Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 03:44:36 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bets of Bitcoin - Bitcoin betting on real world events  (Read 57496 times)
MoinCoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:18:54 AM
 #281

Bet on http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=671

A bet was placed with fraudful acquired bitcoins, most likely 300 BTC by nraz or NCKRAZZE or Nick.

nraz, is the sock puppet of nckrazze.
Greetz

Post history:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=66746;sa=showPosts

His lending thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=81927.0
He owes about 10.000 BTC to his lenders (deleted the OP)

I understand that you only have a legal obligation with Nick, but supporting him by sending those funds must be illegal in your country too.
Therefore i ask to freeze the funds immediately until this situation has been resolved.

Uhm, interesting Smiley
Ok, I have 1BTC in that bet from being more or less the first to take the agree side. Does your post mean I won? Smiley I mean I didn't investigate the situation but felt somehow save to side with the agree position given 300:0 in the bet at that time.
What is your proof about sock puppets? Would that mean that bets of bitcoin should freeze bets in the future in case they might come from shady business? I did not have to register with my real name and wonder how they should enforce such checks.

The bet itsself is not the problem, as it is not based on NCKRAZZEs business, but Vescuderos (which is a victim of Nick by accident too)
Its more the problem that Nick fraudulently acquired the funds to place the bet on Vescudero.
That is also the reason, why he has been given the scammer tag on this forum.

Evidence:
nraz, is the sock puppet of nckrazze.
Greetz

I do not know under which law betsofbitcoins operates.
In Germany Bitcoins are recognized as goods by the financial institutions.
Accepting (negligently, or consciously) illicit goods is illegal here and you could be held responsible to reimburse the rightfull owners, even when you already gave the BTCs back.
I guess there is something similar in his country.  Huh
1480779876
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779876

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779876
Reply with quote  #2

1480779876
Report to moderator
1480779876
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779876

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779876
Reply with quote  #2

1480779876
Report to moderator
1480779876
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779876

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779876
Reply with quote  #2

1480779876
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480779876
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480779876

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480779876
Reply with quote  #2

1480779876
Report to moderator
giszmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


¡ɥɔʇɐʍ ʇsnɾ &#7


View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 04:24:01 AM
 #282

The bet itsself is not the problem, as it is not based on NCKRAZZEs business, but Vescuderos (which is a victim of Nick by accident too)
Its more the problem that Nick fraudulently acquired the funds to place the bet on Vescudero.
That is also the reason, why he has been given the scammer tag on this forum.

So you suggest to "only" remove 300BTC from the 307BTC side of a 307BTC vs. 27BTC bet? Basically the 300BTC that were the initial bet that were part of the bet submission? How is that "The bet itsself is not the problem"?

MoinCoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:29:41 AM
 #283

The bet itsself is not the problem, as it is not based on NCKRAZZEs business, but Vescuderos (which is a victim of Nick by accident too)
Its more the problem that Nick fraudulently acquired the funds to place the bet on Vescudero.
That is also the reason, why he has been given the scammer tag on this forum.

So you suggest to "only" remove 300BTC from the 307BTC side of a 307BTC vs. 27BTC bet? Basically the 300BTC that were the initial bet that were part of the bet submission? How is that "The bet itsself is not the problem"?

Frankly, I do not care that much, as i did not bet on that.
Coinjedi and the other people that placed a bet should work out a solution.
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:30:40 AM
 #284

A bet was placed with fraudful acquired bitcoins

So you are asking Bets Of Bitcoin to determine the source for the coins from the large bet (or bets) made on the "disagree" side of that bet?


I mean I didn't investigate the situation but felt somehow save to side with the agree position given 300:0 in the bet at that time.

Exactly the problem.  If the outcome on the bet statement ends favoring those that bet "Agree", then freezing the 300 BTC is taking that amount not from the scammer that placed the losing bet but from those who placed bets that ultimately ended up winners.  And as giszmo describes, wagers on that bet statement might not even have been made without the bet being so lopsided as it was.  

Would that mean that bets of bitcoin should freeze bets in the future in case they might come from shady business?  I did not have to register with my real name and wonder how they should enforce such checks.

That would be quite impossible to determine, right?

I hope there is not even a hint of applying "taint" here.  Bitcoins are fungible, whether or not they come from funds that were obtained from a scam.

MoinCoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:40:06 AM
 #285

That would be quite impossible to determine, right?

I hope there is not even a hint of applying "taint" here.  Bitcoins are fungible, whether or not they come from funds that were obtained by a scam.
My idea - freeze it. Sort out things.
Act accordingly.

Is betsofbitcoin.in operating in the Seychelles or in India?

Should be in his best interest too.
If the local law does not care, then so be it.

Edit:
I did not place a bet in this.
I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:47:17 AM
 #286

My idea - freeze it. Sort out things.

That punishes the innocent (those who are owed coins from their winning bets).  That would be, in my opnion, unacceptable for Bets Of Bitcoin to do.


I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.

Then talk to NCKRAZZE about getting your funds back.

MoinCoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile
September 30, 2012, 04:55:56 AM
 #287

My idea - freeze it. Sort out things.

That punishes the innocent (those who are owed coins from their winning bets).  That would be, in my opnion, unacceptable for Bets Of Bitcoin to do.


I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.

Then talk to NCKRAZZE about getting your funds back.
Bets of bitcoins is responsible for BTC that go into it and out again.
The platform would take 5% of 300 illicit acquired BTC.

NCKRAZZE has been given a scammer tag and is not reacting to messages.
He has failed to present any information for repayment.

FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 08:59:17 AM
 #288

My idea - freeze it. Sort out things.

That punishes the innocent (those who are owed coins from their winning bets).  That would be, in my opnion, unacceptable for Bets Of Bitcoin to do.


I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.

Then talk to NCKRAZZE about getting your funds back.
Bets of bitcoins is responsible for BTC that go into it and out again.
The platform would take 5% of 300 illicit acquired BTC.

NCKRAZZE has been given a scammer tag and is not reacting to messages.
He has failed to present any information for repayment.



Expecting a service like this to police the source of funds is ridiculous.

If a service was going to do that they would need to give warning to not be thieves/fraudsters themselves.

And the only appropriate time to do it would be before the money was allowed to be wagered and wagered against.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
 #289

We have no right, ability or interest in playing the police. There is no way to determine the origin of the bet, "rightful" owners or a new distribution scheme. We will make the distribution as usual. It seems that Vescudero did not default so far.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
giszmo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568


¡ɥɔʇɐʍ ʇsnɾ &#7


View Profile WWW
September 30, 2012, 03:15:34 PM
 #290

NCKRAZZE has been given a scammer tag and is not reacting to messages.
He has failed to present any information for repayment.

you sound like he defaulted?

We have no right, ability or interest in playing the police. There is no way to determine the origin of the bet, "rightful" owners or a new distribution scheme. We will make the distribution as usual. It seems that Vescudero did not default so far.

you sound like you know he did not default?

(As much as I felt very stupid to fall for this 300BTC bet right after placing my 1BTC I now feel slight chances of not loosing it. How is "default" determined when people claim he owes them money and he claims not to be in default?)

(Special "lol" for scammer tag being a clear sign of somebody being evil.)

coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
October 01, 2012, 01:48:42 AM
 #291

Here is my understanding of the situation:
The bet is on Vescudero's investment scheme, which does not seem to default so far.

MoinCoin thinks that the statement and the large bets on it is created by NCKRAZZE, who did run another investment scheme himself. He seems to run away with other's money. MoinCoin thinks that the source of the large bets is from this scheme, so we should freeze the account. This is not something we would do.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
retrapher
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 48


View Profile
October 07, 2012, 07:26:08 PM
 #292

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=358

Can we get a ruling on this? it's been over a week since the event date?

References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 118131.0
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
October 07, 2012, 08:02:46 PM
 #293

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=358

Can we get a ruling on this? it's been over a week since the event date?

That might have been a little confusing.  The results that they label "September" are released in October.  The bet statement does say "This statement asserts that in the October 1, 2012 release" ... but it is possible the evaluation of that statement was waiting for results labeled "October", which will not happen for a month and would be the wrong results.

Incidentally, I lost on that one.

retrapher
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 48


View Profile
October 07, 2012, 08:52:28 PM
 #294

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=358

Can we get a ruling on this? it's been over a week since the event date?

That might have been a little confusing.  The results that they label "September" are released in October.  The bet statement does say "This statement asserts that in the October 1, 2012 release" ... but it is possible the evaluation of that statement was waiting for results labeled "October", which will not happen for a month and would be the wrong results.

Incidentally, I lost on that one.

In context though, the title of the bet is "iOS market share will be above 60% by Oct 1, 2012". So they're referring to September results released in the beginning of October.

References (bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=): 118131.0
coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 02:03:47 AM
 #295

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=358

Can we get a ruling on this? it's been over a week since the event date?

I was thinking that they would label the October 1st release as October, but it is (naturally) labeled for the data as September. So I put the verdict as "True".

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 03:40:21 AM
 #296

Ah ... I see why every single BetsOfBitco..in e-mail ends up in my spam folder.


I've noticed that gmail is particularly insistent that all messages from bets@betsofbitco.in get placed in my spam folder.  I "train" the filter by marking them "not spam", but the .in force is too strong or something else is causing it to remain flagged as spam.

Setting up SPF on your DNS might help the spam algorithm to more correctly identify the legitimacy of the message.


I'll look into SPF.


$ dig  @ns-canada.topdns.com betsofbitco.in txt

gives:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
betsofbitco.in.      3600   IN   TXT   "v=spf1 a -all"


And because I have a spam filter service that relays messages to me, that filter rule will always cause a hard-fail.

If you change that to softfail, ... "~all" instead of "-all", then my spam filter can at least be sane.

I see others recommend softfail as being recommended for when the mail destinations (recipients) are not under a company-controlled set.  Here's one recommendation affirming softfail as being less draconian:
 - http://serverfault.com/a/355513

coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 03:06:38 AM
 #297

If you change that to softfail, ... "~all" instead of "-all", then my spam filter can at least be sane.

Done! It may take a while until it propagates to your DNS.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
Sant001
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 03:18:03 AM
 #298

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=719

It revolves around the "18:00-23:59 close price in the Mt.Gox one month chart"

1. Is the Mtgox.com chart time EST? Where does it say so?

2. Also 18:00-23:59 I suppose you'd see this interval only on certain screen resolutions, on mine the last interval is actually 16:00-23:59. I suppose the bet refers to it?
coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184



View Profile WWW
October 09, 2012, 03:52:34 AM
 #299

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=719

It revolves around the "18:00-23:59 close price in the Mt.Gox one month chart"

1. Is the Mtgox.com chart time EST? Where does it say so?

2. Also 18:00-23:59 I suppose you'd see this interval only on certain screen resolutions, on mine the last interval is actually 16:00-23:59. I suppose the bet refers to it?

I think they use UTC-1, but it doesn't really matter as long as they consistently show everybody the same time (which I think they do). You should be able to confirm that October 2nd's closing price is $12.83. Please send me a screenshot if you see something else.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
Sant001
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
October 09, 2012, 05:58:59 AM
 #300

You should be able to confirm that October 2nd's closing price is $12.83. Please send me a screenshot if you see something else.

Yes indeed, that's what I get here:



Though if the result could be made more obvious to the average user bets will be higher and more frequent, such as the Obama bet.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!