0.39 BTC
0.30 BTC

Obama will mention Bitcoin before 2015

Bet resolves as Yes if proof of Obama specifically mentioning Bitcoin during an interview, news conference or public address publicized by any media source is added to the comment section before January 1, 2015.

Otherwise bet resolves as No. For example should he warn against "digital currencies" but not say the word "Bitcoin" the bet resolves as No.

  • Category:Bitcoin
  • Bet started:2 months 2 weeks ago (16-04-2014)
  • Bet closing: in 5 months 20 hours (02-12-2014)
  • Resolution: in 6 months 20 hours (01-01-2015)
  • Weighted No: 37`651
  • Weighted Yes: 30`086
  • Current weight: 65`793 ( from 100`000 to 1 )
  • Confirmed bets: 12 ( No: 7  /  Yes: 5 )
  • Histograph: Histograph
  • Calculator:
    placing a winning BTC bet on:
    Yes pays:   BTC
    No pays:   BTC
    after fees, at current weight and assuming no one else bets
CONFIRMED BETS: 0.70 BTC
TIME BET WEIGHT BTC IN IN BTC OUT OUT  
16-04-14 17:15 Yes 99`996 0.09000000 17grN / 1MSkT
16-04-14 17:20 Yes 99`994 0.06000000 17gtW / 19YgU
16-04-14 17:20 No 99`994 0.04000000 17gTv / 1MSkT
16-04-14 20:13 Yes 99`942 0.07890000 17gwB / 1MS4n
20-04-14 14:27 No 98`302 0.01000000 17HTq / 1DjkR
22-04-14 11:10 No 97`489 0.17049151 17iSU / 15C5W
22-04-14 21:54 No 97`294 0.10000000 17J2U / 1NfXM
27-04-14 19:48 No 95`152 0.02000000 17KJx / 1MisH
02-05-14 20:37 No 92`956 0.00664084 17mST / 1Juyf
07-05-14 23:19 Yes 90`727 0.03000000 17nWL / 1CWhJ
10-05-14 13:38 Yes 89`594 0.05000000 17opB / 1G2ri
10-06-14 20:37 No 75`948 0.05000000 17X2y / 151rt
DISCUSSION
  • #2812: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 17:38

    I give him a call to ask to mention it. No problem

    #2815: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 19:58

    Ask him to mention urmom too

    #2816: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 20:12

    Obama won’t mention Bitcoin. He never mentions companies by name, unless the government bailed them out or something like that. I fully expect this to resolve "No". The only person who will mention Bitcoin is someone young and hip.

    #2817: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 21:17

    So bitbet joins the list of sxam sites. Moderators arbitrarily declaring in-time bets as late.

    #2818: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 21:27

    #2817: Hmmm, they’ve never scammed me. That’s what happens when you try to bet on the winning side just before the outcome/deadline. Good rule of thumb, if it looks like the bet could resolve in the very near future you shouldn’t bet.

    #2819: Anonymous 16-04-14 at 23:05

    The rules should be as stated, not at moderators’ whim. Otherwise what’s the point? Had it not reached $525 those bets would have been accepted and lost. Can’t have it both ways.

    Only a matter of time until they scam you?

    #2820: Anonymous 17-04-14 at 00:01

    If I send to my betting address that they provide. Can I send to the same address later on again?

    Then could I send btc to any of the addresses under "In" above? Or do they only allow one transaction and any other bitcoins sent to the same wallet will be sent away?

    #2833: Anonymous 19-04-14 at 01:24

    What if he pronounces it wrong?


    Oh wait, no, I’m thinking of the last guy.

    #2835: Anonymous 19-04-14 at 10:14

    #2816, right on, except for the part where Bitcoin isn’t a company. He does mention Congress, and on the scale of relative importance, Bitcoin > Congress.

    #2836: Anonymous 19-04-14 at 10:19

    #2819 an even better rule of thumb for you: if you spend your days trying to scam others (for instance by betting on whether BTC crosses 525 when it’s at 524.99 with major upswing momentum), it’s just a matter of time before you falsely claim someone scammed you (for instance, when someone didn’t allow you to do the stupid thing you were trying to do figuring you’re so fucking smart you split the peel from the orange). Because seriously, most supermarkets don’t have a "rule" somewhere that you can’t peel the oranges before weighting them, how about those scammers!

    It’s also a matter of time before someone actually scams you, because as the legit ops want less and less to do with your greedy idiocy, the only people willing to give you the time or day will be the people looking to empty your pockets.

    #2837: Anonymous 19-04-14 at 10:19

    >> relative importance

    So that’s a reason not to mention it then.

    #2838: Anonymous 19-04-14 at 12:19

    #2836, #2819 touched a nerve? You made his point, that the outcome is no longer objective, but subjective. Probably based on how much the "moderator" stands to lose, or not win, as the case may be.

    Who will mod the mods?

    #2840: Anonymous 20-04-14 at 10:11

    There is no such thing as "objective".

    #2844: Anonymous 24-04-14 at 13:45

    "Active" bets: 86

    It’s dead, Jim.

    #2845: Anonymous 25-04-14 at 01:16

    86 open, 713 closed. Site started 16 months ago, so 44 bets/month, means average bet duration should be 2 months to have 86 open if pace is constant.

    #2846: Anonymous 25-04-14 at 01:42

    mircea_popescu: re #2845, kakobrekla or anyone with the data ready, what’s the average duration for bitbet bets ?
    kakobrekla: 85 days
    kakobrekla: 90 if you include the time from closing to resolution

    Source: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=25-04-2014#641505

    #2847: Anonymous 25-04-14 at 02:01

    #2845, that’s not actually correct because the open bets are at different positions in their open lifetimes.

    In the 479 days between Jan 1 2013 and Apr 25 2014 there have been 799 bets made (86+713), an average of 1.668058455 per day. There have also been 713 closed, an average of 1.488517745 per day.

    If new bets are introduced linearly the average life of a new bet must be 86 / 1.668058455 = 51 days in order for the bet inventory to stabilize at 86 units. (And if we exclude that interval from the site’s life, the closed bets per day works out to 1.66588785, matching the new bet average closely).

    Since the actual average lifetime is almost twice the one we’ve calculated, obviously new bet production must be slowing down.

    #2848: Anonymous 25-04-14 at 02:07

    #2846, does that take into account the actual bet lifetime, or just the intended lifetime? For instance, if a bet is introduced today to end on 1 January 2015 and it is resolved tomorrow, will this have counted as 1 day or 8 months towards that average?

    Something like this may easily explain #2847.

    #2849: Anonymous 25-04-14 at 02:17

    Here’s some actual data :

    Month…. Proposed Accepted
    2013-01 => 268 …… 205
    2013-02 => 105 …… 62
    2013-03 => 143 …… 72
    2013-04 => 306 …… 101
    2013-05 => 68 ……. 16
    2013-06 => 62 ……. 18
    2013-07 => 72 ……. 20
    2013-08 => 106 …… 28
    2013-09 => 111 …… 17
    2013-10 => 110 …… 44
    2013-11 => 199 …… 52
    2013-12 => 235 …… 68
    2014-01 => 254 …… 42
    2014-02 => 120 …… 23
    2014-03 => 150 …… 31
    2014-04 => 51 ……. 4

    Success rates vary wildly, but with a clear lower tendency (probably reflective of mods’ more conservative outlook as various contentious bets end up litigated). It was as low as 1 in 3 exactly year ago, it was 1 in 7 last September, but it’s never been 1 in 12 yet.

    Proposed bets is also lower than last month. The interesting thing is that there seems to be an early summer trend, 2013 May June July also saw two digit proposals (and January 2014 has the highest proposal count of all months except… January 2013).

    Still, with the BTC around 500 USD, every accepted bet is worth on average $25 to the proponent, which is a couple hours’ work on US minimum wage, or a week’s worth for the average Internet SEO expert / email spammer / etc. It’s not possible for a +EV proposition to die.

    #2852: Anonymous 27-04-14 at 05:04

    #2817, I think there is empirical rule: if bet time after 99% point between start time and closing time then the bet is late

    May be this rule should be included in FAQ?

    #2853: Anonymous 27-04-14 at 11:36

    It’s not that simple, if bet is 100 btc yes and 0.1 btc no and you bet 100 btc on no after 99.9% of the time you still make money. 50 BTC to be precise.