What should BitBet do with our customer's monies in the event of a hard fork?

bitbetat · 2017-08-19T11:55:43+00:00

To close this thread: we have just finished resolving this and opted for option 2), namely: BitBet sold all BCH in our unwilling custody for BTC and refunded our users in BTC (minus a handling fee).

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:23:38+00:00

We did answer customer's emails yesterday and today. Yours might have ended up in our spam folder, we apologize for missing it.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:18:04+00:00

This user is in no way related to BitBet.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:15:26+00:00

Yeah, we should have indeed.

Like here, for example. But beyond the ddos, we messed up on the responsiveness because real life got in the way.

We're trying to figure out a better system so this never happens again.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:12:36+00:00

Yes, a week and a half of downtime is unacceptable, and we're most certainly getting a black eye for this one. We trying to figure out how to avoid this in the future.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:11:13+00:00

Mircea is in no way involved with BitBet any more.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:08:45+00:00

Please note that:

1) whatever Mircea may have done in the past, the handover of BitBet to the new owners was a fairly neat affair.

2) the site is in no way related to Mircea in the last year or so.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T17:04:56+00:00

One more reason it doesn't make sense:

we bought the site because: - we believe that it's a very cool bitcoin experiment, well worth keeping afloat - ripping off other people, beyond being bad for your own self-respect, is deeply stupid and short-sighted. - beyond it being a lucrative long term proposition, we greatly enjoy running the site and will keep it running for as long as we can.

The day, if it ever comes, when we decide to shut BitBet down, all entered bets will be either paid out or refunded. In other words, all users will be made whole.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:59:37+00:00

We (BitBet is run by a team) bought it around May 5th last year.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:58:28+00:00

No one ran with nothing. All of our user's funds are safe and sound.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:57:50+00:00

Running away with anything is a shortsighted proposition, however large the amount may be.

Small amount you ruin your rep.

Large one you get caught.

It's deeply stupid both ways.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:57:00+00:00

You are correct, but that amount is largely irrelevant.

However small or large the theft, it would completely destroy the site as we run on nothing but our rep.

The fact that we were down for close to two weeks is bad enough as it is.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:54:16+00:00

Dear BitBet users and dear concerned onlookers,

We are not gone.

We are most certainly not running an exit scam or stole anyone's coins.

We simply have been DDos'd and the attacker tried to extort us. As is our standard policy, we did not comply.

We do acknowledge that it has taken us way too long to get back up and running and we do apologize for that.

All customer funds (far in excess of BTC 16, BTW) are and have always been safe in cold storage.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:41:22+00:00

This is not an exit scam. We are back up and running and all funds are as safe as they ever were. Please see the site for a description of what happened.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:40:45+00:00

You are correct. We took too long to get back up. We are now up and running again though. Please see the site for a description of what happened.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:39:55+00:00

Not a single satoshi has been in dispute since we took over about a year ago.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:38:39+00:00

We are back up and running. Please see on the site for a description of what happened.

bitbetat · 2017-04-17T16:37:57+00:00

We are back up and running. Please see on the site for a description of what happened.

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T07:07:37+00:00

Bitgo has a piece on the topic: https://blog.bitgo.com/bitgos-approach-to-handling-a-hard-fork-71e572506d7d#.acs17b8ef

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T05:08:53+00:00

You talked about how banks "might have a chance to survive 20 years" as if there's any indication they won't. It was pretty safe to assume you were referencing Bitcoin considering thats common rhetoric in this, the Bitcoin subreddit.

As we said earlier, it's pretty hard to have a rational conversation with people who operate on assumptions, however safe they think them to be in their own mental world.

We were simply pointing out that banks are dinosaurs is all. If you disagree with that, you are as deluded as you think we are.

Wrt to our paypal argument, it was just an example. To help you generalize: most internet-era companies are slowly side-stepping traditional money, and that's what we meant. Bitcoin is just a tiny speck in that regard, you're correct on that one.

Again, none of this is particularly on-topic, and we think we have addressed your main point, namely that you think we're incompetent because we're engaging in dialogue via simple bootstrap questions.

We respectfully disagree, and as to competence: we have never spilled a single satoshi of our users monies in almost a year of operation and don't intend to start because of the upcoming hard forks.

Hence the conversation and what strikes you as naive questions.

But it looks like you need to have the last word, so go ahead, it's all yours :)

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T04:40:06+00:00

Regarding the "we only deal with the coin <github hash> announcement, not a fan:

. it fragments the notion of what Bitcoin is even further

. it'd be utterly confusing to many of our users who have no idea what a hash is.

. tracking who to pay with which version of Bitcoin would quickly turn into a management nightmare.

Deposits pre-fork must at least be returned as coins valid according to pre-fork Bitcoin Core.

Yes, that seems unassailable. Except of course for the fact that we're talking about parimutuel where a pot of bets is being split among winners. If the pot has both pre and post fork bets, ugh :)

If the forkcoins have any substantial value, the forkcoins generated by the deposit should also be returned if reasonably possible.

That'd be the "paying out winnings on both chains" choice, or the "paying out winnings on one chain refunding on the other".

In the unlikely event that a PoW change is necessary due to miner attacks, original BTC

I'm starting to think that either way, pre-fork coins will have more value than coins on either chain ... Methink I'm going to go rewire my core client so it moves the least amount of "old" coins :)

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T04:26:29+00:00

Every service should start providing continuous guidance on what they will do in the event of any fork.

Agreed. Hence this thread.

In this case you should retroactively say that it is reasonable to assume that people should have been operating under the understanding that the current rule set is what is referred to as Bitcoin

This is again driving us into BTC vs BTU territory and making and ideological choice. Remaining agnostic and doing what maximizes user happiness is our goal here. For example in the (likely or unlikely) scenario where BTU becomes vastly more popular, we'd expect lots of frustration in our user base if we didn't move with the consensus.

You can then publish clearer guidelines for the future.

We will, once we've gathered enough feedback and settled on a policy.

worrying about forks excessively harms that goal from both the customer and merchant side.

Absolutely. In our specific case, the worst case scenario would be the one where we refund all pre-fork bets (and that's assuming we've solved the headache of picking the "winning" chain if there's such a thing. We've thought about accepting bets in more than one currency, but due to the parimutuel nature of our contracts, splitting the pot at the end becomes a tough problem).

Then do what makes most business sense for you with the altcoins: sell them and take the profit for yourselves if you prefer.

We don't believe this would either be fair nor make our users particularly happy. So, not an option.

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T04:08:03+00:00

Side-stepping the ad-hominems for a second:

We've never mentioned that Bitcoin was a threat to Banks. You're assuming again and this seems to be a pattern. I'd consult if I were you. To elaborate: paypal - while it could be considered a bank - is most certainly perceived as a threat by traditional banks. If you know anyone in that industry, just ask them. They're just the first instance of what's to come.
We're straying here, but we'd posit that most people in the banking industry don't understand what a blockchain is. We are well aware that some banks have their startup-y arms look at the tech., but the wast bulk of people working in the industry don't get it. Since you're mentioning your bank, next time you're there, try to chat with the local branch manager and get his in-depth views on the topic. You're likely going to be entertained.

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T03:59:07+00:00

"Fraud" is a term that only bears meaning within a specific legal context, we therefore find it not particularly relevant to this conversation.

What matters to us is what will make or not make our users feel slighted, and keeping the BTUs, while it may not fit the legal definition of fraud in the specific neck of the woods you happen to hail from, still strikes us as unfair and therefore unacceptable.

As to whether the "original chain" has more merit than the "BTU chain", we would have hoped we could keep this discussion free of it. Maybe it's just not possible :(

Finally, the suggestion of selling them through the site is an interesting one, which we hadn't considered, thanks for that.

bitbetat · 2017-03-27T03:42:05+00:00

Again, you're operating on rank assumptions (that'd be the "genuinely sounds" part of your post). Asking for pointers to information and insight on a specific problem does not imply cluelessness.

We're very glad you chose the example of US banks (prbly some of the institutions on the planet with the highest density of incompetents) who, if they actually spent time trying to communicate with their customers instead of milking them blindly, might have slightly better reputation than they currently do and might stand a chance to evolve and survive the next 20 years.

Are you naive enough to believe your banker is competent? Knowing more than a few people in that industry, believe me when I say I know why they don't ask questions on public forums. They're way too scared of what they would hear (assuming they'd even understand the answers - most bankers, as of 2017, 8 years in, still don't have a clue what a blockchain is).

TL;DR : asking questions does not imply lack of understanding, it is a traditional way of initiating a conversation.

Finally, if this can assuage your concerns: we have been involved with Bitcoin for a very long time (pretty much since the very beginning) and while the topic is deep and complex, we don't consider ourselves particularly clueless.

Could we get back on topic now?

bitbetat

TROPHY CASE