coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet - page 10.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 06, 2013, 01:33:03 AM

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?
[/quote]

"Shipped" before a deadline, in past tense, would mean completely shipped.

I think that's clear enough, although you may need a lot of clarification when dealing with dishonourable people like BFL who would look for loopholes to avoid owning up to their responsibility.

I think you are big on the "social contract" idea, right? Well, these people you are working with... not so much. So careful there.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: theymos on April 03, 2013, 08:42:46 AM

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Theymos, I know both you and Luke are sound guys, but you are making a disservice to the site by not putting at least a warning tag on this guy. Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

On top of that, you have been advertising BFL products as final here for a while. Products that don't exist in any shape or form as advertised. You have a certain degree of responsibility now, I know people who have assumed BFL actually shipped these products because of ads in this site.

This is Wild West bitcoin world at its worst.

PS: guys, stop betting on BFL stuff as they will fail to reliably own up and the burden of proof will be on you. Bet only on events you can prove (and not in dubious sites like betsofbitco.in who have already proven themselves).

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on April 06, 2013, 01:08:08 AM

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

Quote

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.

Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

Quote

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

Quote

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.

Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

Quote

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

Quote

~~Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates.~~

You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.

The first line in the body is completely irrelevant, hence crossing it out. Now, what the fuck is a first batch BFL ASIC?

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: niner on April 05, 2013, 10:03:42 PM

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

It's not the same bet. One customer is not "customers" - and it wasn't within 10%.

Micon

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1014

FPV Drone Pilot

Quote from: BadBear on April 05, 2013, 05:04:58 AM

Quote from: Micon on April 05, 2013, 03:02:23 AM

There are a few hundred users that think it's an easy decision, some of which are betting against me in other BFL-facing wagers. You see 2 giant threads calling them scammers. Really think a few hundred of us are just irrational and angry at losing fair and square? This one is so lopsided what is right and what is wrong, and once again a situation proves Theymos is not impartial.

It has seemed to me, for a long time, for whatever reason, this community makes a lot of pro-BFL decisions. Theymos has made them in the past, as has gmaxwell, and now coinjedi makes a pro-BFL move that will destroy his site. This is not something that is shocking to me or should be to you guys.

It is plain and simply outright theft. There is unlikely to be any punishment except what will certainly be a very noticeable absence of action at BoB.

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

There were also lots and lots ofusers who called you a troll, and begged for you to.be banned, should we have caved just because there were more of them than those who defended you? Majority rules isn't always right.

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

what the fuck are you talking about? Pirate? Do you remember me screaming that it's such an obvious scam to save ppl coins and shut it down so it doesn't further infect the btc world? you are saying somehow that was wrong or I should be thankful you didn't side with obvious scammers? You have no point there, none at all.

This 1 is clear as day.

Everyone sees it, this is not a group complaining about losing money - ppl lose huge bets all the time on BoB and elsewhere - no one complains unless there is an outright, obvious fraud like there is here. I wouldn't expect a "Global moderator" to be anything but massively pro-BFL, as they ship you guys another $3k for another week's worth of ads...

your post is transparent and embarrassing.

niner

full member

Activity: 189

Merit: 100

You are here ---------> but you're not all there.

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

Pharaoh

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

The mods should stop this whole scammer tag nonsense. There no policy that can be used as a guideline and they currently do not give out the scammer tag consistently. The mods also have too many conflicts of interest. Having BFL/betsofbitco.in in good standing on this site brings in ad revenue and site hits (more ad revenue), why would they harm their golden goose? The mods should not be determining who is a scammer and who is not, they should only ban accounts that violate the forum's TOS.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright on April 05, 2013, 02:14:21 PM

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

I guess you haven't seen their CEO's desk.

00null

full member

Activity: 148

Merit: 100

+1 scammer tag

Quote from: theymos on April 03, 2013, 08:42:46 AM

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Then please remove the scammer tag from pirateat40, it's none of your business how he decides to repay. No? Rightly so, but why the double standard?

Actually this is a horrible precedent, and everyone against giving a scammer tag should be ashamed.
Say someone hits a royal flash on a gambling site. By using the same logic that have applied here that gambling site should just call it a draw and refund the stakes. They now even can go public and praise their decision stating they would have earned commission if they had accepted the bet.
And the best thing is theymos has already stated that this behavior would never get you a scammer tag. How convenient.
This whole ruling is a huge invite for all sites to scam. Of course only big time, the tiny little sub 1BTC scammer (and Korean trolls) will be grilled as always.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

+1 scammer tag

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Can't believe this ...

Matthew N. Wright

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

Entropy-uc

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Quote from: Micon on April 05, 2013, 03:02:23 AM

Quote from: theymos on April 04, 2013, 09:43:57 PM

Luke-Jr is not an employee. The true side might have won due to the timezone thing and some other factors, but it's close enough that BoB is justified in calling it a draw IMO. It'd be different (though not enough for a scammer tag) if it was BoB's policy to never decide events as draws if at all possible, but they seem to decide events as draws frequently when there would be significant controversy if either side won.

It has seemed to me, for a long time, for whatever reason, this community makes a lot of pro-BFL decisions. Theymos has made them in the past, as has gmaxwell, and now coinjedi makes a pro-BFL move that will destroy his site.

Theymos has refused to post my ad which states:
BFL: Bald Faced Liars

His justification is that it is slander (he means libel). Since the truth is a demonstrative defense against libel and slander, I have absolutely no concerns on that account.

I'm not sure where Theymos' heart felt concern for false statements has been every week that Josh gives an update claiming that after they finish step X they will be shipping next week. Since there has always been a dozen or more steps to go beyond step X, every shipping claim I have seen from BFL since I stopped back in here in January has been obviously false.

And if we want to talk about libel, here is Josh posting from the same account he uses to buy ads on this forum.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Entropy-uc on March 12, 2013, 06:32:50 PM

Quote from: BFL_Josh;17901

I love the armchair engineers that make strong technical pronouncements on the basis of fuzzy/blurry, pixelated images of an object that measures 11mm x 11mm taken with a camera phone. Especially pronouncements made by engineers that can't tell a reflection from a piece of underfill or who define jpeg artifacting as chipped cores. Or ones who can't tell triangles from squares or circles!

Oh Burn! You really got me there Josh! I'm totally stung by you.

By the way, my armchair for 15 years has looked over a Ph.D. in Engineering, and that chair is situated at Intel's packaging and assembly development division. I've worked a senior engineer on every aspect of those activities for 856 to 1274 today.

To explain what that means in terms you are bright enough to understand:

I know about semiconductor manufacturing 100x what you do about making up imaginary schedules
I know about semiconductor manufacturing nearly 10x what you know about being a douchebag on the internet

Wow, you must really be a good cock sucker then. Any engineer that can't tell a reflection from underfill or underfill from epoxy isn't worth much more than a buck fifty blow job. Congrats on your abilities. I would say you are quite possibly the crappiest "engineer" on the planet, given those facts. Did that PhD come out of a crack jack box?

Next time you're under that table, keeping your job, watch the teeth.

Bogart

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

I would agree to be bound by the outcome of an arbitration service like judge.me, if the arbitration service can be shown to be reputable. (Why is judge.me's domain registered using DomainsByProxy?)

However, for this to work, Bets of Bitcoin would need to also agree to be bound.

KGambler

full member

Activity: 236

Merit: 100

It's clear that neither coinjedi nor his partners in crime will be getting scammer tags. I still think it is important to warn the community about this corrupt "prediction market". If you know of any websites that keep lists of BTC gambling sites, please contact them and make sure they know of this scam. Betsofbitco.in needs to be listed as a scam site so that they don't have the opportunity to steal from more innocent victims.

I saw in the gambling forum that one site operator was proactive in removing betsofbitcoin from his "reputable" list. There are probably some others that are not aware of the situation and are listing betsofbitcoin as a legit site.

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1127

Quote from: BR0KK on April 05, 2013, 08:10:16 AM

They did this kind of quick.... Seems weird to me to do this in an instant. Why not contacting bet participants and ask what they were thinking about this. Sure you get the typical "i won where is ma moneyz" people but some of them; like we've seen here; might be honest and not greedy?

Hm, this all makes no sense to debate without coinjedi or bob administrators. This is not a bitcointalk.org related issue so technically theymos and co-mods are right taking the stand not to hand out scammer tags.

On the other hand we need to have a discussion about what that famous "scammer tag" really is and to whom it may apply? (but not here. Point me towards an existing thread if there is any?)

There's two decent ones, one with some general discussion about scammers in general, and another where we talk about why I don't like the idea of making an official scammer policy.

Policy
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/of-scammer-tags-special-titles-and-other-things-108214

General discussion, and what to do with scammer tags going forward.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/this-forum-is-infested-with-scammers-153221

Dusty

hero member

Activity: 731

Merit: 503

Libertas a calumnia

Quote from: BadBear on April 05, 2013, 07:59:02 AM

Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.

Of course, that's why I wrote (in essence) "if BoB is willing to accept this judgement to restore his reputation".

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: BadBear on April 05, 2013, 07:59:02 AM

Quote from: Dusty on April 05, 2013, 07:49:50 AM

Quote from: BadBear on April 05, 2013, 06:20:30 AM

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?

That's only half of it (damn it's so difficult to express complex concepts in a foreign language!).
The other half would be to honour the bet if an external judge would decide that the outcome was different from "draw".
But I suppose that would be difficult (i.e.: expensive) if BoB has already refunded everybody that took part in the bet.

I suspected that's what you meant, which is why I was so careful with my wording.
No I couldn't do that in good conscience. People agreed to let BoB make the decision when they used their website for the bet, to take that away from them and demand they follow yet someone else's ruling because some don't agree (keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree with it either, as I already said above), wouldn't be ethical. Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.

They did this kind of quick.... Seems weird to me to do this in an instant. Why not contacting bet participants and ask what they were thinking about this. Sure you get the typical "i won where is ma moneyz" people but some of them; like we've seen here; might be honest and not greedy?

Hm, this all makes no sense to debate without coinjedi or bob administrators. This is not a bitcointalk.org related issue so technically theymos and co-mods are right taking the stand not to hand out scammer tags.

On the other hand we need to have a discussion about what that famous "scammer tag" really is and to whom it may apply? (but not here. Point me towards an existing thread if there is any?)

BadBear

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1127

Quote from: Dusty on April 05, 2013, 07:49:50 AM

Quote from: BadBear on April 05, 2013, 06:20:30 AM

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?

That's only half of it (damn it's so difficult to express complex concepts in a foreign language!).
The other half would be to honour the bet if an external judge would decide that the outcome was different from "draw".
But I suppose that would be difficult (i.e.: expensive) if BoB has already refunded everybody that took part in the bet.

I suspected that's what you meant, which is why I was so careful with my wording.
No I couldn't do that in good conscience. People agreed to let BoB make the decision when they used their website for the bet, to take that away from them and demand they follow yet someone else's ruling because some don't agree (keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree with it either, as I already said above), wouldn't be ethical. Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.

Topic: coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet - page 10. (Read 27982 times)