I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
- People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins.


I'm leaving the quote tree here so that you can see what you're responding to. This whole subthread of our conversation is useless.


If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.

Wow... I never thought that there would be a scenario in which I feel more comfortable loaning *without* a loan reason.

This is one of those statements that sounds intuitive (e.g. "follow your dreams"), but doesn't actually prove anything.

Getting scammed is my main concern, yet I do have BTC invested. Serious injury or death is my main concern when I skydive. I still do it.

That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?"
It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation.

"I'm worried about alien abduction"
"What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?"
"Fire extinguishers exist in some countries."


Are you a hedging man? I have some potentially profitable odds you might want to look at.

---

I believe the American police said that they managed to "confiscate" some BTC. What actually happened was they received BTC at a honeypot's address, but still, they generated an address. In 5 year's time, they'll be pushing transactions from confiscated privkeys.

Unless, of course, Canada is one of the countries that does not mandate privkey disclosure?


That's very true, and I assess your risk to be lower than his. This is different from, but influences, your "trustworthiness."

That's an interesting problem and an interesting solution.

---

I don't want a deadline. We merely disagree on the probabilities of different ways that the site could die, not the probability of it dying before some deadline.

My initial quote was:

... thus implying that you should be more concerned of a scam than a theft, especially since doog uses a cold wallet.

I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?
Are you a betting man? I have some odds you might want to look at.

He's an outlier. Would you like hundreds of links to people who made the mistake of not being concerned about scammers? How about Pirate, who was so trusted as to have an OTC rating in the several-hundreds?

The economic incentive at this point is not enough. You have to weigh reputation (which is useful in the future), morals, risk of being caught (basically zero, c.f. BS&T), and time value (better to have money now than later).

- What is the value of dooglus' reputation, to him? If you were in his shoes, how much money would it take before you sold your identity or scammed someone?
- What is the value of dooglus' morals? This is rather tricky to find out.
- How hard is it to find and prosecute him, under Canadian law? There's no precedent whatsoever, even in the USA. The closest that I can remember is the teenager who ran the BitMint or whatever it was getting scared into repayment by threat of lawsuit.
- dooglus is earning 5% of all profits, but he also probably has some unknown amount invested himself.

There are several different ways that he could pull off a scam without being caught, as well. He has read-write access to individual accounts, the bet history, the server secrets,
etc.
Also, watch the total invested sum. It's more dangerous once it's been past the peak for a while.


You must be new here.

That is not what you should be concerned about, if the millions of posts on this forum are any guide at all. It's also no excuse for anonymity.

This I could get behind.

It almost makes you wonder... but no, that could never, ever happen. Not again.

I thought there was a paid PR, but that must just be me making things up. So many other things have been paid for at random intervals, that I've gotten confused as to just what SDice is spending money on.

I'm not trying to imply a thing. How's this?

The phrasing of the FAQ had me worried.That's good, thanks. I'll lock the topic.

Losses of that magnitude are why casinos have high-roller clubs.

A lack of sexual reproduction is not, evolutionarily, selected for.

If I've learned anything, it's that in the world of Bitcoin, a day is two weeks, two weeks are three months, three months are a year and a half—if at all—and it's all plus or minus four times the starting point, but without the minus.

I'll do it

This concerns me slightly. The whole point of a hash is irreversibility once the server is compromised. However, this just uses the sha2 as the password. It's therefore a step forwards in some areas and a step backwards in others, unless the server takes the hash of the hash once received.

>Implying it wasn't yours

I won 0.0099 BTC

Right.

That's understood. I'm not looking for a sick thrill. Please video it anyway.

This. If either of you have a smartphone, stream it live.