They would shut the entire site down for <100 mBTC?
dude you are very correct about you write up. rollin is scam Even if Rollin.io was a scam, there is no definite proof here of anything. I am unsure how any of the pictures OP posted would prove the fact that Rollin stole from them.
Honestly seems like you're butthurt. Shutting down the site to steal $50 is not only preposterous but also unprofitable from a business standpoint. Think about it a little bit.
Before you accuse me of being a Rollin shill, I have some advice for you: don't. |
|
|
|
Hi. Now that you added the annoying Google reCaptcha, could you please remove from the logging process the 60s timeout before being allowed re-trying to login? Or at least set it to 5s?
It is extremely annoying to have to complete a second reCaptcha to be told one have to wait 45s more seconds before doing it again, for a third time!!! Don't get the password wrong. Simple. The captcha takes what, 10 seconds? Are you that impatient that you can't wait an additional 10 seconds?  |
|
|
|
|
Holy shit, this has to be a level, right?
There is no way that anybody would be seriously considering this possibility outside of a ridiculous sarcastic joke.
But satoshi is actually Lauda, that's for sure.
The whole 'shoreno' name makes me think this is just trolling.
|
|
|
|
because my withdrawal from fortunejack got confirmed in less than few hours on Friday. Not sure how long your "few hours" is but assuming that you want a transaction confirmed within 3 hours (according to bitcoinfees) you would need to drop a minimum of 301 satoshis/byte. Considering a hot wallet would need to spend multiple inputs, let us consider n average size of 522 bytes. That results in a fee of .00157122 BTC just for maintaining less than three hours. But let's say that the average user withdrawal (given deposit sizes > withdrawal sizes) requires about 384 bytes. This is still .00115584 BTC and thus unless a user has wagered at least 100x that during their session, the casino would be operating at a statistical loss. |
|
|
|
|
I made a bet with a value of 0 on Mines and Blackjack and now I'm unable to stop the games. Any action continually results in an error message of "amount" must be greater than 0.
My username is actmyname, if you can fix it. This is a pretty big problem. (Just wanted to test out some of the games)
|
|
|
|
|
Username: actmyname
Joined date: 10.02.2015
|
|
|
|
When you say it doesn't stop on autoroll, do you mean many more rolls or just a few more?
Because I've also noticed that, and it's not my internet connection. A few more rolls are played. But not many, and it does stop. However it's terribly annoying.
I just tested it out. Mine stops perfectly fine. Sometimes if it's in the middle of a bet it'll roll that one out before stopping but for the most part, I'm not seeing any problems with the autobet. It really might be your internet connection. Run some testing service like fast.com while you're betting and see the feedback. |
|
|
|
for me are more bad
my post say 243 and activity no more up in last 2 days
my account registred in 2014 soo can handle and legendary activity +1200 activity but stuck at 224 who can help me with that issues
Did you buy this account? Otherwise, you should know that activity is calculated through the function min(posts, 14*activityperiods).
Your email has been changed. Your posts became trash between the 3-year gap. Clearly a bought/hacked account. Relevant archives: [Quality Before Gap] [Quality After Gap]If you are the original owner then show proof of ownership of ANY Vertcoin address with a transaction before December 2014.  |
|
|
|
not doing anything wrong you dont even have that link on the first page how the fuck anyone gonna know where to go lol It is on the first page. It's also in many other places. Like Dean's signature for example. And name. First post:
I think when people see "Betking.io" in the thread title they would most likely go there. |
|
|
|
You are NOT in the side of deciding whether it is a bullshit or delusional. Lets wait for this community to decide. community noun a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society
Huh, I guess you're right. Lauda is a cat, after all. |
|
|
|
In fact, if I am a lender I will accept the accounts as collateral. However the way I will deal with it is that I will consider the account value at 0 and consider it a no-collateral loan and from that perspective will anticipate the risks. If it is a default I will simply trash the account and there's no harm done. I knew the risks of a no-collateral loan and I took them.
Are you giving interest free loans ? When you are NOT ready to cover defaulted loan by selling accounts, I guess you must be giving out interest free loans at least. Otherwise you are simply lying here. I'm confused. If you're willing to accept a no-collateral loan then you are willing to accept one with a BCT account as collateral. That's how I look at it. If I'm willing to risk money with only their reputation on the line, then a bitcointalk account offers no extra security. All it does is offer an outlet to sell but I'm unwilling to do that. Thus as a lender I would take it upon myself to rid them of the account completely so that nobody else can be scammed.
Defaulting on a no-collateral loan =/= Defaulting on a BCT loan. In the former case, one could potentially still scam some unknowing newbie before any red trust is sent to their profile. |
|
|
|
I think with the current BTC price, the highest limits literally never run anyway.
e.g. you could offer:
0.02/0.04
0.05/0.10
0.10/0.20
0.25/0.50
0.50/1
2.50/5
5/10
These levels would still offer enough variety for the different player types with varying wealth, while creating a better and less confusing user experience. Wouldn't make much of a difference. Most of the traffic is concentrated in the micro stakes regardless and you're not changing much within them. By getting rid of .01/.02 the low-end players will have to deal with playing at a minimum equivalent of about $17.5 NL. If we round it to 20NL then you can see that the threshold is pretty high compared to other sites. |
|
|
|
You cannot say that ? They are dealing with BCT accounts, that's it. What is the "big" differences between them and account farmers. The edge cases that I listed from above are the differences. Just because someone takes in BCT accounts as a collateral doesn't mean they plan on selling them. In fact, if I am a lender I will accept the accounts as collateral. However the way I will deal with it is that I will consider the account value at 0 and consider it a no-collateral loan and from that perspective will anticipate the risks. If it is a default I will simply trash the account and there's no harm done. I knew the risks of a no-collateral loan and I took them. |
|
|
|
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. Thank you for agreeing that negative trust is only for SCAM. Account selling/ account farming are related to POTENTIAL-spamming, not scamming. Account selling/ account farming are in no way related to SCAM until there will be a connection of known alts and one of alts is involving in scam, right ? I distrust someone for x reason. I believe they are a scammer or are perpetuating scams, which I consider the same thing. Enabling scams is just as bad as scamming itself.
Who said you needed an open scam accusation? How you will come to know unless otherwise someone is claiming ? Do we need open scam accusations for tagging ponzis? You don't have to go out of your way to create a thread or get someone else to make one unless you need the community to deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
Bump. Let's get this show on the road. 11 slots left.
|
|
|
|
yogg doesn't accept them anymore thus the point is invalid. http://archive.is/jLlEe#selection-695.0-695.101IIRC that thread has been abandoned for a newer one. Gunthar used the accounts that he got from collateral to market his lending service and AFAIK has never sold them. DarkStar_'s most recent outgoing loan using an account as collateral most likely was a default: ruggedman_dan had never repaid the loan. However, the account is INACTIVE. The password was changed only once (by DarkStar_) since the loan was given: https://archive.is/HD54v#selection-68945.0-68949.19 and twice beforehand. It is possible that the account was compromised and thus the purchaser wanted to make a quick buck by applying for a disguised sale loan.
Can't say anything about the rest. It's on a case-by-case basis in terms of trust feedback. You wouldn't apply common law to every single case. |
|
|
|
|
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
Who said you needed an open scam accusation?
|
|
|
|
|
You see, you enabled freerolls on your site. Though it is true that now you see an increase in the number of active players online, this is still overall a bad investment. Leaking money through the constant on-demand SnG freerolls makes it very unprofitable and you're not getting the players you want to see. Notice how despite having 10+ people on the programme, there's only 5 (with overlap) on the MICRO tables?
The main players that have been contributing rake have been there before the freerolls as well: joyjoy, bigfish, Gennady
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
