let's try to clear some points because I am used to european roulette.

are you talking about american roulette with double zero?

I am not sure if you checked our payout list. we pay for a straight up 35 to1 for a
line 5 to 1 and street 11 to 1

what corners are paid 20x or 30x ? corner is 4 numbers and pays 8 to 1

please explain more specific what bets you mean and what payouts will work.

very important to understand regarding the guarantee am I right that you want 3 BTC and only give back in case it fails 1.5 BTC?

on moneypot it would be easy to give proof because I can save each bet ID  

700$ for 0.10 would mean 7000$ to bet with 1$ right?

with 0.10 bets and 30 units win per hour equals 3$ per hour = 30$ per 10 hours a day. but if I understood you right it is not an every day win system. what ups and downs could we see in a week or a month?

I know I ask many questions but all those points must be clear if we use an escrow and I am sure that some interested users will be thankful that they don't need to ask all those questions

and the good thing is if we play with BTC is that we could reduce the test risk to 1 cent or even lower I am sure you will agree why should one risk 700$ if he can test it with 70$ or even 7$

important for you is that you get your 3BTC if it works

I cant believe the amount of time that has been wasted thanks to the trolls that are always downvoting everyone that doesn't agree with a big block agenda. All this drama has been limiting the development of Bitcoin, not the lack of a ridiculous block size raise. The only real opposition against Bitcoin here are the pro XT/101 guys that don't get that their huge blocks will kill Bitcoin's decentralization. We already got a problem with mining being centralized, let's not end up the same with nodes ffs.

“At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”

The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the full block chain.  In the design PDF it's called Simplified Payment Verification.  The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, it just can't generate blocks.  It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.

The lightweight client is not implemented yet, but the plan is to implement it when it's needed.  For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

Yes. However there is an additional question.
Can they get away with it with nobody being able to prove they did it and have 1000 users even proving that they did not do it?
And is it possible that only one possibly some shop floor level server operator can do the stealing with nobody else even some higher up from the company knowing about the theft and who did it.

For an online wallet the answer is yes, trivially.
All they need to do is for one time feed the malicious javascript to one user only which they have selected to be the one they want to steal from. The probability that everybody inspects their javascript EVERY TIME they use the online wallet is just ridiculous.
Clean up the server and nobody knows what happened with no proof available to anybody and blame a keylogger in the victims computer.
Have 1000 users inspecting THEIR javascript to "prove" that the javacsript from the company is safe with no backdoors.
Has that happened already? You betcha.

For bitcoin core the answer is no.
The proof about the malicious code remains out there forever and traces about who put it in there.

They can easily feed you malicious javascript when you are logging in so your password goes to them instead of decrypting it in your browser.
So, yes, they could.

But if he played with Bitcoin, he would not be as famous as he is (which strongly contributes to his wealth). I mean, Pokerstars does not accept BTC as far as I know (nor they have plans of doing it).

Also, he can easily move to another bank. Even if they were to take his money, unless he did/is doing something illegal, he could easily sue them (and such a big company would not want to ruin its reputation for a few millions).

Because ,most politicians are in the pockets of those with  the biggest bank accounts, which lets face it is the Banks themselves who are threatened by bitcoin.
What church you talking about? Most scientists back in the day where christians

They aren't going to attack themselves, obviously, but the fact that 51% might be achievable for a company raises some questions and red flags. If a private company can do it, a government can probably do it too, with bigger ease. I think that is the biggest point of these hashrate issues.