Yes but:

a) you're a class-A whore
b) we've already discussed this and are no longer interested
c) we paid out in the past and so that proves we will also pay out in the future even if we don't have the coins available

Any other "convincing" arguments?

d) NLNicoDicko. Geddit?

QED.

I made a chart of the difficulty over time with a log y-axis:



It clearly shows the difficulty adjusting upwards dramatically when v2 of the protocol was introduced.

I don't think you are qualified to judge that.


I will ask again. What lies are you referring to?


The forum allows you to quote other people's posts. Maybe use it to make it clear where she or I are lying. Thanks.


The purpose of a scam allegation thread isn't to give you advice, but to warn others of your deception. So accept my help or don't, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that people are allowed to speak the truth so that there is less chance of other people falling victim to your deception. You don't get to tell me to "beat it" out of someone else's thread.


No, that is also disputed. You are unable or unwilling to prove solvency, and have said that your maximum payout per bet is a flat 20 BTC regardless of the size of your bankroll. It's not clear that you even have enough funds to pay all your investors right now if they wanted to withdraw, let alone that you would be able to pay any big winners. So yeah - not at all undisputed.


Your operation concerns me. As in it is concerning. I worry that you are going to end up ripping off a whole bunch of people. You can argue that this isn't any of my business, but I would disagree. When I see a site acting irresponsibly and endangering the funds entrusted to them, I want to speak up. You aren't "consulting" with me. You're making very weak arguments and person attacks in a futile attempt to defend yourself against valid accusations.


It's a shame that you feel this way.  When you ignore what you should do, and are blind to what could go wrong you are taking unacceptable risks with other people's money.


No shit. You claimed "You definitely have some personal interest with Da Dice" because I was arguing with you. I posted examples of other dubious sites to show that it is nothing personal against you, but that I engage other misbehaving sites in the same way. Did you really not understand that?


There is nothing to be curious about. You yourself have admitted that you aren't able to pay anyone who wins too much. You even tried to claim that all sites are the same. So don't try now to pretend that you are able to pay someone who wins 20 BTC 100 times.


You think saying "cunt" makes you sound clever? Nobody is stopping DaDice from attempting to defend themselves. They just aren't very good at it, since they are guilty as charged and have no defence other than to attack people and say they aren't interested.


Is There Some Kind Of Competition Where The Dumbest Asshole To Post Wins A Prize?

I think you just won.

Maybe having it work in both directions would be better - if the volume in both directions was similar you could save a lot on exchange fees, and either pass the saving on to the users or keep it for yourself...

How's this for an idea:

Have an 'alert' system, like bitcoin-core does. When your servers are having problems, make a notice pop up inside the Mycelium app itself.

If there's one place you know for sure your users are looking, it's at your app. So that's where important notices should go. That way we don't have to guess which of facebook, reddit, twitter, bitcointalk, the play store, etc. you might have posted the announcement on.

I did read all the posts. I didn't reply to them all, but I did reply to too many of them already.


I do know that. You can tell that I know it because I said it here:



This is true, but unimportant. When applying the Kelly criterion, it's the profit that matters, not the payout. That is how Just-Dice was able to offer payouts of 7000 BTC to "mechs" even though the site's bankroll was only 50k BTC. That's over 10% of the bankroll. The reason is that his profit was only around 250 BTC per bet - or 0.5% of the bankroll.


OP's credibility doesn't matter when what they say is undisputed. You and she both agree that you are allowing players to profit by more than they should according to the Kelly multipliers the investors have set. You just don't seem to understand why that is a problem yet.


It's hard to follow you sometimes, but I'm trying. The hypothetical situation is "a player wins a lot". Not just one max bet, but a lot of them. It can happen. What does "Player only wins as far as the bankroll exists and is positive" mean? Does the maximum payout depend on the bankroll somehow? I thought you said it doesn't. Do the rolls? I know some sites rig the rolls such that players can't win when the bankroll is too low, but I don't think that's what you're saying here. So what do you intend that bolded quote mean? Maybe that you will shut the site down when the bankroll is less than 20 BTC? But if that was the case why would you be including declaring bankruptcy in your plans? I've tried hard to understand what you're trying to say, but don't get it. And if you could point out my "major fuck up" that would be nice too. I am saying that your fixed maximum payout risks being unable to pay big winners. Am I wrong there?


I have no interest in DaDice. I react the same way to any dubious behaviour I see from any site. Don't take it personally. Check my post history and you'll see I'm always nagging at one scammy operation or another. Most recently some "crypto-games.net" site was accidentally offering +EV bets to their players and wouldn't believe it when told about it for example. And scrypt.cc continues to pretend to be mining with 850 GH/s of scrypt hashing power.


What's the lie? I've asked, you responded with an attack on me. Maybe you're the one who needs to focus here.


But you're not, are you. You are offering bets you aren't bankrolled to offer, with the plan of not paying out if anyone wins too many of them.

That isn't just fine. It isn't even acceptable.


Again with the ad hominem attacks?


Not true. You have behaved very rudely and unprofessionally. Most of the personal attacks made in this thread were by you or your 'supporters'. See "silly muppet" one quote up from here...


At least something good came out of this then. Thank you.

YES! The more reasonable answer would be "of course we can pay out winners, because we don't risk what we can't afford to lose. Anything else would be immoral".

Your answer appears to be, when paraphrased, "we will continue to risk 20 BTC per roll even when the bankroll has already been won, and if it goes negative we will try to find more coins or declare bankruptcy". When rewritten like that isn't it clear how wrong-headed your stance is?


leen isn't on trial here, and has merely pointed out that how your site works is wrong. That you haven't changed your conditions since the start despite us trying to help you fix them is precisely the problem. Your conditions are broken.


I don't care about her sex. Or whether she's manipulative. Or a "class A whore". Or any of the other ad hominem attacks you keep throwing out there. How is the gender she identifies as in any way relevant to the discussion in hand? She pointed out how your site took 29% of her investment from a single roll when her account was set to a 10x Kelly setting and so should only ever risk 10% of her investment per roll. And rather than apologising, refunding her, and fixing the problem you instead chose to attack her personally.

I would never do that, but that's because I don't smell like reindeer poop. Like you do.

I'm not very good at ad hominem attacks. How did I do? Did it work?


I didn't know all this before. This is the first I have heard about your fake "Kelly" system. You have hidden the investment feature on your site as a way of pretending that it doesn't matter that you are unable to prove solvency, and so there is no way I could have learned about your broken "Kelly" system.

If you had been transparent about how your investment system works, instead of hiding it away to avoid the pressure to show solvency, I would have been able to point this obvious flaw out sooner.


Where was I meant to find this manual? You were busy pretending that you no longer offered investments.

The part of the manual that you have quoted is badly written and makes no mention of there being a static maximum payout in operation. As far as it goes, what you have described makes perfect sense. What you miss out is something like "oh, by the way, we don't actually use the Kelly criterion to decide how much to risk per bet - we allow a payout of 20 BTC per bet no matter how much is in the bankroll".


You're attacking the people instead of the arguments again. If someone makes a well reasoned logical argument, does it matter whether they are a class A whore or not?


"so far" being the important part here.

Lots of obvious Ponzi scams have honoured every withdrawal request "so far" too. It proves nothing.

If you're going to keep allowing a maximum payout of 20 BTC no matter how much you lose, you risk being unable to pay winners.


"we"? I think you forgot to switch to the sockpuppet account here. Mate.

I asked which "lie" you were referring to. And instead of answering, you make an "Alzheimer" joke? You are bad at your job. Like really bad.

No?

What's this?

I don't see where leen lied to me. Paraphrased maybe, but not lied. Is that the 'lie' you're referring to?

One said:
  "we will pay as much as we can"
The other claimed they said:
  "we will not pay him the won amount"

Do you not see they are the same? If "as much as you can" is less than you have available then that is the same as not paying the won amount. Declaring bankruptcy in the face of a win you can't pay out is the same as not paying the won amount.

So no, I don't think that in any way deserves negative feedback.


You don't see much, do you.

It is our concern when a dice site runs with a stated policy of "if a player wins too much we will probably just declare bankruptcy" that it won't end well. If your site is successful, eventually someone will win big. You're risking far too much of your bankroll per roll (as I have already tried to warn you several times now) and so will quite likely be hit by a player who wins more than you can afford to pay. Then you'll refuse to pay him, and you will be just another entry in the long series of Bitcoin scam sites.

It's in our interest, wanting Bitcoin to succeed, to do what we can to alert people to yet another "scam in the making" before they get too deep into it.

If you want to be a successful site, run it properly. Try to understand the issues that people are pointing out to you, and address them.

leen signed up for 10x Kelly but was unknowingly given 29x Kelly. That's unacceptable.


It looks to me like they are everywhere that scams are happening. I see QS tackling all kinds of scammers, not only DaDice. And if you read bodgy's words you will see that he makes a lot of sense.

Most recently he's pointing out that DaDice openly admitted that they are offering bets that they can't afford to pay out, and that if anyone is "lucky" enough to win a lot they will maybe have to declare bankruptcy. Why don't they mention that in the signature spam they pay people to display? "DaDice : we probably can't afford to pay you if you win!"

Yes, you're clearly wrong. How can you risk 50 BTC when you only deposit 5 BTC? That would leave you owing the site 45 BTC if you lost the amount you were risking.

Here's how it works:

The house edge is 1%, and so the Kelly criterion tells you that it is optimal to risk 1% of your bankroll per bet.

When you opt to risk 10 times the amount that the Kelly criterion tells you to risk you are risking 10% of your bankroll per bet.

That's all. It's really simple.

So if leen invested 5 BTC at 1x Kelly, the risk is 0.05 BTC per bet (1% of 5 BTC).
And investing 5 BTC at 10x Kelly would mean a risk of 0.5 BTC per bet (10% of 5 BTC).

There is no way to risk 29% of your bankroll per bet when the maximum multiplier on offer is 10x.

This is all pretty basic stuff.

That wasn't a discussion. That was me telling you that your actions were irresponsible, and you ignoring me.

Does that count as a discussion where you're from?

The problem is that you appear to be offering investing based on the Kelly criterion, but aren't.

Nobody needs "the manual" to know about Kelly betting - it is a well known strategy.

It appears that what you are offering is nothing to do with the Kelly criterion. Rather, you're recklessly risking too much of your investors' funds per bet, while claiming to be using "Kelly".

If you were using "Kelly system", you wouldn't even have a "max. payout". You would have a "max. profit". And it would be way lower than 20 BTC.

You should stop this deceptive practice and repay the investors who lost out as a result of this deception and/or incompetence.

That shows someone betting 9 BTC at 2x and profiting by 9 BTC. That is within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The bet that leen is complaining about is where someone profited by almost 20 BTC. That is not within 1% of the effective bankroll.

The way you publicly attacked one of your private investors in that post makes you look very unprofessional, and the fact that you don't even seem to understand the error that he is complaining about also doesn't help your image here.

Edit:


Well, leen asked you what would happen if someone won a lot, and you replied that "we will pay as much as we can". While that isn't exactly the same words as "we will not pay him the won amount", it does appear to have the same meaning. leen paraphrased you, without changing the meaning.

If you had said "we will pay them in full, of course, because we only offer bets we can afford to pay out as we are not scammers" and leen reported you as having said something different then I can see your point. But that isn't what happened.

The reason you have a crowd-sourced bankroll and investors choosing how much to risk per roll is so that you don't get into this kind of situation. You only allow bets that you are bankrolled to allow. This isn't rocket science. What you should do here is make things right. Fix your code. Repay the investors you have effectively stolen from. And fix your reputation.

Edit2:


But payout doesn't matter. When deciding on what max bets you're bankrolled to accept it's the player's profit that matters, not the total payout.


Jesus man, do your research. That isn't how most of them work. When you're dealing with investor funds and claiming to use the Kelly criterion, you should use the Kelly criterion and not just have a flat rate maximum payout of 20 BTC.

At Just-Dice, we guarantee that all winning bets will be paid out. There is no chance that any player can win more than the bankroll. That is because the maximum profit per bet is a fraction of the bankroll. How can you be operating in this space and yet fail to have even a basic understanding of how it works?

Edit3:


That post is me complaining that your maximum payout is too high. The fact that you still didn't fix that isn't a point in your favour.


If you would like me to take a look at your investment feature I would be willing to. But there is no way I am ever going to invest my own funds with you. You can make me an account and lock it from betting or withdrawing if you like so I can take a look but if you think I would send you coins after everything I've seen from you, you're mistaken.

If you want the thread to die you shouldn't post such misleading statements. It has been proven many times that betting your entire balance on one bet is NOT the most efficient way to achieve any profit goal.

But mining isn't working either and he didn't mention that. He should mention when he plans to finally turn on his 850 GH/s so we can be ready for the difficulty to shoot up.

Any comment from the site owners about this?


While I understand the short term benefits of refusing to pay out big winners it does seem a little shortsighted.

Is this official DaDice policy?

If I was looking for a dice site to play on, I might not chose the one which has a stated policy of not paying out people who win too much.

The seller is required to specify an amount, current, and address so it is easy for me to check whether payment was made and release the escrow if it was. I'm hoping this won't come up too often.

Automating cancels or releases seems to me like it opens up new vectors for scamming.

The BTC address field is editable. Does that mean the service works in both directions? Can I give a BTC address and get a linked CLAM address?

If not, the BTC address field should be readonly.

It doesn't sound like they implemented it at all.

Instead of letting investors specify how much they want to risk per roll they just go ahead and risk up to 20 BTC per roll no matter what the investors decide.