You make the call.

[accountinquestion]

I want to pose a question to the people on here. A friend of mine asked me for my opinion on this but I would like to hear the opinion of others.

Here is a generalized version of what happened.

So there are 2 gamblers working on abusing online promos who are just starting to work together.

Everything is to be split 50/50 down the middle

Player A deposits the BTC for both. The deposit is for $1000 but has to be done in crypto. So player A deposits $1k worth of BTC which we'll say is .1 BTC. (made up numbers)

So half of .1 is .05. This is the BTC that is owed at the moment of the transfer but here is where it gets confusing.

Player B asks player A if he would like the receive the money now. (The .05 BTC)

Player A answers "Nah I'm in no rush - lets settle up at the end' so no transfers were made and it was not discussed for some time.

The accounts have went bust and it is time to settle up.

BTC goes up in value during this time. So instead of $10k a BTC is is now $20k in BTC. (again, made up numbers)

Player B is expecting to send $1k worth of BTC at the current price but Player A was expecting to be paid back in the BTC he sent to the site.

So there are roughly 3 options.

1) Pay the original amount of BTC deposited. BTC equals BTC.
2) Pay the original amount of USD but using the current price of BTC. USD deposit means you pay it back in USD.
3) Meet halfway. Take the outcome of both 1 and 2 and average the results.

I was going to make a poll but responding to the thread would be better as it shows actual thought was behind the answer.

[MaxPen]

If the BTC initial capital was going to be tied up for the entire play then he should be paid back in however many units of Bitcoin that was. The dollar exchange rate has nothing to do with anything. Other than if it is accepted as a means of settlement by the parties involved. The play is in Bitcoin. Or does the site convert to dollars upon deposit?

[AxelWolf]

If the BTC initial capital was going to be tied up for the entire play then he should be paid back in however many units of Bitcoin that was. The dollar exchange rate has nothing to do with anything. Other than if it is accepted as a means of settlement by the parties involved. The play is in Bitcoin. Or does the site convert to dollars upon deposit?

Most online casinos convert the money into a cash balance and there's no movement up or down. You could take the money out via a wire transfer or chek for whatever the cash balance is at the time.

[accountinquestion]

The only other relevant detail is that the promo that was being utilized was contingent on the deposit being done in crypto.

However the site has their balances denominated in USD. BTC is only a deposit method.

[Mission146]

I want to pose a question to the people on here. A friend of mine asked me for my opinion on this but I would like to hear the opinion of others.

Here is a generalized version of what happened.

So there are 2 gamblers working on abusing online promos who are just starting to work together.

Everything is to be split 50/50 down the middle

Player A deposits the BTC for both. The deposit is for $1000 but has to be done in crypto. So player A deposits $1k worth of BTC which we'll say is .1 BTC. (made up numbers)

So half of .1 is .05. This is the BTC that is owed at the moment of the transfer but here is where it gets confusing.

Player B asks player A if he would like the receive the money now. (The .05 BTC)

Player A answers "Nah I'm in no rush - lets settle up at the end' so no transfers were made and it was not discussed for some time.

The accounts have went bust and it is time to settle up.

BTC goes up in value during this time. So instead of $10k a BTC is is now $20k in BTC. (again, made up numbers)

Player B is expecting to send $1k worth of BTC at the current price but Player A was expecting to be paid back in the BTC he sent to the site.

So there are roughly 3 options.

1) Pay the original amount of BTC deposited. BTC equals BTC.
2) Pay the original amount of USD but using the current price of BTC. USD deposit means you pay it back in USD.
3) Meet halfway. Take the outcome of both 1 and 2 and average the results.

I was going to make a poll but responding to the thread would be better as it shows actual thought was behind the answer.

My opinion on this, assuming I understand it correctly, goes like this:

1.) The deposit to the online casino was to be done in Bitcoin.

2.) The partner doing the depositing did so in Bitcoin and covered the full amount.

3.) The second partner asked if the first partner wanted him to send .05 BTC right there and then.

4.) The first partner said no.

5.) The cash value of Bitcoin was lower at the time of deposit than at the time when the partner's half was to be resolved.

MY CONCLUSIONS:

I assume that you were the partner who wanted to settle up right away. In other words, they get to partially free roll the play, because based on the expectation that Bitcoin would go up, they also get to get a cash value markup on your half now that Bitcoin is more valuable than it was before.

In other words, if BTC had a cash value of $500 per .05 at the time, then if BTC is $700 per .05 now, then this person gains $200 in value. The reason why is because their Bitcoin was worth $1000 ($500 of which was their half of the play) when they made the initial deposit (using Bitcoin), but now, .05 BTC is worth $700.

As a result, instead of losing $500 on their half of the play, they've only lost $300 because they get $700 worth of BTC instead of $500 worth of BTC. Essentially, that's a partial free roll. I'm also certain the other party's opinion would be much different in the unlikely event BTC had gone down since then; they knew they were asking for the higher of the two the entire time. Refusing to accept the funds upfront was very crafty.

I would say do whatever you want, but I would avoid doing business with that person in the future. That's very slick maneuvering to turn down having the half sent to them right off the top in expectation that BTC would only increase in value. If you are going to do business with this person again, then I would recommend that the person NOT doing the depositing get the half from the person doing the depositing before the deposit is made so there are no more stupid and pointless disagreements.

[MaxPen]

The only other relevant detail is that the promo that was being utilized was contingent on the deposit being done in crypto.

However the site has their balances denominated in USD. BTC is only a deposit method.

Then the person who shared action only owns half of the USD amount. $500 cash dollars as he had offered to pay earlier.

[MisterV]

B should pay A five hundred bucks.

[accountinquestion]

So the more I thought about it the more it seemed that transferring in the USD value at the time would be the default interpretation for most.

It is very interesting to me because the interpretations of what should be done can literally be argued either way. Some people will jump on one side but their arguments seem to be one-sided.

They only freeroll if either party feels there are multiple interpretations to be used. (And turns out there are)

It really seems to come down to how one views BTC. If you see it as a tool to move around USD value then everyone is going to come up with the same answer that everyone here agrees with.

If however you see BTC as a longterm store of value and just put up with the swings to USD then you're going to expect BTC to pay back the BTC you spent. There is no need to settle up immediately unless one expects the person to not be around to pay later. There is also the potential of saving a transaction fee. If you expect to be paid back in the BTC you spent, then why would you care when it is done outside of the risk of it not being paid?

Furthermore if you are operating under the assumption that the other person is not buying in and out of BTC (due to tax/fee reasons) then they had it ready at the time to pay you, then they'd still have the same BTC to pay later. Remember, there might be BTC coming in from the other side of the play to subtract from the total. There is a fee involved in the transfers in addition to having to dig up the address and all that. If someone is a holder/investor they don't even often mess with their wallet for security reasons and that includes grabbing an address to receive BTC.

I'm not sure the argument was pointless or stupid. It is all very valid. It is very interesting to me simply because I can't really see a strong argument for why one should go with either interpretation. Once that was realized, the 50/50 answer is fairest. From the perspective of the person who fronted the money, they spent the BTC and why would they expect anything else back? Perhaps the only reason they didn't care about it immediately is because they had absolutely no expectation that it would change anything. That comes from a background that is BTC-centric.

The whole play seemed to be based in BTC on both sides even though the site itself bought/sold BTC internally to remove their exposure. There was no expectation of ever receiving anything but BTC back from the play even if it is measured in USD at the time.

It seems to me that either side has just as valid of an argument which is why I believe 50/50 was the fair thing to do.

Given that one person offered to settle up immediately then it seems reasonable their interpretation should be given priority - they couldn't have been setting something up for a freeroll. (And I don't believe this was happening on either side but if one is to look at it in a vacuum then the one who offered to settle up immediately should get more benefit of the doubt..)

The biggest takeaway is to document debts between people. Usually this is done via a SMS in the poker world. In this case saying "You owe me .05 BTC" would have sufficed and cleared this all up.

Refusing the funds can also be not wanting to unlock the wallet, grab an address, then pay a fee when it seems likely it would have to be done yet again. I've known people who absolutely hated unlocking their BTC/crypto because they had signficant security concerns. Assuming it is "crafty" or some such is a bit of a stretch although that could very well have been the intent.

[Tasha]

Here is my call. BOTH of them should have signed a legally binding Contract before all this mess. Without a legally binding Contract, either one of the parties could have fucked each other royally with no legal recourse.

[cyberbabble]

They are at fault for not working out the details.

The guy with control of the money can do what he wants.

If he values the friendship then he has to reach a compromise with the other guy.

If he doesn't care about the friendship he gives whatever he wants to the other guy and tells him to go away.

[Treeshade]

They are at fault for not working out the details.

The guy with control of the money can do what he wants.

If he values the friendship then he has to reach a compromise with the other guy.

If he doesn't care about the friendship he gives whatever he wants to the other guy and tells him to go away.

They should suck each other off then ride dildos cowgirl style

[Dan Druff]

Interesting question.

If the site is denominated in BTC, then the person receiving the BTC back from the site owes exactly 50% of the amount of BTC (regardless of cash value or delay) to the other guy.

However, if the site is denominated in $, then only the $ amount is owed, and the price of BTC does not matter.

Here is what accountingquestion wrote about this particular site:

The only other relevant detail is that the promo that was being utilized was contingent on the deposit being done in crypto.

However the site has their balances denominated in USD. BTC is only a deposit method.

This makes it slightly more complicated, as a crypto deposit was required to get the promotion.

However, this is irrelevant. First off, most deposits these days ARE crypto, because that's the only reasonable way to do it without incurring big fees and/or hassle.

Second, the original depositor was never forced to be "out" that amount in BTC while it was being held up on the site. He could have then immediately purchased more BTC to replace what he just deposited, if he was concerned this would affect his crypto investments.

The only thing to watch out for is being angle-shot. The depositor could have had the plan to pay in BTC if it went down, and to pay in USD if it went up, thus giving himself the best of it either way. But as long as you have no evidence that's what he was doing, you should be receiving your half in USD (or the present BTC equivalent of that amount of USD).