CanadianGuy - self admitted scammer

[johnblaze]

to start, his quote:

like i said, I have no problem scamming YOU, as long as I have paid everybody else
...

does anything else need to be said?
heh.

full thread here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=229784.0

summary:

• CanadianGuy starts the thread, making a prediction that btc price will reach $120 by Monday, and accepting bets on it
• initially 3 people post that they will accept the bet
• i post that i will also accept the bet for 1 BTC, and i specifically ask for him to make another post confirming the bet (and one other bettor does the same)
• CanadianGuy posts and confirms our bets
• he loses the bet, comes back to the thread and says that he is paying only the 3 initial people, leaving out me and the other guy
• other people (4 total: other bettor, me, and 2 unbiased third parties) show him that he did in fact confirm our two bets and that he owes us as well
• he then responds telling everyone that we are wrong, telling us to "re-read the thread."
• at this point, i accuse him of being a scammer
• only after i accuse him of scamming, does he then admit that he does indeed owe us two
• however, he doesn't like the fact that i called him a scammer, so he refuses to pay me. he claims that i should have been more patient and polite. apparently if you are not patient, then it is ok to get scammed.
  
  

now, it is no longer an honest mistake.
now, he is willingly and knowingly scamming me, which he admits in his own words.

[SgtSpike]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

[Rampion]

"CanadianGuy" is not honoring a bet he committed to, that's obvious. Has the forum any policy on this?

[Matthew N. Wright]

"CanadianGuy" is not honoring a bet he committed to, that's obvious. Has the forum any policy on this?

Yes, immediate scammer tag followed by a probation period of "untrustworthy".  

Seriously though, people who change the terms of their payouts because of emotion make me sick. It reminds me of the children on the alt. currency sub forum.

"I paid you 10 BTC to finish this code"
"Yea but you called me a faggot on IRC so I'm gone because my feelings are hurt, and I'm taking these coins as a warning to not hurt my feelings again herp derp!"

[Kluge]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

[johnblaze]

he only "dislikes" me because i was most vocal about his mistake, because i was about to be ripped off.

i would have easily taken back my scammer remarks if he made good on his word. at the time when i made the accusation, it was the truth: 4 people already notified him of his mistake, and he STILL refused to pay. so i called him a scammer for his behavior. now he takes offense. all he had to do was say, "sorry, honest mistake, i should have re-read the thread myself. i wasn't trying to scam." and then make things right. instead, he chooses to remain arrogant and ignorant.

regardless, just like SgtSpike said, none of this matters. he owes and refuses to pay. simple as that.

[johnblaze]

"I paid you 10 BTC to finish this code"
"Yea but you called me a faggot on IRC so I'm gone because my feelings are hurt, and I'm taking these coins as a warning to not hurt my feelings again herp derp!"

^^

this is pretty much what he is doing.

[Vod]

Such behaviour should warrant a scammer tag.

Signed,
An honest CanadianGuy   

[SgtSpike]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

BFL owes customers either a mining machine or the money they paid for them.  BFL promises to eventually deliver, and is refunding anyone who no longer wishes to wait.

CG owes johnblaze 1 BTC, but says **** you, I'm not paying you anything.

[Kluge]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

This is not true. Just look at BFL and that Xian fellow.

All CG would need to do is refund the BTC and the contract is void because Bitcoin. Since no coins were given to CG, CG can void the contract at any time just by saying so. The only possible way for CG to scam would be to take OP's BTC, lose, and then keep his BTC instead of refunding.

BFL owes customers either a mining machine or the money they paid for them.  BFL promises to eventually deliver, and is refunding anyone who no longer wishes to wait.

CG owes johnblaze 1 BTC, but says **** you, I'm not paying you anything.

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

[johnblaze]

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

because the deal is already completed, he owes the money. in your BFL example, the deal wasn't complete, so they just cancelled the transaction

your comparison MIGHT be fair if the bet was still oustanding: if the bet was still active and the outcome wasn't determined yet. however, this bet is over, he lost. you cannot cancel a bet that is already lost.

if the outcome was still in the future and unsettled, MAYBE your comparison would work, but still probably not. suppose we make a bet on the basketball game tonight. then in the 4th quarter, my team is getting blown out. but the outcome isn't finished yet. is it fair for me to cancel the bet?

i see where you're coming from but a bet is different than an agreement to purchase something. surely you would agree.

[Kluge]

They forced a refund because Xian kept publicly complaining about them.

Why should CG not be allowed to force a refund of the bet on the same grounds?

because the deal is already completed, he owes the money. in your BFL example, the deal wasn't complete, so they just cancelled the transaction

your comparison MIGHT be fair if the bet was still oustanding: if the bet was still active and the outcome wasn't determined yet. however, this bet is over, he lost. you cannot cancel a bet that is already lost.

if the outcome was still in the future and unsettled, MAYBE your comparison would work, but still probably not. suppose we make a bet on the basketball game tonight. then in the 4th quarter, my team is getting blown out. but the outcome isn't finished yet. is it fair for me to cancel the bet?

i see where you're coming from but a bet is different than an agreement to purchase something. surely you would agree.

A winner and loser had already been determined. BFL was at a huge advantage in canceling the order since they have a massive backlog and have dramatically increased the price for newer orders. BFL also gets to set an example of people who treat them "disrespectfully," similar to CG. Xian already made a bet on BFL and held it for a long time, with intention to hold it to completion.

It's not a perfect example, and sorry for threadjacking. I totally agree with you, fwiw -- just being an ass. 

[johnblaze]

A winner and loser had already been determined. BFL was at a huge advantage in canceling the order since they have a massive backlog and have dramatically increased the price for newer orders. BFL also gets to set an example of people who treat them "disrespectfully," similar to CG. Xian already made a bet on BFL and held it for a long time, with intention to hold it to completion.

It's not a perfect example, and sorry for threadjacking. I totally agree with you, fwiw -- just being an ass. 

heh ok

i'm not familiar with the BFL/Xian case, but if what you say is true, then BFL is definitely using poor business ethics

[SgtSpike]

I think the main difference is that BFL, as a company, can choose to do business or not do business with whomever they want.  It doesn't bode well on their reputation that they did it, but they didn't scam anyone in my opinion - they gave the guy a full refund.  It is certainly a gray area though.

With regards to the bet, there is no refund to give.  He paid exactly $0, but is still owed 1 BTC, because those were the terms of the agreement.

Think of horse race betting.
- Five customer gives the betting counter, say, $500 each to put on horse #32.
- Horse #32 wins.
- The betting counter says to those 5 customers, "Sorry, you said bad things about our establishment, so you didn't win the bet.  But we'll give you your $500 back."

Would you not call the betting counter a group of scamming liars?  Because this (with exception of actually taking BTC from the bettors upfront) is exactly what CanadianGuy is doing to johnblaze.

[Kruniac]

I agree with a scammer tag for him.  He shouldn't be promising to pay out on bets, only to renig on that promise when someone calls him a bad name.  You can dislike someone all you want, but you still have to hold up your end of any deals you make.

I agree.

Like when you sell ~16 BTC to someone with perfect reputation, and they later decide they don't approve of how you may have gained those bitcoins. Then they cancel the wire and cost you $1600.

Scammers. D:::::::

[firefop]

I would agree with the giving cg a scammer tag only if johnblaze gets an 'asshat' tag along with it.

~

A few fine points:

jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."

Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted? or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?

After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.

~

Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation... I probably wouldn't have done so... but of course I would have been much more specific in my postings and kept the same format throughout. So there would have been no question about the validity or non-validity of the bet in the first place.

Personally, I chose to read 'all bets confirmed' as the op expressing that he was out of funds to cover bets and that no more would be confirmed... and since he started out posting with a quote of each bet he accepted that only those quoted with a confirmation were valid.

It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, it's usually in your interests to be as verbose as possible so you avoid misunderstandings.

[NewLiberty]

I would agree with the giving cg a scammer tag only if johnblaze gets an 'asshat' tag along with it.

~

A few fine points:

jb posted he would take the 1 btc bet. on the next page cg posted "all bets confirmed."

Is that a statement that all best are before the post are accepted? or is cg simply stating that he's confirmed the bets he's willing to accept and implying that betting is closed?

After this jb starts insulting cg and demanding that he confirm the bet... which implies that jb was under the impression that without confirmation the bet wasn't on.

~

Hair pulling slap fighting histrionics aside, I would have wanted to treat jb the same in this situation... I probably wouldn't have done so... but of course I would have been much more specific in my postings and kept the same format throughout. So there would have been no question about the validity or non-validity of the bet in the first place.

Personally, I chose to read 'all bets confirmed' as the op expressing that he was out of funds to cover bets and that no more would be confirmed... and since he started out posting with a quote of each bet he accepted that only those quoted with a confirmation were valid.

It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, it's usually in your interests to be as verbose as possible so you avoid misunderstandings.

I also admit to a similar confusion, and so didn't make a bet.

[Crypt_Current]

johnblaze (probably unbeknownst to him) apparently decided to do business with a 13 year old and not hammer out the details. 
johnblaze appears to have said enough things to warrant at least the intelligence of someone of (akin to "legal age" or "age of consent) responsible age.  I don't know how true / relevant any of that is, though.

[happygeorge]

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

[Rampion]

Scammer tag for those not honoring bets would be good for the forums. Let's not forget that a bet involves money, and if "CanadianGuy" would have won, he would have gladly taken the money. If he loses, he doesn't pay - win/win for him, and definitely a scam.

I would even go further and apply a scammer tag to the jokers that a) create auctions and then do not honor the winner because the final price is not high enough, without having established a minimum price; b) do not honour their bids in auctions; c) pump the price in public auctions with "bids received by PM" that nobody can verify.

I know that all the above is not technically a scam (well, probably C is), but some control to the auctions subforums would do good to everybody. Otherwise, half of the auctions are just an ugly way to lose time.