Topic: BitBet Stole ~$7,000 from me (10 BTC) - page 6. (Read 58157 times)

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.

Quick recap: Those defending the decision to keep the coins are...


1) a user with a -11 trust rating

2) the owner of the site keeping the coins

3) someone claiming the bettor transferred the coins as part of a scam, but who is unwilling (or unable) to specify how that scam would have worked.


Bitcoin's finest! Absolutely.

Shilling on here softened the blow though, didn't it? You lost money because you are a shit gambler but were offered a way to lower your losses and here you are.

Fact is bitbet are criminals and justifying their criminality by saying "oh but it's bitcoin and a new paradigm - we get to steal now coz it's in our faq."

Stealing is stealing and that's all that matters. What'll be funny is when they fuck you over like they fuck everyone. How much in fiat did you get paid, $50? In terms of whore, you are in the gutter.

Shareholders...more like co-conspirators. What's the bitbet position on aml? Oh it doesn't have one! Take you money while you can it'll be laughing boy pankkake who will be left holding the bag and he'll be thrilled that he was given the responsibility.

It's not at worst a careless bettor but at best a careless bettor.  At worst a "scammer".  Actually more of a post bettor.  And bitbet just like a regular casino has every right to fight that.

Since you're so obviously much better informed than us ...

(heeey! that's sarcasm! did you notice? in fact I don't believe for one second you're better informed, but I'm pretending to believe that. cool, huh?)

... why don't you tell us how that "scam" would work, in practice.


All I can see so far is a website/service operator with a seriously fucked up TOS, and a (at worst) careless bettor. Wanna guess who I'll side with if that correctly describes the case?

So then the proper thing to do, since he obviously missed the bet deadline, is to refund the bet, NOT steal his money.

You don't need a contract to have obligations.

Example:  You hit a kid on a bike with your car while driving.  You are now obligated to pay for his medical bills.  No contract, but you have an obligation.

Example 2:  Someone leaves their purse under a park bench, which you find.  You are obligated to turn it in to the police or find the rightful owner.

Example 3:  Someone deposits $10,000 into your bank account instead of their own by mistake.  You are obligated to report the discrepancy to ensure the money gets back to the right person.

Everyone who supports this site is a scumbag in my book.

I had their banner on my website at www.bitcoinpunter.com but removed it as soon as I saw this thread.
To think I might have sent some poor innocent there.
 

+1. I'm glad this thread saved at least one potential victim from supporting this crooked business.

Hahaha, oh wow...

Sorry for your loss, OP, but thanks for opening this thread.

I considered placing a bet on BitBet, by pure coincidence found this thread, and guess what: no chance I'll put any amount into that shady business.

What an utterly retarded defence by mpoexyzwhatever... "we put that into the FAQ, so it's alright". If my local supermarket adds the line "We reserve the right to rape your ass at any moment convenient to us before, during or after your groceries shopping" to its TOS, I'd hardly go there again. Why should a Bitcoin based business be treated any different? Right, I know why: delusions of grandeur on the side of the owner might have something to do with it.

Where?

have the victim file a complaint

HE's Right you know

No contract = no obligations.  Be in this new world or the old one.  What's the point of irreversible transactions if you want to reverse them later?

A FAQ maybe?

If an FAQ isn't a contract then what is it when no contract is present?  And if no contract existed why would anyone be obligated to do anything?  Contracts in bitcoin are useless because there's no 3rd party authority that can ever enforce it.  Snackman basically called a bookie and said I want to bet.  Bookie said ok but make sure you get me the money BEFORE the game starts.  He said ok.  Nothing happened.  Sometime next day the money showed up.     Now he can ask for anything he wants but bitbet doesn't owe him anything.

A very valid point.

Far and away the best post in this whole thread.

As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.

I find it amazing that 28.6% of the 105 voters think Bitbet's behaviour is acceptable and that they shouldn't return snackman's bitcoin. They MUST have a vested interest surely.
Thank God 71.4% think otherwise.
For a while I thought the world was going mad.