Pages:
Author

Topic: BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC) - page 13. (Read 58195 times)

sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 03:47:54 PM
This is apparently not the first, or even the second time, that BitBet has scammed its users.

Hopefully it's the last.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 02:26:22 PM

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!




I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?



Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?



Thats the thing, some people take precautions, some not; some use protection, some end up with unexpected kids Tongue

Or more seriously, some people are adverse to risks, some love them...

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.
My guess because bets are anonymous.  I haven't checked in a year or so but last time I was there you send to a BTC address and if you won, it was sent back.  Never did I need to put in a piece of identifiable information.

I just checked, now you need a login.  They could *probably* do this if they were so inclined.  I'm just trying to figure out why they should when snackman was trying to scam all the legit bettors out of their winnings?
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 02:20:10 PM
5. Not reading or not caring about BitBet's FAQ and the open, fully explained, warnings about the rare potential for this very situation on this very forum;
According to reddit, this situation is not rare at all:
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.
Alternatively, BitBet could simply refund the money to the withdrawal address that I submitted at time of bet.
sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 02:02:44 PM

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!




I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?



Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?



Thats the thing, some people take precautions, some not; some use protection, some end up with unexpected kids Tongue

Or more seriously, some people are adverse to risks, some love them...

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.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 01:47:17 PM

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!




I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?



Yes, I would be fine with either policy.   This is because I would never send anything to any site (much less $9,000) without reading the fine print.  I don't sweat policies because I read them.

If I find a bet interesting, being a reasonable person, I would send from my blockchain.info hot wallet which contains very little BTC.  Again, because I read the fine print and already know that shitty wallets can't get refunds -- because I ask questions when there is a gray area. 

I would also look at the closing date and make sure I'm in at least a few days securely before bet closing, or I would not bet.  So, no, I wouldn't assume anything, I have made such mistakes in the past and learned from them.

BetsOfBitcoin could not verify identity at all, afaik.  How could they?

sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 01:40:25 PM
Don't expect BitBet to change a policy that supplies a sizable proportion of the S.BBET dividends.

How many of the #bitcoin-assets chatters are here because they own shares in BitBet and my complaint threatens their dividends?

Bugpowder is yet another #bitcoin-assets guy.
----------------------------------------


I'm a bitcoin-assets guy, because that's where people that know what's going on in the bitcoin space hang out. That said, I don't currently own shares in any MPEX listed security, nor any other bitcoin denominated security. I don't like the counterparty risk associated with virtual shares in virtual companies in a virtual world now that bitcoins have tremendous fiat value. Everyone is a hustler in the bitcoin space (much like the general financial services space), and its hard to avoid getting burned at least once, particularly since getting legal relief is usually impossible.  10BTC is a small price to pay to learn this lesson, relative to what others have paid in the past (myself included).

Good luck collecting on your non-currency based gambling transaction with a virtual company run out of deep eastern Europe.

sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 01:38:36 PM

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!




I understand your point, but rejecting the bet because of being late protects the user in the same way than this policy, doesn't it?

Also, if you find a bet you find interesting, but you have your btc on a site, is it such a crime to try to get in if you think the bet is still valid? Wouldn't you assume if you are too late that it will be refunded to you if the place is legit? One can probably think that he will be really late if he transfers the btc to his wallet and then to the site.

And he has no way on proving that he owns such address, but the support from the other site could easily state that he actually owns or not said address, probably they will be more eager to help given that they are the ones that sent the transaction without fees. Wouldn't that be sufficient to entitle him for a refund?

sr. member
Activity: 342
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 01:34:50 PM
I contacted a lawyer that accepts bitcoin Smiley. I'll keep you updated.

Best of luck to you, getting a lawyer familiar with bitcoin is huge. Let me know if I can help. I don't know if this possibly violates any fraud/theft criminal statutes or if it would be at all practical to pursue them but I wouldn't mind seeing these thieves punished. Most important is that you (and others affected by the same policy) get their money back and that nobody uses this site anymore.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 01:19:45 PM

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?

Because betting late is scamming legit users.  When a user DECIDE to bet late they RISK their BTC by betting late and essentially scamming the system when a bet resolution is clear.  (screwing those who bet early with no knowledge of the bet outcome). 

This policy was instituted because legit users were getting squeezed out of their winnings because of people like snackman.  Bitbet.us took a hardline stance and publicly stated so.  Should they spam each bettor with the FAQ before placing a bet?  I dunno, I am not involved in any way (besides a user).

You can bet all day on bitbet.us safely.    If you bet close to the closing date then you are taking EXTRA risk which is an EXTRA service rendered in terms of gambling. 

Snackman's inability to:


1.  Use bitcoin-qt or legit web-wallet to even receive a refund, IF BITBET wanted to.   There is no way to refund as he did not do this.  FAIL 1.

2.  Read the FAQ    FAIL 2.

3.  Send a small amount first  FAIL 3.

4.  Admit his mistake of not reading the FAQ, accept his part in it, and request a refund based on his newbie dumb-ass status.  Would this have worked to get a refund?  We will never know now, will we?   FAIL 4.

Running around fucking up based on assumptions of how a gambling site should behave is no way to keep your BTC. 

It is, indeed, time to grow up.  Is it time for Bitbet.us to change that policy?  I don't know, but none of you have any fucking say in it.  Lots of big players use BitBet correctly and safely, and the loss of users like snackman is actually a boon to the business.  So, keep it up!

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
November 21, 2013, 12:39:45 PM
There are way to many companies like this in Bitcoin. We need to stop supporting these crooked business practices if we want bitcoin to succeed.

You are roughly in the position of a Colorado bug on a potato plant discussing what "we" should be doing if "we" wish agriculture to succeed.

Shut the fuck up and get lost. You're not even part of Bitcoin in the first place. And the reason Bitcoin doth succeed has a way lot more to do with MP than you can begin to comprehend.

So basically, you don't even have a point to your argument. Another comparison that makes zero sense. According to you comparison, customer support is irreverent to business success.

You don't even have a clue who I am. You just presume as usual that you know everything. There's always a few people like you on the forum, self entitled know it all but lacking common sense. You may think your something special but your not. Why don't you stick to posting when you have something that makes sense. Every time I've seen you post anything, it's always swearing and spreading your crack pot ideas. Grow up, get out of your parents house and get a life.
sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 12:39:18 PM
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.

So the correct course of action for you is :
 - Think,
 - Understand the why of the policy,
 - Get over it,
 - Pay more attention next time

Well, I USED to have respect for you, davout.  Are you involved in this site in any way?

Look, it's a hardline stance, but they can discourage late betting this way because it's clearly stated on the website and it's a private business that's not forcing you to use it.  You have the options to use it or not.  If you use it poorly, fuck you.

Snackman got his service provided, because he got the thrill of sending BTC in late, and lost.  Now he has the thrill of putting responsibility elsewhere.  Service fucking rendered.

Had he read the FAQ, which anyone with a brain in their head would do before sending $9.000, he would know that sending bets in late is still GAMBLING with your money.  So, the service was in fact rendered. 

Late betting scammers think you can scrape off the winnings of legit users?   Nope.

A bet can either be accepted or rejected, how is it a legit action to accept and reject it at the same time?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 12:32:31 PM
#99
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.

So the correct course of action for you is :
 - Think,
 - Understand the why of the policy,
 - Get over it,
 - Pay more attention next time

Well, I USED to have respect for you, davout.  Are you involved in this site in any way?

Look, it's a hardline stance, but they can discourage late betting this way because it's clearly stated on the website and it's a private business that's not forcing you to use it.  You have the options to use it or not.  If you use it poorly, fuck you.

Snackman got his service provided, because he got the thrill of sending BTC in late, and lost.  Now he has the thrill of putting responsibility elsewhere.  Service fucking rendered.

Had he read the FAQ, which anyone with a brain in their head would do before sending $9.000, he would know that sending bets in late is still GAMBLING with your money.  So, the service was in fact rendered. 

Late betting scammers think you can scrape off the winnings of legit users?   Nope.
sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 12:31:59 PM
#98
I don't think you understand how policies work in court.
And you do, I wager? You must have an Internet Lawyer Diploma! No shortage of them, unlike bitcoins.

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.
But it's not what it says. And given that you can perfectly not agree with it by not playing, you're simply not understanding the issue.

OP wanted to bet at the very last minute and steal from legitimate bettors.
OP did not understand how the bitcoin network worked and didn't even use a proper wallet.
He's the thief; he's just upset because he's a bad one, and is now moving into blackmail. Beware which side you take.

Can you explain how he is a thief? Most of us don't understand that part
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
November 21, 2013, 12:23:18 PM
#97
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.

So the correct course of action for you is :
 - Think,
 - Understand the why of the policy,
 - Get over it,
 - Pay more attention next time

Well, I USED to have respect for you, davout.  Are you involved in this site in any way?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 12:11:05 PM
#96


I'll take the case!


sr. member
Activity: 251
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 12:10:09 PM
#95
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.
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 12:09:19 PM
#94
did user as betsofbitco.in for help? they're the ones with the messed up transaction; is that their policy?

Yes, I've been emailing coinjedi and I'm currently waiting on his response to my latest:
sr. member
Activity: 260
Merit: 250
snack of all trades
November 21, 2013, 12:03:25 PM
#93
Don't expect BitBet to change a policy that supplies a sizable proportion of the S.BBET dividends.

How many of the #bitcoin-assets chatters are here because they own shares in BitBet and my complaint threatens their dividends?

Bugpowder is yet another #bitcoin-assets guy.
----------------------------------------

What are they going to do, launch a fedora attack?
Hopefully, they will spread the word that BitBet is a scam site run by thieves.
----------------------------------------

There are way to many companies like this in Bitcoin. We need to stop supporting these crooked business practices if we want bitcoin to succeed.

You are roughly in the position of a Colorado bug on a potato plant discussing what "we" should be doing if "we" wish agriculture to succeed.

Shut the fuck up and get lost. You're not even part of Bitcoin in the first place. And the reason Bitcoin doth succeed has a way lot more to do with MP than you can begin to comprehend.
Bitcoin is a distributed system - one which Beans is a part of simply by posting in this forum. Its success does not depend on any one person - that's the point!
----------------------------------------

Keeping my 10 BTC is STEALING. STEALING is wrong.

"Would you download a car?"
My opinions on intellectual property law are an unrelated issue, which I'd be happy to discuss in a different thread.
----------------------------------------

Gambling is risky but the risk is supposed to be in losing the bets and not getting screwed by the site operator. Having a rule that payments must be confirmed before a bet is resolved to count is perfectly reasonable. Having a rule that refunds of such payments are subject to a small convenience fee (since it may require manual intervention to refund) is also perfectly reasonable. Having a rule that says bets don't count up to X minutes before a bet is resolved is also reasonable.

A price of almost $750 is not $750 though, so unless the bet was placed after the price actually crossed $750 then I don't think it's an exploit - the outcome was still in doubt even if the doubt was very small. Regardless, keeping 100% of the money is stealing, and a wave of people from BitBet IRC chat saying otherwise doesn't change that.

A FAQ is for when people have questions, it's not a must-read for casual users who want to make sure they don't get screwed by awful policies. Even actual must-reads like terms and conditions you must agree to before using a service do not give you the right to steal.

OP, I hope you contact a lawyer if the site continues to refuse to refund you. I bet a judge would see this as stealing, but running this by a lawyer would be the best way to be sure. You're out a significant chunk of change so I believe it could easily be worth it, and you'd be doing the bitcoin community a service.


+1.

I encourage bitbet to resolve this issue. If not, maybe they will end paying x10 times what they have took.

I contacted a lawyer that accepts bitcoin Smiley. I'll keep you updated.
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
November 21, 2013, 11:48:19 AM
#92
did user as betsofbitco.in for help? they're the ones with the messed up transaction; is that their policy?
sr. member
Activity: 394
Merit: 250
November 21, 2013, 11:43:21 AM
#91
Don't expect BitBet to change a policy that supplies a sizable proportion of the S.BBET dividends.  Maybe you could purchase the rest of the S.BBET shares on the market in order to get a partial refund?
Pages:
Jump to: