Quote from: Bugpowder on November 21, 2013, 04:43:21 PM

Don't expect BitBet to change a policy that supplies a sizable proportion of the S.BBET dividends.

How many of the #bitcoin-assets chatters are here because they own shares in BitBet and my complaint threatens their dividends?

Bugpowder is yet another #bitcoin-assets guy.
----------------------------------------

Quote from: pankkake on November 21, 2013, 04:44:29 PM

What are they going to do, launch a fedora attack?

Hopefully, they will spread the word that BitBet is a scam site run by thieves.
----------------------------------------

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 21, 2013, 03:00:12 PM

Quote from: Beans on November 21, 2013, 02:43:59 PM

There are way to many companies like this in Bitcoin. We need to stop supporting these crooked business practices if we want bitcoin to succeed.

You are roughly in the position of a Colorado bug on a potato plant discussing what "we" should be doing if "we" wish agriculture to succeed.

Shut the fuck up and get lost. You're not even part of Bitcoin in the first place. And the reason Bitcoin doth succeed has a way lot more to do with MP than you can begin to comprehend.

Bitcoin is a distributed system - one which Beans is a part of simply by posting in this forum. Its success does not depend on any one person - that's the point!
----------------------------------------

Quote from: davout on November 21, 2013, 02:25:46 PM

Quote from: snackman on November 21, 2013, 02:22:27 PM

Keeping my 10 BTC is STEALING. STEALING is wrong.

"Would you download a car?"

My opinions on intellectual property law are an unrelated issue, which I'd be happy to discuss in a different thread.
----------------------------------------

Quote from: deivid on November 21, 2013, 03:50:00 PM

Quote from: sangaman on November 21, 2013, 03:39:58 PM

Gambling is risky but the risk is supposed to be in losing the bets and not getting screwed by the site operator. Having a rule that payments must be confirmed before a bet is resolved to count is perfectly reasonable. Having a rule that refunds of such payments are subject to a small convenience fee (since it may require manual intervention to refund) is also perfectly reasonable. Having a rule that says bets don't count up to X minutes before a bet is resolved is also reasonable.

A price of almost $750 is not $750 though, so unless the bet was placed after the price actually crossed $750 then I don't think it's an exploit - the outcome was still in doubt even if the doubt was very small. Regardless, keeping 100% of the money is stealing, and a wave of people from BitBet IRC chat saying otherwise doesn't change that.

A FAQ is for when people have questions, it's not a must-read for casual users who want to make sure they don't get screwed by awful policies. Even actual must-reads like terms and conditions you must agree to before using a service do not give you the right to steal.

OP, I hope you contact a lawyer if the site continues to refuse to refund you. I bet a judge would see this as stealing, but running this by a lawyer would be the best way to be sure. You're out a significant chunk of change so I believe it could easily be worth it, and you'd be doing the bitcoin community a service.

+1.

I encourage bitbet to resolve this issue. If not, maybe they will end paying x10 times what they have took.

I contacted a lawyer that accepts bitcoin

. I'll keep you updated.