This sounds a lot like the OP is underage and is trying to buy alcohol with bitcoin over the internet. Very smart.

As you were aware prior to buying the account, and as I have told you numerous times I am not going to give you a refund. If you want to sell the account that is your choice, and if you choose to do so I would recommend creating a new account to do so and to not reveal specific information about the account until they have paid escrow.

There is evidence that would suggest that bayuo did in fact sell his account and is now fraudulently trying to retrieve it. I am not 100% sure as to the criteria that was used to make that conclusion, however the conclusion is accurate.

There is no evidence to support this. If this was true then why are there not more accusations of accounts being hacked?

I also find it ironic that you support the notion that the OP's account was hacked even though there is evidence to the contrary. Seems a little fishy to me. This post provides evidence to the contrary. Why would the account be hacked for three days, then bayuo only create his account the day it was sold?

See this post. It shows how I concluded that you were in control and were the owner of the account prior to purchase.

Also please stop with the big fonts, it is extremely annoying. I personally consider this SPAM (although it is not against any of the forum rules AFAIK).

Also please understand that whining on here is not going to get your account back - period. If you want the account that you sold to me back then you can work with zedicus to make this happen. It is out of my hands and I no longer have anything to do with this account. You can think what you want about me still having ownership of it, but IDC and that is what you can do.

They charge 10% commission on profits. I think it would likely have something to do with this.

Looking at all of the negative trust you have left (you have left a lot), only three mention the account being sold. The zedicus account because the account was sold is one. Goodnightcoin because he was trying to sell his account and was trying to take out multiple loans is number two. The third was a 2011 account that was trying to take out a .5 loan and you assumed it was a sold account for this reason. You also had 3-4 consecutive negative posts about people selling hacked accounts to only have the new owner regain control of the account.

All of your other negative trust was for other reasons. I think the most common reason was due to newbie+loan request, but there were a lot of "alt" of x scammer ones as well.

To relate the buying of accounts to lending (something you are involved in): if the sale of accounts was more accepted by the community, and you know how much a particular account is worth, then you can generally lend up to 1/2 of what the account is worth because they could get a lot more by selling the account vs borrowing money and running off.

See my above post. I was in contact with him over three days and no reports of the account being hacked came up. A quick review of his posts did not show him posting any BTC addresses. As per above (one of the first few posts in the thread) show him participating in a group buy however it would have been difficult to know the address was associated with the account without looking at every single thread it posted in.

The main reason that I feel like bayuo was trying to scam is because he had not posted in ~a month, then creates a new account (to recover his "hacked" account) the same day the account is sold. This would have been at least 3 days after the latest time the account could have been hacked.

From a financial standpoint yes, it worked out in their favor if you believe they were behind the "lucky whale". At this point saying that this is the case is pure speculation. Until the database can be audited (if this would happen, IDK) we really cannot say this as a fact. From a reputation standpoint it did not work in their favor.

I am curious to know how much of their own money they had invested in the site/bankroll, the estimated gains by mateo et el, and the estimated amount of money they refunded investors and victims of the nonce issue. I think this would give a better picture as to what they were able to potentially have scammed and what the ROI on their scam was. It would also paint a picture as to what their potential profit could have been if they had continued running as a legit site.

Their site is showing ~91k BTC bet (over it's lifetime?), this would have an EV of ~910 BTC profit for the bankroll, and an EV of ~91 BTC for their 10% commission on bankroll profits. Assuming they have been in operation for 6 weeks this works out to ~15 BTC per week, or ~780 BTC per year, or ~$390,000 per year before expenses.

They received the advise to not allow bets to continue. They made the business decision to not stop bets as they were likely trying to avoid any downtime. I think they were hoping that allowing betting to continue and not stopping withdrawals would allow them to maintain their credibility. It was a calculated risk that did not work in their favor.

@bayuo The new owner of the zedicus account has offered to sell his account to you for the price he paid (against my recommendation). I would suggest that you do so as this is the only way you will be able to get control of what you claim to be your former account back, and have any credibility. The negative trust that you had Lucky Cris leave the account says that you are willing "to pay current user the amount he paid for the account", you also sent me the following PM (PM#2744455) I have made no edits to the PM other then to bold the part about you offering to pay what I paid for it.
Regarding the proof that you attempted to scam me. Your account was created on Aug 13, 2014.

On Aug 10, 2014 I get a PM from you (PM# 2685227)
I respond via PM (PM#2685818)
You replay via PM (PM#2685997)
My response via PM is (PM# 2686003)
None of these PMs have been altered in any way, including the timestamps. Note how they were all dated on Aug 10, 2014 (three days prior to the bayuo account being created).

Three days later, I get another PM from the zedicus account (PM# 2703358)
My response was this PM (PM# 2703503)
He replied with this PM (PM# 2704039)
I replied with this PM (PM# 2704103)
He replied by sending this PM (PM#2704128)
I replied (PM #2704282)
I altered the above PM to remove the escrow member that I suggested we use. Some time later after payment was made to escrow I receive the following PM from him (PM#2704883)
I edited this post to remove the BTC address that he provided. The escrow provider had gone offline for some time and I eventually get the following PM (PM# 2705006) - note there were other PMs sent/received in-between this, however they would likely not affect my case one way or another.
I have edited the PM to remove the name of the escrow provider that was used. He had previously told me that the escrow had changed the password but not the email address. I suspect that bayuo PMed theymos a signed message to have his email address reset very soon after he provided the credentials to the escrow and theymos was quick to reset it, however this is speculation.

Some time later I received the following PM from the escrow (PM# 2705742)
I would not have a problem if badbear (or anyone else who had access to PMs to verify the validity of the above PMs (when [redacted] and snip was used it will not match however this should be obvious).


@TF I am confident that the opposite happened.

A more accurate representation of what he was likely trying to have happen was:
1. Sell account for well under market value knowing an account buyer would likely jump at the opportunity
2. Pretend that account was hacked
3. Once the transfer of ownership of the account is complete and payment is received from escrow or the buyer PM theymos claiming account was hacked
4. theymos resets email to the previous owners email address
5. profit!

It was signed up after. Please see above PMs showing how this was part of the original agreement.

@tomatocage - please remove the negative trust. He is not trying to conduct business with the subject account (at least nothing that has been posted in public). Your trust feedback says you wold not trust him with anything because the account is purchased. I would think that you would also not trust anyone who has not publicly conducted business on the forum/btc-otc (you would probably want either use escrow or for him to go first), however you do not give any negative trust to any of them. He does not have any meaningful positive trust that would allow others to think he is trustworthy. You may or may not believe me but I have sold a lot of accounts on here and none of them have been used to scam (none of them have received negative trust trusted or untrusted or a scam accusation that I can see - yes I check periodically). Most of them are used for signature campaigns. Hero accounts are generally sought after because of the prestige they offer, people tend to respect (but not trust) people posting from a hero account. If a person is to try to scam with a purchased account then they would need to scam at least the amount they purchased the account for, but also risk that amount as if someone thinks they are trying to scam they will get legitimate negative trust and lose their investment. Your negative trust makes his trust show as red which takes away the prestige of having a hero account. I think you should remove your negative trust.

@ABitNut your negative trust says that the account is purchased and being used on a signature campaign. I really don't think this is a reason to not trust someone. A purchased account on a signature campaign is providing advertising to the person paying for him signature. A purchased account will likely add to conversations that would likely not otherwise be had because of the incentive to contribute. I do not think this is a valid reason to give negative trust. I think you should remove the trust you left zedicus.  

@TF Your negative trust says that the original owner has offered to pay the current owner the price he paid for it. As per bayuo's above post zedicus offered to sell the account back to him at the price that he paid for it. Bayuo replied with what essentially was zero interest in trying to reach an agreement. I think you should remove the negative trust.

@zedicus - having it be suspected that an account is sold, and the account admitting to it being sold are two very different things. The selling of accounts is allowed and is within the forum rules, however many people do not like it when an account is sold, they tend to think it will automatically be used to scam. As badbear said above, this mentality is bad and will do long term harm to the community. It was already established that your account was not going to be taken from you. Like I said in the PM I sent you, I would strongly recommend that you use escrow if bayuo is going to buy the account from you as I very much do not trust him.

TL;DL - bayuo PMed me 3 days prior to selling me the zedicus account. He sold it to me with the intention of having the email reset so he could steal the BTC that I paid for it. When this did not work he went public and tried to get the upper hand to force me to sell it back to him at the price I paid for it (I declined because it would mean he would lose nothing when he failed to scam successfully). Examples of trying to get an upper hand, telling people to have stunna not payout the earnings from the signature campaign, asking mods to ban the account, trying to get people to negative trust the account.

Like I said before I am fine with any mod with PM access to verify the above quoted PMs are accurate. I am also curious to know if the email was ever changed on the zedicus account prior to it being sold, or if the email was ever reset via a signed message (I think the chances of getting an answer on this are low).

I would be interested to see if he tries to reset his password on his account here.

Have you read anything with a source to confirm that his funds were actually withdrawn, or was it just speculation?

I am certain that he was somehow cheating. Even if dicebitco did check his bets and they turned out to look legit I would have not paid him and risked being called a scammer because of the high chances of him cheating even if it couldn't be proven.

I think they continued to process withdrawals so they would have the appearance of being honest. They had the reserves to cover the withdrawals so they took the risk of paying out that much bitcoin at once so people couldn't accuse them of scamming. This did not work, it only allowed the scammer to get away with more (if the scammer and dicebitco are one and the same is another question).

like I said they should roll back mateos bets. But a bankroll that has players betting the max a high percentage of the time will be adversely affected if one person has a little bit of good luck. I would say that not all of the 15% losses that investors sustained were from him (most probably were) but some percentage were from other legit players who had a lucky streak and stopped.

If I had to guess it is the funds they invested in the bankroll that they used to refund user's losses.

I think their mistake was to not halt betting when the issue was discovered. This would likely have stopped a panic among plays and investors which lead to the decline of his credibility. If betting was halted then they could have looked at the code very closely to make sure there are not any other outstanding issues that could cause problems.

Their second mistake was to rush to refund people's losses right away. They should have kept track of the losses, investigated thoroughly to make sure the losses were legitimate and if so issue a refund. Handing out these refunds likely scarred investors away which ultimately lead to having a bank roll that is not capable of sustaining a little bit of bad luck.

I also would have certainly rolled back all of mateo's bets. Him winning that much is just not realistic. The odds of him having that great of a winning streak are just not there. He had to have somehow had advance knowledge of the server seed and acted accordingly. This is another reason why betting should have been stopped and why the code should have been more closely inspected.

I would not say 100% that this was in fact a scam by dicebitco.in as it would have been much easier to simply run off with the bankroll and delete the database with all the account information. I would however certainly say that a scam was pulled off.

It looks like you have blocked receiving PM's from everyone (or at least me).

Have you actually seen the staff forum? If so how do you get access? What kind of things are posted there?

Well damm. I had just PMed him last night about getting historical bankroll data last night because I was considering to invest 10 BTC in the bankroll.

Boy am I glad I didn't put my money there.

How do you know what the staff section looks like?

What kind of topics/information is in the VIP/Donators forum?

For clarification you can make 0 with a full member on PD as they are closed to full members and are closed to new participants. If you were a senior member enrolled in PD then you could make .4 max with 400 posts.

The OP is asking for the usernames of the accounts being sold. As anyone selling their account should know, this is a bad idea as your account will probably end up receiving negative trust.

PM sent

It is one of the most famous accounts. It would be like a trophy.