying refunds as well, or making zero progress (they have made some) that would be a different story, but they aren't. People are more than capable of getting their money back any time they please. And yes I know it's dollar denominated, every business does that, even outside the "bitcoin world". Kinda seems hypocritical to ask for a scammer tag, while at the same time willingly allowing them to hold onto your money (yes I know you don't have an order with them, I mean in general).

They promised to deliver in October. And used the tactic of false promises to drive others out of business.
And Matthew was tagged because he basically did exactly the same as Inaba. Both did a bet and didn't pay. And you cant see the double standard?

Let me quote the topic for you

Scammer: Inaba

Why do you trying to shift this to something about BFL? To get Inaba out of the line? He personally (and not BFL) made a bet and it is crystal clear that he has no intention to pay despite losing it. So please stop trying to derail this by bringing BFL into the mix.

And BTW, since when is pointing out that someone isn't the only scammer a valid excuse? By your standard I can murder someone and get free by pointing out that others have done similar things.

I never bought his bullshit excuse of separate forum accounts. Inaba=Josh=whatever he is of BFL.

LOL, nice new excuse. No offense, but don't you see it yourself, you are starting to stacking up lame excuses?
Or do you really mean that once someone is employed by some company he is free to scam, because you are don't want to tag the company?

I brought up that there are many others deserving of scammer tags who don't have them because you acting like they're special or unique. I guess if you only spend all your time in the custom hardware forum it might seem like a big special deal to you, but it barely registers in the big picture. I don't know how it can be considered a bet when nobody even took it, there was no counterparty, so scammer tag seems a little extreme.

Every journey starts with the first step. Tag Inaba and continue with the rest...

And yes, murder is totally comparable  . Get a grip.

Amazing, once we exaggerate the case you can see the wrongdoing?

[pekv2]

... might as well put some of that refund money to good use ...

That is absolutely disgusting. We all know what BFL are doing, just need hard core evidence. But in reality, we know what they are doing, they know it and they know they can get away with it atm. Just matter of time before the cookie crumbles in the glass of milk.

2. "Shouldn't be judged by one action". Well BFL has approximately 20k+ preorders and that is being quite conservative. Should I assume that taking PREORDERS for 11+ months by many thousands of customers as ONE ACTION? Come on that shouldn't even be used in the same page of text when writing about BFL. ONE ACTION? Hardly...

I don't care about preorders. If they were denying refunds as well, or making zero progress (they have made some) that would be a different story, but they aren't. People are more than capable of getting their money back any time they please. And yes I know it's dollar denominated, every business does that, even outside the "bitcoin world". Kinda seems hypocritical to ask for a scammer tag, while at the same time willingly allowing them to hold onto your money (yes I know you don't have an order with them, I mean in general).

Here above in bold, "no offense Xian01" has any real legitimate member like yourself, or mod or really trustworthy member have gone through a refund process, of a major order? This is just a conspiracy theory, but BFL could be behind these accounts stating they are receiving refunds, to make it look like they will/are refunding customers. Imho, scams can go pretty deep, as we seen with pirate40, and others on this forum.