I guess the other 1% would be ACTUAL EVIDENCE then. Suspicious timing is not evidence. Someone winning is not evidence. Someone winning at a suspicious time is not evidence. I believe Matteo was an inside job too, the difference is I'm leaving open the possibility it wasn't. All this BS talk of improbability and unlikeliness and suspicious timing is just unsubstantiated speculation.
We would need an independent audit of the code, books, betting, etc. In a state governed casino or lottery such oversight is available. As DB was an unlicensed and therefore unregulated entity then no such investigation is possible. Hence the speculation. We have no better alternative.
Under the broken logic and dubious math you're all using, you know what else is suspicious? Everyone who's ever won the Powerball. It's SO suspicious that anyone would play or win a game with a 0% chance of winning!
Incorrect, although I take the point you're making. The chances of winning my local version of Powerball is about 1 in 43 million. It's never zero and chances are someone is going to win every week or two, given enough entries. What mateo did is quite different. It wasn't one jackpot win of 500+ btc. It was consistent betting over thousands of 'rolls'. Looking at the results I would say mateo had the 1% edge against the house, not the other way around.
The above posters who stated the chances of mateo doing what he did as zero chance are clearly incorrect. There's always a chance mateo could get very lucky. But given the certain facts surrounding DB it's natural even a casual observer would have questions to ask.
Don't confuse someone who knows the difference between suspicious circumstances and evidence as someone who believes Matteo and manl are two different people. Just because you've convicted manl with missing pieces of information and while high on emotion and based on speculation doesn't mean everyone has such a low threshold for judgment.
We do know the site was rigged for around two weeks and did not work as advertised. One could reasonably argue that given the other suspicious events at the site the threshold for judgment has been markedly lowered to the reasonable observer.