If you had the hash before you played then you could calculate the outcome of every round. You also won a ridiculous amount that is very close to certain to not happen fairly. BTW, you were also going into playing trying to 100x your deposit which is also very unlikely to happen.

You need to give back what you withdrew. You are in the wrong.

When did you receive these hashes? Before or after your wins on CrashDoge?

wearing an affiliate link in his signature is different from running an exchange that is going to impose losses to their customers because what was ultimately his mistake.

When did you meet the dev that was giving out the server seed? How did you meet him? Do you know who else the dev was giving the server seed out to? What was his criteria in deciding who to give the server seed to?

You didn't answer my question, is what I said an accurate representation of what you are saying happened?

Also, it would not be unexpected to not bring up suspected cheating if the site operator's hope is to obtain ID/KYC information of the cheater (to eventually provide to law enforcement).

Regardless of if CrashDoge brought up the topic of alleged cheating, it appears there was cheating going on in their casino, and you were aware of it.

So I can be sure we are on the same page as to what you are claiming, I am going to repeat it in my own words:

You are claiming that you turned 5,000 doge into 6mm doge (you won 1200x your deposit) at a time when:
*You were talking to the site's dev who was giving out the site's server seed
*Other players were using the leaked server seed to your advantage
*You were aware the dev was giving out the server seed to other players, but:
*You were *not* using the leaked server seed to your advantage

Is the above an accurate representation of what you are saying happened?

---

They said they wanted to complete KYC. If they had reason to believe you were cheating, it would be entirely understandable for them to want to complete KYC, and it would also be understandable if they did not payout your reflected balance.

So did you know the outcome of the games in advance?

So he is from singapore?

Do you know if he goes by any other names around here (on bitcointalk)? I have someone in mind, but I don't remember if he is/was from Singapore or Sweden, and don't have notes on him.

It sounds like the basis for you saying there is unethical behavior is that HostFat is using a referral link in his signature for an exchange you believe is untrustworthy.

I don't think this reaches the point of it being necessary to take forum action.

StackGambler is very shady, I am very suspicious of him, but I am not sure who he is.

One of the photos seems to imply he had the server seed of CrashDoge when he turned 5,000 doge into 6mm doge.The owner of the website had asked StackGambler to provide his ID, and both this and the reason why providing ID was refused was probably because there was cheating on the part of StackGambler.

edit: corrected win to reflect 6mm doge, not 4mm

I don’t think this can ever be proven with certainty because it is always possible someone wants to make the person look bad by giving merit to someone on a post that shouldn’t reasonably receive merit. Also, someone could be reviewing the persons posts, decide they deserve merit and give merit for the wrong post.

I am still pondering how to tell if someone is selling or buying merit and my reasoning is a work in progress. I think it is best to look at the merit (send) history of the person sending merit and if they have sent small amounts to many posts that don’t deserve merit then they might be selling merit. From there, you can look at the (receive) merit history of who received merit from these people on posts that don’t deserve merit and look at who else has sent them merit and see if they have also sent merit to many undeserving posts.

I posted analysis of a case of suspected merit abuse here that didn’t get much attention, however it can be used as an example as to how to use the above logic.

I don’t think this is so much about freedom but is more about public safety.

It needs to be noted that vaccines are absolutely safe and the antivaxxers rely on disinformation and propaganda. There have been many studies over a long time that confirm this safety.

Some children however are not healthy enough to receive certain vaccines and as such cannot receive them. If children who can receive the vaccines don’t, then those who cannot are being put at risk.

Interesting information.

A couple of things...
Instead of “percent difference” a more useful stast would be “percent change from last month” (the difference between the net number of new posts this month from last momth. Also useful would be percent chance from last year. As boards have more and more posts, each additional 1,000 new net posts will have a smaller impact on the percentage of new posts.

For comparison, it would be useful to also see net new posts in the English sections, possibly split up between the main boards and the altcoin boards. In general, interest in bitcoin rises and falls with prices and with prices way down from the highs in 2017, interest has also fallen, and I would expect the number of new posts to have declined from December 2017.

Right, the majority of these are not something you specifically did.

I believe the large number of exclusions means two things:
*Using a fairly small custom trust list will result in many people being in your trust network, many of whom you would not normally trust their ratings, or otherwise.
*There is a very large premium to having those on your trust list with good trust lists.

IIRC, there were only a handful of exclusions on DT under the old system, and on your level one, there are more exclusions than inclusions. I would draw the conclusion that many on your level2 depth do not have good trust lists, to the extent that those on your level1 are needing to "fix" these "mistakes" by excluding many people they don't want in their trust network.

This is not a new thing as a result to recent DT changes. I had used a custom trust list for years, and had to exclude many people. I would sometimes investigate why all these people I don't want in my trust network were appearing, but ultimately it was hard to correct the root causes of having untrustworthy people in my trust network. 

You could create an account called "LoyceBot" that theymos would presumably be willing to whitelist for you that could scrape trust ratings on a periodic basis. He might even be willing to allow it to see the investigations board if you have a good reason to be scraping posts from there.

I would not use the word "complicit". I think they were more playing an active role in trying to take down Trump.

The Trump reelection campaign recently sent a memo to many MSM outlets asking they do not invite some who were falsely claiming to have seen or otherwise be aware of evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government, or to call these people out on these what are now known to be lies. I don't believe they have followed this request, and are allowing some to continue pushing what are outrageous conspiracy theories that borderline on "flat earth" logic.

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

---

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

This is probably a fairly good argument to say that merit requirements are too high for higher ranking accounts.

I think merit requirements to become a junior member and member is probably too low.

Right now you need 10x the merit to go from junior member to member but you only need a nominal amount of merit to become a junior. To go from member to full member, you need to 10x your merit again. Going from full to senior you need to 2.5x your merit, then only need to double your merit each time additional ranks can be achieved.

LoyceV indicated above that 0.1 merit per post is above average and for someone to become legendary at that rate they would need 10k posts but only a small handful of people have made that many posts.

Please see my thread giving away merits and make a submission.

You can also post several posts of yours here that you put a lot of effort into over the years and perhaps some merit sources will be willing to give lots of merit for those posts. Each person can give up to 50 merit to you per month.

Theymos has previously said that if someone can show they deserve to rank up that merit sources should give up to the maximum merit to them allowing them to rank up.

Yea, the MSMs reporting on “Russia” over the past two years has damaged their credibility. However it at least appeared the reporting, however flawed was their own doing.

The pivot to healthcare was done within a day of the leader of the Democratic Party saying she wants the media “paying attention” to the subject.

It looks like you are advocating for sent feedback to be automatically removed when a user is Nuked.
Perhaps a good solution would be to allow global moderators review Nuked accounts for sent trust and can remove any clearly frivolous sent trust, similar to what is referenced in the OP. I speculate the majority of users Nuked have not sent any trust.
  
The Nuking may or may not be deserved be deserved, I am not sure how much effort mods put into reviewing newbie accounts before Nuking them currently. The Nuking being deserved does not change the fact they were scammed.
I agree, but if a newbie gets Nuked, any thread they create will get removed, including any scam accusation they make.

If the untrusted ratings are just from a bunch of Newbie accounts, I would generally consider this to be frivolous, perhaps from someone with a grudge. I agree that DT feedback will be more effective, but for someone to get DT red trust, someone on DT needs to be aware of the incident, and if you are Nuked, any complaint about the person will be removed, and it will stay that way unless the person Nuked creates a new account.

I would not automatically call this person a scammer, but I would at least ask questions in most cases. If they are going to say the feedback is from a grudge, I would want to understand what caused the grudge, and depending on the circumstances, I might accept that. Or depending on their reputation, I might understand some people might have a grudge and questioning them might not be necessary.