Pages:
Author

Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 4. (Read 11554 times)

full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Oh the FAQ with the rules?!

Quote
What bets are BadBets?

First and foremost, statements that can not univocally be established as either true or false at a certain point in the future are BadBets and as such unacceptable on BitBet. For instance, "God Exists" is unacceptable, because it can never be established as either true or false. "God will change Coke to Pepsi on August 19th, 2013" is also unacceptable, also because it can never be established as true or false (even if the change of Coke to Pepsi could allegedly be established).

The "advertised performance" can't be univocally established to true or false. The rest of the bet can be. That should yield two possible outcomes: a) The bet is cancelled because it's against your policy OR b) the bet is resolved on the non-ambiguous parts of it to "Yes".

My old "Yes" payout address is still valid.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

Yeah i saw that on reddit.  As a side note, i shared an email exchange with them that implied to me that they had decided a resolution before the bet had ended.  I'm not saying i believe that, i just expected a more responsive reply and it seemed dismissive to me.  I'll share it, despite the embarrassing instawallet mistake lol:




>>that implied to me that they had decided a resolution before the bet had ended.

How? Your payout could be anything from 0 or whatever it would be if you would/will/had won.

Also to be fair, you got my reply on email in less than 5 min (3 to be exact and 2 minutes now on the forum). I'd say its a great customer service. And btw, if you read the faq, you will find the explanation there on how to calc your payout for youself, so we don't have to that for each and everyone that wishes to know.

newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
Depending on how much you should have won, you could consider taking action against these foul mouthed scammers. I placed the early 2 BTC Yes bet and am still considering legal action, but giving it some time as this thing could unravel on its own. Feel free to PM me about it.

While I would jump at the chance under different circumstances, i don't want to take place in any legal action that could result in negative press for BTC in general.  I waited over 20 years for this currency and i'm willing to take a few hits in its infancy.

Also, please be aware that if you send them an email requesting a refund etc, you might get publicly defaced like this http://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg (posted on the shitty pay per view blog by the douchebag running these unlicensed, illegal services).

Yeah i saw that on reddit.  As a side note, i shared an email exchange with them that implied to me that they had decided a resolution before the bet had resolved.  I'm not saying i believe that, i just expected a more responsive reply and it seemed dismissive to me.  I'll share it, despite the embarrassing instawallet mistake lol:

http://s14.postimg.org/desh99u41/iwalemail.png

edit used the wrong word
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
I was one of the Yes betters (0.6 btc).  I'd like to explain what led me to bet yes After the first units started shipping.

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.  What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different.  It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance.  Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.

I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".

There seems to be a lot of negativity in this thread, so i would appreciate calm responses Smiley

You're completely correct about that, however the resolution was based on a forum post from 2012, ignoring everything that was updated since then.

Depending on how much you should have won, you could consider taking action against these foul mouthed scammers. I placed the early 2 BTC Yes bet and am still considering legal action, but giving it some time as this thing could unravel on its own. Feel free to PM me about it.

Also, please be aware that if you send them an email requesting a refund etc, you might get publicly defaced like this http://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg (posted on the shitty pay per view blog by the douchebag running these unlicensed, illegal services).

full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Just as there is no point in you saying the same thing that's already been said, there is equally no point in restating why it doesn't matter what you think.

Thread's dead baby.


I'm just waiting for the rest of the ripped off people to show up from the July 1st bet. That is of course if the feds don't shut down polimedia / BitBet / MPEx before that.. maybe even SatoshiDice gets shut down thanks to the irresponsibility of the MPOE guys.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
Just as there is no point in you saying the same thing that's already been said, there is equally no point in restating why it doesn't matter what you think.

Thread's dead baby.
newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
I was one of the Yes betters (0.6 btc).  I'd like to explain what led me to bet yes After the first units started shipping.

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.  What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different.  It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance.  Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.

I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".

There seems to be a lot of negativity in this thread, so i would appreciate calm responses Smiley
mem
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 501
Herp Derp PTY LTD
Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

Hello Josh, thank you for weighing in here.

So they rejected a bet where the power was specified as part of (or not part of) the performance in favour of a misleading bet that would potentially confuse users. Sounds like a scam to me.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh.  

Not surprising in the least, when arrogant racism is one of your core defining traits like MPEx then you cant expect many good (if any) personal traits.

bitbet.us should have followed betsofbitco.in's example and rulled the bet invalid.
Its my firm opinion if the result is open to interpretation then it should automatically be ruled a draw.
Site operators like MPEx should spend less time typing up their racist rants and more time ensuring the quality of their sites bets.

Please PM me with any further details, I shall also be monitoring this  thread periodically.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
Another awesome set of lies by MOPE.. I mean MPOE.

My uncle I say, that seriously burned. Please no more of this clever use of letter-changing-around and blinkenlichten, I give.

http://www.rolegal.com/romania-gambling-license.html

But then again it was only the first google hit, didn't look much further so not 100% sure. I would definitely look into this if I was running BitBet.

You should move on to a better internet community college if all they teach you is googlelaw. The better programs go deep into wikipedialaw from what I hear.
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Don't stop with the cocky remarks now.. You were having such a good run, all the way to being the best customer rep in the world.
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Quote
Restrictions on Trading

Limited Liability Companies are not permitted to:
- Undertake banking or insurance activities or any other activity that might suggest an association with same, without a licence.
- Undertake investment business other than the investment of the company's own assets without a licence.
- Neither solicits funds from the public nor offer their shares or membership to the public without a licence.

http://www.ocra.com/jurisdictions/romanian-limited-liability.asp

I was wrong about issuing shares though (max 50 shareholders).
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
Quote
The authorization/organization of the activity of gambling in Romania is governed by State monopoly.

The State can grant the right of setting up the activity of games of chance according to the law, on the basis of a license, for the organization of each type of games of chance. The games of chance are classified as follows:

• Games of chance whose winning conditions are dependent upon random elements, with the use of gambling machines which are operated manually, mechanically, electrically, electronically, video automatically or in other similar ways. In order to play and win these games, they require the player’s ability or dexterity, light hand and also the chance, the hazard (the type of Atlantic pusher, Niagara);
• Casino games of chance
• Bingo, Keno type of games of chance, which take place in special game rooms;
• Sports Bets, Lotteries and Raffles , along with television Bingo and Keno;
• Contest-Games, with any type of wins, organized through telephone lines or any other means of telecommunication.

An organizer of games of chance can be any company, legally registered in Romania and authorized to unfold the activity of games of chance in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution no.251/1999.

The competent authority to release the authorization so that a company can unfold the activity written in Cod CAEN as: 9271: games of chance, belongs to the Ministry of Economics and Finances, the Commission for the Authorization to Conduct Games of Chance.

http://www.rolegal.com/romania-gambling-license.html

But then again it was only the first google hit, didn't look much further so not 100% sure. I would definitely look into this if I was running BitBet.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

You guys do have an online gambling license, right? And you are aware that a limited liability company is not allowed to sell shares of their company, even less so the shares of other companies.

If I had shares held in MPEx, I'd consider cashing out.

You use the words gamble, and sell. To me that implies money being involved, are you saying that?. Are you sure bitcoin is legally money?
420
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
at the end of it all...Atlas just shrugged
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

You guys do have an online gambling license, right? And you are aware that a limited liability company is not allowed to sell shares of their company, even less so the shares of other companies.

If I had shares held in MPEx, I'd consider cashing out.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
To be even fairer they also said 1 W = 1 Gh/s, and that they'll be honoring that too.

As far as I recall it was never a matter of BFL deciding which Vleisides-run scamrity they're giving 1000 imaginary BTC to.

For that matter it's probably worth pointing out that BFL has a grandiose history of using shells and shills. Consider the case of the non-interview promoted by that Perry fellow, consider the simple case of Betsofbitco.in, where they made bets about how they were going to deliver in full knowledge that if they don't they'll have the bet pushed and their BTC refunded. False sense of security induced in the sort of muppets who actually buy Mem's, Perry's & Coinjedi's lies? Ka-ching. Costs? Whatever scraps this sort of people take, half a bitcoin split in three.

Another awesome set of lies by MOPE.. I mean MPOE.

We will be donating 1000 BTC to charity, sorry it's not on the high priority list, you know, above getting product out.  If you think it's easy to choose who to give $100,000+ to, you'd be wrong.

BFL has zero history of shells and shills.  I don't even know what the hell you mean by that.  BFL has nothing to do with Betsofbitco.in, that is utterly ludicrous.  BFL made no bets for or against anything.  Just another of the long list of fails in your book.  How's that "net worth" of your little company working out?  Still worth more than the entire bitcoin network, even though it loses money each month? heh
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.
full member
Activity: 216
Merit: 100
I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 522
Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

https://twitter.com/BFL_News/status/318601948678983681

To be fair they said they were honouring it.

To be even fairer they also said 1 W = 1 Gh/s, and that they'll be honoring that too.

As far as I recall it was never a matter of BFL deciding which Vleisides-run scamrity they're giving 1000 imaginary BTC to.

For that matter it's probably worth pointing out that BFL has a grandiose history of using shells and shills. Consider the case of the non-interview promoted by that Perry fellow, consider the simple case of Betsofbitco.in, where they made bets about how they were going to deliver in full knowledge that if they don't they'll have the bet pushed and their BTC refunded. False sense of security induced in the sort of muppets who actually buy Mem's, Perry's & Coinjedi's lies? Ka-ching. Costs? Whatever scraps this sort of people take, half a bitcoin split in three.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

https://twitter.com/BFL_News/status/318601948678983681

To be fair they said they were honouring it.
Pages:
Jump to: