Topic: [FULL] DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign - Continued - page 9. (Read 6589 times)

DiceBitco.in has admitted that only winning rolls had skipped nonces.


He has also posted a small source code excerpt (now deleted) that has shown it *only* skipped winning bets.


That's not my argument, they are scammers if they don't pay people winnings they should have received - even if they lost money themselves. I think they have refunded people not due for a refund (they might have lost nearly the same amount without the skipped nonces), but I still consider them to be scammers if anyone made a loss due to the rigging, whether in lost deposits or in lost winnings.



I agree with what you mean (the other original rules would cover it), but BitcoinInformation is implying that this is statement itself had merit retroactively which is not correct.

-----

The campaign is paid per post. While people swapping mid campaign would result in less exposure for DiceBitco.in, I don't think it's unfair for them to be paid the amount for the post they've already made during this month's period. After all, someone could make 200 high quality posts in the last day, claim the payout for the month, and then remove the signature.

IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds.

^ ACCTseller

I've checked my post count and wallet address, too.
They're both correct on the OP and we have to trust bitcoininformation and Dooglus. They're trying to do the best for the last month of the Dicebitco.in campaign

We have to be patient and don't disturb, payments are going to be send on the pay-days.

Interesting theory !

Mines correct by the way

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke).  They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

I suspect they likely did not invest enough in pentesting and security......but then again this does assume that mateo is not associated with them.

EDIT:
I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.

Just noticed this 'note':


That's not something you can enforce. You can only enforce new additions to people who (re)sign up after that date. DiceBitco.in cannot make a rule saying "New rule: we hare reducing payouts by 90%, bye" and have it apply to people who already signed up and agreed to the rules in the state as they signed up.

Also, adding a disclaimer still means 'You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES'.

I agree, the escrowed 10 BTC should be used for the signature ad campaign.


dooglus has already made an equitable measure that disregarded the actual rules. He can (and I argue he should) disregard this rule too for equity.


There is. There are people who should have won BTC, but did not. DiceBitco.in has refused to pay them the winnings that they are entitled to.

Think about it, is it not scamming when you truly won a jackpot, but you are refused payout because you didn't gamble and lose all your deposited BTC?

The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.

The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale)  is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors.

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed. Everything presented so far is speculation and conspiracy theories (I agree that it does look very bad, but they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt). To essentially amounts to blackmailing users into taking down their signature or modify it in a way that would make advertising ineffective is not the right thing to do. Anyone could equally argue that a disclaimer is warranted for any of the other signature campaigns. The difference in this case is that there is speculation that they scammed and there is essentially an angry mob after the site.

Any person considering utilizing the services of any bitcoin related site should do their homework and research the site in question. This research would surely result in them seeing these allegations and can act accordingly.

The way the escrows are working is really the most fair for everyone.

To the people who are asking for payout early - this would great for you as you would be able to join a new signature campaign early and earn more, however it would be very unfair to dicebitco.in as they would not receive the full amount of advertising they are paying for (although I honestly do not see what good additional advertising would likely do for them - however this is their decision not mine).

Also, preferring specific creditors over others doesn't sound like the best way to do this. You should get the total amount owed, and work out the percentage that the 10 BTC covers. Pay everyone in proportion, instead of having some creditors walk away with the full amount and others with 0.

left you positive trust, even if you didn't post.


left you positive trust

-------------------------------

Will be leaving other people that stick with the campaign and/or do not include an appropriate disclaimer negative feedback. I'll write up a new thread detailing my justification soon, and PM people first in case they are unaware.

@dooglus / @bitcoininformation:

Which rule specifically prohibits inclusion of a disclaimer? By interpreting the rules to have this clause based on 'common sense', you are making an equitable decision.

If you're willing to make this equitable decision, you should have no problem to also make another which is that the circumstances surrounding advertising DiceBitco.in has significantly changed.

The campaign added to possibility to pay for more than 200 posts in case-by-case analysis, but no guarantee about that. It is not something they invented only now. Check the original thread to see by yourself.

I dont think anyone should get extra cause then people will try to post more and take advanatage of that, so it will just add spam, keep it to 200 posts and surely they will be enought to payout everyone

So what, I can make posts next 3 weeks easily, is it matter much that I did not posted or not last week.
I am not always on PC like some others who stay online everytime here.

I have my RL and very happy with that. Campaign earning I use just like bonus not for feed myself.

LOL, thought that's very noble of you, giving up the earnings etc, but then I checked your posts (not one since you enrolled)  

Yea there is no benefit advertise Dicebitco after so much problem and clear sign of scamming.
I know they did not scammed all 7.5k BTC but they did at the end around 500-600 BTC easily.
And last investor who were busy in RL did not withdraw lost their BTC because of that.

The forum has a warning below his announcements:

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

And most online adversments have similar warnings. I've seen gambling sites in the forum ads, inclusive, and the spots haven't been sold for cheap.

Same here. I also think it's wrong that people should have to continue with the ad campaign when the owner called it quits and is very likely to have been a scammer.

Instead all the funds should be divided equally amongst the 100 participants.

Sorry I do not want to part anymore with this site, there is so much evidence of scamming by Mateo.
Please remove me from list, I do not care if I will get any money or not but will not advertise for scamming site.

That's the thing, it's possible that there will be nothing left and you'll end up working for free, going through all the post (possibly up to 20k), calculating pay-outs, dealing with complaints and basically doing dicebitcoin's work.

That's why I suggested this in the other thread (addressed to dicebitcoin):