BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC)

[freethink2013]

The policy is ridiculous - BitBet rewards itself for its inability to craft a proper, fair betting system by stealing.

By sending your BTC you accepted the contract, however ridiculous you think it is. It really is that simple. A scam is when a contract is broken. There is no scam here because no contract was ever broken. MPEX/BBET did exactly what they said they would do and did not back down even with mounting pressure from people using their emotions as an argument, which is very admirable to their shareholders.

This is exactly how a company dealing in BTC should behave.

An FAQ is not a contract. It is a scam because no service was rendered to me and my bitcoin was stolen. I have not used emotions as my argument, only the fact that BitBet has done no work to deserve my 10 bitcoin.

You're looking at it from the perspective of the way business is done in the real world right now and ignoring you used bitcoin. If there were chargebacks or you had deposited with paypal or you were dealing with a business that isn't about tricking idiots out of their money then you'd have your money now. But you used bitcoin and with a business that despises you.

I don't think it's fair what happened but caveat emptor should always be in your mind when spending and more so when spending bitcoin.

You can trash bitbet all you want and I agree with you for the most part but if I were you I'd be trying to negotiate a settlement. They aren't a bricks and mortar business and have no fear of you suing them. Instead seek a mutually beneficial resolution.

[snackman]

An FAQ is not a contract. It is a scam because no service was rendered to me and my bitcoin was stolen. I have not used emotions as my argument, only the fact that BitBet has done no work to deserve my 10 bitcoin.

That's actually exactly opposite of how things work. You've done no work to deserve a return on your 10 BTC.

As far as I can tell, the substance of your argument as to why I don't deserve my money back is "finders keepers losers weepers" - not a reputable way to conduct business - to say the least.

[freethink2013]

An FAQ is not a contract. It is a scam because no service was rendered to me and my bitcoin was stolen. I have not used emotions as my argument, only the fact that BitBet has done no work to deserve my 10 bitcoin.

That's actually exactly opposite of how things work. You've done no work to deserve a return on your 10 BTC.

As far as I can tell, the substance of your argument as to why I don't deserve my money back is "finders keepers losers weepers". - not a reputable way to conduct business - to say the least.

Mate, they don't care. They think you deserve to be ripped and have no interest in being 'reputable'. Until you understand that they are just going to taunt you.

[MPOE-PR]

Mate, they don't care. They think you deserve to be ripped and have no interest in being 'reputable'. Until you understand that they are just going to taunt you.

This sort of self-centered mentality is entirely out of place here. People will have to change and overcome their idiocy so as to accommodate Bitcoin. It's not in any way the case that Bitcoin will have to change to accommodate people's idiocies.

[User705]

After reading, all this amounts to is snackman asking for a donation from bibet.  I think he'll have better luck from his numerous supporters here.  What say you guys help him out.   

[Bitcoin Scammer]

Well said

After reading, all this amounts to is snackman asking for a donation from bibet.  I think he'll have better luck from his numerous supporters here.  What say you guys help him out.   

[MPOE-PR]

You're an admitted paid shill. Wipe that shit off your lips. I've no interest in reading your thread as it's written by you and you're posting for bitcoin and will post whatever you are paid to post.

Oh we're supposed to expect a WEAK character like you will only expect money to post in your comedy alt not in your serious, honest pankkake account; yet here you are an apologist shill.

Well, I USED to have respect for you, davout.  Are you involved in this site in any way?

I'd argue that your regular presence in the BitBet IRC for 10 months or more associates you more than the average user.
...
pankkake is also a regular in the BitBet IRC,
...
as is davout.

FYI: deadweasel is associated with BitBet (below quoted from BitBet IRC transcript).

You know, all of this reminds me of a certain someone else's insane theories.

This is what I am piecing together:

1. Around the time I put up my letter to shareholders on August 1st, Mircea and I have an argument on #bitcoin-assets where ciuciu and I call him out for not having an education. We did this because he was continuously slandering and berating Nefario for not having a financial education. Well it turns out that Mircea has no education at all (no post secondary education).
2. He puts me on ignore.
3. August 5th. Mircea contacts EskimoBob and possibly others, requesting that people create sock puppet accounts to discredit me on the forums.
4. Accounts are created in the 2nd and 3rd week of august -- particularly Puppet and Deprived.
5. Attacks begin before they're even out of the newbies forum. They literally leave the newbies forum, and head straight to the Securities forum and start trolling in my threads.
6. After a couple weeks I corner EskimoBob on IRC and he agrees to a contract, which he breaks, netting him a scammer tag accusation (currently under review by Maged).
7. In response to this, he posts logs of a conversation he had with SOMEONE, but with my name in place of whomever it was.
8. TWO DAYS LATER....
MPOE-PR announces that people are being awarded 10,000 shares of MPOE.ETF. Among them are trolls who have been attacking me, however noticably absent are Puppet and EskimoBob as they have outstanding scammer threads which are under review.

If I offered to do this mr. bear I assure you I have the resources. It is not a problem finding someone to do work like this, I assure you. This goes on in the real world all the time. Paid bashers. All the time. But I ask you; where are my employees? And who are my competitors? I am an insurance company. WTF? I'm the only one! Hot shit. EskimoBob OUTED himself on this one. It's so obvious. Right after "someone" offered to employ eskimobob (and a number of others probably), trolls start appearing and trashing my threads.

Isn't it ironic that they would try and lay the blame on me. Only problem is, it doesn't make sense and actually points to them.

[Bitcoin Scammer]

Agreed

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

[Atruk]

Agreed

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

[kopipe]

This seems like as good a thread as any to bring this up:

Well said

After reading, all this amounts to is snackman asking for a donation from bibet.  I think he'll have better luck from his numerous supporters here.  What say you guys help him out.   

Agreed

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

What exactly are you agreeing to, if anything, Bitcoin Scammer? Did you even read the posts you quoted, because they both contradict each other exactly.

Please convince me your only purpose in posting on Bitcointalk is not to promote your horrible site for ad revenue.

[tonyq]

I find it amazing that 28.6% of the 105 voters think Bitbet's behaviour is acceptable and that they shouldn't return snackman's bitcoin. They MUST have a vested interest surely.
Thank God 71.4% think otherwise.
For a while I thought the world was going mad.

[sangaman]

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.

[tonyq]

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.

Far and away the best post in this whole thread.

[DiamondCardz]

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

A very valid point.

[User705]

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.

If an FAQ isn't a contract then what is it when no contract is present?  And if no contract existed why would anyone be obligated to do anything?  Contracts in bitcoin are useless because there's no 3rd party authority that can ever enforce it.  Snackman basically called a bookie and said I want to bet.  Bookie said ok but make sure you get me the money BEFORE the game starts.  He said ok.  Nothing happened.  Sometime next day the money showed up.     Now he can ask for anything he wants but bitbet doesn't owe him anything.

[MoneyMorpheus]

On the other hand the BitBet operators are strictly following contracts between themselves, shareholders, and bettors.

The action that creates a valid Bitcoin transaction is called a signature for a reason. In this case snackman signed a transaction to a recipient who had already GPG signed a contract with shareholders describing exactly how this situation would be handled.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.

If an FAQ isn't a contract then what is it when no contract is present?  And if no contract existed why would anyone be obligated to do anything?  Contracts in bitcoin are useless because there's no 3rd party authority that can ever enforce it.  Snackman basically called a bookie and said I want to bet.  Bookie said ok but make sure you get me the money BEFORE the game starts.  He said ok.  Nothing happened.  Sometime next day the money showed up.     Now he can ask for anything he wants but bitbet doesn't owe him anything.

A FAQ maybe?

[User705]

...


A FAQ maybe?

No contract = no obligations.  Be in this new world or the old one.  What's the point of irreversible transactions if you want to reverse them later?

[Bitcoin Scammer]

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

HE's Right you know

[aksplace]

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

What's the best way to organize a boycott / raise awareness?

have the victim file a complaint

[snackman]

This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.

What's the best way to organize a boycott / raise awareness?

have the victim file a complaint

Where?