Topic: coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet - page 15. (Read 27982 times)

It doesn't...it implies scamming. The only thing BFL is good for. Off the charts fail from BFL & BOB.

How was the post credible - the pictures were taking by Josh (and employee) and sent to Luke (an eployee) - hell for all we know it might be a FPGA rig or what not. How does it imply shipping?

I don't think a Draw is out of line.  If you carefully read the terms of the bet, it's in BFL's favor except for the time requirement (before April 1).  I think the post was made before April 1 on the US West Coast, and after April 1 East Coast time.  They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.

Same clear outcome.
A dev board is not a device as defined by the bet.

Not the same bet. betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met), but the competitior's bet only allowed +/- 10% (which was not met).

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...

It magically only became ambiguous after BFL failed to meet its deadline.

Two days earlier it wasn't ambiguous yet.

Do I understand it right that bob is calling a draw here because the bet wasn't clear enough? (Statement and agreements etc)

Aren't they supposed to check that first when they take the bet? .... It seems that they took it, didn't bother about the terms and later panicked their way out by calling a draw?

Thd whole thing smells weird :/

You're like the only one.


This is pretty much an argument to ignorance. If you gamble, lose, and refund you've in fact defrauded the winner of his winnings. That this point is usually lost on people who don't gamble doesn't make it any less valid, just like the fact that many people don't know that antibiotics don't help against viruses doesn't make antibiotics any more effective against viruses.


The problem here is that the so-called betting site had an undisclosed relationship with the so-called miner producer to pump their inexistent ASIC. The scam is plainly "come bet that you'll deliver, then would-be buyers will think the odds are still there, then they'll buy, then when you don't deliver we'll refund". This is a scam.


Absolutely correct.

Possibly not worth the mention that Luke-jr is currently Bitcoin's chief scumbag. The list of fraudulent, dishonest, scammy shit he's pulled so far is perhaps worthy of a (stickied) thread itself. It's beyond me how people who intend to earn their bread by their reputation still associate with him, but I hope it's obvious that in a few years "has worked with Luke-jr" will be the reason resumes are turned down. Yes Gavin, I am talking to you.


This is Joel Katz level coolaid right here. First off, your agreement carries no value in this conversation, and as such it's not a bargain chip. Second off, what, were they in mutual error? Get off.


Seriously, who are you and when did you get a voice? Fuckwit.

If you'd said they ruled for the other side of the bet, I'd agree. But they didn't. They said they accepted a bet that turned out to be too ambiguous to make a judgement and canceled it. Your examples don't make any sense in this case. And your "only one reasonable explanation" is horseshit. It's perfectly reasonable that the judge felt he couldn't make a fair decision. I disagree with him, but by using their site you are agreeing to let him make that decision.

What's silly is you thinking that getting a scammer tag here is constructive. Sorry, that's not going to do a goddamn thing. Use another site that you think deserves trust. The scammer tag was not meant to function as the BBB of the Bitcoin world. If you have a problem with that, the door's over there.

The problem is that BoB is not an escrow.
It is a gambling site.
As it turns out, hoping for a fair judgement of the betting is a gamble in its own right.

This is silly reasoning.

By ruling the bet a push and returning the money, they can claim that this happened due to incompetence.  Coinjedi has already begun to plead incompetence.  He can understand why we may think he did a very poor job.  This is what corrupt officials always fall back on.  The referee who cheated is not going to admit to taking bribes, he'll just apologize for having such an off day.

Furthermore, it's already been pointed out that the decision they rendered doesn't point to incompetence but to simple corruption.  If you were watching a soccer game and an embarrassed looking referee disallowed 5 clear goals all against one team, would you assume it was some kind of cosmic fluke or would you reason that, given the amount of money involved on the outcome of the match, the game was fixed?

The BFL backers lost the bet.  There is no real controversy in that regard.  The BFL side failed on several different points.  Luke Jr. is working for BFL, the March 31 deadline was missed, the "product" shown is a prototype that is still being worked on and does not even have a case, the prototype was never shipped anywhere, the product Luke Jr. claims to have ordered did not even exist at the time the bet was consumated and was not among the 3 specific products mentioned...  I can go on, but there is no point.  I am not foolish enough to believe that any honest, intelligent person who is paying attention thinks that there was ambiguity.  There was none.  It was an open and shut case.  There is only one reasonable explanation for how and why this happened, and that is that betsofbitco.in had a stake in the outcome.

By your reasoning, even if we believe that an escrow or arbitrator is intentionally making bad decisions, we should not cry "theft" but should just shake our head and say "oh well, I guess I went with the wrong site".  That is not a reasonable position to take.  Think about this a little more seriously.

Blasphemy!

Got it!




+1

People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

BoB screwed up big time, there's no doubt. But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money. A scammer tag here won't accomplish anything constructive.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.

Exactly what I just penned a couple posts above this one, for I recognized the same thing prior to reading your post, Beepbob.

No editor note. Proof is in the Google index and the article title (a word press article URL is built from the articles title; if the article title is changed later, the url stays the same)

Example only---> Even if it's proven that payola is accepted to influence the outcome of a bet?

Also, is there a screenshot of the Bitcoin Magazine article prior to the changes? Is there an editor note of such changes? I'm just asking here, but find this worrisome, for I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag. This will sadden me greatly.

~Bruno K~

Then some of the scammer tags given here would apply to this .... MNW, Pirate, Cablepair...etc.

This is why we need a comitee or sorts (at least a Bill of "rights") to hand out tags, not mods on the loose :/ ?
(no offense)

-1 on scammer tag. That's not what the scammer tag is for, and it's incredibly silly to expect forum moderators to intervene in this situation. If you don't like how coinjedi runs his betting site, you are free to choose a different one.

Disclaimer: I use betsofbitcoin occasionally, but I don't have anything at stake for this bet.