I'll reply in a single post so as not to spam this thread too much more. I'll try to make this my last post as I think everything has already been said...
Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?
..."It doesn't prove anything about
trustworthiness."... which concurs my point above.
I think you misunderstand.
If you prove that your site is solvent, it means you have proved that you are able to honour withdrawals if you cho
ose to. It doesn't prove that you will, but it proves you are able to.
If on the other hand you are unable to prove that your site is solvent, it means that you are unable to honour withdrawals. That is a bad state to be in.
Do you understand my point now? The fact that they refuse to demonstrate that they are bankrolled to offer the size of bets that they offer when it is trivially easy to do so is a red flag. It likely means that they aren't bankrolled to offer the bets, and are risking becoming insolvent, or indeed may already be insolvent.
How dooglus rolls:
1. "hey! I am not saying they are not trustworty!!"
2. "hey! I am not saying they are a ponzi!!!"
3. "hey! I am not saying they would scam!!!"
4. "hey! I am always wrong at predicting future but I wouldn't give it up, why should I?"
5. "hey! I don't think they will run away with funds but they still could??"
..."I will still leave a negative trust here, eventhough I don't think they are not trustworthy"
The negative trust is to flag the suspicious behaviour so that others can have all the facts before making their own decision. I'm not making any prediction or any judgement. I am saying that refusing to demonstrate solvency when it is easy to do is suspicious. What is so hard to understand about that?
As the other poster just confirmed, we are the only dice site with transparent statistics.
Now you're definitely full of shit. How are you more transparent than all the other dice sites?
Very sad to see dooglus being a total FUD... "I don't think they are scam, but could be a scam!" I mean "wtf? is that?"
There are some very stupid people in this thread. I didn't say that I don't think they are going to scam. I said we can't tell, but that their behaviour is suspicious and should be flagged.
@RHavar... you're concerned for solvency, MoneyPot before being a "vault" (whatever you call it) ... accepted private investors? well the posts history suggests there was private investment with "mentioned amount of bitcoins",,, but I will take your word for it, care to show me your cold storage address when moneypot was a game?
He already answered that, just before you asked it:
We already covered this. The private investors transferred zero coins, they only agreed to pay if the site took a loss and be paid if the site made money. The site made money, they got paid. End of story. What do you want, proof of 0 coins?
When I "invested" in moneypot, it was a gentleman's agreement. I told him "OK, I'm in - consider me invested for X coins". The site won, and so he sent me the profit on the "investment". I never sent him the investment and he never sent it back. I didn't even prove to him that I had that many coins. Since no coins (other than the profit) changed hands, how is showing you a cold wallet address going to prove anything?
Indeed, dooglus is the biggest piece of envious shit you will ever find!
Well, for us dog is just
another jealous competitor.
As far as I can see you have very little volume on your site. You have a bunch of people betting faucet dust and little more. Just-Dice gets more volume than DaDice and that's after I switched from BTC to CLAM to scale everything down. I don't want huge volume and never advertise whereas you plaster your ads everywhere and still get less volume that JD. What is there to be envious of?