lol, 'I wasn't implying that with JD, but I'm still totally implying that with JD.'

You don't even realize what you're saying.

Also, I agree with the post directly above this. You're abusing the trust system by leaving negative trust based on your suspicion on an issue that doesn't even concern you. Your motivations have been made clear here, and everywhere else you post. You continue to bash JD in a passive-aggressive manner, even though you say you're not implying certain things while continuing to imply them in the same sentence. You bash ever other site or site owner that is competition, and even if every single one of them is a legit point, your paranoia has led you to abuse the trust system to preemptively trash people who you think might start a competing site in the future.

Dude, get a hold of yourself. You're not being an asset to the community when you act this way.

BR can't be negative. Once it's zero, there's nothing to bet against. Profit was negative, not bankroll.

Can we lock this thread and direct all comments to the longer thread already dealing with this topic? There doesn't need to be two discussions about the same topic going on, that just leads to confusion and missing information and people saying the same things in two different places.

On another point, there were folks at some point leaving negative trust for people who had a sig for DB up because those people didn't share the opinion that Mateo was an inside job and DB scammed everyone. First, leaving negative trust because someone doesn't immediately jump to the same conclusion you do is a shady way to operate. It should not be how that system works. Second, there is now enough information out here to warrant someone's belief that DB was legit the whole time, even if you yourself don't share that opinion. I hope whoever it was leaving willy nilly negative trust will remove it now.

Bottom line, YOUR suspicion that something shady is going on is not a justification or cause to leave negative feedback for someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Let's keep this system honorable and not completely arbitrary.

As far as I'm concerned at this point, there are just three points I'd like to make.

1) You've done the right thing with reimbursing skipped winning nonces. I don't think anyone here anticipated it. I give you credit for doing the right thing.

2) I'm tired of the Mateo conspiracy theory. I believed Mateo was an inside job, but like everyone else here I had nothing to base it on except suspicion. The difference was that I wouldn't go so far as to be repeating it as established truth like some of the idiots in this thread who think that improbability and impossibility are the same thing, and then list a bunch of garbage nonsense math to prove how right they were, which again didn't prove anything about impossibility. At this point, I could continue to believe Mateo was an inside job and that you then pretended to have him lose it all back just so you could reimburse skipped nonses and make a comeback because your intention is to scam everyone in the future for real this time (when you had a chance to do so the first time and didn't), but that particular conspiracy theory is getting more and more ridiculous. Bottom line, I no longer believe Mateo was an inside job, though I do not rule out the possibility that he was and you're just a brilliant chess player and have duped me. I will be operating under the assumption from this point forward that he was legit.

3) The only troubling aspect for me at this point is the "third developer." If you won't name him, he's just a shadowy scapegoat. He may exist, but without naming him I have to assume he doesn't. What that leaves me with is that your site purposefully skipped winning nonces and cheated players. Yes, you've now made it right, but that's only because you were found out. Apologizing and rectifying the situation after you're found out is the bare minimum you are expected to do. Without naming the third developer, your flaw isn't assumed to be just not checking the malicious code before it went live; it is assumed that your flaw was you coded your site to be malicious. And then you were caught. And eventually you tried to make everything right, BUT YOUR SITE WAS RIGGED AND WE HAVE TO ASSUME YOU DID IT ON PURPOSE because there is zero reason to believe otherwise. And your refusal to name the developer is just crazy to me because you're protecting a guy who, if he exists, flat out tried to steal tens of thousands of dollars- upwards of hundreds of thousands, or even millions depending on how long the con ran- from players you promised to be honest to.

As you can tell, #3 is my sticking point. I can ultimately forgive the skipped nonces now that they are repaid (if the third developer story checks out) and I can get beyond the increasingly crazy Mateo conspiracy theory. But I can not trust your site, or advise anyone to trust your site, until there is a reason to believe the initial fault of your website was truly some rogue asshole, and not YOU.

I give you credit for reimbursing the skipped nonces, and for coming back to the forum. No one here thought you would do either, including me, so you've done a lot by doing so. But mate, please come clean with us all the way. It's the only way to restore your reputation.

Thanks mate.

Manl is the one holding the red flag.

Is there any kind of confirmation if you don't enter an e-mail address? I'm not sure if my bet took.

Manl's silence is the most damning thing about all of this at this point. Twitter account is untouched, no presence here, no chatbox on the dice site. If you were trying to promote and grow your business, wouldn't you feel the need to be promoting your brand and maintaining a presence for the sake of showing transparency and honesty? How can you hope to run a trustworthy business with zero presence or communication?

As for the people investing right now, I can only imagine two camps: 1) Someone who newly discovers the site, has no information about its past and says "I have no idea who runs this or what they're intentions are, but it looks like a great place to put thousands of dollars!" 2) People who have been following this saga and take all Manl's silence and refusal to answer questions, along with the appearance of the site running normally, to mean this is a good place to invest, all history and unlikely explanation for the nonce skipping be damned.

In either case, you're a fool.

Without Manl answering questions, no one should be investing there. Sure, if he posts here, he'll have a ton of stuff to answer for, and people will tear him apart and question every explanation he gives. But that's what you get after your site was found purposefully rigged! People who are investing there right now are basically saying, "Hey, I know your site stole money from people by intentionally not paying out winning bets, but by disappearing and refusing to answer questions and running the site silently from the shadows, that made everything OK!"

Please stop and consider the trustworthiness of this site operator before you send your coins back there.

Isn't being greedy exactly what would lead otherwise intelligent people to invest in an internet dice site run by anonymous untraceable screen names?

The tracker only shows bets of a certain magnitude. All bets below it will not show in the general bets tab.

This is awesome.

Google Authenticator.

We have different definitions of "good." I'll grant you stable though, but stability is but a mirage. Things were stable last time too, right up until someone discovered winning nonces were being skipped.

As long as people play there though, Manl won't have to come answer for anything that's happened. It's clear at this point he wants to continue running the site. As long as people go there to play, he's getting what he wants, so there's no need to answer any of our questions.

If this is true, that would make sense. But I didn't see starting and stopping, or that there wasn't a ramp up and ramp down time between starting and stopping, so I can't speak to it. Just offering what I thought was the most likely explanation for the fast betting.

On a fast connection, the robot is very fast. With four windows open, I can get about 8-10 bets per second. Doesn't work with tabs though. If a robot is running in a tab that isn't on top of the screen, it runs much slower than normal. But with four robots running in different windows, no problem at all.

It's most likely he was using multiple windows, each with a robot running. I too can replicate bets at that speed using this process. I doubt there was a super secret computer he had access to that lets him bet faster than anyone else, or whatever is being hinted at. Most logical explanation is multiple windows.

On that, if you're using multiple windows, you must be more sure than normal that you're going to win, as responding to an adverse gambling incident would take much longer on multiple windows than just one. This suggests something was going on to me, since if you're just straight gambling, one robot suffices. The fact that there was likely multiple windows operating a robot means you're not worried about house edge, as the more bets that are placed, the more the edge will dent profits. Multiple windows means trying to bet as quickly as possible before people withdraw, where house edge isn't a factor, which suggests to me the betting was rigged.

The problem is without the data, we have a lot of "I remember this, I remember that" statements, which isn't reliable for determining the probability of something, especially when people's memories are colored by their emotions.

Given that there are still people here entertaining the idea Matteo could have been real, Manl would be smart to release the data. Especially if he has nothing to hide.

It seems evident that the site will attempt to continue to run. There are still people gambling there. It looks like the investment feature is still functioning. Are those 520 coins currently invested from people who still haven't withdrawn or is it manl's BR?

Milk the cow longer and make udder confusion?

FTFY, I'll show myself out.

You invest first.    Tell us if it's safe.

I'm asking those questions too. The difference is I'm asking the questions and not drawing foregone conclusions from those questions. I used "0%" sarcastically as a barb at the guy who posted a very convoluted bunch of math garbage to reach the conclusion that Matteo's odds of winning was 0%. It's not 0%, just like the odds of winning Powerball (1:175 million) is not 0%. I was not comparing the odds of Powerball to the likeliness of Matteo's win streak however. My overall point was that people use broken logic and bad math to reach a conclusion, which for the way it was reached is necessarily flawed. In this thread, the fact that something is extremely unlikely is proof that it is impossible. That's not how math works. If the odds are not literally 0, then it is possible, and if it is possible, without evidence of wrongdoing all you have is speculation. As I've already said, I find it compelling speculation and I myself believe Matteo is an inside job weighing all the information available, but I'm answering all the people who question why it's not universally accepted to be fact.

I'm operating under the assumption Matteo somehow stole the coins. I'm just not spreading that as gospel and belittling people who won't. Those are the people I'm taking issue with.


I agree! The fact that the code was originally rigged is perhaps the most important piece in this whole thing. This whole scenario is suspicious and people should NOT be gambling on the site anymore (which is still running). But it doesn't change anything I posted above about perpetuating suspicions as established facts.