People win at dice all the time. People lose too, but to deny the existence of winners is crazy. Just hang around any dice site for long enough and you're bound to see big winners if it's a fair site.

Just-Dice recently had three losing weeks in a row. That's three weeks where players won more than they lost in total.

I'm not fighting for anything. I am just pointing out that what you wrote is obviously incorrect.

" "

It's not even about not acting honestly. It's more about transparency than honesty.

It is possible that they are being honest, really do have all the coins they claim to have, but for some reason don't want to prove it. There's nothing dishonest about such a stance.

It's also possible that they don't have all the coins they claim to have, and so can't show their cold wallet address without admitting to the problem.

As it stands we are left suspecting that they are insolvent, but we have no proof either way.

Yesterday the site finally made a new all-time high profit (for a few seconds):



It took almost 3 weeks to fully recover from the wins by Dzeros, scabby, marilyn, and several others but we got there eventually!

Here's an updated list of weekly investor returns (weekly return, and cumulative), from players and staking combined, after commission. A 1x (no 'offsite') investor on the left, and a 100x investor on the right:


Edit: note how even during the 3 weeks ending May 4th, 11th, and 18th, when the site made a net loss, even the 100x investor made a small new profit. That's due to the bankroll's staking rewards being shared between the investors.

I doubt there's much point in me offering to discretely verify a wallet address for them, but I'm willing to if it helps them out. I know Stunna already offered, and I'm just another dice site owner, but there's the offer for what it's worth.

Thanks.

Did you see my previous reply to you? Neither the linking of outputs to the transactions that spend them nor the responsive layout appears fixed yet.

They say nobody is invested there any more.

When asked to chose between transparency and opacity they chose opacity. It's worrying, but there's nothing anyone can do to change it.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens now.

The problem is that what happens on dice sites isn't really "investing". I picked a bad name for it. A better name would be "bankrolling". My bad.

When you invest in a company, you're typically giving them some funds in exchange for part ownership of that company. They're free to use that money to build the company, and you reap the rewards since you own a share of it.

When you "invest" in a dice site, you're merely providing funds for the bankroll. The agreement is that your coins will be used to bankroll the site, and in exchange you get a share of the profits and losses according to the size of the amount you risk. You're meant to be able to divest your coins at any time and withdraw them. There's an expectation that the site will hold the coins for you and have them available for withdrawal should you want them. If they spend a bunch of them on bombarding forums with advertising (say) then they no longer have enough coins to cover their liabilities. They still have enough coins to let some of the investors pull out, but if they all wanted out at the same time there wouldn't be enough coins to pay them all.

Do you see the difference? The typical dice-site deal is that the site isn't meant to be spending the customer funds. It should only use them as the bankroll that other customers play against. Maybe DaDice have a special arrangement with their investors that means it's fine if they spend their coins on just anything. In which case there's no problem at all. The investors might not be able to withdraw, and that's OK because that's what they agreed to. I didn't look at the DaDice 'invest' page to see what they agreed to.

So if I invest 1 BTC then divest it, and repeat 1000 times, it will show that I have invested 1000 BTC?

That's retarded. Why would you design it like that?

All anyone cares about is the amount people currently have invested, not a sum of all their comings and goings.

It's hard to believe that anyone would design a stats page that shows the total of all invests without also showing the total of all divests. What would be the point? What would it mean?

It seems more likely to me that those two users are still invested and you have been caught in another lie when you said they aren't.

I see you labelled the burn address with a comment.

Are you able to label other addresses?

If so, you could label all of the top 4 addresses:

We can't; you refuse to show it to us. All we can see are numbers on your site with nothing to back it up.

They are free to run their business in a non-transparent way if they want to. That seems to be what they have decided to do. That's OK. It's a red flag to potential players and investors, but if that's how they want to be that's OK. The "investor" excuse is invalid, since they already told us that 90% of the bankroll is funded by the site anyway, so they could just demonstrate possession of that 90% and leave the privacy-minded investor's coins out of it.


Now every opportunity. Just the ones that look scammy. Like this one.


That is what everyone has been asking them to do. But they refuse. They still have the opportunity, so long as they still have the coins that were invested and didn't spend them on advertising, server costs, etc.

Ponzis shut down because they promise to pay out more than they take in, which leaves them insolvent and unable to pay everyone. It's the insolvency that is the problem. If a Ponzi scheme had millions of BTC of their own they could operate for a while paying everyone a nice profit. It would make no sense to do so, but it could happen.

The same with dice sites. The 1% edge is no guarantee. Especially when you're offering 4% of your bankroll as the maximum payout per bet. Variance is "a bitch" as any poker player will tell you. It is easily possible for a dice site to go bankrupt if their maximum payout is too big for the size of their bankroll.

But the main issue here is one of trust. These guys refuse to demonstrate that they still have the coins they are supposed to have, but have offered no good reason for their refusal. The most likely reason is that they no longer have all the coins they are supposed to have.

OK, but "doing something flag-worthy" is. And the question is whether flag-worthiness diminishes over time.


What is fishy is that they would rather offer weak excuses and then remove part of their site rather than offering a proof that would strengthen their image. This undoubtedly makes them look bad when they could look good, if only they were solvent.

There have been so many instances of scammy Bitcoin services that it's not unreasonable to expect the legit ones to take the simple step of showing that they are solvent. The ones that refuse to do so without good reason are likely not able to.


Yes, that is all that matters. But "time will tell" isn't helpful. People want to know whether it is safe to deposit there right now. Waiting a month to see if they shut up shop or not isn't helpful. If they don't, you still can't safely invest because maybe they close down the next day. If they are offering 20 BTC payouts per roll, and have only a 500 BTC bankroll, that isn't "legit". They are taking far too big a risk of bankruptcy, with other people's money.


I guess so. But at what point? I'm horrible at predicting the future. I thought dicebitco.in and dice.ninja were the good guys, and that PRC wouldn't last 6 months. I was wrong in all 3 cases...

And if you aren't, you can go to just-dice.com and type /supply in the chat box. It will tell you lots of information. The part in bold is what you are asking for:


Edit: note how in the 4 hours since Garth posted his numbers the "digsupply" has gone up by about 5 (the JD numbers are rounded) - a single distribution output was claimed in the last 4 hours.

Here's another; what did you have for breakfast today?

But can we please try to keep this on-topic? If bit-x have been asked for a proof of solvency and in response made a bunch of weak attempts to avoid the question, then that's a matter for their thread. It's nothing to do with the question at hand.

I don't see how his game is anything like roulette really. It's like a modified Ponzi. Whether you 'win' or not depends entirely on people playing after you to fund your payout. The modification (your 'bet' has a fixed number of hours to be paid out, otherwise it gets deleted) seems relatively minor - fundamentally it's still a Ponzi game.

CLAM is proof of stake. Everyone holding it has the opportunity to stake it and get that 0.2% interest per day. So while it is a kind of inflation, it is a fairly distributed inflation. It should still lead to the price per CLAM decreasing, but in step with the money supply increasing. The net result should be that the value in any particular staking wallet stays about the same.

Compare this to the dollar or other fiat currency, where the new coins aren't distributed to the current holders fairly. Your dollars become a smaller and smaller percentage of the money supply each time new dollars are issued, since none of them are being issued to you.

I wonder how much your judgement is being coloured by wearing their signature. Or mine by being in competition with DaDice. I do know I have considered proof of solvency to be important for a long time, before I started Just-Dice, before I had such "competition".

Consider the situation: when asked about their solvency, they produced a string of feeble excuses for why they couldn't provide it. Once all these excuses were demonstrated to be feeble they would rather remove the investment feature from their site than prove solvency.

Ask yourself why they would do that. It makes them look guilty, when proving solvency would be so easy.

It strikes me that the only reason I wouldn't prove solvency in such a situation would be if I couldn't.

The warnings are there because they are a new site offering large bets with a small bankroll and are unwilling to prove that the bankroll exists. That's something worth warning about. The question of how long warnings should stay up for is a difficult one. I have scammers PMing me saying "it's been a year since I scammed, and I paid everyone back when I was caught, so can you remove the warning now?"... I don't remove it. They scammed once, they'll likely try it again. It doesn't matter that they've gone a year without scamming. If you had cause to believe MtGox was insolvent 2 years before they finally shut down, how long should you leave the warning up for? If they never prove their solvency, you have to reason to believe anything has changed.

I think you misunderstood the public pressure:

* Nobody was asking you to remove the investor option.

* Everyone was asking you to prove that you aren't insolvent.

It is worrying that you have hidden an important part of your site in an attempt to make the public pressure go away rather than simply showing that you still have control of the coins you were trusted to look after.

Offering 20 BTC payouts with a 1% edge from a 500 BTC bankroll that you actually have is bad enough.

Offering 20 BTC payouts with a 1% edge from a 500 BTC bankroll that you already spent is even worse.

I have to say I've been impressed with your posts recently. You have a knack for getting right to the core of the issue and making it clear. Good job!


I think I have done the right thing. DaDice's actions have raised red flag suggesting that they don't have the coins they claim to have. For me this makes it quite likely that they will pull an exit scam at some point. It's possible they are insolvent and hoping that players will lose enough on their site to make up the shortfall. That's likely how MtGox was operating too, insolvent and hopeful, and we all saw how that ended up. I think the right thing to do here is to raise the concern, link to the relevant information, and let each potential player make up their own mind.


You're suggesting that even if you strongly suspect a site to be insolvent and offering bets it can't safely afford, you shouldn't start asking questions until they actually stop allowing withdrawals? But by then it's too late and everyone has lost their money. Currently they're offering fixed 20 BTC payouts with a sub 1k bankroll. I've seen mention that the actual bankroll is 10x smaller, due to "kelly" multipliers, so maybe it's only 100 BTC in reality, and so could be wiped out in just 5 bets if the maximum payout doesn't automatically adjust. I don't know enough about how the site works to know if that's a real risk, but a little transparency in that regard would be useful. How can you safely offer 20 BTC payouts with such a small bankroll?


You're not looking hard enough. It's really the expected thing to do.


MtGox, dice.ninja, pirateat40, etc. all have good reputations before. And bad reputations after. We are currently "before". Should we wait until "after" to change our minds?


MtGox never did a proof of solvency, and it still isn't clear where the MtGox coins are, or how much they were supposed to hold in total. The best they did was asked Roger Ver to read this statement for them. He later made this apology for getting it wrong. This is why we need *proof* of solvency rather than just having some guy say "they're solvent". Bitcoin lets us do that easily, so why wouldn't we?


They have offered a series of weak excuses for why they couldn't show proof of solvency. That should be cause for concern for anyone who has coins with them. Businesses can run in an insolvent state, paying out all requested withdrawals, for a long time. But when they run out of funds it's over. See MtGox, or any Ponzi in history.


Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?


Their unwillingness to do the right thing and demonstrate their solvency is a warning sign that needs to be flagged. They way they reacted to the community requesting proof of solvency is another red flag. Nobody is telling them what to do. Rather, we are warning potential customers who might otherwise be unaware of DaDice's actions.