Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 22, 2013, 12:00:54 AM

Quote from: MoneyMorpheus on November 21, 2013, 05:10:09 PM

Quote from: pankkake on November 21, 2013, 05:05:44 PM

Quote from: snackman on November 21, 2013, 05:03:25 PM

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

Which is false, but I understand guess blackmail is OK with you.
What you should know is that you're far from the first wanting to do that. What do you think would happen if any company catered towards any of those requests?

You do realize no one was able to provide a valid argument which makes bitbet's policy a legit reason for keeping those btc, right? So far in the whole post every time it was questioned all the answers where insults. I hope you can clarify from a technical point of view why this is valid.

The BitBet policy needs no "legit reason". It IS the policy. That's it, what BitBet says is what is. No "legit"-ing around by unrelated parties on forums can change what the policy is.

Re-read my posts in this thread and copy them by hand on your notebook. They're not optional for you, they're mandatory.

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 21, 2013, 05:23:18 PM

Quote from: pankkake on November 21, 2013, 05:13:18 PM

You do realize that not agreeing with someone's policy is not enough to build a court case?
The policy is there, if you don't agree don't use the site. But if you call it "theft", you're a scammer.

I don't think you understand how policies work in court. A court would never uphold a policy that states "I have the right to steal your money," which is effectivly what bitbet's policy says.

The only court which might have had any authority here would have been the Rota. Unfortunately, that died. So whatever, GLWT.

Quote

5.1. This contract is the sole and complete agreement between the parties. It may not be modified by third parties, irrespective if said parties should style themselves "court of law", "judge" or otherwise.

From, you know, the contract.

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 22, 2013, 12:07:29 AM

Quote from: MoneyMorpheus on November 21, 2013, 07:02:44 PM

Well when I said that of BoB I'm assuming that someone that runs the site has access to all the private keys of all the address and the database that states which address belongs to which user; and that such person is willing to do all the verification and sign a message with the involved address stating it belongs to person x and that it should be refunded to address z. Other than lack of willingness I don't see why it couldn't be done.

Quote from: pankkake on November 22, 2013, 12:05:36 AM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 22, 2013, 12:00:54 AM

The only court which might have had any authority here would have been the Rota. Unfortunately, that died.

Wut? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rota?

http://trilema.com/category/rota/

But good call, I hear that was the reference.

You see what I mean? If you give arguments and reason people will respect you. Given that you actually are a representative of bitbet.us, right? If your only answer are insults when people question a policy hidden under FAQs, the whole community will consider you as a scammer (no user has the obligation to read faqs to use a service btw...)