Topic: BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC) - page 5. (Read 58202 times)
Is this still dragging on ? I cannot see how this benefits BitBet in anyway, even if for some reason Bitbet thinks the guy does not deserve to be refunded, surely you must have some business sense, reach a compromise with the guy and move on.
Just doing my duty to keep this thread in the public eye... carry on!
Bitbet has been downgraded to D for theft
Wow... this made a most entertaining read after a long Friday !
It also inspired me to do some digging and for anyone interested from the current FAQ :
http://bitbet.us/faq/
According to their November statement those 10 BTC are here and they aren't alone :
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-november-2013-statement/
So "gracious donations to shareholders" amounts to 71.3% of total revenue.
The expenditures show as follows :
The profit without those "gracious donations" would be 1.07725342 BTC so there is no surprise there has been no refund or change of policy.
Checking back through history was straight forward though I lacked the credits so I had to rely on the comments where the results are handily re-posted. Well, for the most part anyway !
January 2013 : ?
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-january-2013-statement/
PGP Encrypted comment so shame there ! None of the rest were though.
February : "Profit : 5.44167918 BTC to be distributed as dividend."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-February-2013-statement/
Not bad though back a year ago not much in USD.
March : "Profit : 50.1472201 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-march-2013-statement/
This is the first month our friend "gracious donations to shareholders" turns up and it nets 23.23986348 BTC of the total Profit.
April : "Profit : 41.44359701 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-april-2013-statement/
This month the "donations" amount to 25.80892161 BTC of the total profit.
June : "Profit : 8.80204166 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-june-2013-statement/
A bit of a low result for June but then the "donatations" box held just 0.000009 BTC
July : "Profit : 5.75330454 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-july-2013-statement/
Another low month with "donations" down to 0.07799481 BTC
August : "Profit : 2.69851570 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-august-2013-statement/
Again, hardly any profit with the "donations" box down to 0.002 BTC
September : "Profit : 3.85465257 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-september-2013-statement/
Similar to the last few months here with "donations" down to 0.061 BTC
October : "Profit : −2.4836974 BTC which will be carried over as a charge on the next month’s statement."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-october-2013-statement/
Ok so no profit at all in October and in fact it's a loss so I'm guessing things would be looking a bit bleak.
November : "Profit : 23.1363282 BTC, to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-november-2013-statement/
However November worked out but only really due to those "donations" which amounted to 22.05907478 BTC
December : ?
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-december-2013-statement/
Nothing yet but the above link in a few days.
Just to close this I'd like to add that I really don't care what anyone says about me.
I'm clearly new here as you can see from my profile so I have no reputation to gain or loose from this.
Edit :
Spelling or grammar corrections are of course appreciated.
I can already see (and have corrected) where I used "Check" where I should have used "Checking".
It also inspired me to do some digging and for anyone interested from the current FAQ :
http://bitbet.us/faq/
Quote
What if I bet after a bet is closed?
You're screwed. BitBet will keep your bet, report it as revenue (under the gracious donations to shareholders heading in the monthly reports) and distribute it to shareholders.
Do not bet after a bet is closed, and just to be on the safe side don't bet on a proposition that's imminently going to close (such as don't bet after the condition of the bet has been satisfied in the hopes of peeling some BTC off the suckers that took the risk). Also, it's always a good idea to include a fee in your transaction: they aren't really that much and the network depends on them by design.
You're screwed. BitBet will keep your bet, report it as revenue (under the gracious donations to shareholders heading in the monthly reports) and distribute it to shareholders.
Do not bet after a bet is closed, and just to be on the safe side don't bet on a proposition that's imminently going to close (such as don't bet after the condition of the bet has been satisfied in the hopes of peeling some BTC off the suckers that took the risk). Also, it's always a good idea to include a fee in your transaction: they aren't really that much and the network depends on them by design.
According to their November statement those 10 BTC are here and they aren't alone :
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-november-2013-statement/
Quote
Revenue : 30.93604266 BTC, of which :
bets resolved : 5.49217751 BTC
fees from refunds: 0.38720710 BTC
advertising : 0 BTC
house bets won : 2.99758327
gracious donations to shareholders : 22.05907478 BTC
bets resolved : 5.49217751 BTC
fees from refunds: 0.38720710 BTC
advertising : 0 BTC
house bets won : 2.99758327
gracious donations to shareholders : 22.05907478 BTC
So "gracious donations to shareholders" amounts to 71.3% of total revenue.
The expenditures show as follows :
Quote
Expenditure : 7.79971446 BTC, of which :
referrals paid : 0.10601706 BTC
house bets made : 5.21000000 BTC
carried charge : 2.4836974 BTC
Profit : 23.1363282 BTC, to be distributed as dividends.
referrals paid : 0.10601706 BTC
house bets made : 5.21000000 BTC
carried charge : 2.4836974 BTC
Profit : 23.1363282 BTC, to be distributed as dividends.
The profit without those "gracious donations" would be 1.07725342 BTC so there is no surprise there has been no refund or change of policy.
Checking back through history was straight forward though I lacked the credits so I had to rely on the comments where the results are handily re-posted. Well, for the most part anyway !
January 2013 : ?
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-january-2013-statement/
PGP Encrypted comment so shame there ! None of the rest were though.
February : "Profit : 5.44167918 BTC to be distributed as dividend."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-February-2013-statement/
Not bad though back a year ago not much in USD.
March : "Profit : 50.1472201 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-march-2013-statement/
This is the first month our friend "gracious donations to shareholders" turns up and it nets 23.23986348 BTC of the total Profit.
April : "Profit : 41.44359701 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-april-2013-statement/
This month the "donations" amount to 25.80892161 BTC of the total profit.
June : "Profit : 8.80204166 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-june-2013-statement/
A bit of a low result for June but then the "donatations" box held just 0.000009 BTC
July : "Profit : 5.75330454 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-july-2013-statement/
Another low month with "donations" down to 0.07799481 BTC
August : "Profit : 2.69851570 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-august-2013-statement/
Again, hardly any profit with the "donations" box down to 0.002 BTC
September : "Profit : 3.85465257 BTC to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-september-2013-statement/
Similar to the last few months here with "donations" down to 0.061 BTC
October : "Profit : −2.4836974 BTC which will be carried over as a charge on the next month’s statement."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-october-2013-statement/
Ok so no profit at all in October and in fact it's a loss so I'm guessing things would be looking a bit bleak.
November : "Profit : 23.1363282 BTC, to be distributed as dividends."
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-november-2013-statement/
However November worked out but only really due to those "donations" which amounted to 22.05907478 BTC
December : ?
http://trilema.com/2013/bitbet-december-2013-statement/
Nothing yet but the above link in a few days.
Just to close this I'd like to add that I really don't care what anyone says about me.
I'm clearly new here as you can see from my profile so I have no reputation to gain or loose from this.
Edit :
Spelling or grammar corrections are of course appreciated.
I can already see (and have corrected) where I used "Check" where I should have used "Checking".
I don't even care if they change, you get one shot in my opinion as far as btc goes. Sellers get the same shot buyers do.
This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.
Good point, I wrote that a while ago and since then I've seen that the site operators are just downright unscrupulous and I wouldn't give them my business on this or any other site they may own. The way this has been handled is an embarrassment, and of course they still haven't returned the coins. However, if this were handled in a much different way and the policy were changed then I wouldn't mind using this site, but it's too late for that now in my opinion.
I don't even care if they change, you get one shot in my opinion as far as btc goes. Sellers get the same shot buyers do.
This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.
I certainly trust BitBet to resolve bets correctly.
Look at the history of the BFL and BitFury bets. Plenty of noise from users that were clearly wrong (and on the BitFury bet, it made me lose, so…).
Look at the history of the BFL and BitFury bets. Plenty of noise from users that were clearly wrong (and on the BitFury bet, it made me lose, so…).
Bitbet pay you to defend them: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hire-a-troll-quality-copywriter-240677 , so your arguments are not impartial.
I certainly trust BitBet to resolve bets correctly.
Look at the history of the BFL and BitFury bets. Plenty of noise from users that were clearly wrong (and on the BitFury bet, it made me lose, so…).
Look at the history of the BFL and BitFury bets. Plenty of noise from users that were clearly wrong (and on the BitFury bet, it made me lose, so…).
give it a rest. no-one takes you seriously. you're just a running dog yapping around your big hero. we can read the blogs where you fawn over your hero.
you're pathetic tbh. keep sucking your master's cock, bitchboy
http://trilema.com/2013/the-wonderful-powers-of-make-believe/
The above two posters are right, of course. It's about whether you can trust a particular vendor or service.
And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
And honestly, we should keep bumping this thread until BitBet is gone. Make sure as many people hear about these scammers as possible.And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
Spot on my friend.
Webster's definition of trust. -belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.
We can leave the good vs evil debate in Gods hands but the rest fits - bitbet is reliable, effective, and honest. Every time I see this thread it makes want to go bet there. Thanks for bumping it.
You are one of a few who feels this way. I guarantee that this thread is preventing more people from visiting BitBet than it is bringing in. Please, continue to gamble away your BTC. We can leave the good vs evil debate in Gods hands but the rest fits - bitbet is reliable, effective, and honest. Every time I see this thread it makes want to go bet there. Thanks for bumping it.
Webster's definition of trust. -belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.
We can leave the good vs evil debate in Gods hands but the rest fits - bitbet is reliable, effective, and honest. Every time I see this thread it makes want to go bet there. Thanks for bumping it.
We can leave the good vs evil debate in Gods hands but the rest fits - bitbet is reliable, effective, and honest. Every time I see this thread it makes want to go bet there. Thanks for bumping it.
The above two posters are right, of course. It's about whether you can trust a particular vendor or service.
And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
And honestly, we should keep bumping this thread until BitBet is gone. Make sure as many people hear about these scammers as possible. And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
The above two posters are right, of course. It's about whether you can trust a particular vendor or service.
And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
And this is exactly what this thread is about: Establishing (again, I suppose) that there is a noticeable lack of trust in BitBet and MP.
Also: Merry Christmas to you all
And ignorance is not an excuse in my book, one should investigate who is behind a certain service before trusting their hard earned money to a third party.
Back before the time when people bought a cup of coffee with a credit card, a time when credit cards were not in general use, people asked their neighbors for advice on where to spend their hard earned money.
Is the lumber at the hardware store good? Are the butcher's scales accurate?
When credit cards came into general use, it became less important to assess the trustworthiness of the individual you were doing business with. Have you ever purchased something on the internet from a company you knew nothing about? I have. And I know, because I'm using a credit card, that if the company fails to deliver I'll get my money back. Because I can use the chargeback.
Bitcoin doesn't work that way, or at least not without escrow transactions. Bitcoin requires a higher level of forethought. Thought for security and thought for trust.
Well hell... I thought I could just keep watching this thread without comment, but it grows more painful.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
Boys, we struck gold! ... Comedy gold.
Let me see if I get this right: in order to fairly judge the actions of the website owner, I first need to read his personal
Sure. Makes perfect sense to me.
"Dear society! You might think I'm guilty of theft, but in reality I'm just following my own rigorously laid out moral framework. Don't you judge me according to your boring old conventional ideas of what is right and wrong... that shit simply doesn't apply here."
Mircea popescu is very well known for this kind of attitude, someone willingly trusting his money to a service operated by Mircea (such as BitBet) should be ready to face the consequences.
And ignorance is not an excuse in my book, one should investigate who is behind a certain service before trusting their hard earned money to a third party.
Plus, most of services Mircea operates are illegal in Romania. His public identity is very well known. If somebody feels he has been scammed just report him.
THey are plastered all over the net as a scam. I'm sure they have taken a bad hit already
What's the best way to organize a boycott / raise awareness?
have the victim file a complaint
Where?
http://www.bitcoincasinopro.com/file-a-complaint/
This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.
What's the best way to organize a boycott / raise awareness?
have the victim file a complaint
http://www.bitcoincasinopro.com/file-a-complaint/
This is stealing and the behavior of the owners/operators is outrageous, in my opinion. That policy is completely unjustifiable and I hope nobody uses this site until it's changed.
What's the best way to organize a boycott / raise awareness?
have the victim file a complaint
http://www.bitcoincasinopro.com/file-a-complaint/
Well hell... I thought I could just keep watching this thread without comment, but it grows more painful.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
Boys, we struck gold! ... Comedy gold.
Let me see if I get this right: in order to fairly judge the actions of the website owner, I first need to read his personal
Sure. Makes perfect sense to me.
"Dear society! You might think I'm guilty of theft, but in reality I'm just following my own rigorously laid out moral framework. Don't you judge me according to your boring old conventional ideas of what is right and wrong... that shit simply doesn't apply here."
It's funny but that's how they are making their money. You pay 20 btc to join the cult and then the only profits you make are from things like this.
Pancake or whatever his name is has tried prostitute himself on this forum multiple times. He get's paid dust and he's getting ripped off too but he's a moron.
The business model is there's no shortage of morons. I can't disagree but I feel they could make more more in other ways. But fuck it i suppose, why bother playing fair when there's an endless amount of people to rip off.
For me it's about human morals
Well hell... I thought I could just keep watching this thread without comment, but it grows more painful.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
The problem is you are trying to put MP into your world, and MP and his creations exist in his world. In other words, you lack the MP-ethos to assess the criteria for judgement.
MP-ethos? Give this a read for starters - http://trilema.com/2012/gpg-contracts/
Whether you agree or disagree is moot. As stated in the link, "and so rationally my best choice is to actually live up to the deal, whatever it may be." - However, the deal has already been defined and MP is simple living "up to the deal".
If you don't agree? That's fine, that simple means, in the MP-ethos, that you give MP negative trust. End of story.
Boys, we struck gold! ... Comedy gold.
Let me see if I get this right: in order to fairly judge the actions of the website owner, I first need to read his personal
Sure. Makes perfect sense to me.
"Dear society! You might think I'm guilty of theft, but in reality I'm just following my own rigorously laid out moral framework. Don't you judge me according to your boring old conventional ideas of what is right and wrong... that shit simply doesn't apply here."
Jump to: