. | Bitcointalksearch.org

minerjones

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 3596

Yes, this was a tough decision, but I have decided on the winner based on this:

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 04:16:45 PM

Yeah, I'm on the fence about it. The OP states "bid increment," not "minimum bid increment." To me, that means the bids must be in increments of .01 BTC (in other words, all bids must be divisible by .01 BTC), and a bid of .541 BTC doesn't qualify. (And if that's the case, then that means the previous valid bid of .54 BTC may have won the auction.)

Regardless, the last thing I want is bad blood. This is a fun and friendly auction, after all.

And will contact them via PM.
They can post if they would like.

Thanks.

DebitMe

legendary

Activity: 2800

Merit: 1012

Get Paid Crypto To Walk or Drive

Congrats to the winner, I got working and preoccupied so my bidding forgot about unfortunately. Anyway, good auction. Need to get my hands on an orange one here soon.

BitcoinPenny

legendary

Activity: 2676

Merit: 2203

BitcoinPenny.com

It's a tough decision for minerjones, to be sure. I wouldn't want to be in his position.

That said, with the permission of minerjones, I will officially withdraw my bid of .55 BTC. Dogevisitor can have the auction at .541 BTC. No worries, no hard feelings. I'll find another set down the road. Congratulations, DV!

Regards,
Chris

chronicsky

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1222

Just looking for peace

That was a good tactic indeed but it was kind of foul play
I wouldn't support it

Rest upto MJ

No hard feelings towards you @Dogevisitor
It's just what i think is good since we are all good Bitcoiners and numismatics

Fortify

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 1192

Quote from: dogevisitor on June 08, 2016, 02:25:49 AM

Quote from: Fortify on June 08, 2016, 02:22:20 AM

It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction Tongue

I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different.

Well if you are working to the word of the rules, all bids that didn't increment by 0.01 are invalid - which is clearly not the intention in an auction. Bidding an unsupported increment would make your bid equally invalid.

dogevisitor

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

Quote from: dogevisitor on June 08, 2016, 02:25:49 AM

Quote from: Fortify on June 08, 2016, 02:22:20 AM

It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction Tongue

I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different.

I don't want to argue regarding spelling or whatever...
We are gents here and the OP it's always right Wink

dogevisitor

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

Quote from: Fortify on June 08, 2016, 02:22:20 AM

It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction Tongue

I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different.

Fortify

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 1192

It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction Tongue

BitcoinPenny

legendary

Activity: 2676

Merit: 2203

BitcoinPenny.com

Quote from: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 04:36:56 PM

If I'm the winner and if I ever think on selling this set you will be the first one I will ask and the price will be my winning bid. Wink

It's gestures like the one above that make me happy to be part of such a great forum. You're a good one, dogevisitor.

Regards,
Chris

dogevisitor

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

It was a fun auction!

dogevisitor

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 04:16:45 PM

Quote from: digicoinuser on June 07, 2016, 03:41:17 PM

Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC.

It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. Wink

Yeah, I'm on the fence about it. The OP states "bid increment," not "minimum bid increment." To me, that means the bids must be in increments of .01 BTC (in other words, all bids must be divisible by .01 BTC), and a bid of .541 BTC doesn't qualify. (And if that's the case, then that means the previous valid bid of .54 BTC may have won the auction.)

Regardless, the last thing I want is bad blood. This is a fun and friendly auction, after all.

Congratulations, dogevisitor.

Me

We have to wait minerjones to declare the winning bid.

If we take "bid increment" as is, then a bid with a difference of 0.02, from previus bid, would be invalid too.
In that case lots of bids would be invalid here.

If I'm the winner and if I ever think on selling this set you will be the first one I will ask and the price will be my winning bid. Wink

BitcoinPenny

legendary

Activity: 2676

Merit: 2203

BitcoinPenny.com

Quote from: digicoinuser on June 07, 2016, 03:41:17 PM

Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC.

It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. Wink

Yeah, I'm on the fence about it. The OP states "bid increment," not "minimum bid increment." To me, that means the bids must be in increments of .01 BTC (in other words, all bids must be divisible by .01 BTC), and a bid of .541 BTC doesn't qualify. (And if that's the case, then that means the previous valid bid of .54 BTC may have won the auction.)

Regardless, the last thing I want is bad blood. This is a fun and friendly auction, after all.

Congratulations, dogevisitor.

Me

dogevisitor

sr. member

Activity: 351

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:32:22 PM

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:31:13 PM

Quote from: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 03:29:58 PM

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:14:16 PM

.55

bid increment: 0.01BTC

I think I won this!

I'm lost...

Me

Oh, I see what you did. I didn't think the extra .001 BTC counted, since the increments were .01 BTC.

Me

Sorry for this!

digicoinuser

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 1072

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:32:22 PM

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:31:13 PM

Quote from: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 03:29:58 PM

Quote from: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 03:14:16 PM

.55

bid increment: 0.01BTC

I think I won this!

I'm lost...

Me

Oh, I see what you did. I didn't think the extra .001 BTC counted, since the increments were .01 BTC.

Me

Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC.

It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. Wink

cryptoheadd

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 501