Topic: DiceBitco.in - New Thread to Discuss - page 14. (Read 20658 times)

Am quoting this to send to bitcoininformation, will add a disclaimer once he decides.

Btw, can you stop being so aggressive and start doling out neg reps? This guy has shown to be quite involved in the community and was the first who changed the signature to warn others. I am sure with a bit of dialogue you can reach a solution.

there u go, it was stated by dicebitcoin

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8734611

If an escrow provider has made the claim that the contract involved keeping the signature unaltered, then it seems the escrow provider hasn't read the thread.

Relevant rules:

* You must use the highest level of formatting (Color/size/etc) your user group allows to be applicable for the rates.
- Still applies if you add a disclaimer.

* Your signature must reflect your full user group rights.
- Still applies if you add a disclaimer.

* You may not advertise any other sites/threads. This includes non-paid for advertisements.
- define:advertise: "describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance."
A disclaimer relating to a scam is not 'promoting sales or attendance' and should not be considered advertising.

* You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!
- Still applies if you add a disclaimer.

I am rightfully supposed to receive signature earnings, from day 1. They were not a scam back then hence why I decided to advertise them.

In other words: The offer DID NOT involve promoting a scam.

Made more simple:

Trust is about forfeiting attractive gains that you should not rightfully receive.

If an offer involves promoting a scam, then that is something that you should not rightfully perform IMHO.


Can you quote that? I don't see anywhere on the contract where it says it must be unaltered. I only see it prohibiting you from advertising anything else.

^The escrow provider said he needs to keep it unaltered.

So? That's entirely my point. You are choosing to take 0.3 BTC and collude with a scam. That's the entire basis of my negative trust rating.

You seem to fail to grasp the concept that trustworthyness is *EXACTLY* not pocketing money you shouldn't pocket. The whole point of trustworthyness is that you would sacrifice gains.

PS: The contract actually says you may not advertise other sites, not that it's unaltered. (A Ctrl+F of the thread shows 0 matches for 'unaltered').

Mate, start adding a message at the end of your posts. Nobody looks at the message below the username. I was wondering for a long time what message you were talking about.

Something like this

----------------------------------------------------------
Dicebitcoin is screwed bla bla
read this thread ...(link)

This aswell, TradeFortress.

AFAIK They are still dealing with everyone's requests. Suspicion does not always equate to the truth.

If I remove the ad in the near future, will you remove your trust?

So you will add neg rep to all? Better start working on the list then; you will take a few days
Since you neg repped him, you should also do to the two escrow providers, as they asked to revert back to original sig, and also all the other carriers who are aware.

He can't add anything else in sig as it contravenes rules, but yeah, he can add a message after each post. Will require a bit more work on his part.

Sorry but that's continuing misrepresentation (aka Lying by omission).

You are aware that:

* DiceBitco.in has admitted that their services rigged nonces.

* DiceBitco.in did not refund users who should have earned a profit, but did not. This is scamming, plain and simple. DiceBitco.in did not compensate all the users who lost due to the nonce rigging - the payouts that people *should* have won must be compensated as well, because the winnings are rightfully theirs.

* There are suspicious circumstances concerning mateo and the investments.

The contract is that I may only have the signature, unaltered in the space. I added a personal message however.

The issue is that these two sites have not scammed yet. While I am confident that both of these sites will scam, IMHO I think pre-emptive actions are unfair.

Regarding the signature ads: The exchange is for displaying an ad. The exchange does not involve you astrosurfing or defending them. Why not continue to carry the signature, but add a visible disclaimer? You have a free line.

I'm asking those questions too. The difference is I'm asking the questions and not drawing foregone conclusions from those questions. I used "0%" sarcastically as a barb at the guy who posted a very convoluted bunch of math garbage to reach the conclusion that Matteo's odds of winning was 0%. It's not 0%, just like the odds of winning Powerball (1:175 million) is not 0%. I was not comparing the odds of Powerball to the likeliness of Matteo's win streak however. My overall point was that people use broken logic and bad math to reach a conclusion, which for the way it was reached is necessarily flawed. In this thread, the fact that something is extremely unlikely is proof that it is impossible. That's not how math works. If the odds are not literally 0, then it is possible, and if it is possible, without evidence of wrongdoing all you have is speculation. As I've already said, I find it compelling speculation and I myself believe Matteo is an inside job weighing all the information available, but I'm answering all the people who question why it's not universally accepted to be fact.

I'm operating under the assumption Matteo somehow stole the coins. I'm just not spreading that as gospel and belittling people who won't. Those are the people I'm taking issue with.


I agree! The fact that the code was originally rigged is perhaps the most important piece in this whole thing. This whole scenario is suspicious and people should NOT be gambling on the site anymore (which is still running). But it doesn't change anything I posted above about perpetuating suspicions as established facts.

Hey! I added a personal message.. Read it!

Its an interesting dilemma. If people are going to neg rep you then should do that for all those who are sporting the cryptcominer or gawminer signatures. I suggest you add a banner to your posts disclaiming the signature or directing people to the relevant thread.

If its proven to some reasonable degree that they scammed (I am sure they did), then the escrow holders should take the call and divide up the money, or settle it with some lower pay.

I left macrotheminer negative trust:

[/b]This user is knowingly advertising a scam website, DiceBitco.in. For information on the DiceBitco.in scam, see this thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dicebitcoin-investment-dice-scam-774120

macrotheminer has refused to modify his signature to include information about the scamming activities. He has defended advertising a scam because "For some, the income we receive from these campaigns is a big portion"

This event has shown that macrotheminer will collude with scams for money. Completely untrustworthy. [/b]

I linked to this post as reference since it quoted macrotheminer's post (so he cannot modify it later). I encourage others to do the same, feel free to copy and paste the feedback.

No, you miss my point. I had stopped bothering about Bitcoin and related stuff due to all the greed and scams, but the interesting stuff made me hang around.

Sometimes I wish these were all just worthless, then we could marvel at the tech instead of seeing people lose their money.