Matches for i, 164546 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Tue Apr 19 19:44:56 UTC 2016 <davout> except i work in that box, i have accounting books, i have a contract, that's it
Tue Apr 19 19:44:41 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> as i understand, his position is that 1) bbet bettors were paid 2) there is NO DEFINED PAYER
Tue Apr 19 19:44:40 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> i think that is it yes.
Tue Apr 19 19:43:40 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> how the fuck could i possibly know that
Tue Apr 19 19:39:59 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> i already expressed my feelings toward that
Tue Apr 19 19:39:07 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> i dun see any survivers. bbet is dead to me now.
Tue Apr 19 19:35:38 UTC 2016 <davout> and by funny, i obvioulsy mean "absolutely fucking pathetic"
Tue Apr 19 19:34:31 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> davout: as i understand, kakobrekla's argument is that the bettors WERE PAID ~without a decidable payer~
Tue Apr 19 19:31:12 UTC 2016 <davout> because i don't intend to ever run a business in such a way that i'd use previous incoming transactions as liability deductions, just because "no one can't prove i didn't pay" ffs
Tue Apr 19 19:31:09 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> in fact i lost most of the coin i ever had on bbet.
Tue Apr 19 19:31:02 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> ftr i lost ~all of my bets.
Tue Apr 19 19:30:56 UTC 2016 <whaack> everytime someone reused address on bitbet, and had like half their bet paid out by some third party, bitbet only sent the other half owed, correct? << I still wish you would answer this.
Tue Apr 19 19:30:32 UTC 2016 <whaack> to be fair, I always used uniques just in case of this
Tue Apr 19 19:29:54 UTC 2016 <davout> i understand what you are saying, i'm just saying it doesn't work that way
Tue Apr 19 19:29:32 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> the argument is it doesnt matter where the 17 comes from, i thought this was freaking clear by now.
Tue Apr 19 19:26:25 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> also technically i never signed a statement why i refused to sign bitbets last statement.
Tue Apr 19 19:16:46 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> even if the shmuck expects something i dont see how this would be enforceable unless you stabbed yourself with address reuse
Tue Apr 19 19:14:24 UTC 2016 <whaack> another would be to keep the addr to be paid to, a secret between the two transacters << it doesn't have to be a secret. as a bettor I don't care whether or not bitbet gets lucky cuz a random shmuck sends me my btc winnings as long as the shmuck doesn't expect anything in return from me or consider a debt he owes me is cleared
Tue Apr 19 19:13:03 UTC 2016 <davout> whaack: there's nothing wrong with the policy itself, but as far as i can tell, it was never publicly advertised as the policy bitbet used
Tue Apr 19 19:11:33 UTC 2016 <whaack> seems reasonable to me, I don't think there's anything wrong with the policy "we only guarantee that your given address, A, will increase by X btc at some point if you win." Of course you can always deny the second part of the question as to whether or not you've punished people for not understanding this concept.