Pages:
Author

Topic: BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC) - page 11. (Read 58195 times)

sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 22, 2013, 12:50:38 PM
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.

They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").

Nobody forces you to bet on events that have just closed you know. That's the gist of this debate: somebody decided they have the god given right to bet on a proposition once it was clear which way it'd resolve, and then sucked at even trying to implement this in practice.
It's not a "god given right". It's a "right" given by your website allowing my bet to be placed. As you said, "with control comes responsibility".
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 22, 2013, 12:23:46 PM
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.

Your conduct could be deliberate malfeasance quite simply: anyone at any time for any reason can introduce a transaction with no fees that will take forever to confirm. BitBet can in no way influence this, it's fully in the control of the transaction author.
However, BitBet is fully in control of whether it chooses to steal or return late bets.

With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility the presumption of willfulness. So, if your transaction doesn't behave as it should, you're prima facie trying to steal something.
Testimonium nihil ad rem et ad absurdum est. BitBet delenda est.
member
Activity: 100
Merit: 10
Vires in numeris.
November 22, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
As far as I can tell, the dissenters in this thread are either confused, exposed (i.e. shareholders), or bribed. There has been a lot of name calling, but there has not been one coherent argument as to why my bet should not be refunded.

Judging by the previous posts you also have regular BitBet users against you. Makes sense because people that bet later take less risk and dilute their winnings. The weighting of bets should kick in here, but it seems that's not enough so those users are fine with the policy as they regard late bettors as .

In my opinion it would be far better to have different closing criteria for bets. In this specific instance the bet could've been closed when the price crossed $7XX dollars at the reference exchange. By using TX confirmation times and trade data you can verify which bets were placed before closing. Of course that would be some more work, but it can be automatised. If the owner's really want to protect early bets from late bets, than something like this should be the way to go. But clearly, the current practise / policy is devious self-righteousness, to say the least.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 22, 2013, 12:17:14 PM
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.

They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").

Nobody forces you to bet on events that have just closed you know. That's the gist of this debate: somebody decided they have the god given right to bet on a proposition once it was clear which way it'd resolve, and then sucked at even trying to implement this in practice.

The part where they sucked at the implementation is given undue weight, what's important is really the other half: don't be that asshole that looks at a bet for six months and sends a no fee tx once the resolution is imminent.

Take a risk, that's what betting exists to reward.
jr. member
Activity: 47
Merit: 1
November 22, 2013, 12:08:56 PM
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.

They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 22, 2013, 11:58:51 AM
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.

Your conduct could be deliberate malfeasance quite simply: anyone at any time for any reason can introduce a transaction with no fees that will take forever to confirm. BitBet can in no way influence this, it's fully in the control of the transaction author.

With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility the presumption of willfulness. So, if your transaction doesn't behave as it should, you're prima facie trying to steal something.
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 22, 2013, 11:49:55 AM
Because fuck you, that's why. What more do you need?

You're the dissenter. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of authority. BitBet is the authority on this matter.
I think this thread's poll and its posts' general sentiment establish who is and is not a dissenter beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're the scumbag. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of victim. BitBet is the victim, and the fact that it's the victim of your idiocy rather than deliberate malfeasance (you claim) makes no difference.
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 22, 2013, 11:37:06 AM
As far as I can tell, the dissenters in this thread are either confused, exposed (i.e. shareholders), or bribed. There has been a lot of name calling, but there has not been one coherent argument as to why my bet should not be refunded.

Because fuck you, that's why. What more do you need?

You're the dissenter. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of authority. BitBet is the authority on this matter.

You're the scumbag. Stop trying to misrepresent yourself as some sort of victim. BitBet is the victim, and the fact that it's the victim of your idiocy rather than deliberate malfeasance (you claim) makes no difference.

Having a policy also does not give bitbet the right to steal funds, the same as it wouldn't give bitbet the right to murder people.  Wrong and unlawful is still wrong and unlawful regardless of what policy you have in place.

Except murdering people falls under the jurisdiction of fiat courts, whereas BitBet is its own jurisdiction, stemming from the complete immunity of all things Bitcoin to all things fiat.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
November 22, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
Having a policy you do not agree with does not make something "stealing", and screaming "gimme my money or I'll say bad things on the reddits" make you a scammer. I'm not saying anything more.
Having a policy also does not give bitbet the right to steal funds, the same as it wouldn't give bitbet the right to murder people.  Wrong and unlawful is still wrong and unlawful regardless of what policy you have in place.
newbie
Activity: 20
Merit: 0
November 22, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Now Bitbet have a good opportunity to use the common sense , refund the money, and change his betting rules to avoid this issue to happen again in the future.
legendary
Activity: 879
Merit: 1001
November 22, 2013, 10:58:48 AM
I run www.bitcoinpunter.com
My traffic is pleasing...I come out on the first page when people google all of the most common phrases regarding where they can bet with bitcoin.
What I don't have as yet, is a section telling people the outfits I think they should avoid.
I think I'll be doing one now though. and I certainly know who is going to be the first one mentioned after reading this thread.
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 22, 2013, 10:46:49 AM
This is apparently not the first, or even the second time, that BitBet has scammed its users.

Hopefully it's the last.
Apparently it won't be, since some people here seem to think stealing from its users is a commendable practice.

You see what I mean? If you give arguments and reason people will respect you. Given that you actually are a representative of bitbet.us, right? If your only answer are insults when people question a policy hidden under FAQs, the whole community will consider you as a scammer (no user has the obligation to read faqs to use a service btw...)

As far as I can tell, the dissenters in this thread are either confused, exposed (i.e. shareholders), or bribed. There has been a lot of name calling, but there has not been one coherent argument as to why my bet should not be refunded.
sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 22, 2013, 10:40:46 AM
Hopefully, they will spread the word that BitBet is a scam site run by thieves.
Which is false, but I understand guess blackmail is OK with you.
What you should know is that you're far from the first wanting to do that. What do you think would happen if any company catered towards any of those requests?

You do realize no one was able to provide a valid argument which makes bitbet's policy a legit reason for keeping those btc, right? So far in the whole post every time it was questioned all the answers where insults. I hope you can clarify from a technical point of view why this is valid.

The BitBet policy needs no "legit reason". It IS the policy. That's it, what BitBet says is what is. No "legit"-ing around by unrelated parties on forums can change what the policy is.

Re-read my posts in this thread and copy them by hand on your notebook. They're not optional for you, they're mandatory.

You do realize that not agreeing with someone's policy is not enough to build a court case?
The policy is there, if you don't agree don't use the site. But if you call it "theft", you're a scammer.
I don't think you understand how policies work in court.  A court would never uphold a policy that states "I have the right to steal your money," which is effectivly what bitbet's policy says.


The only court which might have had any authority here would have been the Rota. Unfortunately, that died. So whatever, GLWT.

Quote
5.1. This contract is the sole and complete agreement between the parties. It may not be modified by third parties, irrespective if said parties should style themselves "court of law", "judge" or otherwise.

From, you know, the contract.

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.



The only court which might have had any authority here would have been the Rota. Unfortunately, that died.
Wut? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rota?

http://trilema.com/category/rota/

But good call, I hear that was the reference.


You see what I mean? If you give arguments and reason people will respect you. Given that you actually are a representative of bitbet.us, right? If your only answer are insults when people question a policy hidden under FAQs, the whole community will consider you as a scammer (no user has the obligation to read faqs to use a service btw...)
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 11:42:28 PM
If you don't want people to bet right before the bet ends, then simply reduce the potential winnings gradually right near the end.
This is already the case, which shows you still haven't read the FAQ.  Shocked
Then why is there any worry about last-minute bidders "scamming" other people at all?
It's about betting after the result is known.
You really read nothing, did you? Perhaps do that before taking a side.
Bets that arrive after the result is known should be refunded. If the bet placed was actually:
Quote
The price of bitcoin in USD as per MtGox or Bitstamp via bitcoincharts will be over 750 USD before April 17th, 2014 AND this bet will arrive to BitBet before the price crosses 750.
It should have said as much on the front page of the wager.

Your site also allows users to lose bitcoin wagering on the winning bet. To whom is that bitcoin distributed?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 253
November 21, 2013, 09:45:21 PM
Oh sorry, I thought I read that the OP sent the coins while the bet was still active, but the coins were confirmed and arrived after the bet had closed,
That's right.
Pankakke must either be confused regarding the original issue or he`s intentionally being dishonest. Given his record so far, I`d suppose it`s the latter.

For the record, I agree that a chargeback feature would be difficult or perhaps impossible to implement to the Bitcoin protocol. As George W Bush said, `Freedom isn`t free.` The freedom that comes with Bitcoin is paid by the means of proliferation of scam sites such as BitBet who operate under impunity from the law. Bitcoin is able to operate with low/no transaction fees because there are no services tacked on to protect consumers, which should be a reminder that users should take maximum precautions when dealing with any merchant or service provider with the Bitcoin protocol, as they can essentially confiscate your coins for any arbitrary reason.
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 09:33:20 PM
Oh sorry, I thought I read that the OP sent the coins while the bet was still active, but the coins were confirmed and arrived after the bet had closed,
That's right.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 253
November 21, 2013, 09:20:01 PM
So, charge back every time you lose a bet? That is so going to work!

Oh sorry, I thought I read that the OP sent the coins while the bet was still active, but the coins were confirmed and arrived after the bet had closed, in which case you certainly agree that his money should be refunded.

But what you`re saying is, his coins arrived to BitBet`s wallet while the bet was still active, and the bet was then lost. Right?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 253
November 21, 2013, 08:58:09 PM
This is why Bitcoin`s lack of a chargeback medium and lack of consumer protections in general is so dangerous; it allows criminal enterprises such as this which are located offshore and away from US jurisdiction to take advantage of consumer trust with very little in the way of counter measures. It`s a major issue that Bitcoin will need to address to remain relevant, IMO.

As for anyone in this thread that actually defends BitBet`s decision to confiscate the OP`s money... if you`re not one of the company `shareholders`  Roll Eyes then you really need to get your head checked. I readily admit that I don`t read all 46 pages of Apple`s user consent when I use iTunes, but I would certainly be protected by my bank`s consumer protections if iTunes decided to confiscate my money for some asinine reason. `Oh, that song was only available for a limited time, and we received your payment from your bank after that limit was met. However, we`ll still gladly accept your payment and provide you nothing in return. Sorry, but you`re screwed` Haha, I don`t think so.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 21, 2013, 07:13:01 PM
If you don't want people to bet right before the bet ends, then simply reduce the potential winnings gradually right near the end.
This is already the case, which shows you still haven't read the FAQ.  Shocked

I am reading the FAQ and if the website is coded this poorly I am amazed anyone in their right mind would use it.

"What if I created a bet address but can't bet right now?

Once you enter a receiving address and are given a send-to address, you have 3 days (72 hours) to send your bet. If your bet does not make it within 72 hours then that address will be reclaimed. BitBet will be unable to send you your BTC back, as they will have probably been allocated to someone else's bet! Always make sure that you send your first bet on a created address within 3 days of its creation. "


You happen to be wrong, on both scores. Your wrongness has been happily entered into the record, we can lol at it in a few years, np.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
November 21, 2013, 07:07:29 PM
Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.



The only court which might have had any authority here would have been the Rota. Unfortunately, that died.
Wut? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rota?

http://trilema.com/category/rota/

But good call, I hear that was the reference.
Pages:
Jump to: