I am not sure where you got 25 from.

In order to be on DT1, you must be trusted by 10 people with at least 10 merit, one of which must have 250 merit, both ignoring merit sent by the person, assuming you are not blacklisted by theymos.

Only one person needs to be convinced, theymos, as he can blacklist suchmoon from being on DT1. Otherwise, 15 people will need to remove suchmoon from their trust lists.

It would probably be best for her not to be in a position of authority, as she appears to always side with those with more power in disputes. Also, she does not appear to have any kind of trading history, nor currently is active in trading, which effectively removes any consequences to her receiving any retaliatory ratings.

One goal of the new DT system was to prevent these types of ratings.

It seems to have caused them to occur more frequently.

I don’t think anyone involved is in India.

Some people use self moderated threads to delete warnings about shady behavior, criticism of the OP (or someone closely related), or questions that make the OP look bad.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

I am not sure if you have seen the above thread but there it one example.

There are other examples of them protecting each other and other examples that are not as bad as the above.

I think it is interesting that no other (semi) reputable news organization has been able to verify the report. This only reduces the chances of the report being accurate.

Many opinion cable news shows that present themselves as news have been foaming at the mouth about this report.

He has already been sentenced to years in prison for crimes many others wouldn’t face criminal charges for (the tax issues would likely be handed civilly). The lying to Congress is very wrong but many in the Obama administration lied about material things that would not necessarily come out regardless but have not faced consequence.

I like your stance that we shouldn’t discuss concerns and air grievances.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?__twitter_impression=true

Buzzfeed is reporting that President Trump directed his then lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to congress about the timing of when the Rump Tower hotel deal in Russia was abandoned. Cohen has testified it was abandoned in January 2016 when in fact it was abandoned that summer.

Buzzfeed is reporting that special counsel Robert Mueller’s officer has evidence of this including Trump organization emails and text messages.

One of the two Buzzfeed reporters later said in an interview that he has not personally seen any of these documents. Muellers office has denied this report in that it is saying that Buzzfeed is misrepresenting the description of the documents and that the report is false. Except for court filings, Muellers office has almost never made any public statements. 

If this is true, and the evidence is solid (it doesn’t appear to be), Trump will likely be impeached and potentially removed from office. If this is outright untrue, Buzzfeed will lose any credibility it has left and will likely eventually either file bankruptcy or get sold for a firesale price (a very quick sell, so to say).

I don’t personally think the report is true. It would make little sense for Trump to do this as the Mueller investigation was already underway, so the underlying facts of when the deal fell through would likely have come out anyway and he was already elected and didn’t face re-election for over 3 years at the time.

What are your thoughts on this? Will this erode the Meduas credibility (beyond Buzzfeed)?

I initially thought the quote from theymos was faked, but upon investigation it is not. Lol.

---

The problem with the new trust system is that you do not need to be viewed as trustworthy by anyone that matters in order to get on DT1. This means several people with a little bit of power, such as those TMAN is close with/to, can effectively control who is on DT1, both adding people and excluding people.

I am not a fan of the new DT system however, TMAN and his clique should all be blacklisted from being on DT1, as most of them engage in behavior consistent with organized crime, and best case they are very shady. They often leave many contentious ratings and have done so without consequences.

I would suspect the parents will convert the bitcoin to dollars after some amount of time has passed (from when the ad was published). They will probably either put the dollars in a savings Amin the child’s name or an investment account in the child’s name.

Thanks.

It is interesting because there is no real way of confirming the birth is in fact "real" (unless you otherwise know the parents).

Another issue is this story has gone semi-viral, and it is difficult to know for sure the correct donation address if you wish to donate because it is so easy for 3rd party news sites to forge the donation address of the ad.

I suspect Trump will make progress in this regard.

Neither side has taken action on the topic of illegal immigration likely because this is a topic that 'fires up' both Dem and GOP bases, and is something that is effective in fundraising.

IMO illegal immigration has gotten bad enough so it can no longer be ignored. Although the topic of illegal drugs entering our country is separate from illegal immigration, both enter largely via similar mechanisms, and illegal drugs are killing hundreds of Americans every day, and these are drugs that many take only because of addiction and would love to not have available to them.

I received the below PM from the OP in 2015:
(irrelevant portions removed)

It looks like LouReed contacted the OP, setup some kind of payment plan that apparently he did not follow through with. The OP asked me to remove my negative rating, which I did, and based on the PM, he likely sent a similar message to TC asking the same.

It doesn't look like the OP publicly followed up on the debt until very recently.

If Bob has a lot of merit and also has Alice in his trust list, assuming many others have Alice in their trust lists, Alice would be on DT1. Later Bob may become inactive for whatever reason, but even when Bob is inactive, Alice will remain on DT1, even if everyone who has Alice on their trust list is inactive.



The new system is scheduled to update once per month, but the number of people on DT1 will likely increase, as IMO it is easier for someone to get added to a person's trust list than it is to get removed (practically speaking), and more people will get merit that makes them eligible to "vote" on who is on DT1.

I am an advocate for a fair system, and I care about the integrity of the marketplace (and of the community). My trust rating is shit, but that does not stop me from being entrusted with large amounts of money when I do engage in trades (which has become less frequent, but this is due to my own choosing).

Right. There should be some mechanism for someone to not be on DT1, both having their ratings not count, and not having their trust list count, beyond manual intervention by theymos. This should be beyond affirmatively needing people to remove an account from DT1 to get them removed, as over time people with a lot of merit will become inactive, get locked out of their accounts, etc., and will not update their trust lists.


If you want to do business on the forum, ranking up is very beneficial because of limits (both in delays, and total allowed per day) to the number of PMs of lower ranking accounts, making negotiating and working through details difficult if done via the forum.

One could also argue the posting limits for very low level accounts is excessive.

Most of the clique I am speaking of is a group of people who trade amongst themselves in the collectables section (and those closely associated with these people). They generally have high trust ratings, but much of this is from trading within the group, and in general a person is much less likely to scam their friend than they are to scam a stranger. A few of these people have a somewhat shady history (I am not referring to those who have explicitly scammed) by doing things such as backing out of auctions, and making some questionable escrow decisions (I am not referring to situations that I view as clearly wrong), all of which would likely earn most people a decent amount of negative trust.

For me, DT serves as somewhat of a reference point. I would generally give ratings from DT a little more weight, especially successful trades, and successful trades with those who have decent trust ratings from the perspective of DT (this is one negative of not displaying the trust ratings of those who gave trust on a person's trust page). When deciding to give a no collateral loan, I will also consider (among other things), the value of their reputation when viewed from DT.

The new system makes it more difficult to gauge the value of one's reputation that someone has to lose if they were to (try to) pull off a scam in a trade.

I was under the impression the OP was eligible for the bug bounty from reading this reddit thread, but it looks like that bounty only applied to PLINKO and MINES, not the game in question.

The delay in adjusting the OP's account is still concerning because the OP was under the impression his balance was higher than it was, and likely made larger bets accordingly. This effectively guarantees a player will either lose their entire deposit or will have any winnings clawed back, effectively making any bets by the player risk free to the casino.

It continues to be my position that FJ should payout a minimum of what was described here by MadZ (and agreeing with his logic).

Given that the OP has shown to frequent your casino, it is reasonable to say he would have gambled absent the win via the bugged game.

It seems like the new system is not working as intended:

To be entirely fair, given enough time, there will be a set of 60 consecutive games in which the SpinBPS is >200 -- simply saying this is unlikely does not mean it should not have happened. Being that the game is not provably fair, it is difficult to say one way or another there were a sequence of games that should have had a SpinBPS of over 200.

In regards to your rationale that there was a "system failure" because the game was not provably fair, I would not agree with you on this. The game not being provably fair is the result of FJ misrepresenting a feature of the game. I would note the game is presently not provably fair.

One could argue (reasonably) the game paying out wins on a 200 BPS, when the SpinBPS was under 200 is a "system failure", and I would agree to the extent it can be believed the seeds were not changed after the fact to make the SpinBPS be under 200.

Geeze, not another thread by a scammer frivolously contesting his scammer rating....

I see it now. The spreadsheet was hard to read because the line with the labels was not frozen at the top.

It should be fairly clear there was a bug, provided the information from FJ can be believed.

I agree that most casinos do not normally payout winnings when a machine is not working properly, however casinos can choose to do so. My concern about the OP's case is FJ did something very similar to giving the OP chips, which is the same as paying out -- the OP subsequently used those chips to bet on another game and won.

I would also point out, according to FJ, over 15 hours elapsed from when the OP stopped using the bugged game to when he won the jackpot on plinko. I believe if FJ intended to not honor subsequent bets from funds won from the new game, they should have frozen his account as soon as they were aware of the bug, which should have been far before 15 hours later IMO.

According to my calculations, while playing plinko, he was down at most, 004096 BTC, and his subsequent bet was 0.0256 BTC, resulting in a total required bankroll of 0.06556 BTC to place the subsequent bet after his low point. During the majority of the OP's plinko betting session, he was making very small bets, and he was down by this much less than an hour prior to his jackpot win, and he was previously down nominal amounts two hours prior to his jackpot win.

The OP initially deposited ~0.009 BTC, and if you assume the subsequent bet would result in the OP having a zero balance, he would need to make bets approximately 13.727% of his actual plinko bets, resulting in a payout of approximately 2.745 BTC from the jackpot.

The OP was however due a bug bounty of 0.08 BTC (he actually received 0.2 BTC, but the advertised amount was 0.08). It is unclear when this would be payable to the OP, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say he should have received it within 12 hours of finishing play on the bugged game. If the winnings from the bugged game were removed, and the bug bounty was added to the OP's account, he would have sufficient funds to cover the bet that resulted in his jackpot win, and as such, I believe there is a strong argument he should receive the entire jackpot win.

---

Separately, I am concerned about how their bug bounty thread reads. Specifically, it says "...find bugs in two new games just released...", which implies they did not invest resources required to release a working game. There is also the implication that FJ may have been trying to "freeroll" their customers by displaying large wins -- if for example, someone deposited 0.1 BTC, thought they won 2 BTC, and subsequently lost  0.102 BTC (after increasing their bet size) on another game might have their entire deposit seized, but this player might not have made as large of bets had they not thought they were up 1.9 BTC.