I guess the other 1% would be ACTUAL EVIDENCE then. Suspicious timing is not evidence. Someone winning is not evidence. Someone winning at a suspicious time is not evidence. I believe Matteo was an inside job too, the difference is I'm leaving open the possibility it wasn't. All this BS talk of improbability and unlikeliness and suspicious timing is just unsubstantiated speculation. Under the broken logic and dubious math you're all using, you know what else is suspicious? Everyone who's ever won the Powerball. It's SO suspicious that anyone would play or win a game with a 0% chance of winning!

Don't confuse someone who knows the difference between suspicious circumstances and evidence as someone who believes Matteo and manl are two different people. Just because you've convicted manl with missing pieces of information and while high on emotion and based on speculation doesn't mean everyone has such a low threshold for judgment.

I believe Matteo was an inside job, but I also acknowledge the possibility he was legitimate. It can't be worse odds than winning the Powerball.

It looks like the site will keep running? Trollbox is gone, but there is still a "bankroll" showing (can it be verified to exist?) and people are still gambling there currently.

Everyone knows, or should know, at this point that manl = mateo. Why even go through the charade of "winning" the bitcoins with the mateo account? It's like he doesn't even have the balls to flat out steal the money.

Right, right. I don't mean to say they shouldn't answer to you guys. I'm out so I've washed my hands of the situation because I didn't like how things were shaping up. But from my perspective, I don't see what "future plans" you're alluding to. For PETA, the fact that they pegged units to 1gh/s and are distributing 100% of dividends now seems to suggest to me that there are no future plans to grow this fund. The situation now is you own shares that hash at 1gh/s, all revenue (less expenses) are distributed to shareholders, and that's the end of the story. I don't know what other information about the fund you could be looking for.

To my mind, the only question that seems to be outstanding is are the hosting costs being charged to unit owners reasonable, or are they needlessly sapping profit from shares?

I voted for it too thinking it would unlock a little value (and it did, and I took the opportunity to liquidate). But look at what the reality was: none of the funds being set aside were being set aside to purchase new hardware. The hardware was already purchased, and the BTC being set aside for "reinvestment" was actually just paying back the loan that purchased the hardware.

Again, no funds were being used to bring additional hardware online.

Once the loan was paid off, I suppose funds could have start being compiled to increase hashrate of the fund, but based on the rate the loan was being paid off and how long it would take to then save enough to buy additional hardware, that was many months off, assuming enough would ever be saved to buy new hardware.

So the vote makes perfect sense to me. It's people voting to drop the facade of buying additional miners and peg shares to 1gh/s each in hopes of reaching price parity with cex.io shares of the same speed.




At this point, I don't think more information is warranted. You have all the information you need. Shares are worth 1gh/s each. It's not going to change. That's kind of the end of the story here for this fund, it's just a slow march towards obsolescence for these miners now.

I think there's a small distinction here. Before, a "unit" was not pegged to a specific hashrate, it was simply a percentage of the overall hashrate, so when funds were reinvested by the fund and hashrate rose, your unit (in theory) appreciated due to the increased value of the hashrate it represents. That is done now. The fund has dropped the delusion of buying more mining hardware to keep up with difficulty increases to maintain its original share of the network hashrate.

Now, "reinvesting" your dividends means buying more shares worth 1gh/s each. It's static now (as opposed to before when each share was not pegged to a specific hashrate), which means "reinvesting" isn't increasing the fund's percentage of the network hashrate which will increase the value of the shares, it means you're buying more of the fund's hashrate, which with difficulty increases means you're buying shares that will continue to represent a smaller portion of the network hashrate going forward.

Bottom line, you're buying shares that are guaranteed to depreciate unless difficulty stops increasing. And the way the math has worked out so far, you're buying shares that depreciate faster than any dividends they produce.

I was interested in PETA because the prospect of reinvesting proceeds to maintain the fund's percentage of the network hashrate seemed like a novel way to run a fund. However, I've now seen that the return from mining is not great enough to allow the purchase of enough hardware to maintain any given portion of the network hashrate. Mining is simply too competitive.

I learned the hard way, but I suppose that was the only way I was going to learn. I sold out of PETA today at about a 35% loss in a month. There may be a price at which these shares will return a profit over time, but I'm not interested in trying to find out what it is. Good luck to those of you making a go of this. I hope you have better luck than I did!

Ok, that's what I was missing. It doesn't say anywhere that IPO funds were used to purchase proportional hashrate. Perhaps that's a given, but I'm new to cloud mining, so I don't know what is standard procedure and only know what is explicitly stated. But this makes sense to me now. Thanks for your help.

If there's 10gh/s available though, what is it doing now? I doubt it's not online because they couldn't sell it. So is cryptx mining with it and keeping the proceeds? Should this not be disclosed if this is the case considering the fund promised to be a mining fund based on 10gh/s?

It's dishonest to say that you're buying into a fund "with 10gh/s capability" and then only use some of it because you didn't sell as many shares as you wanted. It would have been accurate to say that you're buying a share that is pegged to an exact hash rate, but so far as I can tell, they didn't say that. Saying it's a 10gh/s fund makes it sound like you're buying into 10gh/s, regardless of the number of shares sold; not a fund that has a predetermined value where only as much hash power will be brought online as they sell in an IPO based an a predetermined value per gh/s.

That's my take on it anyway.

Obviously, if they have 10gh/s capability and it was deployed for the fund, return on investment would skyrocket and the price of the fund would follow. It seems to me that's what should be done, since that's what was (ostensibly) promised.

On the subject of Scryptx, the prospectus says:

"SCRYPT is a hosted scrypt mining project with an initial maximum capacity of 10,000,000 KH/s or 10,000 MH/s of hashing power."

If it has 10gh/s hashing power, why is only a fraction of it being deployed? In the July 1 update, Cryptx said the addition of new miners bought with reinvestment funds will bring total hashing power to 4gh/s.

This is the exact quote: "This means that Scrypt-X has about 4 GH/s of hashing power from now on."

So if the fund starts with 10gh/s worth of capacity, but the new miners they just bought are bringing us to 4gh/s, where is all that extra capacity we started with and why is it not being used to the benefit of fund owners?

So just so I understand correctly, you're saying get really big bomb = getting all the bitcoins?

I've got work to do...

I'm not currently able to mine DRK on coinotron. Miner says "Stratum connection failed: Failed connect to coinotron.com:3341; No error ... retry after 30 seconds."

This has been going on for several hours now.

Yes, thank you. So if you knew the secret seed, because you knew what the hash is before the roll, you could mathematically figure out what the result of the roll would be and bet accordingly. Is that the gist of it?

?

Can you show the math you used to arrive at 3SD/4SD? I can't speak to P-4747, but I was gambling along side 1Dice at ED and he sure did a lot of losing in between his winning. 3SD/4SD sounds dubious to me on first glance.

1Dice's full bet history was published, but it's hosted on ED site, and of course since Admin took site down, cannot see the bet history now:  https://everydice.com/log_1dice1.txt

For as much as he won, he lost a lot too. A lot of his losing was followed by bigger bets that he won (martingale strategy) except for runs where he would bet 2 btc at 50% and get really streaky. Hardly "impossible" or statistically "improbable." Winning 7 or 8 times in a row at 50% is hardly a rare occurrence. His streak just stands out because the amounts are so large. He also had martingale streaks where he'd lose in streaks, starting at .1 until he'd run into max bet cap at 1.6, then he'd just do a bunch 1.6 bets and win more than he lost to make up his losses. Eventually, his luck started running out, and when he wasn't as streaky, he started to slow down the betting and get more persistent about his withdrawal delays because he was afraid of losing what he won.

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?

Geez, I was reading site so quickly to try to catch up, I didn't even notice it was random username.

Hi,

Would you consider adding EveryDice to your list of untrusted sites? Please see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=476334.1200 starting at post 1200 and read through the controversy.

Basically, a short review is that a player named 1Dice1 won 140 BTC (or more) at EveryDice, but when he requested payout, ED owner froze his account to "review" his bet history. Upon the conclusion of the review, he determined that the website had a flaw and decided not to payout 1Dice1's winnings. Now he is attempting re-open the website like nothing happened. You will get all the important details by reading through the topic I linked above.

I wouldn't say that ED is a scam site, but they certainly can't be trusted after this. I highly recommend they be added to your untrustworthy list.

tl;dr 1Dice1 was screwed by ED and made to pay for ED's own negligence. Everyone needs to boycott ED and spread the word that the owner is not to be trusted under any circumstances.


Given the unsatisfactory resolution to this, it will be up to this community to make sure everyone knows that ED is a shady operator, and to make sure no one gambles there. Basically, the ED website was faulty, according to the website owner himself, and so if you won during the "faulty period", your winnings won't be paid out. That's awfully convenient. However, everyone who lost in that time is out of luck. ED is keeping your money. That's the first two pieces of BS.

The next piece is that this sets up a BS precedent on ED. It is now established that winnings can be denied because of website owner negligence. 'Yeah, I guess you could see the seed or something because we didn't code our website correctly, so we're not gonna pay you the money you won.' This incentivizes website owners to code intentional faults into their website so they have an excuse to deny payments to big winners if they want to.

On a related note, can someone explain to me how it is possible to game the system if you can see the site seed? This is completely unrelated to the merit of my points, I just want to understand this argument. Am I understanding it incorrectly, or don't sites like JD and LuckyNumber publish the seed? How can they publish the seed, but ED's seed needs to remain a secret?

The fact remains that if the seed was supposed to be hidden and it wasn't, that's the site owner's fault, not 1Dice1's fault. But I don't believe 1Dice was gaming the site. He's not a technical computer guy. Some people have been talking to him outside of this forum and ED chat to try and help him track down ED owner if necessary, and we asked him to find the IP address in the mails he was exchanging with ED owner, and he had no idea what we were talking about or how to do it. We had to have him forward the mail so someone could do it for him. If he can't find something simple like an IP address, I doubt he could find a site seed, assuming he even knew what that was.

Maybe unnecessary to point out, but name is "EveryDice," not "EnjoyDice."


But I agree with you, it doesn't necessarily damage the reputation of other dice sites. Maybe a good opportunity for smaller site to swing in and save the day, make a name for itself, good PR by covering some of 1D1's losses. But this is maybe unreasonable to assume.

That's the way to do it.

Does JD take a percentage of all wagered bets (win or lose) like ED did, or only percentage of profit?

So you addressed the first part of my point. I stand corrected on that. Assuming those are the ED cold wallet addresses, then the "bet verification" is still a problem. Three days of no withdrawal for 1Dice1 now. I don't see how ED can refuse payment and walk away with any shred of credibility. If you're bad at gambling, that's your loss. If you're bad at running a gambling website, that's also your loss. And of course, that's assuming that 1Dice somehow gamed the system. I think the real problem here is ED had a faulty set-up (house edge lower than max win % of BR) and suffered from a lack of traffic so that it was possible for a whale to take them down. There is not enough gambling on ED to make up for 1Dice wins. On a populated site, 1Dice losses would have been felt but absorbed by gambling activities from other players.