Topic: PRCDice.eu - Largest Dice invest site - Open since 2013! Chat, Play, Invest! - page 62. (Read 89246 times)

i confirm hereby i did recieve my investment back and also refund from my btc and doge bets.

those who screaming scam or anything else STFU u dont need to go to the site and play/invest there,go find something else.sjess did recieve his around 5 btc back,wich is nice from dean.

I guess if PRC was indeed rigged that way, the investments wouldn't dwindle the way they are - again. 

You stopped someone playing a game on your site? lol scammer! it was uploaded by you, for the public to play. now they're a scammer?




AVOID PRCDICE.EU THEY SCAM!

WITHDRAW YOUR INVESTMENTS!

Arro was refunded around 0.45-0.5 Bitcoin. The bets he made in the martingale run he showed were not affected by that flaw. I will get the details to him so he can verify himself.

The refunds went back to 1st of May when that code was put live.

Dean, no one is blaming you giving the refund. But, not admitting that the mistake was on your part is creating a stir.
A question, I assume the site had this error since the  beginning, or atleast the past few weeks.
Then , why wasnt arro been refunded the bets he lost for his martingale fail?

I already said the decision was final. I stopped a scammer/group from trying to steal from investors, I refunded players who lost unfairly and everyone is back playing/investing as normal.
Label me what you want, I and everyone else who plays/invests know I done the right thing.

I will not respond in here to any more nonsense about the situation. I've got work to do, like making the site better for honest players.

Make things right, Dean. You fucked up so man up and pay or be known as a scammer. Your choice!

This doesn't sound fair at all IMO.
OP, you have made a mistake, and now you are using that to deny payments...

Sjess was scammed!

They were offered a game to play by PRC so they played it, the game was badly made by the OP but they still offered it.

SJess wins their game, now OP threw their toys out of their pram and said NO!

Worst. Casino. Owner. Ever!


PRC IS A SCAM!

I don't see how this thread is the place for everyone to argue over who copied who or who's doing what but whatever.

I actually had the idea for a user investment model many years ago now for casino games, with features that are still to be added that no one is doing even now.
I doubt I was even first to think of a user investment model back then.
Crowd funded businesses didn't first start a year ago.

There was nowhere I seen doing what I had planned though when I first started coding PRC but as a poker player who wanted to try and solve a lot of the issues with online poker I focussed on poker first as that solved a problem rather than be an interesting novelty.

It wasn't until much much later I was checking Bitcointalk and I saw you had implemented a user investment model, I mostly only checked the poker threads on here. I realised then that I should have probably done it before poker since it's hard to get the critical mass poker needs for the ideas I was doing to truly be effective. Plenty of time though.

I actually had no plan to even add dice as you know since I figured people would probably just play at JD. But users kept asking for it so I did.

Anything I am adding now is all based on user requests/feedback and not anything to do with me trying to copy JD.

Anyway, I'll stick to just updating this thread with actual updates of features/promos etc instead of watching people argue over nothing.

Those were part of the skill factoring, sir.

Luck is a default inclusion in any successful endeavour, even if existing as a testimony to lack of being unlucky.  Well, because such is life, and there are always uncontrollable collective events (at minimum those which bring us to embarking on progress) even if we had to magnify to quantum but I think you already know what I'm saying and weren't allowing for the amount of credit I've made clear should be assigned to you...

Likely because it was indeed a fair point.  But we're all only human after all.

I have done.

"All of them" is the answer.

If they catch you counting, they pay you and tell you you're not welcome to play any more.

First casinobit copied JD's investment model, but somehow let old investors withdraw deposits from new investors.

Then vert-dice pretty much cloned JD, but forgot about putting per-user locking around invest/divest and got emptied out.

Every-dice copied lots from JD but ended up running off with player and investor funds.

PRCdice copied most of JD's ideas, but didn't copy the provably fair algorithm quite right. They left it exploitable by not quite copying it right, and were exploited as a result.

Satoshi Carnivore copied JD's investment model, but didn't copy the provably fair algorithm completely. It's important to separate the fields properly to prevent players being able to get the same roll twice at will.

If any of the sites had made competent copies, they wouldn't have been exploited. That was my point.

I don't think it's fair to attribute forethought, planning, and careful coding to "luck".

Fair point re. the humility fail though.

lol i signed up to comment on this as I am a investor, i'm withdrawing my funds the owner seems to be shady....

"steal" is overstating it. He played according to the rules, on a biased wheel. That isn't theft. He worked out how to win your game, and played it to win. It's similar to blackjack players using card counting techniques to win at blackjack. They're not stealing either.


This wasn't a software flaw. The software was performing exactly how it was designed to perform, and exactly followed the provably fair algorithm laid out on the site. The game itself was flawed in design, not the software.


Every casino will pay out players who win by counting cards at blackjack. That is taking advantage of a 'flaw' in the game, and they always pay you out. If you do it too much they ask you to play "a different game", but they don't refuse to pay you.


OK, but this wasn't a flaw in the software. The software was performing as designed. The game itself was messed up.


None of that seems to apply in the sjess case. He didn't cheat. He played the game as described on the website, following the rules. Your game was +EV, and so he made a profit. If anyone was acting "in a fraudulent manner" it was the site, claiming that the 50% lo game had a 50% chance to win. It didn't.

Was one of the developers called "sjess" by any chance? 

This is one of the reasons why I never outsourced any of the JD development to third parties.

If I had, however, I would have been sure to thoroughly examineand test the code supplied by the developers. In this case any minimal amount of testing would have demonstrated that the lowest 20% of numbers came out significantly less often than the top 20%. Even a 50/50 hi/lo test would have shown the problem.

Then again, mistakes happen...

That is why all TOSes should have "These terms can change at any time, at all times, every time whenever we feel like it because fuck you we do what we want!" Problem solved.

Yes but you know those Terms before you even enter the Casino... basically all I am saying it is unfair for them to change their TOS and then retro-active it whenever they want too.

We didn't copy JD, if we had, that exploit would not have been possible.  We now employ HMAC-sha512 and are virtually unexploitable.

It's not surprising how many people fail at humility after finding some success due to a combination of luck and skill in a new niche  

I still respect your trailblazing dooglus

Get real flastbluff.

"I didn't know I wasn't allowed to rob casinos so I abused a flaw (obvious to a motivated programmer) to steal from investors and expect all the guaranteed winnings I knew I would get eventually".

Go into a casino, try count cards and see how much of your "winnings" you leave with. If I understand the rules, it's not actually against the rules to count cards in blackjack. You talk about fair a lot, but an experienced programmer motivated by greed to steal from unsuspecting investors is not fair under any definition.

sjess is lucky Dean gave him anything at all.