Yes, in the end they scammed players too. This did not happen during my time but after my return on the forum, I had a brief discussion with a former BitDice player and I heard that they did infact start scamming players too after I had left. It seemed that after hiring cheap support and firing long-term employees, they had decided to embark on that road.

My username is "boxxob". Could you lift the chat restriction on my account?

I also have some complaints. The login experience was pretty awful. What is the purpose of so many captchas? I am logging in with Tor Browser and there was first a captcha after entering password, then another captcha after entering 2FA and finally, there was link being sent to my email. I have 2FA enabled and believe it should be possible to login without email confirmation. Atleast make it an option to disable it.

Great suggestion. Somewhat similar to issues I've had in the past on some gambling sites where the bet modify buttons like x2 and 1/2x are too easy to click mistakenly while betting.

I was compensated 100,000 CSNO for running the bounty campaign. I sold them shortly after the ICO because I needed the money. I was not working for BitDice at the time of the ICO and I was only hired for the bounty campaign. After the ICO they needed customer support and I took that job.

I have never invested in any ICO so BitDice is not any different.

EDIT: Consider your question being directed at any campaign manager running any bounty campaign. I took the job because I felt that the CSNO I was awarded would make it worth my time. I think the same goes for a lot of campaign managers who are partially paid in the token of the campaign they manage.

This is why I am a big advocate of YYYY-MM-DD date format.

Take "Dont Trust Verify" user for example. They don't tell people to create a coordinator. They have 2 posts on the forum in total and both to defend zkSNACKs.

Are these newbie shills paid by zkSNACKs or is zkSNACKs behind those accounts? This entire thread is becoming a mess.

---

I can only speak for the protocol that Wasabi wallet uses but based on that, there is not much personal information that the coordinator could leak. So although I do not approve what zkSNACKs is doing, if the protocol works as explained in docs, they cannot compromise the users' privacy apart from sharing UTXO that participates in coinjoin. An audit would be useful to know if the protocol works exactly as explained.

This is extremely difficult to give advice on without figuring your thought flow at the time of creating this backup.

It would be very important if you can figure out if the formatting matters (i.e. is there a reason to have specific amount of HEX numbers on each row).

The only thing we know for certain is that it likely is HEX. Question marks are likely obfuscated HEX characters. We do not know if all of the characters are part of a private key or additional obfuscation.

Is it significant that there are 10 groups of 4 HEX characters WITH question marks and exactly same amount without? Sometimes small things help remember so I would suggest you to give thought to different scenarios and how you may have thought at the time.

I think this is largely problematic. As far as I can see, users of Wasabi do not lose privacy for two reasons: coinjoins are very public on the blockchain so handing coinjoin input transaction id to an analysis company does not make much of a change as far as privacy goes and secondly, the way that Wasabi protocol works does not make it possible to compromise privacy of coinjoin outputs.

In my opinion it's problematic because by not allowing certain UTXOs, it makes a distinction between "clean" and "dirty" bitcoin. Ideally we want all bitcoins to be equal. On the other hand, if criminals steal bitcoin, do they have the right to clean them using Wasabi and capitalize on their crimes? It may not be something for zkSNACKs to decide but it may also be something that allows them to stay in business. If Wasabi becomes a laundromat for all illegal bitcoins, it may be a business risk for zkSNACKs. While people here may disagree with that, from a business perspective, who can blame them? Everyone has the right to stop using them if they wish.

This seems to be more of a matter of principle to stop using Wasabi because of this instead of saying Wasabi does not work as intended. I have personally chosen not to use Wasabi but I don't see this as a simple matter.

Interested to see how dark mode would work out with this color palette. Not really surprised that an extension can't quite get it right.

I have to agree that regarding the protocol, it does not seem that as far as privacy goes, there does not seem to be any trust in the coordinator. That is, unless there's flaws in the implementation and it does not work as the documentation says.

How do you respond to the allegations that, quite clearly, zkSNACKs is in one way or another funding and cooperating with blockchain analysis company/companies? This is what you seem to be avoiding while addressing other questions.

It does not support what Wasabi Wallet is supposed to stand for. To me, as a former Wasabi user, it seems like if there is some loophole/flaw in the protocol, then that means that the users of the wallet are screwed if you're already dealing with analysis companies that stand for anything but privacy.

He is dedicated I'll give him that. Unfortunately just ignoring all of the concerns that matter.

Open-source only means that we know what code the coordinator could be running. We have absolutely no way to know what code it's actually running. Combined with the fact that there's reason to suspect some form of cooperation with blockchain analysis companies and funding them, it does not look good.

Spent a while reading this thread just now and I honestly can't believe I've used Wasabi. This is just absurd.

Kruw keeps yapping about open-source and bashing mixers while completely ignoring the fact that open-source doesn't help users a single bit if they are in bed with blockchain analysis companies. All that matters is that the UTXO's that participate in coinjoin's should remain private. Clearly we have no proof of that. On the contrary, we have reason to suspect that UTXO's don't remain private.

Risk that an UTXO that participates in a coinjoin falls into the hands of a blockchain analysis company makes their job of linking it to a coinjoin output (or a set of them) much easier because of timing. Could someone please correct me if I am wrong?

I find this topic interesting because as the OP states, casinos only ask for KYC when you are trying to withdraw. If the player loses, it is suddenly not important and KYC will not be requested.

It seems as if KYC is never important up until the point the player has won and the casino faces the financial burden of paying out.

They are not excuses. It's my point of view of what was happening. You are the one making a lot of assumptions based on your own feelings.


You are. Despite what your feelings are, no matter how incompetent the management was, they did not scam the entirety of the ICO proceedings. They scammed whatever was left after their mistakes. EDIT: Unless they somehow planned it from the start which I doubt very much


They matter in painting the picture what was actually scammed. If, as you say, nothing this major is a scam from beginning, then it is very important to know what happened before they actually decided that scam/exit scam was their plan. You have no factual proof to say they ran with most of the proceedings. These are all assumptions. Just like I am making assumptions based on my experience.


Yes, I helped the casino that was very reputable at the time. Investors invested because BitDice was a reputable casino. You can't pin that on me. My actions after the fact did not make investor situation any worse comparing if I never worked for BitDice.


I did not say signs of clear scam. I said there was no clear scam happening. A clear scam would have been if they did not try to make things change for the better in any way. They did though. I may have given them too much benefit of the doubt but I don't like making decisions without facts. If there had been a case where I got a clear sign that investors were forgotten, then I would have acted on it.


You say that as if you can't form an idea based on your interactions with someone and what they say. You are here making claims without ever having dealt with me personally. Is it not a bit hypocritical what you are asking?


This is a completely separate matter. When there were critical bugs or exploits, I advocated for making them public and we did. I did not lead people to think things were OK. You are making it seem like I was, as customer support, supposed to come forward about everything.


Let me just leave this quote from you here:



I just want to know what reality you live in. I promoted ICO of a reputable casino. Investors invested in the ICO of a reputable casino. Neither party knew what was going to happen.


I mostly relayed information to investors without adding any opinion or bias. What you see here on Bitcointalk is a very narrow view over the whole situation and almost all communication I had with investors did not happen here.


Yes, I tried my best to keep investors informed during my time at BitDice. I don't have more information to go on about finding them than what the general public has. I was not privy to any of their private information. I also do not think it's my responsibility to find them. Neither do I feel like I need to personally apologize for the scam. I can only say that I regret working for them but apart from that, I do not owe any apologies.

You are making assumptions. I was not "hiding". I was not active on Bitcointalk for quite some time before I left BitDice. I only returned after dewez asked if I can manage their campaign. You are the one making dewez a "mysterious person". Did you not see his post where he specifically asked to message him if you had questions. Not everyone wants to make their information public on a forum.

EDIT:

I think the main thing here is that none of us have full information about what happened. It's all just assumptions and personal opinions apart from the fact that they eventually ended up scamming.