deivid
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
|
 |
November 22, 2013, 04:14:28 PM |
|
Now Bitbet have a good opportunity to use the common sense , refund the money, and change his betting rules to avoid this issue to happen again in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Your bitcoin is secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter a majority of miners, no matter what." -- Greg Maxwell
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 22, 2013, 04:20:53 PM |
|
Having a policy you do not agree with does not make something "stealing", and screaming "gimme my money or I'll say bad things on the reddits" make you a scammer. I'm not saying anything more.
Having a policy also does not give bitbet the right to steal funds, the same as it wouldn't give bitbet the right to murder people. Wrong and unlawful is still wrong and unlawful regardless of what policy you have in place. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 22, 2013, 04:37:06 PM |
|
As far as I can tell, the dissenters in this thread are either confused, exposed (i.e. shareholders), or bribed. There has been a lot of name calling, but there has not been one coherent argument as to why my bet should not be refunded.
Because fuck you, that's why. What more do you need? You're the dissenter. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of authority. BitBet is the authority on this matter. You're the scumbag. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of victim. BitBet is the victim, and the fact that it's the victim of your idiocy rather than deliberate malfeasance (you claim) makes no difference. Having a policy also does not give bitbet the right to steal funds, the same as it wouldn't give bitbet the right to murder people. Wrong and unlawful is still wrong and unlawful regardless of what policy you have in place.
Except murdering people falls under the jurisdiction of fiat courts, whereas BitBet is its own jurisdiction, stemming from the complete immunity of all things Bitcoin to all things fiat. |
|
|
|
|
snackman (OP)
|
|
November 22, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
Last edit: November 22, 2013, 05:02:50 PM by snackman |
|
Because fuck you, that's why. What more do you need?
You're the dissenter. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of authority. BitBet is the authority on this matter.
I think this thread's poll and its posts' general sentiment establish who is and is not a dissenter beyond a reasonable doubt. You're the scumbag. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of victim. BitBet is the victim, and the fact that it's the victim of your idiocy rather than deliberate malfeasance (you claim) makes no difference.
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam. |
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 22, 2013, 04:58:51 PM |
|
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.
Your conduct could be deliberate malfeasance quite simply: anyone at any time for any reason can introduce a transaction with no fees that will take forever to confirm. BitBet can in no way influence this, it's fully in the control of the transaction author. With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility the presumption of willfulness. So, if your transaction doesn't behave as it should, you're prima facie trying to steal something. |
|
|
|
bitbully
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 47
Merit: 1
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:08:56 PM |
|
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.
They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:17:14 PM |
|
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.
They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").
Nobody forces you to bet on events that have just closed you know. That's the gist of this debate: somebody decided they have the god given right to bet on a proposition once it was clear which way it'd resolve, and then sucked at even trying to implement this in practice. The part where they sucked at the implementation is given undue weight, what's important is really the other half: don't be that asshole that looks at a bet for six months and sends a no fee tx once the resolution is imminent. Take a risk, that's what betting exists to reward. |
|
|
|
blockage
Member
Offline
Activity: 100
Merit: 10
Vires in numeris.
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:20:53 PM |
|
As far as I can tell, the dissenters in this thread are either confused, exposed (i.e. shareholders), or bribed. There has been a lot of name calling, but there has not been one coherent argument as to why my bet should not be refunded.
Judging by the previous posts you also have regular BitBet users against you. Makes sense because people that bet later take less risk and dilute their winnings. The weighting of bets should kick in here, but it seems that's not enough so those users are fine with the policy as they regard late bettors as <insert whatever insult you want from a previous post>. In my opinion it would be far better to have different closing criteria for bets. In this specific instance the bet could've been closed when the price crossed $7XX dollars at the reference exchange. By using TX confirmation times and trade data you can verify which bets were placed before closing. Of course that would be some more work, but it can be automatised. If the owner's really want to protect early bets from late bets, than something like this should be the way to go. But clearly, the current practise / policy is devious self-righteousness, to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
snackman (OP)
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:23:46 PM |
|
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.
Your conduct could be deliberate malfeasance quite simply: anyone at any time for any reason can introduce a transaction with no fees that will take forever to confirm. BitBet can in no way influence this, it's fully in the control of the transaction author. However, BitBet is fully in control of whether it chooses to steal or return late bets. With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility the presumption of willfulness. So, if your transaction doesn't behave as it should, you're prima facie trying to steal something.
Testimonium nihil ad rem et ad absurdum est. BitBet delenda est. |
|
|
|
|
snackman (OP)
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:50:38 PM |
|
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.
They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").
Nobody forces you to bet on events that have just closed you know. That's the gist of this debate: somebody decided they have the god given right to bet on a proposition once it was clear which way it'd resolve, and then sucked at even trying to implement this in practice. It's not a "god given right". It's a "right" given by your website allowing my bet to be placed. As you said, "with control comes responsibility". |
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 22, 2013, 05:57:42 PM |
|
Testimonium nihil ad rem et ad absurdum est. BitBet delenda est.
You know delenda is a feminine form? |
|
|
|
|
/dev/null
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:01:55 PM |
|
OP has done mistake by trusting and making a big amount bet with bitbet.us.
But whatever it's morally wrong to keep someone's hard earned money just because he forgot something.
We are humans and humans do mistakes.
@MPOE, Did you have ever seen someone keeping other peoples car because they forgot to read "no parking" warning?
No.
It's also sad that a staff member is taking side of accused party.
All the people who think that MOPE should keep this users BTC are pathetic assholes, I will hope someone will do the same thing with them someday.
I have read whole thread and seriously people are acting like 12 year old kids.
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:04:02 PM |
|
Having a policy also does not give bitbet the right to steal funds, the same as it wouldn't give bitbet the right to murder people. Wrong and unlawful is still wrong and unlawful regardless of what policy you have in place.
Except murdering people falls under the jurisdiction of fiat courts, whereas BitBet is its own jurisdiction, stemming from the complete immunity of all things Bitcoin to all things fiat. Well that's simply not true, but I guess you'll find that out in a courtroom. Have fun.  |
|
|
|
|
octopus
Member
Offline
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:06:13 PM
Last edit: November 22, 2013, 07:02:44 PM by octopus |
|
anybody who uses bitbet.us after reading this thread has got to have stockholm syndrome. the owner, or whoever this douchebag representing the site is, clearly does not respect his customer base. Because fuck you, that's why. What more do you need? your site must not be doing well, if 10btc means this much to you. get fucked, bitbet |
|
|
|
|
pthnmj
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:24:02 PM |
|
And if they did this exact same thing to you @OP And you won the bet would you be complaining? I didn't think so... Take it as a loss and go cry in a corner  |
|
|
|
|
|
snackman (OP)
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:26:27 PM |
|
And if they did this exact same thing to you @OP And you won the bet would you be complaining? I didn't think so... Take it as a loss and go cry in a corner I don't understand - please be more clear about your hypothetical situation and consider being less rude. |
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:27:27 PM |
|
Well that's simply not true, but I guess you'll find that out in a courtroom. Have fun. Gotta stand for something in this life. |
|
|
|
|
pthnmj
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:30:39 PM |
|
And if they did this exact same thing to you @OP And you won the bet would you be complaining? I didn't think so... Take it as a loss and go cry in a corner I don't understand - please be more clear about your hypothetical situation. If you don't understand, it's because you don't understand proper English... Let's put this into children form shall we? If you would have won because your TXID was delayed, or in a manner that which you would have got the "WIN" because of this problem, I think you would be satisfied, and not calling him a scammer. So stop trying to get money back because of your incoherence. #ScammerTag #SnackMan #REQUESTED |
|
|
|
|
Tulak
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:39:00 PM |
|
FYI: mods don't do scammertags anymore. feel free to negtrust someone WITH HARD EVIDENCE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snackman (OP)
|
|
November 22, 2013, 06:41:18 PM |
|
And if they did this exact same thing to you @OP And you won the bet would you be complaining? I didn't think so... Take it as a loss and go cry in a corner I don't understand - please be more clear about your hypothetical situation. If you don't understand, it's because you don't understand proper English... Let's put this into children form shall we? Rude. If you would have won because your TXID was delayed, or in a manner that which you would have got the "WIN" because of this problem, I think you would be satisfied, and not calling him a scammer.
So stop trying to get money back because of your incoherence.
#ScammerTag #SnackMan #REQUESTED
How would I have won "because my transfer was delayed"? I placed my bet before the satisfaction of the bet statement. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
