Successful technology is not the same thing as successful science.

That's why I specified modern technology. Computers. Airplanes. Microwave ovens.

Futhermore there's a lot of science which is not effectively used in technology, do you consider that to be illegimate?

That's a non-sequitur. Your claim was:

you have to throw out most scientific findings because nobody ever bet on them

In fact, every time you turn on your cell phone you are placing an implicit bet on vast swaths of scientific knowledge. That there might be additional areas of scientific knowledge that you aren't placing bets on doesn't change that.

The core idea with betting is to be specific about the terms of the bet.

Here are the terms: choose your favorite psi experiment where the odds of a positive result based on pure chance are objectively computable. Let's say those odds are N:1. We bet at M*N:1 odds for some multiplier M>=2. If you make M larger than 2 that indicates greater confidence and you get more bragging rights should you win. We iterate until you either concede, or you have won $10,000 from me.

their reason not to participate in Randi experiment was that their effect sizes where lower than what's required for Randi.

There are well known techniques for extracting signals from noisy channels to any desired level of statistical confidence. Physicist regularly get six-sigma results (odds of resulting by change of less than one in 3 million) from signal-to-noise ratios in the negative tens of dB. This is part of what it means to be "reliably reproducible."

you likely would want some sort of tamperproof enviroment.

Well, duh. Any intellectually honest seeker of the truth should want some assurances that they are not being deceived.