And I have no financial involvement in anything related to this at all.
It's just infuriating to read what has happened here and see that nothing is going to be done. If people can get away with doing things like this and suffer no consequences nothing is ever going to change.
Topic: coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet - page 9. (Read 28062 times)
April 06, 2013, 04:04:16 PM
April 06, 2013, 04:00:29 PM
Josh and Luke attempted to scam the bet. How the stunt they pulled could be classified as anything but a scam is beyond me.
As for Bets of Bitcoin:
The first line of the bet stated:
"This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886 "
Is the pictured device one of those 3 products?(aside from the fact that nothing was shipped)
No.
Therefore it is irrelevant whether you think the subsequent two conditions were met or not.
Only other possible explanation is for Bets of Bitcoin to publicly state that they believe that the pictured device is one of the 3 items that qualify for the bet.
PS
I mean the picture was taken at BFL, ffs this is such an obvious slam dunk scammer tag for at least one person that if it doesn't get issued here it should probably be retired.
As for Bets of Bitcoin:
The first line of the bet stated:
"This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886 "
Is the pictured device one of those 3 products?(aside from the fact that nothing was shipped)
No.
Therefore it is irrelevant whether you think the subsequent two conditions were met or not.
Only other possible explanation is for Bets of Bitcoin to publicly state that they believe that the pictured device is one of the 3 items that qualify for the bet.
PS
I mean the picture was taken at BFL, ffs this is such an obvious slam dunk scammer tag for at least one person that if it doesn't get issued here it should probably be retired.
April 06, 2013, 03:50:05 PM
Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the double-standard. What did they do differently than I did in my November prank?
I received a scammer tag on "principle" because "everyone knew what the bet was about despite [my] wording". I do not object to this, I deserved it and it was in poor taste.
Why then is this a different situation? What was the point of my scammer tag (what lesson was I supposed to have learned)? "Matthew, don't do that again or you'll get a scammer tag.. oh but Betsofbitco.in can do it, that's alright. Do as I say, not as I do."
It's very clear that Betsofbitco.in pulled a "Matthew" and got away with it.
Maybe because you posted and participated your bet here on bitcointalk.org.
They weren't doing this here; the bet took part at bob own service website.
If incorrect point me to a link
April 06, 2013, 03:44:48 PM
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.
The only reason the bet was called into question was due to your deceitful post. So, yeah, you are a party to the scam.
April 06, 2013, 02:18:55 PM
On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.
...and comedy gold.
April 06, 2013, 02:09:07 PM
Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?
Actually, they shipped him to the item rather than the item to him.
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.
This is a point. Scammer tag currently does more damage as the entire usagi "I am not scammertagged therefore I am well trusted" pseudoargument.
On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.
April 06, 2013, 01:27:59 PM
There was a (now locked) thread in the Mining forum asking how BFL is allowed to run their misleading ads on this forum. Luke stopped in yesterday to again spread more disinformation.
Funny how he not only keeps using deceptive language, but also refers to those components on a table as a "Little Single". BFL doesn't even offer the "Little Single" for sale anymore.
As he points out, its been about a week since he claimed to receive his "Little Single". No one else has received so much as a tracking number.
Luke must think people are really stupid. As if we can't see that this whole thing was cooked up between him and Josh Zerlan...
Quote
Ignore the trolls. I've had my Little Single (ASIC) for nearly a week now, and it's working fine.
Even if the rest of the devices haven't shipped yet, it's obvious there is a product and only a fool would claim they aren't going to deliver.
Even if the rest of the devices haven't shipped yet, it's obvious there is a product and only a fool would claim they aren't going to deliver.
Funny how he not only keeps using deceptive language, but also refers to those components on a table as a "Little Single". BFL doesn't even offer the "Little Single" for sale anymore.
As he points out, its been about a week since he claimed to receive his "Little Single". No one else has received so much as a tracking number.
Luke must think people are really stupid. As if we can't see that this whole thing was cooked up between him and Josh Zerlan...
April 06, 2013, 12:59:11 PM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.
This whole BFL thing smells of fail on a rail anyway.
April 06, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.
April 06, 2013, 12:39:40 PM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?
April 06, 2013, 12:31:17 PM
To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.
Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?
April 06, 2013, 12:30:50 PM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.
The pictures show a dev board and not a device as defined by the bet.
Funny how you seem to elaborate on the realy unimportant stuff.
You were also fully aware of the bet and were actively plotting with BFL make this not be a fail for BFL.
You are most certainly party in the bet, one way or another.
April 06, 2013, 12:09:56 PM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.
April 06, 2013, 11:47:22 AM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
April 06, 2013, 11:16:23 AM
All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
April 06, 2013, 06:16:13 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 is a sound guy?
Luke? The guy that helped BFL do their trick with BoB?
If BoB deserves a scam tag than Luke deserves his own fork.
I think that as a bitcoin developer he did a great disservice to the community by taking part in this deceptive deal.
Luke, in my book, has shown himself to be far from sound.
For someone relying on logic so much he sure knows how to pick his logics conveniently.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
April 06, 2013, 06:03:27 AM
Does anyone here think I wouldn't have gotten a scammer tag if I labeled my bet "a draw"?
April 06, 2013, 06:00:56 AM
Your wording left no loopholes. You just redefined what it meant after the fact. The only difference between the two scams is that while MNW redefined what his own bet meant, it was whoever paid coinjedi to call a draw that redefined what this bet meant rather than the guy who defined the bet (Bogart).
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
April 06, 2013, 05:58:05 AM
Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the double-standard. What did they do differently than I did in my November prank?
I received a scammer tag on "principle" because "everyone knew what the bet was about despite [my] wording". I do not object to this, I deserved it and it was in poor taste.
Why then is this a different situation? What was the point of my scammer tag (what lesson was I supposed to have learned)? "Matthew, don't do that again or you'll get a scammer tag.. oh but Betsofbitco.in can do it, that's alright. Do as I say, not as I do."
It's very clear that Betsofbitco.in pulled a "Matthew" and got away with it.
April 06, 2013, 05:50:46 AM
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.
That those who didn't bet anything are overwhelmingly on one side should tell you something, but I guess if you're not able to see what side is correct just from the undisputed facts, you wouldn't care that only a small cabal of BFL associates agree with you.Well then you clearly don't even know what you're talking about, I even posted in Lukes thread (before coinjedi finalized his decision) stating that for the purposes of the bet, I thought BFL did NOT ship. But don't let little facts like that get in the way
.https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1720394
Jump to: