You realize just because you download GitHub.zip and mod some lines doesn't make it NOT a clone eh

and oooooh you dare encroach on the fine reputation of the glorious coin called JackpotCoin ?

#fail

That was not a web wallet, it is a screen shot of the native UI that Monero developed in 2014 (can be downloaded and compiled and it does work but back end functions are stubbed out). Work to integrate it with the rest of the code was put on hold for a while to focus on other priorities and is ongoing now.

Custom API, so I don't think this affects anyone else. We've disabled betting in the meantime whilst we sort this out, but I really think the lesson to other operators is not to be overconfident in your code or in your setup. Everything can and will be compromised, so assume it's going to happen and put safeguards in place to handle that eventual scenario.

If you look at it from a judge's point of you,you were actually equally part of the crime as much as the boy who was selling it to you.You should know it's against their terms and should be prohibited on any costs.He played really smart after selling you the card lol

About Amazon Gift Card Restrictions

There are certain restrictions with Amazon.com Gift Cards, such as not being able to purchase gift cards using a gift card and not being able to transfer them to another account once the claim code has been redeemed.

Once you guys find out enough information I suggest you call Interpol, cunts are fucked now, they are just lying and waiting

https://www.interpol.int
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

These are the Men & Women who are paving the way the Law is Served Internationally for Internet Crime !

Yeah, that's how it sounds like. Actually when I designed the moneypot investment system, what I did was create a repayable log of all the investment/divestment/bet events for in a nightmare situation like this (or software bug) it could be replayed so investors wouldn't have made/lost money from the changes in the bankroll when a fake better (or software bug) was playing.

The situation is probably a big mess now, as some investors have lost more than they should've and others made more than they should've. And it's probably pretty likely the ones who unfairly made money have already withdrawn (?) or at the very least, will be unhappy if their balance gets put to the correct amount

We found the bug he exploited that leaked the seed, and we've subsequently patched it.

We made a decision on how to handle it at the time, under pressure, to the best of our ability. You are welcome to disagree with that decision, but unless you're in that scenario running your own site your opinion is largely meaningless. It's easy to look at it after the fact and go "well I would have done X" - I can think of any one of 30 different ways we could have handled things.


So then you cut your losses and you get out, the end. There is no coming back later on to try reclaim imagined profit.

Perhaps a comparison will help: let's say that you have 10 BTC in Poloniex. You hear that Poloniex isn't processing BTC withdrawals, along with panic that they're hacked, and use your BTC to buy a bunch of WaffleCoin and withdraw it. You sell your WaffleCoin on ShapeShift, but now the market's tanked and you end up with 9 BTC. Later that day Poloniex put out a statement apologising for the issues and stating that they're now fixed. Would you insist that they roll the trades back? What about the shorters that took profit from you?

Or what if you invested in a startup, and then when it looked like things were going south you sold your investment at a loss. Two years later the startup is a huge, successful company. Do you insist on taking profit from the growth because you *used to be* an investor?


We thought about this, but we decided that it would be too dangerous for us to spend days and weeks trying to build a magical "undo" script, completely wrecking any auditability, and potentially ending up with a screwed up data set at the end.


With all respect to the affected investor, he took his $100 loss and walked away. He didn't contact us, he didn't ask for input on how we were going to handle things. He just assumed that it was the end, and he would have been the *only* investor to get out with his money had we not had safeguards and had the attacker been able to actually drain the wallet. What would have happened then?

You stated at the outset that you understand that the situation would have been different had the attacker managed to withdraw, but you're not actually following that thought through. Had that played out we'd have a total loss on the part of all the investors, and one investor who only incurred a $100 loss, and you can bet that investor wouldn't volunteer to divvy up his remaining funds among the affected investors.

Ultimately you're asking us to take up a morally hazardous position. What happens when someone "accidentally" places a large bet and loses? Should we undo their bet, and take the profits from the investors? An investor that divests and withdraws is no longer part of the bankroll. They bailed out with a profit or with a loss, and that's the end of that.

Nevertheless, I've already offered to send $100 to the affected investor, so I'm not sure what more you expect?

Custom API, so I don't think this affects anyone else. We've disabled betting in the meantime whilst we sort this out, but I really think the lesson to other operators is not to be overconfident in your code or in your setup. Everything can and will be compromised, so assume it's going to happen and put safeguards in place to handle that eventual scenario.

IMPORTANT: IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content. As part of our ongoing effort to continually evaluate and enhance the customer experience on IMDb, we have decided to disable IMDb's message boards on February 20, 2017. This includes the Private Message system. After in-depth discussion and examination, we have concluded that IMDb's message boards are no longer providing a positive, useful experience for the vast majority of our more than 250 million monthly users worldwide. The decision to retire a long-standing feature was made only after careful consideration and was based on data and traffic. See more

Sorry I was just answering a question. That dialogue I was making should be on other thread I think.

To me, it is obvious he was fired.

Blazed still has Lauda within his trust list, and this makes Blazed look like he thinks a self-admitted extortionist should be trusted by everyone. In my book, this means Blazed is not quite as trustworthy as he presents himself to be.

Exactly, I just ignored it. I should allow myself to listen to that in such cases.