Topic: Recent dadice.com development - page 5. (Read 7972 times)

Good point.

One thing I've been wondering... now that this is out in the open, will they start losing members and get "hacked" sooner then expected?   I'm not talking about those "fan boy" or whatever you want to call them type of members either. They'll be there to the end no matter what.

This Dadice drama is more interesting than the new season of game of thrones. Noone knows who is gonna die (scam) next  

Here's my input on this from a gamblers point of view. If I'm gambling on a site, I do prefer to be able to see if they can cover the bet I am placing. There would be no need for opaqueness unless something is wrong with funds. I can say, "Hey I bet you a million dollars" but we both know I don't have it, but if I say, "Hey, I bet you $5 dollars" then people start thinking. Hmm. Maybe he's for real, lets see if you have the $5 bucks. Same with gaming sites. The purpose of the gaming license is to "supposedly" show that you have "x" amount of funds to cover the house. With BTC its a lot different because now you have to factor in lots of other variable such as price, supply, and the validity of the operator. If I trust the operator, fine I do not need to see the funds. If I do not trust him, I need to see the funds. So with BTC I feel that it is pretty much at the investor/gamers opinion if they want to see this. If DaDice does not reveal their investors funding/balance I would feel like something is being hid from me in my personal opinion and would have to make a decision on whether to trust them or not.

Twipple, what's your interest in this?  Do you really think you're adding anything to the above discussion?  We can see you posting repeatedly here and in the dadice thread but to what end?

I'd think that everyone can agree that everyone has said their piece and that time will tell at this point who was right.  Certainly those calling for proof of bankroll have made their arguments known.  We've all seen the refusal to do so.  Lets just see what happens.  Flame wars aren't really going to add anything or make anything more clear than it already is.  The next step is for people to make their own decisions about where to play dice and what to do with their money.  What am I missing?

Their bankroll currently shows around 756 BTC invested. 200 BTC is actually not good enough. If they used the investor funds for other things, or faked even half of the investment data, then they will be able to show that much proof.

Some proof is better than no proof. Anything over 200 btc is good, if they are willing to share that.

if they will want to be a good website that everyone wants to play and if they want to attract new players they will have to show it

I don't see any reason why a reputedly site would not want to show a proof of funds.
Well,actually there may be many reasons,but all are bad

Let me guess what might happen next. Tomorrow they will come up , and say that all these discussions have affected their business, and some big investor divested from the site. So if their original amount was 500 BTC , then only 100 BTC is left. And they will just show the proof of that.

OR

Some player will get lucky and win big on the site tonight. And they will claim now only a small amount is left out of the investments.

agreed as otherwise this thread is serving as FUD and dettering players away from the site :O you might be losing players due to this ongoing conflict :O but i believe that DaDice will come up with the proof of a signed message hopefully

I think it is better for dadice if they show proof of funds even they don't need to. It is their reputation at stake here. Swallow the pride, provide a proof of solvency and silence the doubters once and for all is the best direction forward.

That's the case with 99% of this sites which promise too much in return for the investment made and one should think 100 times before investing in such websites. That's what the issue here as well and that's why I said that I hope that they don't become insolvent and bankrupt which can lead to many investors losing their money. Here I would blame the people who invested as well as it wasn't a wise decision.

I would say most of it was probably given out paying for the campaign, and other advertising costs, which they wanted to probably use to become Big. But now that they are required to show the proof, its all backfiring. They also probably showed an increased investment amount which is another reason for them to not show any proof of funds.

Just because the campaign worked out, doesn't mean it is not a scam. At this stage it is a probable scam, so is the reason why there is no scam accusation against it . But all those related have already been negative repped.

Ponzis shut down because they promise to pay out more than they take in, which leaves them insolvent and unable to pay everyone. It's the insolvency that is the problem. If a Ponzi scheme had millions of BTC of their own they could operate for a while paying everyone a nice profit. It would make no sense to do so, but it could happen.

The same with dice sites. The 1% edge is no guarantee. Especially when you're offering 4% of your bankroll as the maximum payout per bet. Variance is "a bitch" as any poker player will tell you. It is easily possible for a dice site to go bankrupt if their maximum payout is too big for the size of their bankroll.

But the main issue here is one of trust. These guys refuse to demonstrate that they still have the coins they are supposed to have, but have offered no good reason for their refusal. The most likely reason is that they no longer have all the coins they are supposed to have.

OK, but "doing something flag-worthy" is. And the question is whether flag-worthiness diminishes over time.


What is fishy is that they would rather offer weak excuses and then remove part of their site rather than offering a proof that would strengthen their image. This undoubtedly makes them look bad when they could look good, if only they were solvent.

There have been so many instances of scammy Bitcoin services that it's not unreasonable to expect the legit ones to take the simple step of showing that they are solvent. The ones that refuse to do so without good reason are likely not able to.


Yes, that is all that matters. But "time will tell" isn't helpful. People want to know whether it is safe to deposit there right now. Waiting a month to see if they shut up shop or not isn't helpful. If they don't, you still can't safely invest because maybe they close down the next day. If they are offering 20 BTC payouts per roll, and have only a 500 BTC bankroll, that isn't "legit". They are taking far too big a risk of bankruptcy, with other people's money.


I guess so. But at what point? I'm horrible at predicting the future. I thought dicebitco.in and dice.ninja were the good guys, and that PRC wouldn't last 6 months. I was wrong in all 3 cases...

this is pointless.
ponzi will scam becuse they promise to give you % on your invest.
when you invest in dice they have 1% house edge means on end they will probably win that 1% and they profit from people lossing money on gambling. witch ponzi dont. you cant compare those 2 things its totaly diffrent.
when you invest in dice you just profit when other people playing lose.
and till now there is no any sign of trying to scam so you can stop bumping this thread.
regards
-katerniko1

@above, I understand your position here.  I think it's been made quite clear, below you start to address my question.
But "scamming once" isn't the situation here.  You guys have all admitted that what this adds up to is that you find it fishy they don't want to prove their bankroll.  You say you need to warn people about this, that seems fine.  However, and I understand this is hypothetical, it seems that what dadice is arguing is that they don't need to do what you say in order to provide a legit service to their customers/investors.  Presumably you would agree that at the end of the day, what matters is whether or not they can provide a legit service for their customers/investors and that time will tell about whether or not they can actually do this.  It seems to me that a lot of the strength behind you guys' argument that what they are doing is "fishy" amounts to the fact that 1) others who haven't proved bankroll have ended up non-legit 2) these guys haven't been around for too long.  On (1), presumably dadice says "well, we're not those other guys" on (2) at some point, I'd think enough time would have elapsed s.t. (2) wouldn't really be a legitmate criticism.  Consider, for example, that if you or Stunna decided to keep some information private, you'd be able to point to your long-standing reptuation as legit if people questioned you.  At some point in the future, I'd think that dadice also graduates to that class.  I'd also think that at that point, you guys would have to say "well, okay, they never showed us their bankroll, but I guess you weren't scammers".  Right?


Well I guess 2 years is a long time.  And maybe for you, someone who doesn't prove their solvency is always in the class of people who you have cause to believe they are insolvent.

I wonder how much your judgement is being coloured by wearing their signature. Or mine by being in competition with DaDice. I do know I have considered proof of solvency to be important for a long time, before I started Just-Dice, before I had such "competition".

Consider the situation: when asked about their solvency, they produced a string of feeble excuses for why they couldn't provide it. Once all these excuses were demonstrated to be feeble they would rather remove the investment feature from their site than prove solvency.

Ask yourself why they would do that. It makes them look guilty, when proving solvency would be so easy.

It strikes me that the only reason I wouldn't prove solvency in such a situation would be if I couldn't.

The warnings are there because they are a new site offering large bets with a small bankroll and are unwilling to prove that the bankroll exists. That's something worth warning about. The question of how long warnings should stay up for is a difficult one. I have scammers PMing me saying "it's been a year since I scammed, and I paid everyone back when I was caught, so can you remove the warning now?"... I don't remove it. They scammed once, they'll likely try it again. It doesn't matter that they've gone a year without scamming. If you had cause to believe MtGox was insolvent 2 years before they finally shut down, how long should you leave the warning up for? If they never prove their solvency, you have to reason to believe anything has changed.

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing".  Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback.  You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand.  What's the right value and unit for X?