Quick question: How does the looks of JD point towards a scam? I would be much more worried about a site with flashy gimmicks being a scam than something like JD.

also, it is clear you have never taken a course or have been trained in user interface designing. Just dice looks good, it's balanced, it's easy to navigate and use. The site shows (almost) all the info you want and all the info you need in logical places that's easy to get to. You never have more than 4 (maybe 5) steps to do a certain action. The interface isn't clustered, it doesn't cause frustration and is actually rather calming. The UI design for JD is rather remarkable.

When designing an interface, there are more important things to take into consideration than not looking like it was designed by a 14 yo girl (which it doesn't, you've obviously not spent time with girls that age)

It featured red text on a red background for much of its user interface.  It had almost no traffic.  And the investment feature they copied from JD was so badly botched that early investors were able to withdraw investments made by later investors.  Kind of an unintentional Ponzi scheme.

It would have been funny if so many people didn't lose coins to the owner's incompetence.


I didn't say you were trying to promote your dead site.  I was wondering if perhaps you were butthurt because your site was such a horrific failure in every way, and so you feel like the only way to explain it is to decide that successful sites must be scams in some way.


The "someone else" made the exact same crazy point in the same aggressive way, exhibited the same faulty reasoning and had the same writing style as you.  He had also already been identified as one of your socks independently of me.  So it's either a really weird coincidence, or you're not being entirely truthful.

Anyway, thanks for playing.  It's been fun.

I'm back, and disappointed but unsurprised to find that OP hasn't made any kind of sensible response to my posts.


The word "sheeple" in someone's vocabulary is pretty much unique in this respect.  Using it three times in a short succession is quite conclusive:



You couldn't say anything like the same about MtGox.  They never published a list of user balances, and only once (to my knowledge) did any kind of proof of holding coins with the 424242 BTC transaction or whatever it was.  What you could say about MtGox would be:

"MtGox held large amounts of customer funds but never proved they were solvent.  It was therefore not particularly surprising when they declared bankruptcy.  Just-Dice on the other hand proves their solvency every week, and has been doing so since shortly after launch, well before MtGox shut down, so there's really no similarity".

That would be more truthful but wouldn't help your case.

I wonder what your real motivation is behind this witch hunt.  Is it something to do with your own failed casino site I wonder?  Weren't you the guy who tried to copy JD's investment model on a crappy video-based roulette site and ended up "losing" customer funds somehow?


"Yours truly" means "me", not "him".  Doesn't it?

Oh, by the way I managed to find the post where I was previously called a scammer for not publishing transaction IDs.  It's from "tmbp" who I've long believed to be the guy who ran casinobit (into the ground), and I'm not the only one:

Reading mad's posts makes me think he's a conspiracy theorist. I just don't see enough proof against Dooglus, and Dooglus appears to be as transparent as possible without risking the safety of his investors/players.

If this was the case, then why does the balance of the cold wallet plus the hot wallet total more then then invested amount? Clearly he has possession of the coins he says he has.

But this isn't a flaw in logic at all.  It's a decision not to release personal information about JD customers to the public.

I don't see the relevance.  JD is provably fair.  Whether or not there are "fake" bets on the site is unrelated to whether the site plays fair with the "real" bets.

But to answer your question, "no".  You're not a scammer if you make a non-provably fair game.  Almost no fiat gambling site in the world is provably fair.  What makes you a scammer is if you are scamming people, not the absence of proof of the absence of scam.

Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.  You can think what you want.  Others might be tempted to share your opinion if you could present it in a way that makes sense to them.

If there's a flaw, please describe it and how it could be exploited?  What's the worse that could happen if I was some evil MySQL/PHP-fueled genius with a fake bet machine?  What's the doomsday scenario here?  You seem to be comparing JD to MtGox, but JD is provably solvent, and whether or not Gox had "fake trades" on their site wasn't related to their eventual demise.  So what gives?

In the logs posted, the op strikes me as law enforcement trying to do blockchain analytics on large tx betters using this service as a honeypot.

I see you have deleted your posts on CasinoBit's topic, but once on the net...

Here you go: https://bitcointa.lk/threads/casinobit-live-roulette-invest-best-casino-of-2013.100683/page-56#post-3107265

Sorry, here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=171094.msg3286818#msg3286818

I am sorry that people resorted to name calling and insulting *frowns towards klye*. It is rude, unprofessional and usually shows lack of proof or reasoning.


You came in calling dooglus a scammer, saying he IS running a scam, he IS placing fake bets, I would not call this "provocative to the minimum". You only later said he could be running a scam, etc. Once again, name calling does not help either party.


I was planning on covering the other topics, but dooglus did a good job on that, so I won't be reposting what he said.

Not by me you weren't.  I was incredibly patient with you even though you failed to present any kind of reasonable point.

Eventually one of the chat moderators with less patience than myself put an end to your pointless trolling.

I think the exact words I used were: You are to retarded for logic and you should kill yourself and your children to avoid your genetics further polluting the human race..



Or something along those lines.

Provable fair is known to have its flaws. No system can be 100% provable fair. At then end of the day it's just some numbers proving that the rolled numbers were prerolled ahead of time and in this case were not altered.

If you think doog is going to scam you, don't play at just dice. Simple as that.


Doog has no need to run bots to make his numbers improved. He owns the #1 dice site in BTC land hands down.



You haven't a leg to stand on nor the IQ to even understand logic or reason.
I'm also glad the first thing you mentioned was me telling you to off yourself.  

Cheers you mongoloid fuck,

Kyle.T

SatoshiDice is a dice game.
Just-Dice is a Hi-Lo game.

SatoshiDice has also been suspected of using bots on some bets.

Don't you owe a bunch of coins to CasinoBit bettors and investors?

PrimeDice and other betting websites doesn't do this. Plus, most people who bet also use the chat? Or all of those bots used by Dooglus, too?

At $190,000 I would be one extremely happy person. Maybe even a little rich! 

And your proposed answer to this seriously is "To prevent that let's give loads of money to a 'trusted' person so it sets up hardware and nodes on behalf of us in a decentralized fashion"?

You're trying to troll right? Or I just don't understand your idea.

I mean you just identified why the decentralization of the network actually is a needed thing and how at the same time the way mining works right now is undermining the decentralization. And your way to fight it is to throw decentralization over board completely and trust a single entity with handling the network and transactions? You do realize that in that case you just could save loads of money and just pay using paypal right?

I think the only valid answer to the problem you identified is to change how mining works in such way that it gives an incentive to mine solo again. And I do not mean change the algorithm or move from PoW to PoS.
What I have in mind would be a "license" system. The network assigns a "license" to mine to any full node that provides a certain hashrate in the network. That license expires upon finding a block and a new license to the same node is assigned by a slot system. That slot system would work like this: The Network tries to maintain a constant hashrate (let's go with the current ~65 PH/s) aswell as a minimum number of active mining nodes (let's say 1,000,000). The upper bound for the hashrate a node would need to provide in order to be assigned a "license" (or mining slot) would be calculated by dividing the target hashrate by the minimum number of active miners. So with the example numbers: 65 PH/s / 1,000,000 = 65 GH/s. The lower bound should be half of that at most to ensure the slow nodes do not block slots for long times. People with hadware that provides too little hashing power would need to pool people whose hardware provides more hashrate would need to split it up into more nodes. When the target hashrate is reached no more slots are assigned and any nodes that would qualify for a slot go into a waiting line. In order to prevent the possibility of attacks by entities with lot's of hardware that waiting line is not a FIFO line instead when a slot becomes available a fitting new node is chosen at random by the network based on waiting time (say a node from the 1000 longest waiting nodes is chosen).

If I haven't overlooked something critical (which I surely have as this was thought out as of the writing of this post) the consequences of introducing this change would be:

• constant difficulty and thus an end to the hardware arms race. hardware manufacturers could concentrate on lowering the prices and increasing the energy efficiency of the hardware.
• the network's safety from manipulation could be better guaranteed