Quote from: MoneyMorpheus on November 20, 2013, 10:27:57 PM

Quote

1. Deciding you're ready for BTC either without knowing or without caring about transaction fees;
2. Deciding you're ready for betting without knowing or without caring about the way betting services work;
3. Betting when the resolution criteria being met was an imminent event;
4. Using Bets of Bitcoin without having done any due diligence, which would have revealed that they're pretty much useless, for reasons including their lack of using tx fees;
5. Not reading or not caring about BitBet's FAQ and the open, fully explained, warnings about the rare potential for this very situation on this very forum;
6. Insisting that it's other people who are stupid, such that those who were attempting to help you out lost interest in your ranting.

1.- BTC is a currency that has the option to send transactions without tx fees, that does not give you the right to keep his money.

2.- Betting services work in a way that you have to provide the bet and win in order to keep the money of the person that made the bet. If for some reason that was the user fault you failed to provide such bet, that does not give you the right to keep his money.

3.- If betting on an imminent event was that important the service provider should prevent it from being possible. So again, that does not give you the right to keep his money.

4.- Using a different betting service should be no reason for discrimination or give you the right to keep his money.

5.- FAQs are not user agreements. And even if this was in the user agreement, it still makes it illegal. The user bought a bet, but no bet was provided. After the transaction was confirmed you have no reason to keep the BTC since you didn't provide the bet. If the FAQs said that if you failed to provide tx fees you would be entitled to own his properties it would be as illegal as this. User's agreements are made in order to protect the provider from certain risks, but failing to read FAQs is no excuse for keeping his money. And since the term does not condition the receiving of such money this action is a theft. Why? Imagine this:

I make a website called tvrepairs.com. I advertise that I will fix any issue for 200 usd. In the user agreement at the bottom I put that if you don't call the technician by the name charles he will be charged an extra 1000 usd.

If the terms you apply to your customers harms them economically in an event that doesn't affect you economically then you are scamming people. I hope you realize this and act accordingly, to my point of view, he was stolen 6k usd.

6.- His ability to think or the fact that he call other people names does not give you the right to keep his money.

I'm hoping I'm clear enough for you to comprehend that. Even if the address from which his BTC where sent can't be the same than his receiving address, this should be sorted out with bets of bitcoin so that this user received his BTC back.

I would suggest the op to start a post in scam accusations or move this one there.

+1 this sums the situation up very well.

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 20, 2013, 10:37:49 PM

Quote from: sangaman on November 20, 2013, 10:21:14 PM

I probably shouldn't even ask, but what does this mean? I don't get it.

It's a jab at your virginity.

Amazing. And companies let you represent them? Make sure you pass that gem of an insult on to teenage bullies.