Topic: Clear abuse of DefaultTrust by Vod [RESOLVED] (Read 2971 times)

CrazyJoker has made changes that I believe more accurately show the risks of depositing on his site.

Waiting on the OP before removing the negative trust.

Done.

Now showing the sum of total bet return to the players only.

Explained here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11404618

Now, will you please remove the feedback ?

I agree with Dooglus:

if the invested amount plus a 40% profit is not received by the site within 120 hours, the player will lose his entire bet.


There is still confusion there!  To a reasonable person, that still sounds that you paid out that money to the user.

I want to see that number display the actual money paid back to users.  People need to see that money going in does NOT equal money going out.  They need to see your site is making a profit.  In your FAQ, you can explain the difference between the Total Invested and the Total Paid out is the site profit.  Right now it looks like no is losing money on your site - which is not true.  It is deceiving.

Thanks.


So no explanation at all to why you jumped the minimum deposit up ten fold?   Just FYI, if there is no legit business reason for doing this, this is very scammy behavior.  I would suggest you don't do it in the future either.  

I have changed the text to Total Paid including Commission, so that no confusion arises.

I have met almost all the requirements for transparency within my technical boundary. Can you please remove the -ve feedback now ?

It has been changed back to what it was...

1) Explained above to Dooglus about the technical challenges to get this done. Just correcting you a little bit about a wrong understanding. In this site Bankroll does not only grow. It goes up as old users get paid by new users and goes down as new users get paid by old users. So, unlike classical Ponzis my Bankroll will never grow to something with which I can run away. My profit increases only when more people get paid.

2) Game is played from site wallet. So, there is no blockchain proof possible for that. Though, I have created a Proof of Payment page - www.crazyponzi.com/proof.php

3) Explained above to Dooglus about the change made in FAQ. I have also added an explicit message in Sign UP...

I have updated the FAQ...
That can not be done. Because, that way new users will be deprived to get paid by the bankroll. The main attraction of this game is that, unlike a classical Ponzi, new users may also get paid by old users. If I break that, it would be no different than other Ponzi games. But, interestingly, you'd find whoever has tried to take over the board by a series of small bets have ultimately lost out.


I was trying to show the bankroll, but it seems this is not possible in the way the game is designed. I have not stored bankroll anywhere. I just dynamically calculate it by subtracting 'Total Paid' from 'Total Invested' and keep comparing it with pending balance. So finding old bankrolls is very difficult. But, in case someone has any doubt, he can take a snapshot of the board before he places bet and then find the bankroll against which his bet status changed to paid/expired by the following forumula...

previous bankroll + total invested after his bet and before the status change - total paid after his bet and before the status change



Thanks for the vouch. I dont know if Vod will be satisfied with all these explanations and changes made.

For dice sites, bet gets placed every second. Here the life of a bet is 120 hour. So, naturally % of commission needs to be higher to make the project viable.

I think one of the guys you're arguing with misinterpreted "personal" here. You mean personal to you, not to the person running the Ponzi game.

My personal policy is that a Ponzi is a scam if it is deceptive, and not if it isn't.

If you run a Ponzi and say "we will double your deposit in 24 hours for as long as we can; deposits will be doubled in the order they are received; if we ever go 7 whole days without being able to afford to double a deposit, we will shut down and keep what's left over" then that's OK.

If you run exactly the same Ponzi but describe it as "we guarantee to double your deposit in 24 hours; we can do this because we whore out our grandmother; and she's really hot, man" then that's not OK.

The 2nd kind is by far the more common, with the owner swearing blind that he has some magical way of doubling any amount of money, and look, here's proof because we just doubled a deposit of 0.001 BTC...


The way he has it set up makes it best for the player to split his bets up as small as possible, to maximise the chance that at least some of them will be successful. He should change that, and in doing so remove the incentive for people to make lots of tiny bets.

Ah, so the Total Returned is not really the Total Returned.

Id like to hope that its not a scam as well, but as you said cheating would be hard to detect. Also thanks for the reminder of the lengthy chain. It got to me way after this was still a point that I had to look at the complete series of bets to figure out the actual bankroll at that time. More information would definitely do good. If logged in it gives you the time the bet was placed, which help understand the events a little better.


The way I understood the game is that the play off-chain, thus 2 would not work.


Profit is part of total returned, which is indeed phrased misleadingly. It should probably be deducted and put in a separate box.

No. The numbers are not being manipulated anywhere. Just because you have failed to understand the game logic, you are terming it as a SCAM.

The 10% commission is taken from the Total Returned and it can easily be verified by any player who has an account the site. When logged in, if you click on the bet ID, it'll show you the bet details. That clearly mentions that the To be Returned amount is not what gets added to the user's account. 10% gets deducted from it and and then it gets added. When we refer someone, 5% goes to OP and 5% come to us. Nothing is taken if user loses a bet and all remains in the bankroll.

Moreover, as I can see, you have alleged that OP has increased minimum amount of bet. Increase of mimimum amount of bet does not skyrocket the bankroll, because as in one hand it'll increase the Total Invested, on the other hand it'll increae the Total Returned too. So, the bankroll will remain as is as that is always the difference between Total Invested & Total Returned.

You are just picking up non-issues to wrongly justify your feedback. I wonder why you are silent about obvious scams and trying to malign an honest site. Below are a few example of obvious scams...

CryptoPyramid: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptopyramid-480605
CryptoMMMCom: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptommmcom-511134

One other thing that makes me not trust CrazyPonzi.  On the front page he says:


Total Returned + Bankroll equals the Total Invested!

Where is the 5%-10% the system is supposed to take?

The numbers are being manipulated somewhere.   

Tell me about. I'm currently dealing with an anonymous account pretending to be a fake charity with an imaginary business he promises he will register sometime in the future.  

This is how he justifies himself:

Over 50% of respondents in two polls (one created by me, one created by him) stated his name was misleading.   (he doesn't care)
Holding donations solicited fraudulently while you have an anonymous account is also inappropriate.  (he doesn't care)

 

Nothing personal about it - although your post seems personal against me.  

The OP does not clearly state to a reasonable person that you can lose all your coins.  It says your investment will expire after 120 hours, but what does that mean?  I'm glad you feel that is "good enough" but I'd like to see more - especially since he promotes his ponzi as Transparent and Secure (lol).

I'm working on a policy to apply to all ponzis but until I decide on a clear definition, I still want to protect this community and his ponzi is a scam.  He recently upped his minimum bet by a factor of 10.  He's also a newer account with no vested interest.  He could easily disappear with the coins, re-register a new domain and start all over.  With his minimum bet increase, he'll now do it 10x earlier.


In a perfect world, all ponzis will be treated to the same scrutiny.  I'm working towards that perfect world, and I hope you will give me time.

Why ? Otherwise wont that be a partial judgement ? Should DefaultTrust judgement be served like this way ?


Not sure what personal policy you are talking about and whether that fits to DefaultTrust. First of all, the site clearly states that it is a A bitcoin gambling game. Is not it enough to say that a player could lose as well ? Moreover, as Dooglus pointed out, it is mentioned in their FAQ as well (though I'd expect the statement to be more clear)...




This time you are getting clearly personal, which is absolutely unexpected from someone in DefaultTrust. You can not deny the fact that OP contacted you first and when he did not get any response from you and found that you are still posting in the forum, then only he created this thread and contacted your DefaultTrust sponsors. How come you claim that someone will be -ve trusted because of some personal policy you'll create at some point of time ?

The problem with OP is that, like all heros, he has a fatal flaw. He can't bring himself to believe he's a scammer, whereas the truth of the matter is that he probably is. 

I hope I don't have to do that - it would be a lot of needless work.  

I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally.  One of the ways they wouldn't be flagged was if they clearly stated for a reasonable person that they could lose all their money and that a return is not guaranteed.  (OP does not do that.)

Since the OP called me out as an abuser and contacted my default trust sponsors, I don't feel removing the trust until my policy is developed is an appropriate thing to do - I think the community should stay involved.

Edit:  It appears the OP has increased the minimum playing amount by tenfold.   

I think, the community including QuickSeller, Shorena & me almost agreed that this is not a scam, though it has a few drawbacks that every dice site that accept investment in bankroll do have.

Even dooglus summarized it as not a scam...


As a community, we suggested some improvements that joker may consider to implement. But, that does not hold us the right to tag him as a scammer anymore. QuickSeller, Shorena & Dooglus all are in DefaultTrust and they voted against terming joker as a scammer. Moreover, one of the reason that you are in DefaultTrust now is because Dooglus trusted you. IMHO, irrespective of whether joker implement the changes or not, you should remove the -ve feedback or at least change it to neutral. Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.

I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit.

1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do)

2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal.

3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited.

I wondered that as well at first. It looks like #124's 0.1 would have meant the bankroll would be big enough to pay #125.

That logic is incorrect. #124's 0.1 was used to pay an earlier investor, #116 maybe. In other words #125 hadn't even joined the line of people waiting to be paid when #124 made his bet, but there was already a line. A guy near the front of the line got it.

I personally don't consider any kind of Ponzi to be scammy unless they are selling it as guaranteed profit. Most of them promise to return X% profit within Y time because the are great at trading / mining / whatever. If they make it clear that you only get paid if enough people join after you, then that turns it into a game where everyone knows the risks, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This game has a FAQ:


I think that's good enough. The English could be improved, and I'd like to see it explicitly state that you either get paid out in full or not at all. At first I was thinking I'd get whatever was in the bankroll when my bet expired, up to the full 140% but apparently that isn't the case. But that's a nit pick.

[ Edit: it seems to me that making bets all-or-nothing just encourages people to place a long series of minimum bets instead of a single large bet, because then they can get paid out partially. You should pay out whatever is in the bankroll when a bet expires to simplify things. ]

I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening.

tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).

I stopped giving out negating ratings on a regular basis once ponzis got their own section with a proper warning. The finer details are up to those that play the games. If you however are coming to different sections I am willing to discuss the topic. I might be biased because I sell my signature to a dice gambling platform. Hard to hide it.

IMHO if I am to stupid to understand your game, its too complex. Its not that I am exceptionally smart, but one playing a game should not need to be in order to understand it.


Why would it be dump? How would you know they are cheating? CrazyJoker points out that an automated version might result in patters that players detect, so we are not talking about a perfect crime. On the other hand the skipped nounces on dicebitco.in did take their time to get detected.


Investors have an exceptional high risk to get scammed, yes. Mainly because there is no way for the operator to proof that they will not run. Investing in a dice site is essentially sending someone anonymous money and hope for the best. An investment however is not a game.


I dont, at least no longer. The only person I trust in this sense with a fair amount of my coins is doog. This is however derailing the conversation and distracting from the topic at hand.


I think Vod has the players in mind, not the investors. The players are the majority of the users. A player on a provable fair site (not limited to dice) has many ways to significantly lower the risk of a scam. They can #1 verify each bet (true for CP), #2 deposit only what they are willing to play (true for CP), #3 withdraw once they played (true for CP). Since the ponzi games let player play against eachother on would also have to be able to verify all other players bets. The order is very important. I am not entirely sure, but I think the PvP section of PrimeDice might have a similar problem. Both players must trust that Stunna did not disclose the seed to the other party.


Which is true in a sense. Any casino that allows crowd investments has a high incentive to just close shop and leave. The higher the investment the higher the incentive.


Thanks. Yes I lost my fair share to gambling sites, both because I played and because I invested.

Vod is essentially without bias because he is not involved. I dont think its good to dismiss someones view just because they are not involved.


My personal problem is not the name or the structure of the game, but that I can not verify the bets to my satisfaction. I had these discussions in the past and if I were to see a solution to create a provable fair ponzi game I would certainly play it. It would probably lose coins, but thats the nature of all luck based games. Even if there is skill involved. The name certainly brings baggage. I dont think that any games of the ponzi kind should be moved to the general gambling section. They got their own section because there is a high amount of scammers running them and many gamblers look down on the concept. It would certainly help if the section had more known sites that have been run for a long time.


I was, yes. I will change that later and check the details.


Yes, as said above. Investors are at an exceptional high risk. Im arguing mainly from the players perspective. Investment is another big topic and its not possible to create it in a provable fair way AFAIK.


Thats the thing, I have no solution. I am willing to believe that it can be solved, but I am not sure. It might boil down to proving a negative (see e.g. Russels teapot analogy). IMHO the longer your service run the more confident the players will get. This might result in a higher total bankroll and thus a higher incentive for you to just vanish. On the other hand it might also increase your profit which is an incentive to stay honest. It is essentially like the problem an investor to a dice (or similar) site has.


That is true and no I dont, but I also dont tag you negatively. Maybe it is like you and others say, an image problem. The word ponzi is a loaded term. It is used to describe a particular kind of scams. I think the bias towards your game might be less severe if you would call it differently. It would still have its technical problems though.

As I can see, you are posting in the forum again, but NOT here. Are you reconsidering the trust you have left or planning to leave it as is ?

If I were running on the blockchain, then the arguement would have been that I am using multiple addresses in the game. Becasue of the nature of bitcoin, it is not possible anyway to track whether two players are same or different. I would like to know how exactly I can get the unfair advantage in running this way, rather than running directly on the blockchain ?


No Buddy. This time you are plain wrong. You just need to sign up for free and log in to know when someone placed a bet. I did not make that information available on the home page because it would make the homepage a little more heavy to load.


Are you too lazy to sign up for free and login to check the neccessary information ?


What are you talking about ? In a dice site that accepts investment, if the operator plays against his own bankroll knowing the seeds from his own DB, wont the investors in the bankroll lose money ?


This time you come up with a brilliant arguement. I seriously did not think about this flaw. Thinking about it a little bit, what I can say for now is, if I programmatically do so it would create a pattern that would be caught by players today or tomorrow. But, if you have a better solution to block this flaw, please let me know.


Same applies to dice site that accepts investment. Do you tag -ve to all dice site owners that accept investment not because they are proven scammer (that would be too late) or because they are disthonest (which can not be proven) but because they could scam investors by playing against their own bankroll ?

Please do not comment on something that you do not know clearly. This would only complicate the situation.

Vod is not associated with any gambling lobby. Rather, I have seen him suggesting people against investing in dice site. Ref: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11372036

Shorena is probably a gambler, but he is a very logical person. So far, I have seen, Shorena has always stood by what is logical.

The problem here, I believe, the name 'Ponzi'. Though working on same principle, Nine9.ninja has not been given -ve trust. Vod just assumed CrazyPonzi is similar to other Ponzi scams and did what I could to save naive investors. I hope, he'll understand the game and rectify his feedback. Moreover, I think, both CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja needs to be moved to Gambling section.

I think you are not correct in this judgement. Both you and I carry signatures of dice games that accept investment in the bankroll. We already know, that the operator of these games can easily play & win in his own game as the seed in DB is known to him. In this case, we always give the operator a benefit of doubt, though his actions are not publicly verifiable. Do we leave him -ve trust because he could scam ? In this case, I think, Vod is getting too partial to CrazyPonzi.com just because of the word 'Ponzi'.

I mostly agree with you here. Anyone who spend some time in Investment Based Games, knows CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja are the only two honest games running in that section. Killing any of them with -ve trust will only benefit the other scammers, because then all will be at par. Both of these games run almost on the same logic and it seriously will be very dumb for the operator to cheat in these games.

You are wasting your time Joker. If someone claims that he did not understand the game even after this explanation and still think that it is a plain Ponzi, then either he is too stupid to judge a scam or plain lying to support the Dice lobby. I think, u contacted Dooglus & TomatoCage. None has chimed in. Even if you convince Shorena, Vod will still keep his feedback. The reason is plain & simple. A few people on this forum does not want an honest investment based game to rise and so that investment based dice sites can keep on stealing.

Interestingly, pure scammers are not marked as scammer. Becasue this dice lobby knows those are not the competitor as they'll fail today or tomorrow...

e.g. https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptopyramid-480605, https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/cryptommmcom-511134, https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/shayla-lenssen-512093 etc.

Sure, do what ever you want, but dont expect people to not call you out for it. What you are saying is: everyone can check their own deposit. Sure, thats nothing special, thats inherent to the way bitcoin works. You also say that you publicly list withdrawals, which I guess is to "proof" that you pay out. My point though is that no player can confirm or deny the legitimacy of any other player. Neither can their plays be checked. Your argument is: Yep, but its more convenient that way. Ok, go the convenient route, but you are hiding something and this something can give you an unfair advantage.


As I stated, this probably would make sense if I knew when someone did a bet. The information is no longer available though, thus I cant check what happend. You - again - hide information.


You are now either calling my lazy or stupid due to your poor design choices.


Yes, but a dice site is not PvP. If the operator wants to play against their own bankroll all they do is fake activity. That is bad enough, but at least no one is losing money. Im not talking about a change in hindsight. You could add a bet 0.1 second before someone elses bet is added. The bet could be perfectly caluclated to match the amount available to receive. That would be 2-3 simple lines of code. To the outside it would appear like a lucky player and no one could confirm whether there was an actual person behind the bet that just got lucky. This is the essential propblem with a ponzi, the operator is at an advantage because they control when exactly their system accepts a bet. This is somewhat hard if its done on chain, but since TX-IDs have no timestamps its still possible. This allows them to slip in a bet that is not at risk of losing.

Unless you can solve this problem in a way that is publicly verifiable you can not be called provably fair and will always have someone calling you a scammer. Not because you are a proven scammer (that would be too late) or because you are disthonest (which can not be proven) but because you could scam.

I think if you check the current condition, understanding the game will be easier to you. Bet #218 was expired and #219 has been paid. Why ? Because, the bankroll was 0.00198702 BTC, i.e. less than 0.00222264 BTC, but more than 0.00182 BTC. Now, after paying #219, 0.00182 BTC has been deducted from the bankroll and it has gone down to 0.00016702 BTC. If no more investment come in next 24 hour, then #220 will also expire as 0.00016702 < 0.00222264.

Because every bet does not correspond to a Tx ID. Players deposit in the site wallet and play from there, just like dice sites. I could make it directly on the blockchain, but that was giving rise to 2 problems...

i. I could NOT identify a referrer and thereby could NOT give referral commission.

ii. Players could NOT use web wallet, as for most web wallets deposit address is not the receiving address.

In any case, I am NOT going to change the structure as the players are already comfortable with it. But, every player who has deposited or withdrawn can identify the site address from blockchain. Moreover, all my withdrawals are listed in the thread.



As I stated, bankroll actually increases with every new bet. If a bet a bet expires, the bet amount remains in the bankroll or goes to the bankroll, whichever way you explain it. If a bet is paid, the bankroll decreases.

As explained above, the expiration of #122-#124 did NOT increase the bankroll. When #122-#124 were invested, bankroll increased and that helped to pay some previous bet. Expiration of #122-#124 only made sure that the bankroll will now be compared with #125. The site provide enough data to reenact what happend. Just it would be a bit more labourious to reconstruct. Simply sign up and log in. You'll see a blue box on each bet#. Clicking on that, you'll find bet details. That would help you to calculate from bet#1 that what happened according to time of expiration of each bet.

About the "I dont play and even if I would I have no advantage" issue: If I accept your logic, then a dice site can change the seed of a bet and claim that was what in the DB. Players can always take screnshot and if I change DB, it'll immediately be caught and again it wont be economical for me to cheat that way as I make more from commission by honestly running the game.

Transaction IDs are not listed. I dont see a common deposit address either. Both should be found easily. Not providing them openly is hiding something.


What? If a bet expires it goes to the bankroll, but the bankroll does NOT increase? How does that work?

Besides...
#122-#124 are expired for a total of 0.1126 BTC. Why did #125 did not get paid 0.01986264? It might make sense if I had more information, but your page does not provide enough information for me to reenact what happend. However part of beeing provably fair is that I can late look at the data provided and understand that there could have been only one possible outcome. When I look at the data your site provides I have questions arising.

About the "I dont play and even if I would I have no advantage" issue: From the information your page currently provides I only see entrances in a table that rely on your local database. You as the operator obviously have database access and could just add entries. I hope you see my problem now and can maybe explain in a way that does not lead to more confusion.

I have explained every questions that you guys have. I'll also explain if you have more questions. But, it is good if you please remove the -ve feedback as we talk. It is creating a bad impression on a fair game for no apparent reason.

You may suggest a better name or keywords. It seems, changing the brand is important here...

It is common that everyone from Dice gaming background comes up with this Provably Fair demand. Please do understand that the classical concept of Provably Fair does not apply here, because the whole luck concept is different here than normal dice games. I have also read somewhere that the Provably Fair concept is different for Poker sites as well. For dice sites, you are keeping a random no. hidden. But, there is nothing hidden here. The inflow of new investments and their timing is random itself.

I did explain (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10394502) while I was running the first game on this domain and I can explain this time as well.

Nopes. The fundamental concept is NOT the same. There is no round removed here. When an investment expires, it goes to "the bankroll" means it is used to pay the next pending investment. It does NOT get into my pocket. Only when a player is paid back 140% return, 10% of that goes into my pocket and that is my incentive to run the game honestly.


Though I am NOT participating in the game, let us assume for the sake of arguement that I do. What difference does it make ? If my investment does NOT get covered within 120 hour, I'll lose it to my next investors. This game does NOT give me any advantage as a player over others as there is no hidden data. But, in reality, if you check my thread, you'll see lot of investors reported their deposits and they also invest in other games. So, it is NOT me playing against myself.


Because bankroll does NOT increase when a bet expires. It increases when a new bet comes in. When 122 was expiring, bankroll was lower than 0.00364 BTC. After that, new investment came in and bankroll was lower than 0.014 BTC, but higher than 0.012 BTC. That is why 123, 124, 125 expired, but 126 was paid. For classical Ponzi Games like WeeklyPonzi/NextPonzi, the only indicator to pay out is another investment after yours, but this is NOT the case here. Bankroll goes up & down because of new bet & payouts. I hope, now you understand the beauty of the game.


If he had other things to do in real life, I did NOT have a problem. But, he was posting in the forum, but was NOT responding to my PM after leaving a -ve feedback.

@shorena & @Vod I need to go out for now. Will be back and respond to both of you.

OP - I believe your path is laid out for you.  Good luck!

If you want it to be treated like a gambling game, do what other gambling games do. Make it provably fair.

Now, it is NOT possible for me to know, how you handle "new personal message". I saw you are posting elswhere for hours and NOT responding to me. So, I assumed you are avoiding me.

Please note that, I have updated the previous post. If you have any suggestion... please do mention them. I have absolutely no problem in making people aware that they are gambling and the 140% return is NOT guaranteed. I would like CrazyPonzi.com to be treated as a Gambling game, NOT an Investment Based Game, where every new player joins with a doubt that I have some hidden plan to run away with their fund.

I did. All I see are your claims. Lets pick them apart, shall we? Maybe you can answer my questions.


Thats sooo rude of you Vod, why do you have other things to do with your life but the react to a PM?


Edit: typos, grammar

Sometimes when I am in the middle of something and the "new personal message" notification comes up, I ignore it to continue what I'm doing, and return to it later.

I was not in the accusation mode while I sent you the PM. I just noted your post count after sending the PM. This was your last post then => https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11369539. When I saw, you made a LOT of posts after this, but did NOT reply to me, I created this post.

The site clearly mentions that it is A bitcoin gambling game. What else I can mention to make people aware that they can lose their coins ?  Still, if you have any suggestion... please do mention them. I have absolutely no problem in making people aware that they are gambling and the 140% return is NOT guaranteed.

No. I am just pointing out that I previously looked into them and didn't think they would be a scam.

From the looks of it they chose their name poorly however I don't think they are the same as other ponzis as the rounds are scheduled to end at a certain time so you need to have enough people invested after you in order for you to not lose.

Although thinking about it a little bit, this does sound a little but like weekly ponzi which was run by scammer James Volpe aka TheGambler aka moreia so maybe it should be looked into to see if the OP,  is an alt of him. Otherwise they are really no different then any other Bitcoin casino but with a somewhat non traditional name.

Where goes this logic for Nine9.ninja - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nine9ninja-ponzigame-400-btc-input-altcoins-automated-125-return-954695 ?

Is that the new standard of trust now?  

I hadn't even dealt with his PM yet.  Now that he has stated I'm "clearly abusing" my position in DefaultTrust, that I'm irresponsible, unreasonable and illogical, I'm not making it my priority over sleep.  OP has no patience.  

I'll look at it again in my morning.  If the OP wants to be more realistic with his site, and clearly list the risks associated with his game (he doesn't even state you can lose coins!) then I can reconsider my trust.  

Our main thread was moved from Gambling to Investor Based Games section, while that section was created: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/chainprofitcom-27-btc-paid-140-return-running-over-four-months-now-926237

We have a Giveaway thread in Games and Rounds: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/giveaway-get-001-btc-free-for-your-bet-1039772

Couldn't you say the same thing about any casino?

It looks like their thread is in games and rounds (and not the ponzi section).

I came across their thread a few times and didn't give them negative trust.

Exactly, I don't do it to piss people off, I do it to protect newbies who may believe the OP's words that his ponzi is different and he is not in a position to steal coins.

I didn't need to write your code to know how you would scam.  During a period of heavy deposits, a "hack" would occur that would stop all withdrawals.  You would disappear with as many coins as you could.   

I'd have more compassion for you if you weren't operating on a throw away account.

No need to cry about the red trust, you won't use that account anymore after you scam your investor with the ponzi

I assume everbody here knows how a ponzi works. There has been many issues with them in the past. The owners just escaped with the profit when they had enough. It isnt about the people that didnt and did get money out of it. It is just the new investors that invested wont be able to get the money because of the owner that shut the website down.
Yes, it actually pays you money, but that wont last for ever and it will be a scam the day or another as the owner doesnt want to manage it anymore

So creating a ponzi isnt a good idea because it is a 100% scam, like a time bomb that will explode after some time. Every ponzi runner gets neg trust, and Vod does it so that other people dont fall into the scam.

I suggest you to close the ponzi asap before big problems appear

In fact, I was thinking about that after witnessing the interest of people. Changing the domain name keeping the game untouched is NOT a big problem. But, Vod is simply NOT interested to take any logic !!! I have already explained how the game operates in the first post, whereas he is asking the same Q in the second post !!!

Please read the PM or the thread above and you'll find how this game works. The Ponzi schemes you are referring always pay old investors from new investor's deposit. This is NOT the case here. New investors can be paid by old investors as every deposit gets 120 hour to expire. In legacy Ponzi games bankroll just goes up and at a certain point owner just take it and run away. This is NOT the case here. Bankroll goes up & down and it is never more than the commission that I make from winners.

If you have to explain that you're not a scam to your average customer, you should consider a rebrand.

Question:  How does one create an honest ponzi?  Your intention is to steal as much as you can from as many people as you can.   

Who am I ?

I am running a Social Gambling Game called CrazyPonzi.com. Here is the thread - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/chainprofitcom-27-btc-paid-140-return-running-over-four-months-now-926237.


Ponzi ? So you are a Scammer...

No. I am tired of explaining the same to every new player. The explanation is given below in the PM I sent to Vod. Probably, I made a mistake by chosing the domain name, but the game is designed in a way, so that running away with the bankroll wont be economical to me.


What happened ?

Yesterday, I found Vod has left me a -ve trust. There was no PM or any other communication from his end. In the reference he provided the thread link of a game I am running for over months without any complaint of cheating. I sent him a PM, but did not receive any response, though it seems he was active after receiving the PM. So, I assume, he is avoiding me and does not want to reason his feedback. My PM content is given below...



Why is it in Meta ? Trust is NOT moderated on BitcoinTalk...

I know. There are three other untrusted -ve feedbacks on me as well for the same reason, i.e. running CrazyPonzi.com, NOT scamming anyone. I did NOT create a thread for them, becasue they are NOT blessed by DefaultTrust. Vod is blessed by two people (dooglus & TomatoCage) on DefaultTrust and DefaultTrust is a moderated one. Hence I have created this thread in Meta.


So what action are you taking ?

I am not in a position to take any direct action. I tried to create an honest game in the wild west of Investment Based Games section. It took around one and a half month to code CrazyPonzi.com. 28+ BTC was received and returned, while 100+ players joined the game. Now, this irresponsible feedback from a person who does not have the slightest hint of what is going on is unexpected. I'll send this thread link to dooglus & TomatoCage and expect their input. I hope Vod will be rational and adjust his feedback accordingly.