Topic: For the reputation of this forum: you HAVE to rule on this flag! Share 10mBTC (Read 1151 times)

Such incentive shouldn't be allowed even if this is for fun. It encourage the trolls to use the system in their favour. A troll load with money will make the next offer which will be irresistible for some users. They can always rephrase their feedback but troll gets that he wanted. Feedback shouldn't be used for financial benefits or any kind of personal benefit.

Thks for participating in this thread. I agree that the trust system is not really about trust, it's just a marketing tool, destined to give exposure to the organisations sponsoring this forum. Unfortunately, a lot of them are scams, and I fell for one of those that is FortuneJack.
That's why I'm also using this "trust system" to try to show to others what it is really about, but that has limited exposure of course because most users of this forum won't read it and are exposed to scams.



Hahaha good one, I wouldn't have read that if it was not for you.

The negative trust on paperwallet here is bullshit..

He didn’t pay for any specific outcome or votes, he only said he would pay/raffle for participation..

Why? I can imagine because most are afraid to step up and criticize fortunejack, because fortunejack is the money tree, the hand that feeds many sig posters..

And with its campaign manager, completely biased, running around giving negative trust to users for criticizing fortunejack!!
(What a shitshow of trust enforced censorship, hamputz)

With such extreme and obvious conflict of interest, how brazen does one have to be to even contemplate such?
Well, it may not be hard to become inflated when so many line up to kiss the Sir’s feet..



How dare anyone speak against fortunejack!!!


Paper wallets ratings are a mess too though, so lol y’all have fun..

Both sides are jackasses..
One didn’t read the bullshit terms he agreed to, while the other makes users agree to bullshit terms that nobody ever reads..


Iirc a while back a newer casino got red trusted for not putting limits on the bets placed to keep them under max payout if they win..
Got red trust for allowing users to make higher bets than they could win back..

But no..
This casino allows you to place bets that you won’t even get max bet back on.. They just delete your bet if you win and refund your bet amount..
I wonder how many lost bets they just keep instead of refunding if they won..

I don’t personally care..
If you don’t read the terms and/or do the math yourself.. Sucks to be you..
Nor do I like casinos either..

In the gambling world, they are only concerned with two rules that benefit them;

1. Minimum stake; they tell you the amount they are willing to accept from you, implying that they are only interested in users who can throw some decent $ to the company; it's rated 18 years and up, implying that every adult should know how much they are willing to lose; they didn't have to preach that on their page.

2. Maximum payout; for example, FJ's maximum payout is €300,000, which is what the company can afford to lose on a single bet; if your winnings exceeded that amount, the bet would be void, but they don't care if you lose €300,000 on a single bet.

Gambling is not for the weak. I started in 2009 and never had issues with any gambling site because I always play within the rules.

OK, so I just saw this thread, and while some of you may know from previous threads my dislike of certain parts of FJ's TOS, let's come back to earth for a moment.

1) Sure, what was lost is lost, but why gamble with 105K euros in the first place? Everyone knows that route won't give a large profit, so why take the risk? Especially on some random casino, for goodwill. [Yes I called FJ a random casino for the same reason I'd call nearly every other crypto casino random, as most people have not heard of them like Bet365 and Bwin for example.]

2) Casinos in general should not be allowing people to wager more than $10K at one because of negative emotions attached to gambling loss. Some of them already have such a wager ceiling - I don't know if FJ does but they shouldn't be allowing players to be reckless with their money, and that goes for similar casinos without a ceiling as well.

I don't understand how you even come to this conclusion. Like, I've tried to rationise it and the only thing am getting is you trying to question Hhampuz's reputation based on some user that was involved in the promotion of 1xbit. That's pathetic if you ask me and it doesn't make sense.

You seem to have complete disregard for terms, especially where it states that, the manager and project team has the right to add and remove anyone at anytime or to do as they wish with there campaign. Some this rules states that, the feedback could be regarded as legitimate or not. Try to get the logic behind these things and know that, it doesn't appeals to everyone at every point.

Imagine, 1xbit is said to be a known scam but still, users gamble on them! Do we call these users scammers too? What we do out here is subjective.

The issue with projects turning out to be scams is mostly, when you can't withdraw or they hold on to your deposit. Yours is different, your illegitimate bets that broke there T&C was cancelled, the stake on them refunded and the one that was legitimate was paid and I believe, you've withdrawn as due. The only cause for alarm here is there waiting until you won otherwise, you won't have raised a flag.

Next time, try different predictions and you won't have an issue. I like the fact that you could go huge and win. That's some courage a lot of gamblers lack and to be on point with your bet.

Payout is done, 10 mBTC were divided among 7 participants using BTC address on profile.
Bambolina: no BTC address
Blossom15
cruso
examplens
GazetaBitcoin
igehhh
LEVSKI7: no BTC address
Marvelman
Sterbens: no BTC address
yogg

As said, those opposed received some cursed coins, so you are allowed to send them back if you want to.

I wish you the best of luck.

Wait a bit, it was for 1st of June. You’re not that smart to bully me into this am doing this by myself. Don’t spend your day refreshing your BTC wallet though:) I know you’re cheaper than that but still.

Promises, promises.


Ooooh, so you're an intellectual?  An intellectual who believes in curses?  Do you cast spells, also?


Lol, how pathetic.  Just save your cursed coins, nobody want's them anyway.

---

You got your money back, but you didn't get to play fast and loose with their casino.  That's not a scam.  As it is, I think it's been made pretty obvious that nobody (with any clout) supports your allegations.

Of course, this is the problem. If your best reputable members like Hhampuz do campaign managing for this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/alt-of-1xbit-please-dont-promote-1xbit-1xbit-is-a-scam-site-5400099

Then this forum is nothing short of a scam promoter, among other things. Lots of things about trust system and how things work are opaque and some sort of an evil group cannot make a living other than promoting scammers.

In my opinion, it is all about terms. If there were no such clause in the T&C, this would be a completely different story and the community would recognize it. Take the 1xBit scam, for example. And it is my opinion that you were familiar with their terms before you placed those bets. Why else would you place several identical similar bets instead of one?

Again, I understand your frustration, but the casino did not scam you. True, they voided your bets in an odd and clumsy way, but they were enforcing the terms you agreed to beforehand.

---

[edit]
I am not superstitious and your words don't mean anything to me, but your attitude tells me that you aren't a man of your word. This fact alone sheds some new light on the matter...
I offered my honest opinion. You can disagree with it, I understand that. But calling someone dishonest about it and cursing coins is not okay. If you don't want to send coins, don't. That's all there is to it.

The participation is closed. The participants are:

Bambolina
Blossom15
cruso
examplens (cursed)
GazetaBitcoin (cursed)
igehhh (cursed)
LEVSKI7
Marvelman (cursed)
Sterbens (cursed)
yogg (cursed)


A perfect 10, as I predicted, so less work. Wait for 1 mBTC to reach your wallet by the 1st of June.

You are allowed to return it back to same wallet it came from, if you don’t want my second prediction above to come true.

It’s not about the terms per se. It’s about people here sponsoring scams, they are so used to “gotcha it’s in the terms”. But this is still not the case here. I know Fortunejack is writing their terms to sometimes defraud their users but they’re bad even at this. It’s just that the dishonest people here don’t even bother to read, when they hear the word “terms and conditions” that’s a free pass for their sponsored scammer.

I think this is a fair question. I don't understand much about casino software, but would it be such a big deal to disable bets that violate T&C rules before they are placed? If the casino accepts the bet and "shakes hands" with the player, isn't that some kind of agreement between the casino and the player that should be honored to the end? What would have happened if the bets had lost? Why did they voided the bets only after the match was over and the result was in the players' favor?

Clearly there are many issues here, and I understand the OP's frustration, but unfortunately I can't support the flag because of the casino's T&Cs. Also, because the T&Cs are set against the players, I am sure that courts would rule in favor of the player in this case. The laws in most jurisdictions protects consumers against misleading practices, and and I believe this is one such situation. When there is a conflict between internal T&Cs and the law, the law always trumps the terms set by the casino.

This is by far an interesting case and even now, I still continue to read through just to be more familiar with it. It's such a huge amount to lose du to T&C. I must commend you to have been able to come by such prediction and still got to make such huge stakes on them. Its only regrettable as they aren't valid due to the terms stated.

One thing we ought to understand is, these terms offers some regulations to what could stay them (sportsbook and casinos) in business. We shouldn't expect them not putting a limit to what is accepted as minimum or maximum stake per bet and what could be the maximum or minimum for payouts. I'm sure if this isn't included and such case comes up without them honouring the wins, we would query them just as we do now.
One truth to T&C is, when it doesn't suit you, you get to find another sportsbook or casino that gives you the free hand you need and bet with them. If these T&C have been in existence far before the issue arose, then it could be considered as binding.

What I don't seem to understand on the part of Fortunejack.com is:

Why accept a bet if it already violates your T&C?
Perhaps duplicate bets might not be duly moderated but its a different story on the part of wins. A smart contract could have not allowed the bets to be placed. Perhaps they needs to be an update on the system to prohibit that outrightly.
That would help to avoid instances like this!

In the end, terms are terms and they do apply very much as much as they've been stated before hand and I don't see why the shouldn't in this case. As much as this might mean nothing, I just share in your lose as, its a significant one indeed and the bets placed where one that came out of some accurate prediction and the guts to go huge on them. Sorry mate, it's happening!

I love these Sr members with 260 posts and as that much merit.

Wow, you’re such a phenom and am 100% certain there is no cheating in this (as well as members who get the FortuneJack banner, somehow became all hero members and were bragging about it)

Hhampuz is a very reputable user and conscious about the people or company he represents. Some of his reputations counts for Fortunejack.com too and they are a one of the reputable company on the forum given the fact that, they haven't given any cause to be alarmed until now.

I practically read through your case and examined the proof you provided which were rock solid based on placing of bets but, when it comes to the terms for which these services where offered, you erred at OP and that simple neglect is what brought a cancellation upon your preceeding bets and wins.

I mean, I can't blame you, no I won't! Not many of us if any at all gives attention to terms & conditions to services rendered and you can tell that sometimes these T&C that are meant to guide us could also trap us and favour the company once you neglect them. Being ignorant of them becomes your first offence and to amend for that, most companies have relatively similar T&C so, you just have to grasps the bases and relate to all.

To be sure of your flag in this case at OP, I had to go over some of the T&C of Fortunejack.com and as you can see, an issue like this one is addressed right there in the T&C, last updated on November 05, 2019. Far before this event took place. I'll quote the portion that matters right here and ink it in red.
Link to Fortunejack.com sportsbook T&C

On this, Fortunejack.com is at right. What you ought to realise at OP is, bets comes into cognisance most times when it's a big win. There isn't a smart contract working that out without a human authorisation which comes after some scrutiny. That could account to why your bet wasn't cancelled when it was placed and only after winning. The better question here is:

Would that have been the case in the event of a lose?

Perhaps you can find that out when you loose to same betting pattern! Maybe you could fight them with this terms then. Else at the moment and with the presented facts, Fortunejack.com is at right and have paid you as due. Fortunejack.com is not a scam platform.

You don’t need this 1mBTC for your curse, you’ve just earned it, but if you want that as well no problem. That was destined for Loyce you don’t have the intellectual level to jump in this anyway.

---

Less than 24h left to participate! Hurry up!

This was an interesting experiment. If I'm not mistaken, the first of its kind on this forum. However, it appears that there are not many forum members who are interested in the offer. In a way, I actually like that.

As for support (or opposition) for the flag, I will make my decision after taking a closer look at the entire case (and once the deadline for participation in the "experiment" expires). No offense, OP. Even though you may have had good intentions, I do not agree with your execution.

You can lock, delete, or move this thread to the archive section all by your self.  You don't a moderator to do it.



Oh FFS, would you make up your mind.  No one here is that desperate for your 1mBTC, blessed or cursed.  Personally, I'm tempted to oppose your flag just to see if you'll honor your word (and your curse,) because I think you're full of shit on both accounts.



What are you talking about?  There's no revoking your right to be jackass after it's already happened.  This is the interwebs and everything is archived.  You won't be getting any good-boy points for paying up, and you're not losing anything by not.  No one cares.

Hello everyone,
A reminder:

You have until tomorrow 17h UTC to participate! So hurry up!

---

It doesn’t matter you can still contact Cyrus and he’ll do the job. As I said I prefer to revoke my freedom of speech right for the sake of more important things that require merit and the sanity of the trust system. I was also getting negative trust points from some other idiots but looks like they deleted them.

Feedback isn't moderated. You're free to say almost anything you want here, including attacking Admin if you please.

It’s so funny that you are revoking your escrow offer when I have already rejected you.

Again: I do not want to damage a trust score system I am trying to test. If you think so, all you have to do is report it to get erased. That’s all.

Lol. You're a sore loser when you don't get your way. For the record: I withdraw my offer to act as an escrow. Your latest post makes it look like you were hoping to buy Support instead of asking people to freely choose Support or Oppose.

Dear Forum Members,
Only 3 days left to participate! No participants will be accepted after the 30th of May 17h UTC.

On the other hand, the Hero Members here are very good at meriting each other saying this is a spam, and not good for the trust system: in this case, I revoke my rights of freedom of expression for this thread, so please erase it so that I can save 10 mBTC. I have created a provably fair game for some unworthy people, yet I get my trust score diminished and no merit.

Except that I forgot to mention one thing: The 1 mBTC you’ll receive has a curse associated with it for those who oppose it, so even a 99% atheist might want to return it afterwards to the wallet it came from, fees on me up to 0.02 mBTC. The curse is stronger when you lack integrity and less important if you’re stupid,  but in both cases well merited.

Asking users to post their Bitcoin address can lead to low effort spam:
That's only allowed in Games and rounds.
So far, this hasn't happened though.

Really? Low effort spam? You’re suchanidiot.

I also opposed the flag. For one reason, at least, this being the following: once OP used FortuneJack's services, he agreed to their Terms and Conditions. The terms may be incorrect, as LoyceV emphasized, but since OP used the services he also agreed to the respective Terms. Maybe he did not properly read them, but this is irrelevant.

Dura lex, sed lex, Latins used to say - The law is harsh but it is the law. Same thing applies to a contract (or, in this case, FortuneJack's terms). If OP signs a contract with someone, and he agrees to work for that person 8h / day, 40h / week for next 40 years, with no payment for his work, then he has no right to complain afterwords, nor to say that the contract is incorrect towards him, as he previously agreed with contract terms, when he signed it...

That's not what the trust system is for. At best this is low-effort spam, incentivizing which is against the rules when posting on the forum, and I can't think of any reason why such incentive could be good for the trust system either.

terms are still terms. sometimes they seem so stupid, but obviously, it is necessary to emphasize everything. People come up with all sorts of things


I remember your case, and while it was still current, I opposed the flag still then. as far as I remember of my decision, there was only one reason, their ^FortuneJack casino, their rules. You can't much complain, the rule existed before this specific case.
I will look at the whole discussion once again, maybe I made the wrong decision earlier.

Ok you think I am not committed, but I said I am. Maybe you live around people or come from a place where it is ok for someone's word not to be good. The thing is you're not participating and already complaining.

Then go ahead and please oppose the flag. Believe me it would be fun to see how many members oppose it.
I am saying I have been SCAMMED. If you agree with LoyceV, then it would be something for a judge to determine and not an outright scam and not that clear, and something so complicated. You both with LoyceV should oppose it.

If you were to take the rules with that very basic and "stupid" (in a positive sense) interpretation, then:
"which team will win the rest of the match"
"final result"
maybe for any English speaking person are not identical bets?

If you were to have just a little more sense of some unwritten rules in life, like if you deal with somebody he's not supposed to steal you, then just maybe, bets 2, 3 and 4 were outright scams. Of course they should be adding to their terms engaging in funny business voids all pays and plays, it's so clear.

At some point I can't argue with bad faith.

In any case, good luck everyone.

That's a silly stipulation, and to be honest it makes me think that you're not really committed to honoring the lottery.  In your position, I would want someone who's not participating in the giveaway to manage the money, if for no other reason than to ensure impartiality from the escrow.



Lol, Switzerland already gave you his answer.



That sounds pretty clear to me; i.e. they can cancel the bets.  It doesn't say that they can cancel the bet only before the event.  It's obvious they don't want people making duplicate bets on their site, probably because they want to limit the prize to something they can afford to pay.  So, either find another site without a limit or without a duplicate-bet stipulation, or don't duplicate your bets on FortuneJack.  

Maybe their terms aren't as clear as they can be, but what is clear and obvious; you were engaging in funny business, and they're protecting themselves from your shenanigans.

For choosing the Escrow there are no rules, except that the limit date is 25th of may. Or I might do the giveaway myself. I am unable to do all of this for getting people to rule on this flag and the Escrow does not. I simply need any trusted member to come out and say "I made up my mind" and he'll get the money. Only afterwards he'll rule. And believe me I won't be disappointed for whatever he does. On the other hand I won't be neither trying to interfere in his work whatsoever nor trying to argue with him on why he opposed the flag or....  I'll just leave him alone.

I will be checking Switzerland thks.

And last, if you want to state clear ToS to be in line with what they actually did, it would be (in italicized what they DON'T put in their terms)
-We reserve the right, to cancel any identical bets and consider only the first bet as valid. Cancelling these bets could take place after the outcome of the game has taken place, whether the bets won or lost. This is to be decided at our sole discretion.
-The maximum win allowed per player on sportsbets is 100,000 euros. If any player was to win more than 100,000 euros, he'll only be paid 100,000 euros, and the rest of his balance will be forfeited.

They'd lose their licence in a second, even by Curaçao standards. But their terms are not what was written above.

I have reversed the "no insult" rule. I agree it's too subjective and complicated, let's keep it simple. For negative trust you are right since we are talking about scamming I will exclude those clearly with negative score. I have edited rules to answer all of your questions. As of now these changes don't affect anyone who participated so we can make these adjustments.



I would have really loved to have you as an Escrow. Although in accepting a neutral standing on this I would already be acknowledging the failure of my giveaway. The giveaway is going to take place no matter what, I can't go back, and I agree. But for me 13 mBTC is quite a sum and if I fail in getting the most people to participate, I would be disappointed.

I see, here in 'Murica we call that fractional reduction.  Got it, thanks.

The rest or remainder, see https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=724%2F16

What do you mean by "The rest of the division"?  I don't understand where these numbers are coming from.


If anything, you should pick an impartial person who's NOT going to be ruling on the flag.  I understand that the results will be open and transparent, but there could appear to be a conflict of interest.  Especially if the rules are a bit vague (see above.)

As for impartiality, Switzerland is by far the most impartial person I know on this forum, you'd do well to have his help.

---

I won't be supporting or opposing this flag for similar reasons to LoyceV.  Casinos in general need to be exceptionally clear in their TOS because these types of "accusations" are annoying, and very rarely are they actually scams.

I can escrow, but I will neither Support nor Oppose the Flag.
If that's okay:


This means anyone from Jr. Member and up qualifies, unless they have a FortuneJack signature. There's no exclusion of users with negative feedback.
What about the users who Supported/Opposed the Flag already before you opened this topic, haven't posted here, and don't have a Bitcoin address in their profile?

This rule won't apply if I'm escrow.

Last rule

I would love to have you as an escrow, with your conditions (we can reverse the foul language rule). Nonetheless there is one obstacle to this: you'll have to make up your mind. Of course, you don't have to communicate to me what your decision is, just mention in a post when you make up your mind, and I'll appoint you the escrow and send you the money, and only afterwards you rule on the flag.

We're all humans and make mistakes and I think you're making a mistake. It is clearly obvious that I got freerolled by fortunejack. And even by their own rules it just doesn't add up. Either it's 100k max win per bet and I had 2 different bets, either it's 100k max win per sports outcome event and I had bets on 2 different matches. Either way, I should be getting my 200k win. Yet for some reason I only get half. Bookmakers are responsible for the rules they put out and for the bets they accept as I am responsible of any betting I make.

It would be a bad example of not making up your mind in front of such extreme accusations I am making. It's either true or not. Your stand on this is incoherent. Either I got scammed or not.

As far as the argument that I would be having a more accurate result without the Jr members, I think Sr and Hero Members should be motivated first by the sense of integrity and disdain in front of any act of scamming, and also for the reputation of the forum. The giveaway is just a little more incentive to take the time to read my scam accusation, we can always as well see the percentage of higher ranking members what they voted for.

As long as the payment isn't based on the outcome, and the reward is public, I think it's okay. It's different when people pay for for positive reviews or negative feedback (I've seen both cases).
It's certainly a first

Am i the only one who has a problem with OP offering money (being that in the form of a giveaway) in exchange for participating in flag support/opposition? WTH, really? 

I would have offered to do the escrow, but I'm offended by the "no insults" rule. That's too subjective to base my ruling on. Owlcatz is more subtle than TMAN. Words on the internet don't bother me.
If you allow full freedom of expression (within the forum rules), I can escrow this for you.

Allow me to quote myself on the subject at hand.
Why I didn't Support it:
Why I didn't Oppose it:
Jr. Members will love it! Paying low-ranking accounts to "vote" won't give you accurate results.

Opposed the flag.

Never cursed.

Is the 10mBTC escrowed ?
Or are we supposed to believe that you'll send the BTC when you think and feel is right ?

With my best regards.

Edit:
Cursing and using foul language does not disqualify.

For the flag, I did not know they existed back then in October, was created just recently.

No owlcatz is not correct. I've just added one thing: you can read my very first post on page 1, answer of FortuneJack on page 2 and my very last post in the thread on page 6.

Foul words are OK, but straight up insults are acceptable?  Got it.

My question to you: Is owlcatz correct, despite the offense you took to his post?  I haven't read your scam accusation for the flag you want supported (I will), but you didn't refute his point.  If what he said is true, it makes all the difference as far as whether anyone should support the flag or not.

Edit:

Regarding your no-cursing rule added after the fact, I guess it only applies to members who don't support your case:

I haven't read that whole thread yet, but seeing as how it's from October of last year, I don't think you're going to get many people to support your flag.  You've been bumping it for a while, so if someone hasn't added their support by now they're not likely to.  Don't know if you're in the right or not, but best of luck to you.

Added just one rule: if you come in here cursing and swearing and using foul language you don't participate. For me it is self evident but it is amazing that I'll have to remind some to stay civil.

I've read FJ's reply to your accusation, and clearly here is where the devil lies (for You sorry)!

"Correspondingly, we as a company reserve the right to cancel several identical bets and consider only the first one active as well as valid"

All i can say here is if you got your deposit back at least... Well, then...  "Fuck off".... If not (?) ... 🤷‍♂️

Hello everyone,
It's been a while that I created a flag against one of the sponsors on this forum, FortuneJack, and I see that a lot of people, especially advanced ranking members, read it thoroughly yet they did neither support nor oppose my flag.

Here's the link for the 120k usd (or 105k euros at the time) scam accusation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fortunejack-making-120000-dollars-disappear-from-my-account-5368279

In case you're not familiar with this case, you only have to read my first post on page 1 and the posts of @FortuneJack on page 2, and my very last post on the thread (page 6)

And here's the link for my flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=303298;page=iflags

I am asserting that bet number 3 is a scam in the most pure form, and it is worth 95,000 euros. I am also asserting that bets 2 and 4 in an implied agreement should have never been "cancelled", and are also a scam though in some less perfect manner.

Don't be sensitive, in some way, if I might say it like this, I don't care even if 100% oppose it. So go ahead and make a ruling, I just want closure with this forum.

As a gesture of good will and to demonstrate that I really care, and not trolling, for all participants who either oppose or support the flag, I will be giving away 10mBTC (~300$ as of today) on the 1st of June to 10 members who either supported or opposed the flag. You have the same probability of winning whether you opposed or supported.

Here is how it works:
-There is going to be a list, in alphabetical order, for members (except newbies or those that FortuneJack obviously pay) who participated in this. Date limit is 30th of May 17h UTC. It is your rank on this day that is going to be taken into account.
-Using the hash of bitcoin block number 738888 (which should occur on the 31st of May): All of the numbers in the hash are going to be added, then divided by the number of participants. The remainder of the division (after what we call modulo operation) constitutes the number of the first winner, then the next 9 on the list in alphabetical order are picked. Example: hash 000000037efa8aef04ef675 and 16 participants --> We add 37 + 8 + 04 + 675 = 724 and divide by 16. The rest of the division is 4, so the winners are the 4th to 13th on the list. If the rest of division is 0, then winners are 16 and 1 to 9. If it’s 15, then winners are 15, 16 and 1 to 8.

Who can participate:
-Anyone who is a member, not newbie, does not have a FotuneJack signature or is much obviously in their pocket (a quick profile and messages check will take place. Example: @Hhampuz of course does not participate). Please make sure that your BTC address is visible either on your profile or just leave it in a comment here.
-You can't participate if you have a total trust score (adding positive and negative) of less than or equal to -2.
-In any case the list of participants  is going to be published here before bitcoin block 738888 is mined.
-If participants are 10 or less, no need for a BTC block: The 10 mBTC prize is going to be simply divided among them.
-If, among winners, no BTC address is communicated here or on profile by the time list of winners is created, then the next on the list are immediately chosen.
-People who already submitted a ruling on this before the giveaway also participate

It'll be fun. Let's see what happens.

If a trusted member (only Senior or more) wants to do the job of the lottery + distribution that would help, please manifest so that I can send you 13.1 mBTC (cauz +3mBTC for your help + 0.1 for transaction fees). You'll also though have to do the job of creating the list and picking up and paying the winners:) If any member is appointed as an escrow I will be editing this post and declaring it. If any member is selected he'll be sent the money at most by next Wednesday May 25th. But don't worry! I won't be interfering with your work, nor arguing with you if you were to oppose or support my flag. Just enjoy the job:)

I will most likely not be replying to the posts here since I replied to almost every single argument about this, but your participation is much appreciated.

Thank you thank you:) I know I am already much better in providing a provably fair game than FortuneJack’s “probably” fair games looool (and this is my first time I organise a game!)


With my best regards