[SOLD] Auction: Hawaii Vacation Condo - 2 bedroom Dec 3-10 2011

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

EDIT: AS THERE WAS A BIT OF CONTROVERSY AT THE END OF THIS AUCTION, I AM SETTLING THE DISPUTE WITH A QUICK SILENT AUCTION OPEN TO EVERYONE AS BELOW:

Highest bid by PM to me by 22:00 (approximately 1 hour from now) wins. Bids must be in the form of a whole number of BTC, not bidnapper type bids, and you will pay the actual amount you have bid.

If no one bids higher than antares' 40 BTC, it is Antares' for 40 BTC.


Hanalei Bay Resort on Kauai, Hawaii's garden island

Starting Bid: 1 BTC
Bid increment: Minimum 1 BTC
Auction closing date/time: 10 November 2011 at 20:00:00 UTC (Click to see date/time in your timezone.
Instructions: Post a bid below which is a minimum of 1 BTC higher than previous high bid.

You are bidding on 1 week (3 Dec-10 Dec 2011) in a fully self-contained 2 bedroom condo at the beautiful Hanalei Bay Resort on Kauai, the so-called garden island of Hawaii. We booked it using our timeshare early this year, but due to pregnancy complications will not be able to use it. Luckily, it is transferable, so you can take advantage of this opportunity to get a full week at a super low price! Bidding starts at 1 BTC and goes up in minimum 1 BTC increments by posting your bid below. Auction closes 10 November 2011 at 20:00:00 UTC (Find out when that is for you by clicking --> here).

excerpt from http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1503&resortCode=HAN&parentResortCode=HAN:

Hanalei Bay Resort is situated above scenic Hanalei Bay with a view of the Na Pali Cliffs, Bali Hai Mountain, picturesque beaches, cascading waterfalls, and swaying palm trees. It is located within the world-famous Princeville Resort, which features 45 holes of championship golf. The resort offers eight tennis courts with an on-site pro shop, gift shop, and two swimming pools, one complete with multiple waterfalls and streams that cascade directly into the pool. Guests have direct access to the beach and Hanalei Bay.

The final bid price includes accommodation for the entire week at the resort for up to six people, and there is no reserve on this auction, so start bidding! See my feedback at http://feedback.spendbitcoins.com, http://bitcoinfeedback.spendbitcoins.com & http://ebay.spendbitcoins.com and bid with confidence.

Kitchen Facilities
Coffee Maker
Dishes
Dishwasher
Dining Table & Chairs
Fire Alarm
Full Size Stove w/ Oven
Glassware
Cooking Utensils
Pots/Pans
Kitchen Sink
Cutlery
18-19 cu.ft. Refrigerator

Bathroom Facilities
Living area: Bathtub/Shower
Bedroom 1: Bathroom/Shower

Other Facilities
Air conditioning
Alarm Clock
Cable TV
Laundry Facility in Unit
Patio Furniture
Patio/Balcony
Safe
Telephone

Sleeping Accommodations
Bedroom 1: 1 King Size Bed
Bedroom 2: 2 Full Size Beds

[1714928556]

1714928556

[1714928556]

1714928556

[finway]

I'm in China, can i bid ?

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I'm in China, can i bid ?

Of course you can. The auction only includes accommodation, so you'll need to organise your own airfares if you win.

[evolve]

You are bidding on 1 week (3 Dec-10 Dec 2011) in a fully self-contained 2 bedroom condo at the beautiful Hanalei Bay Resort on Kauai, the so-called garden island of Hawaii. We booked it using our timeshare early this year, but due to pregnancy complications will not be able to use it. Luckily, it is transferable, so you can take advantage of this opportunity to get a full week at a super low price! Bidding starts at 1 BTC and goes up in 1 BTC increments by posting your bid below. Auction closes 10 November 2011 at 20:00:00 UTC (Find out when that is for you by clicking --> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Hawaii+Auction+End&iso=20111110T12&p1=137).

the link says that the auction has ended

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

You are bidding on 1 week (3 Dec-10 Dec 2011) in a fully self-contained 2 bedroom condo at the beautiful Hanalei Bay Resort on Kauai, the so-called garden island of Hawaii. We booked it using our timeshare early this year, but due to pregnancy complications will not be able to use it. Luckily, it is transferable, so you can take advantage of this opportunity to get a full week at a super low price! Bidding starts at 1 BTC and goes up in 1 BTC increments by posting your bid below. Auction closes 10 November 2011 at 20:00:00 UTC (Find out when that is for you by clicking --> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Hawaii+Auction+End&iso=20111110T12&p1=137).

the link says that the auction has ended

No, it says when it will end.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Nice place!!!!

Do you have a reserve?
If the auction ends at 10 BTC, will you conclude the sale?
You should reflect your response in he original post.

[hollajandro]

I bid 10 BTC.

[likuidxd]

30 btc

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Do you have a reserve?
If the auction ends at 10 BTC, will you conclude the sale?
You should reflect your response in he original post.

Thanks for the input Yankee. It already said no reserve in the original post, but it's a bit wordy so I've bolded the relevant wording. 

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Do you have a reserve?
If the auction ends at 10 BTC, will you conclude the sale?
You should reflect your response in he original post.

Thanks for the input Yankee. It already said no reserve in the original post, but it's a bit wordy so I've bolded the relevant wording. 

Nice!!! Thanks for pointing it out

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

You are bidding on 1 week (3 Dec-10 Dec 2011) in a fully self-contained 2 bedroom condo at the beautiful Hanalei Bay Resort on Kauai, the so-called garden island of Hawaii. We booked it using our timeshare early this year, but due to pregnancy complications will not be able to use it. Luckily, it is transferable, so you can take advantage of this opportunity to get a full week at a super low price! Bidding starts at 1 BTC and goes up in 1 BTC increments by posting your bid below. Auction closes 10 November 2011 at 20:00:00 UTC (Find out when that is for you by clicking --> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Hawaii+Auction+End&iso=20111110T12&p1=137).

the link says that the auction has ended

No, it says when it will end.

I've fixed it to make it clearer. Cheers!

[SgtSpike]

Man, wish I could do this!  But it's too soon for me to get off work in time...

[Niann]

Holy shit.
Good job, wish I had the money to bid on that lol

[RodeoX]

I'll be out of the country and can't bid on this. But if did not have plans, I would do this for sure. It's a great deal.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

7 nights here, no catch other than getting here and paying for all food/services?

is that right?


if so i bid 10 bitcoin per night.

That's right. So the current high bid is Goat at 70 btc (please put your bid for the entire week).

[Viking]

This rocks. I would have bid myself, but at that time I will vacate California.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I am sure I will be outbid anyway but it turns out that my wife will have to be in country for the 10th thus making it imposable for us to go. I apologize for this oversight.

This makes the current high bid likuidxd at 30 btc if he/she is still happy with that.

By the way, there is no obligation to stay all seven nights if anyone thinks it's worth it to go for 6 of these nights or even less.

[FredericBastiat]

Do you have any pictures of the floor plan? What's the layout? Thanks.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

All info and pictures at http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1503&resortCode=HAN&parentResortCode=HAN.

Just over 14 hours to go, high bid is currently 30 btc! This could go for peanuts!

[bitjet]

All info and pictures at http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1503&resortCode=HAN&parentResortCode=HAN.

Just over 14 hours to go, high bid is currently 30 btc! This could go for peanuts!

I need to talk to my wife about this!

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

All info and pictures at http://www.intervalworld.com/web/cs?a=1503&resortCode=HAN&parentResortCode=HAN.

Just over 14 hours to go, high bid is currently 30 btc! This could go for peanuts!

Can I resell this? I know someone who sell's timeshares, she may be interested.

[antares]

ok, since no one seems to want it, I'll bid 40 BTC.

Shoot me a PM if I'm the lucky one here.

[Inaba]

I bid up to 36 BTC

[ineededausername]

omfg why did I not see this thread

[SgtSpike]

Wouldn't have antares won with his bid of 40 BTC?

Regardless, I'm super-jealous of the cheap vacation.  If it wasn't for airline tickets being so spendy to match, I would've definitely bid on it!

[antares]

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

Wow, totally unfair. I watched this whole thing unfold.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Hey there, sure you want to take Inaba's offer? he edited his bid after the end of the auction.(which is why I adapted mine)

Sorry, I have to make this accusation public. What did he edit it from and is there a way to look at pre-edited messages? This was perhaps not the best format for this auction.

[SgtSpike]

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

Yikes!  Sorry... 

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

Wow, totally unfair. I watched this whole thing unfold.

Okay, this was not a good format for this auction, as I was not able to watch during the last few minutes and messages are editable.

Those who did see this unfold, what do you think is a fair way to resolve this?

[antares]

hi there,

I posted my initial bid of 35 at 7:59:50 PM UTC.
He posted his up to bid 7:59:57 PM UTC
he edited his bid 8:01:something PM UTC to 36 BTC.
I then edited mine like 2 or 3 minutes afterwards to 40. I guess a mod or something could clear this up for you, afair there's no history over edits that can be publicly seen.

As for unfolding this - I think it's your decision on how to resolve it. (btw 40 still stands :-)).
So whatever you decide, no bad feelings at least from my side.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

Wow, totally unfair. I watched this whole thing unfold.

Okay, this was not a good format for this auction, as I was not able to watch during the last few minutes and messages are editable.

Those who did see this unfold, what do you think is a fair way to resolve this?

It's totally your decision how you want to proceed. it was a fair auction, and Im sure no one will disagree with you if you let the current winner stand.
That being said, if you do want to change the outcome, I would think the fairest way is to hold a private auction between the 2-3 top bidders.

Again, just a thought 

[kookiekrak]

imo if people want to fight over the price right now, keep going until people aren't willing to pay more.

you really can't do timed auctions when theres a 20 second wait for posting and when people can edit their posts.

[antares]

to be honest, I wondered why the forum CMS doesnt show editing.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

As I can see both sides to this, I'm going to settle it with a quick silent auction open to everyone.

Highest bid by PM to me by 22:00 (approximately 1 hour from now) wins. Bids must be in the form of a whole number of BTC, not bidnapper type bids, and you will pay the actual amount you have bid.

If no one bids higher than antares' 40 BTC, it is Antares' for 40 BTC.

[Inaba]

Umm, no.  I won the auction.  The auction closed at 20:00 UTC.  My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder.  In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.

You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus.  I edited my message because it was more clear that way.  In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.

If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.

[ALPHA.]

So just send him your silent bid at 66 BTC.

[Inaba]

No I will not.  First of all, it's not a silent bid then, is it?  

Second of all, the rules of the auction were clearly stated.  It didn't go for enough, so he decided to "reopen it" until it did.  If that's the case, and he was going to continue the auction until he gets the price he wants, he should have made it clear in the auction to begin with, not let the auction continue for days under a pretense.

Frankly, I expected better from Jeremy.

[SgtSpike]

Umm, no.  I won the auction.  The auction closed at 20:00 UTC.  My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder.  In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.

You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus.  I edited my message because it was more clear that way.  In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.

If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.

Lol, I don't think anyone will agree with you there.

Bidding "one higher than the highest bid" is kind of sketchy to start with, and not the same rules that anyone else was bidding under.  You were supposed to bid a single BTC amount, not "everything between 35 BTC and 66 BTC, but as low as possible".  Sorry, but I would side with Jeremy on that argument.

[Inaba]

Umm, no.  I won the auction.  The auction closed at 20:00 UTC.  My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder.  In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.

You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus.  I edited my message because it was more clear that way.  In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.

If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.

Lol, I don't think anyone will agree with you there.

Bidding "one higher than the highest bid" is kind of sketchy to start with, and not the same rules that anyone else was bidding under.  You were supposed to bid a single BTC amount, not "everything between 35 BTC and 66 BTC, but as low as possible".  Sorry, but I would side with Jeremy on that argument.

So show me where that is not allowed?  Every other auction site I've ever posted on works that way, why would I expect this one to be different?

But in EITHER CASE the high bid was MORE than 35 BTC or 40 BTC.  So in EITHER CASE my bid was the high bid when the auction closed.

Everyone was bidding under the same rules, it's not my fault others chose to ignore the rules they find inconvenient.

For the record, I did not bid "one high than the highest bid" I bid "one more BTC higher than the highest bid UP TO 66 BTC" if someone had bid 66 BTC, my bid would be invalidated.  Even if that were not the case, some asshole could come along and bid 10,000 BTC and I'd be stuck having to pay 10,001 BTC.  I'm sure there'd be no complaining then.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Umm, no.  I won the auction.  The auction closed at 20:00 UTC.  My original bid was UP TO 66 BTC at 1 BTC over the high bidder.  In either case, I won the auction at either 66 BTC or 35 BTC.

You "re-opening" it because you don't want the price stated is completely bogus.  I edited my message because it was more clear that way.  In either case, I had the last bid and it was higher than the previous high bidder.

If you continue with this, I will report it as a scam auction, plain and simple, as that's what it is.

Until I found out that you had done a bidnapper bid (which was not allowed in the rules) and then edited your message I posted a message congratulating you for winning and giving you a bitcoin address to send the bitcoins to.

I did not reopen this because I was not happy with the amount. I would not have reopened it if you had done a straight 36 BTC bid. I only reopened it because you did an unfair bidnapper bid and then edited your message after bidding had finished.

I would have just given it to Anteres, but as I said, I can see both sides, so I am giving you the chance again as well. It is up to you whether you send me a PM at all, send one for 41 BTC, 66 BTC or any other amount, so yes it is a silent bid.

This is how this is being settled, and that is final.

[Inaba]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

The whole point of an *AUCTION* is to get the lowest price you can (as a bidder).  If you want(ed) a specific amount, THEN SPECIFY THAT AMOUNT IN YOUR POST.  Don't change the rules later because you didn't like the outcome.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

Hi Inaba,

What I mean is that the rules simply stated to place your bid as an amount of BTC at least 1 higher than the current bid. You instead placed a bid that was "1 higher up to a maximum of..."

Because you chose to bid in a different way than everyone else but it didn't EXPLICITLY state that you couldn't do it that way, I didn't think it was fair to just accept Antares bid or your bid, as it wasn't clear whether or not the way you bid was wrong. This is why it has been reopened as a silent auction where messages cannot be edited.

Silent bid or not, the choice is yours.

[Inaba]

I am reporting you for a scam auction.  I am also going to make it my mission to let everyone know you are a liar and a cheat, who fails to follow through with the goods he's sold because you don't like the outcome.

[SgtSpike]

What the fuck is a "bidnapper bid?"  Show me where in the rules (not your new, edited rules) that is says there's no "bidnapper bid."  Whatever the hell that is.  That's not even a word. *boggle*

If you want to get sticky on the rules that don't exist, my bid was for 66 BTC, which is higher than Antares 35 BTC bid (which he edited) or his 40 BTC edited bid.  So your fictional "bidnapper bid" doesn't even apply in that instance either.

1)  Take a chill pill.
2)  Bid fairly, like everyone else.  Everyone else submitted bids at a set amount, not "the previous bid + 1 BTC."  You should've done the same.

[Inaba]

There were no rules to specify otherwise.  Sorry you wern't quick enough to figure it out.

[SgtSpike]

There were no rules to specify otherwise.  Sorry you wern't quick enough to figure it out.

It said place "a" bid, not place 30 bids.  By bidding 1 above everything between 35 and 66, you're effectively placing 30 bids.

[Inaba]

Oh... so you're saying people could only bid once?  Then that invalidates most bidders, since they usually bid more than once.  The point of bidding is to bid... not state a price and then you can't increase it.  *THAT* is your defense?

[SgtSpike]

Oh... so you're saying people could only bid once?  Then that invalidates most bidders, since they usually bid more than once.  The point of bidding is to bid... not state a price and then you can't increase it.  *THAT* is your defense?

You were the ONLY one who intended to bid in the fashion you bid.  NONE of the other bidders bid that way.  Jeremy did NOT intend to allow bidding of that variety.  And yet you still expect to win it at "1 + the previous bidder"?  Come on...

It's unfair in a forum environment to bid "ebay style" because everyone can see your top bid.  People won't bid you up just for the sake of bidding you up, and if your top bid is higher than what anyone else is willing to pay, you will never be bid up.  You could effectively win auctions for very little this way.  That is why no one in their right mind would expect someone to bid in such a manner on a forum.  Jeremy probably didn't think he needed to make such exclusions because respectable people would KNOW not to make bids like that.

People like you are why legal paperwork has to be hundreds of pages long.  Always looking for the loophole to cheat other people.

[Inaba]

Bullshit twice over.  Bullshit 1: I gave a high bid of 66 BTC, not some open ended +1 bid like you are trying to make it out to be.  If someone wanted to outbid me, all they had to do was bid 66 BTC.

Bullshit again on "you could effectively win auctions for very little this way" because someone could bid a ridiculous amount and I'd be stuck with a ridiculous amount +1.  So both your arguments are complete bullshit.

[SgtSpike]

Bullshit twice over.  Bullshit 1: I gave a high bid of 66 BTC, not some open ended +1 bid like you are trying to make it out to be.  If someone wanted to outbid me, all they had to do was bid 66 BTC.

Bullshit again on "you could effectively win auctions for very little this way" because someone could bid a ridiculous amount and I'd be stuck with a ridiculous amount +1.  So both your arguments are complete bullshit.

You did not give a high bid of 66 BTC.  You gave a bid of the previous high bid + 1, up to 66 BTC.  Those are completely different.

Sure, someone could bid a ridiculous amount.  But most people aren't in the business of making people suffer just to make people suffer.  If you have a reasonably high bid, it's very likely that no one will bid against you.  Well, unless you have enemies who WANT to see you pay your max bid for the item.

[Inaba]

How are they different?  Explain how they are different, please.

If a normal bid on any auction site in the world is not a valid bid, then the "up to" amount is 66 BTC, which is the final bid.

[kookiekrak]

How are they different?  Explain how they are different, please.

If a normal bid on any auction site in the world is not a valid bid, then the "up to" amount is 66 BTC, which is the final bid.

so you're saying you bid 66 btc then.

this isnt ebay. you cant have a bid up to X amount.

you can only bid a set amount of btc that you're willing to pay for right then and there.

[Inaba]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.  If the "up to" bid is not a valid bid, then the max of the up to bid is the final bid.

[SgtSpike]

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.  If the "up to" bid is not a valid bid, then the max of the up to bid is the final bid.

Except that wasn't specified in the rules (or your post) either.  Hence the reason for a silent bid "bid off".  A lack of clarification of the rules, along with a mis-communication of what you actually meant by your bid, is exactly why I see an extension of the original deadline to be appropriate.

[Inaba]

You're right, I'm glad you admit that it was not prohibited by the rules.  You've just successfully sunk your entire argument and made mine, thanks.

There was no miscommunication on what I meant by my bid.  My bid was just like any bid on any auction site in in the world.  Everyone that has ever bid on eBay or another auction site knows exactly how online auctions work.   My bid was very clear.  +1 BTC up to 66 BTC.  No more.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Silent auction was won by Antares for 105 BTC.

Congratulations Antares, that's a great price for a week in a 2-bedroom in Hawaii!

As agreed, please send 105 BTC to 14BY4YPW2h3cK92Nn7CNK9KJZRS2qhUZXz by Monday, 14 November and PM me the name you would like on the booking confirmation and an email address to send the scanned booking confirmation to.

Sorry for all the controversy.

Highest Regards,
Jeremy

[SgtSpike]

You're right, I'm glad you admit that it was not prohibited by the rules.  You've just successfully sunk your entire argument and made mine, thanks.

There was no miscommunication on what I meant by my bid.  My bid was just like any bid on any auction site in in the world.  Everyone that has ever bid on eBay or another auction site knows exactly how online auctions work.  

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I already explained why bidding on a forum cannot work in the same manner as it does on eBay or other auction sites.  Anyone but a cheat would accept that.

[Litt]

I can understand some frustrations from both sides, because this outcome was likely unexpected by both parties. I'm sure OP expected simply having people bid in increments outbidding the previous bid, whereas Inaba had other interpretation of the rules stated that did not cover other possible way of placing a bid.

Regardless, Inaba's bid is not exactly the same as all the other online auction bids. The clear difference between ebay bids and the bid made here by Inaba that is apparent to me is that on Ebay, other bidders will not know that someone else will be adding +1 to their bid because the highest bid is hidden.

If this highest bid is not hidden, it will simply discourage anyone else to bid up because they would know that they will be outbid and only be raising the price.
This does not work out well for the seller and I can understand why he wouldn't want this.

I can also see why Inaba is frustrated because he did say he was willing to pay up to 66btc which would make that the highest bid. However this was a conditional only statement if the other bids were made upto 65btc which didn't happen. Inaba did not give room for interpretation for the OP to accept his bid of 66btc without complying with the rest of the statement which limits Inaba to +1btc of maximum bid. OP had to either choose to accept the entire statement and allow the conditional bid to stand, or redefine the rules to exclude it altogether.

[Inaba]

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I am not taking your words out of context.  I am showing you that your whole argument is based on fallacy and misconstrued logic.  The auction did not prohibit a bid such as mine.  Online auctions are typically handled in the fashion I bid.  Ergo the bid is valid.  Being the generous and understanding soul that I am, if Jeremy had come to me and said "Hey, I did not intend this to be a normal auction, but a flat auction, do you want this for 66 BTC, the maximum you were willing to pay?" I would have paid him 66 BTC, even though it was within my rights to demand the auction be concluded as per the rules..  

However, that's not what happened.  Instead, he saw the price was too low and decided to "reopen" the auction for "silent bids."  Even though my maximum bid was ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's not a silent auction if the bids are known in advance.  In the public auction, my bid was KNOWN to anyone who cared to look - it was 66 BTC, no more.  It was not an open ended bid like you keep trying to make it out to be... this is functionally what your argument hinges on, and since it's fallacious to claim as such, when my bid clearly was NOT open ended, your argument falls apart.

His auction clearly stated "NO RESERVE."   He didn't get the price he wanted, so he changed the terms and actually instituted a reserve after the fact (nominally 40 BTC).  He got his 105 BTC (presumably Antares is good for it), instead of half or 1/3 of that.  Very convenient.  Very sneaky. Very shady. Very dishonest.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I am not taking your words out of context.  I am showing you that your whole argument is based on fallacy and misconstrued logic.  The auction did not prohibit a bid such as mine.  Online auctions are typically handled in the fashion I bid.  Ergo the bid is valid.  Being the generous and understanding soul that I am, if Jeremy had come to me and said "Hey, I did not intend this to be a normal auction, but a flat auction, do you want this for 66 BTC, the maximum you were willing to pay?" I would have paid him 66 BTC, even though it was within my rights to demand the auction be concluded as per the rules..  

However, that's not what happened.  Instead, he saw the price was too low and decided to "reopen" the auction for "silent bids."  Even though my maximum bid was ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's not a silent auction if the bids are known in advance.  In the public auction, my bid was KNOWN to anyone who cared to look - it was 66 BTC, no more.  It was not an open ended bid like you keep trying to make it out to be... this is functionally what your argument hinges on, and since it's fallacious to claim as such, when my bid clearly was NOT open ended, your argument falls apart.

His auction clearly stated "NO RESERVE."   He didn't get the price he wanted, so he changed the terms and actually instituted a reserve after the fact (nominally 40 BTC).  He got his 105 BTC (presumably Antares is good for it), instead of half or 1/3 of that.  Very convenient.  Very sneaky. Very shady. Very dishonest.

Because you edited your bid, I don't even know what your max bid was. You're saying 66 btc, but witnesses have said it was 100.

This whole auction in a forum thread thing was an absolute mess. Early on there was a bid that was placed and then deleted (I don't recall if that was you or not), another bid was edited downwards, goat canceled his bid for 70 btc, and then you bid with a different set of rules from everyone else and later edited your bid.

I will not do an auction on an editible forum thread in the future.

[SgtSpike]

You're taking my words out of context.  I was saying that you didn't specify your bid to be 66 BTC in your post.  You specified it to be 1 more than the previous high bid, up to 66 BTC.  And you didn't say that it would be 66 BTC if the "up to" bid was not a valid bid, nor did the rules say that the high end of an invalid "up to" bid would automatically be the high bid of that person.

I am not taking your words out of context.  I am showing you that your whole argument is based on fallacy and misconstrued logic.  The auction did not prohibit a bid such as mine.  Online auctions are typically handled in the fashion I bid.  Ergo the bid is valid.  Being the generous and understanding soul that I am, if Jeremy had come to me and said "Hey, I did not intend this to be a normal auction, but a flat auction, do you want this for 66 BTC, the maximum you were willing to pay?" I would have paid him 66 BTC, even though it was within my rights to demand the auction be concluded as per the rules..  

However, that's not what happened.  Instead, he saw the price was too low and decided to "reopen" the auction for "silent bids."  Even though my maximum bid was ALREADY PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  It's not a silent auction if the bids are known in advance.  In the public auction, my bid was KNOWN to anyone who cared to look - it was 66 BTC, no more.  It was not an open ended bid like you keep trying to make it out to be... this is functionally what your argument hinges on, and since it's fallacious to claim as such, when my bid clearly was NOT open ended, your argument falls apart.

His auction clearly stated "NO RESERVE."   He didn't get the price he wanted, so he changed the terms and actually instituted a reserve after the fact (nominally 40 BTC).  He got his 105 BTC (presumably Antares is good for it), instead of half or 1/3 of that.  Very convenient.  Very sneaky. Very shady. Very dishonest.

I'll just have to say that I disagree with you.  And so far, I haven't seen anyone agree with you.  I'll leave it at that.

[Inaba]

Because you edited your bid, I don't even know what your max bid was. You're saying 66 btc, but witnesses have said it was 100.

This whole auction in a forum thread thing was an absolute mess. Early on there was a bid that was placed and then deleted (I don't recall if that was you or not), another bid was edited downwards, goat canceled his bid for 70 btc, and then you bid with a different set of rules from everyone else and later edited your bid.

I will not do an auction on an editible forum thread in the future.

One person said, facetiously I assume, that it was 100 BTC, not "witnesses" - plural - ... but in either case even if it was 100 BTC, you STILL failed to live up to your agreement in the auction.  You did not honor your agreement to sell it to the highest bidder at 36 BTC, 66 BTC or even 100 BTC.  Instead, you unilaterally chose to change the rules of the auction after the fact to suit you.  You did not bother to contact me.  You did not try to work anything out.  You did absolutely nothing but restructure the auction so you will get more money because it did not sell for what you were hoping for, even though you listed it as NO RESERVE.

That, in a nutshell, is choc full of dishonesty.  

This whole auction in a forum thread thing was an absolute mess. Early on there was a bid that was placed and then deleted (I don't recall if that was you or not), another bid was edited downwards, goat canceled his bid for 70 btc, and then you bid with a different set of rules from everyone else and later edited your bid.

Honestly, what the F*!K did you expect, posting an auction on a message forum?  Seriously?  Every "auction" on this forum is a mess.  The whole concept of auctioning in a message forum is completely retarded to begin with.  The fact that you expected the auction to be perfect, without laying down any rules stipulated even though you clearly had an agenda to start with, is frankly mind boggling.  

I'll just have to say that I disagree with you.  And so far, I haven't seen anyone agree with you.  I'll leave it at that.

Disagree all you want, you are still wrong.  The fact that you are "leaving it at that" pretty much proves the point that your argument is completely invalid, since you have not been able to bring a single shred of evidence to support your suppositions.  Everything you have brought I have completely debunked.  As far as anyone agreeing with me, the only one "agreeing" with you is Jeremy... hardly an unbiased party.  The only other people chiming in are ones that "see both sides."  

I see you are the one that started the "100 BTC max bid" lie, as well.  After reading back a few posts and looking at your post, I realize that now you are as intellectually dishonest, or even more so than Jeremy.  At least he is being dishonest from an honest "mistake."  You are just outright lying (once again, to bolster your side of the argument.  Unfortunately, as with everything else, your argument falls flat in the fact of facts.)

[SgtSpike]

Disagree all you want, you are still wrong.  The fact that you are "leaving it at that" pretty much proves the point that your argument is completely invalid, since you have not been able to bring a single shred of evidence to support your suppositions.  Everything you have brought I have completely debunked.  As far as anyone agreeing with me, the only one "agreeing" with you is Jeremy... hardly an unbiased party.  The only other people chiming in are ones that "see both sides."  

I see you are the one that started the "100 BTC max bid" lie, as well.  After reading back a few posts and looking at your post, I realize that now you are as intellectually dishonest, or even more so than Jeremy.  At least he is being dishonest from an honest "mistake."  You are just outright lying (once again, to bolster your side of the argument.  Unfortunately, as with everything else, your argument falls flat in the fact of facts.)

Debunked?  Please... you didn't debunk anything more than I debunked you.  We have a difference of opinions in implication of information.

I didn't start anything about 100 BTC.  Someone else said it before me.  If that person retracted what they said through an edit, then I'll retract my statement about a 100 BTC bid.  I never saw it myself, nor do I claim to have seen it.  I was only relying on the word of the person who saw it.  I have no intentions of being dishonest or misleading.

[Inaba]

I apologize then.  It was Antares that started the 100 BTC BS.  It was hard to suss out of the nested quotes and it looked like you posted it, not Antares.

As far as the debunking goes, you haven't shown me anywhere in the rules that prohibits a bid that is the "natural" style of bidding online (ala eBay, the defacto auction site on the Internet).  On top of that, even if we are to disallow +1 to MAX style of bidding, my MAX bid would still stand.  You've not provided any rules, reasons or really much of anything as to why my max bid would not stand in place of +1 to MAX.  In fact, no one has.

Top this all off with the fact that Jeremy "magically" got 105 BTC after changing the rules of the auction, from a high bid of 35, 36 or even 66 BTC and it's not hard to see why he chose to change the rules when the final price didn't suit him.

[SgtSpike]

I apologize then.  It was Antares that started the 100 BTC BS.  It was hard to suss out of the nested quotes and it looked like you posted it, not Antares.

As far as the debunking goes, you haven't shown me anywhere in the rules that prohibits a bid that is the "natural" style of bidding online (ala eBay, the defacto auction site on the Internet).  On top of that, even if we are to disallow +1 to MAX style of bidding, my MAX bid would still stand.  You've not provided any rules, reasons or really much of anything as to why my max bid would not stand in place of +1 to MAX.  In fact, no one has.

Because both of the potentially winning bids had been edited, with no way of proving the original bids.

[Inaba]

I apologize then.  It was Antares that started the 100 BTC BS.  It was hard to suss out of the nested quotes and it looked like you posted it, not Antares.

As far as the debunking goes, you haven't shown me anywhere in the rules that prohibits a bid that is the "natural" style of bidding online (ala eBay, the defacto auction site on the Internet).  On top of that, even if we are to disallow +1 to MAX style of bidding, my MAX bid would still stand.  You've not provided any rules, reasons or really much of anything as to why my max bid would not stand in place of +1 to MAX.  In fact, no one has.

Because both of the potentially winning bids had been edited, with no way of proving the original bids.

Yet, somehow, both of the "winning bids" agreed on what happened in at least enough detail to determine the actual winner. Therefore no conflict existed.  In fact, the details of the winning bid aren't even in question as far as I can tell, nor have they been.

[SgtSpike]

I apologize then.  It was Antares that started the 100 BTC BS.  It was hard to suss out of the nested quotes and it looked like you posted it, not Antares.

As far as the debunking goes, you haven't shown me anywhere in the rules that prohibits a bid that is the "natural" style of bidding online (ala eBay, the defacto auction site on the Internet).  On top of that, even if we are to disallow +1 to MAX style of bidding, my MAX bid would still stand.  You've not provided any rules, reasons or really much of anything as to why my max bid would not stand in place of +1 to MAX.  In fact, no one has.

Because both of the potentially winning bids had been edited, with no way of proving the original bids.

Yet, somehow, both of the "winning bids" agreed on what happened in at least enough detail to determine the actual winner. Therefore no conflict existed.  In fact, the details of the winning bid aren't even in question as far as I can tell, nor have they been.

I don't see any agreement on who should be the winner in the preceding posts.

[Inaba]

I apologize then.  It was Antares that started the 100 BTC BS.  It was hard to suss out of the nested quotes and it looked like you posted it, not Antares.

As far as the debunking goes, you haven't shown me anywhere in the rules that prohibits a bid that is the "natural" style of bidding online (ala eBay, the defacto auction site on the Internet).  On top of that, even if we are to disallow +1 to MAX style of bidding, my MAX bid would still stand.  You've not provided any rules, reasons or really much of anything as to why my max bid would not stand in place of +1 to MAX.  In fact, no one has.

Because both of the potentially winning bids had been edited, with no way of proving the original bids.

Yet, somehow, both of the "winning bids" agreed on what happened in at least enough detail to determine the actual winner. Therefore no conflict existed.  In fact, the details of the winning bid aren't even in question as far as I can tell, nor have they been.

I don't see any agreement on who should be the winner in the preceding posts.

Seriously?

Let me lay it out then (I thought this was obvious):

1. Auction is stated to end at 20:00:00 UTC.
2. Antares bids 35 BTC at 19:59:50
3. I bid up to 66 BTC at 19:59:57
4. Auction ends

I had a) the last bid prior to the close of the auction and b) the highest bid.  Any editing done after that, by your rules, is immaterial.  Antares agrees with this.  I agree with this.  We are both the highest bidders.  Neither of us question the actual events and the time stamps are not editable.  The sequence is irrefutable.  The two parties involved agree on the relevant details.

Antares posts this, confirming that I won even though he disagrees with the method:

SgtSpike,

My initial bid was BTC 35...
However, Inaba posted a bid of "up to 100 BTC, 1 BTC higher than the highest bid" 2 sec before the end of the auction, which isnt a real bid imho. He then edited his bit to be 36, so I was a tiny bit frustrated because of his way and put mine up to 40...

so he in fact won, however not in a fair way.

(Incidentally, this is where the 100 BTC fallacy came from, which is immaterial to this discussion.  Whether I posted 66 BTC or 100 BTC is irrelevant, either bid is more than this initial bid of 35 BTC).

He publicly stated that his initial bid was 35 BTC prior to the close and that it was edited to 40 BTC after the close AND after I edited my bid to 36 BTC which is the SAME as bidding +1 up to 66 BTC.  There was no dishonesty there.  However, Antares bid of 40 BTC AFTER the fact, AFTER I had edited my bid to reflect the final close price is dishonest.

So again, do tell how you aren't seeing any agreement, when the other party involved publicly posted that my bid was higher just before the close of the auction.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

I bid 70 but had to take away my bid (this was 100% my fault for not checking with my wife).

It seems 66 is the winning bid so I would like to pay the extra 4 bitcoins to make the full amount of my bid. Please PM an address you would like these sent to. Thank you and sorry for the trouble.

No trouble, goat. The winning bid ended up being 105 btc. I'm sorry I brought you into this, I was just saying I learned a lesson that a forum thread where people can cancel or edit their bids is not the place to hold an auction.

[Inaba]

Goat is the one that should get it.  But of course you're going to take the 105 BTC instead of the winning 70 BTC bid, because it was all about capitalizing on the auction instead of adhering to your agreements.  The winning bid was not 105 BTC.  The auction ended at 20:00 UTC according to you, but since the amount wasn't enough you extended it... even though you CLAIMED it was a no reserve auction.  Talk about dishonest.

As I stated in the other thread, I'm done with this.  You lied, plain and simple.  I took you for an honest business person when I reached out to you several months ago so you wouldn't close up your shop, but I see I misread you entirely back then.  If you had even made a token effort to afford me the same courtesy and contacted me about it after the auction ended, I would have gladly worked with you to solve the problem in whatever way made everyone happy.  But you wern't even decent enough to do that - it was just all about the money for you.  Very sad.

[ForceField]

Sounds like some of you really do need a vacation.

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Sounds like some of you really do need a vacation.

For anyone who missed out, before you book your next vacation accommodation, get a quote at http://vacations.spendbitcoins.com. You just put a general place and date and I'll let you know whether anything is available and for how many bitcoins.

Cheers!
Jeremy

[P4man]

Jeremy, just a suggestion if you would reconsider a second attempt, I think some extra rules could make it work.

-1  disallow sniping. Very simple, set a deadline, but also allow bidding up to, say 1 hour after the last bet, even past the deadline. That way you dont get ebay nonsense with people trying to bet 1s second before the deadline.
-2 to make editing at least much more difficult, set a minimum bid increase and require people quote the previous winning bid. Okay, its not quite a secure bitcoin chain, but it should be good enough, particularly if mods can verify if needed.
-3 Disallow any edits (again hoping mods can check if there is any controversy).
-4 obviously, explicitly disallow a "maximum" bid.  You bid one number, and thats what you commit to pay.


I think with those rules, it could work. Not that Ill bid, unless you put an airplane ticket on auction too .

[Jeremy West spendbitcoins.com]

Jeremy, just a suggestion if you would reconsider a second attempt, I think some extra rules could make it work.

-1  disallow sniping. Very simple, set a deadline, but also allow bidding up to, say 1 hour after the last bet, even past the deadline. That way you dont get ebay nonsense with people trying to bet 1s second before the deadline.
-2 to make editing at least much more difficult, set a minimum bid increase and require people quote the previous winning bid. Okay, its not quite a secure bitcoin chain, but it should be good enough, particularly if mods can verify if needed.
-3 Disallow any edits (again hoping mods can check if there is any controversy).
-4 obviously, explicitly disallow a "maximum" bid.  You bid one number, and thats what you commit to pay.


I think with those rules, it could work. Not that Ill bid, unless you put an airplane ticket on auction too .

The mods have now created an auction subforum where deletes & edits are disallowed. I don't forsee myself doing another auction of this type, but if I do, I'll put it there with some of your other suggestions. Thanks!

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'd like to interject that Hawaiin property on the main island has gotten ridiculously cheap in these past years. Rather than paying for a vacation, one might want to buy a house.

[P4man]

Good thinking. I was just booking a flight to Thailand for December, but then it hit me; why not buy an airplane instead?

[Matthew N. Wright]

Good thinking. I was just booking a flight to Thailand for December, but then it hit me; why not buy an airplane instead?

You've never owned an airplane? Loser. 

[P4man]

Actually, I do own one (or rather, half a plane). Just not one that make it all the way to thailand. And not enough room for luggage either. Not too mention the girlfriend would have to sit on the tail.  I hear 747s have dropped in price over the past years though .

[Matthew N. Wright]

Actually, I do own one (or rather, half a plane). Just not one that make it all the way to thailand. And not enough room for luggage either. Not too mention the girlfriend would have to sit on the tail.  I hear 747s have dropped in price over the past years though .

I'm absolutely obsessed with getting my first jet. Only another $200k to go. I won't be able to fly it alone for another 5 years though at this rate.

[Yankee (BitInstant)]

Actually, I do own one (or rather, half a plane). Just not one that make it all the way to thailand. And not enough room for luggage either. Not too mention the girlfriend would have to sit on the tail.  I hear 747s have dropped in price over the past years though .

I'm absolutely obsessed with getting my first jet. Only another $200k to go. I won't be able to fly it alone for another 5 years though at this rate.

I have another 5 hours until my checkride and then I get my private pilots license!

[Matthew N. Wright]

Actually, I do own one (or rather, half a plane). Just not one that make it all the way to thailand. And not enough room for luggage either. Not too mention the girlfriend would have to sit on the tail.  I hear 747s have dropped in price over the past years though .

I'm absolutely obsessed with getting my first jet. Only another $200k to go. I won't be able to fly it alone for another 5 years though at this rate.

I have another 5 hours until my checkride and then I get my private pilots license!

Going to go for instrument after?