Topic: Onedice.me is a scam | RandyFolds Sold account (Read 5401 times)
I have been observing the site the past couple of days. They just have bots continuously betting, to make it seem active, and have people fall into the provable fair trap, which they can manipulate, by putting in bets in between, to rig the provably fair part. The site should be shutdown.
hehe... my post didn't get deleted yet. If it does, I'll be sure to post again here. It got locked, so it's going to stay there for awhile.
At this point there is not much of a reason to delete the negative comments about his site on his thread. Someone could easily search his site name and easily come to the conclusion he is scamming 
hehe... my post didn't get deleted yet. If it does, I'll be sure to post again here. It got locked, so it's going to stay there for awhile.
What happened to chalidore? Dude just up and went dark.
codegnome likely paid 2.5 BTC for it on or around September 10th because it was on default trust. Around ~a week ago it was removed from default trust, making his "investment" now near worthless. Since his account no longer serves the purpose it was purchased for it was abandoned. I want a hero account with positiv trust from a member of the DefaultTrust list (green feedback). Trust should be older than a month or two... also, I can pay max. 2.5 BTC. I am not in hurry, but please contact me if you find an account.
hi codegnome, I have added quickseller to group chat as he is the one selling the hero account.
quickseller, codegname is interested in buying your hero account 700+ activity.
Hello codegnome,
I understand that you are looking to buy hero account. The hero account that I am selling has 700+ activity is over 3 years old and has posted very close to 0 off-topic type posts. It has conducted a few trades in the past, however it was before the trust system was implemented. I would like 3.05 for it, and am willing to consider offers (3.05 will but it today).
Yes please, that would be nice.
hi codegnome, I have added quickseller to group chat as he is the one selling the hero account.
quickseller, codegname is interested in buying your hero account 700+ activity.
I understand that you are looking to buy hero account. The hero account that I am selling has 700+ activity is over 3 years old and has posted very close to 0 off-topic type posts. It has conducted a few trades in the past, however it was before the trust system was implemented. I would like 3.05 for it, and am willing to consider offers (3.05 will but it today).
What happened to chalidore? Dude just up and went dark.
I wonder
What happened to chalidore? Dude just up and went dark.
It also appears that the main self-moderated thread is locked now.
Why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised. I didn't say I was surprised. Your activity is consistent with that of a scammer.
Whenever anyone accused JD of scamming I would argue with them and show them how they were wrong. I wouldn't deleted their post and lock the thread. That's a sign of weakness.
I didn't even accuse you of scamming. I put forward some reasonable doubts I have about your site. You chose not to address them but to delete them. Why would you do that if you were capable of answering them in a manner to reassure people that there's nothing to worry about?
I don't need any more trashing on this forum, I think this was more then enough. You can continue here as much as you like but not on the thread that was created by me with good intensions.
It wasn't "trashing". I was pointing out problems with your site. If they aren't problems, tell us why. If they are, tell us how you're going to fix them. Don't pretend I never raised them by silencing me.
Also about your view of things how investors would get less paid in case site is in profit...why you did not give example if site goes into negative as well, then they would loose lot less then on sites like JD was.
If you don't invest at all you lose even less when the site loses. What's your point?
The model you're using dilutes everyone's investment massively so both their wins and their losses are greatly reduced. Meanwhile you're left holding lots of their coins.
Any of this doesn't make any sense any more, I'll not waste my time here in this forum owned by a few. There are other ways of advertising then this forum.
I would recommend advertising somewhere where rational minded people aren't able to point out all the flaws in your site if you don't intend to address them.
I'll be leaving negative trust on your account in an attempt to warn potential victims of your site.
It also appears that the main self-moderated thread is locked now.
Why are you surprised? I don't need any more trashing on this forum, I think this was more then enough. You can continue here as much as you like but not on the thread that was created by me with good intensions.
Also about your view of things how investors would get less paid in case site is in profit...why you did not give example if site goes into negative as well, then they would loose lot less then on sites like JD was.
Any of this doesn't make any sense any more, I'll not waste my time here in this forum owned by a few. There are other ways of advertising then this forum.
It also appears that the main self-moderated thread is locked now.
I posted in the self-moderated thread, but in case it gets deleted I'll post here too:
I see problems with this site:
1) The game isn't provably fair for players since the betid is used in generating your roll. If you make a big bet and were due to win, the site can easily just delay your bet for a fraction of a second, process someone else's bet first (or insert one of their own) and give you a different betid. That will give you a different roll, which you might lose. They can keep doing this until you get a losing roll.
2) Similarly it isn't provably fair for investors.
3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.
4) I don't see any proof of solvency. Where's the cold wallet?
5) OP seems to have bought his forum account. RandyFolds didn't write like that. Buying accounts with positive trust for the purpose of running a site that claims to be provably fair for players and investors but isn't should set off alarm bells.
1) The game isn't provably fair for players since the betid is used in generating your roll. If you make a big bet and were due to win, the site can easily just delay your bet for a fraction of a second, process someone else's bet first (or insert one of their own) and give you a different betid. That will give you a different roll, which you might lose. They can keep doing this until you get a losing roll.
2) Similarly it isn't provably fair for investors.
3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.
4) I don't see any proof of solvency. Where's the cold wallet?
5) OP seems to have bought his forum account. RandyFolds didn't write like that. Buying accounts with positive trust for the purpose of running a site that claims to be provably fair for players and investors but isn't should set off alarm bells.
It took a few days but eventually they got around to deleting it:
I have received no contact from RandyFolds. I am assuming at this point either he sold the account or it was hacked.
Most probably it's sold accout, I saw some thread on Digital goods section that someone want to buy positive trust account and want to pay good money for that.
I have received no contact from RandyFolds. I am assuming at this point either he sold the account or it was hacked.
I would suggest editing your negative trust to say that the account appears to have been purchased with positive trust in order to give the apparance of being trustworthy and tried to run a scam.
I don't think there is any problem with buying a senior account to conduct business with (although this is very risky) as long as the account has zero trade history so any counter-party should know it is appropriate to approach any transaction with skepticism and to take the appropriate precautions. What happened in this case is the account was purchased with the intent of getting counter-parties to use less skepticism.
Also it appears that chalidore has been taken off default trust
I don't think there is any problem with buying a senior account to conduct business with (although this is very risky) as long as the account has zero trade history so any counter-party should know it is appropriate to approach any transaction with skepticism and to take the appropriate precautions. What happened in this case is the account was purchased with the intent of getting counter-parties to use less skepticism.
Also it appears that chalidore has been taken off default trust
Good idea. I'll do that now.
RandyFolds sent me this PM in response to the negative Trust rating I left him:
Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.
I would suggest editing your negative trust to say that the account appears to have been purchased with positive trust in order to give the apparance of being trustworthy and tried to run a scam. hi,
"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."
I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.
Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.
If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.
"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."
I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.
Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.
If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.
Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.
I don't think there is any problem with buying a senior account to conduct business with (although this is very risky) as long as the account has zero trade history so any counter-party should know it is appropriate to approach any transaction with skepticism and to take the appropriate precautions. What happened in this case is the account was purchased with the intent of getting counter-parties to use less skepticism.
Also it appears that chalidore has been taken off default trust
RandyFolds sent me this PM in response to the negative Trust rating I left him:
Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.
hi,
"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."
I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.
Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.
If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.
"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."
I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.
Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.
If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.
Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.
At least they've put some thought into this scam - the fake provable fairness is one step more evolved from using the current time (like luckybit did), the investment scam isn't immediately obvious, etc.
I think they saw how successful that DB was in getting people to quickly invest in their bankroll to crazy amounts. They appear to have invested a good amount of money into this scam, buying both the RandyFields account and the chalidore account in order to give credibility to the scam. I would guesstimate that they spent at least 3-4 BTC buying the two accounts plus some additional small amounts for hosing and the domain plus some additional amount for sock puppet accounts Your post semi implied that you sent .1 to test the investment feature.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I just read the site and posted based on what I read.
Another flaw in the investment feature is that the bankroll will go up and down. Say for example the bankroll was 10k BTC now and someone invests 1k BTC making the bankroll now 11k BTC, this would mean that you should need .11 BTC to purchase .001% ownership. By offering the price of one share at a static price, they are essentially shorting investors who put money in when the bankroll was smaller.
Since each 0.1 BTC share buys one 100 thousandth of the profit, they can't sell more than 100 thousand shares without them having to pay out more than 100% of their profits to investors. (I guess since they charge 10% commission on that they could in fact sell 111,111 shares, pay out 111% of their profit and take 11% back in commission, leaving them with 0). So the bankroll can't really get any bigger than 10k (or 11.111k) BTC.
By selling the shares as if the bankroll was already 10k, they're shorting everyone who invests when the bankroll is actually smaller than that.
At least they've put some thought into this scam - the fake provable fairness is one step more evolved from using the current time (like luckybit did), the investment scam isn't immediately obvious, etc.
3) The investment model seems broken.
Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)?
No, I can't, because why on earth would anyone send any money to this site? I certainly didn't.
Your post semi implied that you sent .1 to test the investment feature.
Another flaw in the investment feature is that the bankroll will go up and down. Say for example the bankroll was 10k BTC now and someone invests 1k BTC making the bankroll now 11k BTC, this would mean that you should need .11 BTC to purchase .001% ownership. By offering the price of one share at a static price, they are essentially shorting investors who put money in when the bankroll was smaller.
3) The investment model seems broken.
Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)?
No, I can't, because why on earth would anyone send any money to this site? I certainly didn't.
I posted in the self-moderated thread, but in case it gets deleted I'll post here too:
3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.
Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)? There is a scam accusation that someone purchased a default trust account to backup the purchased account with positive trust. This person is claiming to have invested 360 BTC in the site and if your bitcoin moved to what could be their cold storage then this could be disproved. 3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.
Jump to: