Bets of Bitcoin - Bitcoin betting on real world events - page 11.

giszmo

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1105

WalletScrutiny.com

… so I wanted to post about my bet on facebook and came across some issues:

Images grab attention! Allow the creator of a bet to provide an image as well. No only would that help to get your site look 1.000.000 times cooler but also would it help to get facebook posts get read. If nothing else, please at least put some image on every page so you get your logo posted.
The headline in my fb-post should grab attention. "Bets of Bitcoin" is boring. Make it the title of the bet.
Make it show the text of the bet

All this information is grabbed from the site without any fb-connect voodoo and should works fine for sites that follow best practice html rules.

(Also: All bets are done. Please tell me at least now how much I can win if I win. For you it is just a line of code as all the vote weights are in place. For your users it's looking up the formula and punching in the numbers for each bet. This sux! Yes, I said that before but it still sux sux sux!)

coinjedi

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: rlh on October 24, 2012, 01:32:44 PM

RE: This thread-- TL;DR

Is there a post or another thread that mentions strategy? Also, considering that early betters have an advantage, is it profitable to create a Statement and bet equal amounts for each side?

If enough people posted bets to your statement, couldn't you make a profit, regardless of the results?

I am not aware of any strategy discussions. But obviously, what you suggested is possible. Also remember statement submitter's get 5% of the losing side. Submitting a popular statement is very profitable.

rlh

hero member

Activity: 804

Merit: 1004

RE: This thread-- TL;DR

Is there a post or another thread that mentions strategy? Also, considering that early betters have an advantage, is it profitable to create a Statement and bet equal amounts for each side?

If enough people posted bets to your statement, couldn't you make a profit, regardless of the results?

Sant001

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: coinjedi on October 08, 2012, 11:52:34 PM

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.

coinjedi

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: Sant001 on October 08, 2012, 11:18:03 PM

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.

Sant001

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

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

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on October 07, 2012, 11:40:21 PM

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.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

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

Quote from: coinjedi on July 09, 2012, 11:47:18 PM

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on July 09, 2012, 02:54:10 AM

I've noticed that gmail is particularly insistent that all messages from [email protected] 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

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: retrapher on October 07, 2012, 03:26:08 PM

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".

retrapher

newbie

Activity: 48

Merit: 0

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on October 07, 2012, 04:02:46 PM

Quote from: retrapher on October 07, 2012, 03:26:08 PM

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.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: retrapher on October 07, 2012, 03:26:08 PM

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

newbie

Activity: 48

Merit: 0

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

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

coinjedi

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

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.

giszmo

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1105

WalletScrutiny.com

Quote from: ?? on ??

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?

Quote from: coinjedi on September 30, 2012, 10:43:23 AM

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

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

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.

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on September 30, 2012, 12:47:17 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

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.

Quote from: ?? on ??

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.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ?? on ??

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.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I have coins with NCKRAZZE, therefore my interest.

Then talk to NCKRAZZE about getting your funds back.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ?? on ??

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?

Quote from: giszmo on September 29, 2012, 11:15:30 PM

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.

Quote from: giszmo on September 29, 2012, 11:15:30 PM

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.

giszmo

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1105

WalletScrutiny.com

Quote from: ?? on ??

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"?

giszmo

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1105

WalletScrutiny.com

Quote from: ?? on ??

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.

Quote from: PsychoticBoy on September 29, 2012, 06:12:23 PM

nraz, is the sock puppet of nckrazze.
Greetz

Post history:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nraz-66746

His lending thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nckrazzes-deposits-low-risk-deposits-with-guaranteed-payback-weekly-25-w-81927
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

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?

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.

Topic: Bets of Bitcoin - Bitcoin betting on real world events - page 11. (Read 62124 times)