lol, link doesn't even exist, it redirects to the email app  Just some random lion image, lmao  |
|
|
|
I was been offline long time.. and got red trust now.. How can believe "listing of gamblinig scam" with red trust OP.
I want clear my trust because i'm not scammer.
I want make useful job for all member
Sure... offline for a long time, but literally a day after you registered you opened up this wagering contest: https://archive.is/FqXcz
And nothing came of it. No prizes, no response, no escrow, nothing. You still expect us to believe you're trustworthy? You're either someone who tried to scam immediately after registration or you're someone who bought an account from that scammer. Both are bad and I would be inclined to trust neither of them.
By the way, want to sign a message from this address? https://blockchain.info/address/1PkjtkD7CSrYUXQsxZhQC472F45RMxKN65
And seriously: you advertised ponzis. You should know what they are and you should know that even if they are paying, someone always loses. The money you make is from the loss of others. |
|
|
|
It's too bad because your thread is useless and any users that want information (that don't look elsewhere, at a more convenient thread) would have to skim through the entire thread reading the replies. You started the topic in March and the main post is still unupdated. Great job advertising a pointless thread. |
|
|
|
This comes from the same user that posted this lovely 5th-grade reply: I have just had a brief look on your recent posts, you occasionally use the word 'fxxk' and 'shxt' without censor, this is clear and unequivocal evidence that you are an untrustworthy person with extremely low moral values.
Are you fucking serious?
Also this from the same thread: How profitable it is for a hyip site compare with joining casino affiliates or other affiliates ?
If the profit is good, I intend to build one.
Yup. |
|
|
|
|
Your account is no better than a news outlet. There is no point of you posting all those replies, copy & pasting from the sites with a link.
|
|
|
|
Actually I never didn't want to use escrow. I never even engaged in a transaction.
I actually advocated the use of escrow and wouldn't transact without it.
Unfortunately, some members are basically trolling with irrelevant and incorrect feedback and comments...
Which is why I posted this.
Now, because some white knight snitch fag wanted to think he was coming to the rescue, I have
"Warning: trade with extreme caution" next to my name so I have to create another account.
I'm going to fuck with his trust now...
Nice to see that you're now redirecting people who click on the reference to this random site: http://www.mynetspendcard.com/?uref=4888759037
But at least your feedback comments are pretty relevant... to yourself. " Guy has no life. Just sits on this website creating fake irrelevant feedback [...] because he's convinced himself he's actually doing something meaningful." |
|
|
|
Yes I read the explanation. Its been over a month though I think since I've had a score of 28. Strange how can you get a score of 100 in 100 days then if it goes only by 14 every 2 weeks? The most you could get I. 100 days then is 84?
How could it be over a month since you had a score of 28 when your oldest post was only on May 14, a little over 2 weeks ago?
You could get in 100 activity in 100 days. floor(100/14) = 7 7 * 14 = 98 Therefore: You need to have been in 8 activity periods. Suppose you started posting on the Sunday before a new activity period. That's 2 days of being in your first activity period. Therefore 7 activity periods later (100 days) you have 100 activity. |
|
|
|
|
Potential activity is incremented by 14 every 2 weeks (approximately).
The calculation for activity is min(posts, 14*activity_periods) in which activity periods are periods of time where you have posted one or more replies.
|
|
|
|
I'm not encouraging u to gamble, but if u bet within the range of 0.1 btc to 1 btc, u probably get better house edge here than anywhere else.
With a 0.1 BTC bet, you get a 1/16 chance to win 1.584 BTC, which is a ~1% house edge so it would probably be better to bet on other websites, even ones with a 1% edge as you can continue betting if you wish without having to pay again. However, sites like Crypto-Games offer a 0.8% edge on dice, and SafeDice offers an even lower 0.5% edge. For betting on Chain-Bet.com to be worth it now (if you play on a 16x multiplier only), you would have to bet above 0.2 BTC. Knowing the very bad odds for small bets, I'm quite surprised you keep getting bets for amounts less than 0.02 BTC, with a essential house edge to the player of 5% with a bet of 0.02 BTC.
Chain-Bet, Have you considered making your game off-chain, but still betting on block hashes?
Considering the house edge and on-chain nature, the negatives are amplified further when one considers the fact that you need a transaction fee for every single bet as opposed to a single deposit. As of the time I'm posting, "The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 360 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top. For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 81,360 satoshis." This means that for example if you send 0.1 BTC as a transaction your bet is in reality just 0.0981864 BTC. A 1/16 chance to win that results in an expected value of 0.0981864 (given the 0-edge nature after the transaction fees) and thus is a house edge of 1.8136%. Comparing this with a 1 BTC amount, your bet is 0.9981864 BTC and thus your house edge is 0.18136%. I don't think it's a good idea to restrict your demographic so much.
Also, just for laughs, if you send the minimum bet of 0.002 BTC then your house edge is literally 90.68% with both transaction fees. |
|
|
|
|
Anything left?
6 if it's available.
As for farmed accounts, if for example, one user were to enter with multiple accounts, they would at least face SOME inconvenience if they won two of the blocks. After all, there would be need for a different shipping address. (They would probably just contact a neighbor or friend though)
|
|
|
|
Yes, more obvious it cannot be.  - Another one, -Ibminer- has default trust by doing nothing. Perhaps you'd like to ring it up with theymos then since he added ibminer to his trust list.
You should also stop double-posting.
Just see your own autistic post history and quickseller ones.
When you start to post memes is because you are nervous.
You know, now that you're attacking Lauda your post history looks a lot like the post history of butthurt scammers! Certainly, you must be an alt!  |
|
|
|
|
Hey, so the only proof you have of linking the "alts" together is the fact that they negged an account, one after another? There's no sense in making that linkage.
Are you also going to say that Zepher is an alt? How about Lutpin?
If you have more red flags, will you post them instead of keeping them hidden like an idiot flailing around on his keyboard without any sense? Otherwise, you're simply bullshitting and you're wasting everybody's time.
|
|
|
|
Hi yahoo62278, I just notice that there was an error of computation in the spreed sheet.
My beginning post is 1986 and ending is 2016 which I should be credited with 30 posts but only 20 was reflected, please correct the error.
Thank you.
Constructive posts are counted, to which you have little of. In fact, I'm surprised that you were given so many counts considering the content that was reflected in some of your posts. I hope we will ever reach that price again, I made a regret not to sell some of my coins, I would have profited a little but the price fall was really abrupt and I woke up with a bad morning, good thing the price started to bounce back now, I hope this will continue.
Why would you even consider those who are not created yet? We have plenty of altcoins we can see and if you look on it closely you can see that they are progressing as well. Our opinion could be bias since we have our own favorite altcoins but let's see what will be the interest of the majority because they are the one who are going to make a certain coins mainstream, with that said bitcoin has a chance to be replace.
|
|
|
|
Oh boy... this is probably the third thread I've seen now with this same question. I made one too ! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663951.msg16704318#msg16704318There's no way to get a notification when your posts are quoted but I do have a method for seeking out any mention of names:
If you go into the search section of the forum and put down your name as the keyword, order it by most recent topics, then you'll be able to essentially get a notification list.
However, there is an interesting thing that happens with quote pyramids [and I think multiple quotes on the same topic] (when people continually quote one another to reply). You will receive the most recent quote.
For example:
Depth 0: You post a reply
Depth 1: User A quotes you
Depth 2: User B quotes you.
You'll only receive User B's message if you search, meaning that you'll have to go backward.
See, if you don't use search in the first place to look for these threads, then you would have never figured out on your own to search for your own name. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1829923.msg18227663#msg18227663Thanks for the replies. I will use the search function for quotes. EDIT: I tried it but it shows the quotes sorted descending by relevance which means I can see for example posts from 2015 on the first page.  Sort by most recent, and it'll give you the most recent quotes that are at the top of a quote stack, or any mention of your name. Simple enough.
A quote stack would be an inverse-pyramidal chain of quotes, where people refuse to chop off earlier quotes ex. and it will show you the post from the deepest quote.
Please, people. All this information freely accessible at our fingertips and you squander it. |
|
|
|
Definitely not. But, claiming the reverse is a shitty line of thinking as well. If a game has paid previously, does it increase its chance of scam?
That's a terrible non sequitur you're using. I have not claimed the reverse but rather was provoking your thought process: you are stating that there is no reason not to pay a user since chain-bet has paid over 1 BTC multiple times before. I'm simply stating that if that is true, then it paradoxically creates a reason to scam. If it is common knowledge that if a casino has paid before, it will not scam, then would it not be consequence-free to do just that? Scam?
This is kind of similar to some lines of game theory. Say you're playing poker and the flop comes Ks Qs Js. Let's suppose a 10% chance of your opponent having two spades. If it's commonly thought that you would only raise if you have a flush here, would it not be advantageous to just always raise? Suppose you raise 1x the pot. That's a 90% chance of a pot-sized return and a 10% chance of a pot-sized loss if your opponent calls.
Since its inception one year ago, there is not a single scam accusation against chain-bet.com. And u, appearing from nowhere, claiming that because it paid before it will scam now? Are u mentally stable?
Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. |
|
|
|
I doubt casino lies when they say that they have 1% housr edge because this isn't really such thing to lie. But what's about provably fair, I can agree you. Also there was tagged one owner because of fake provably fair system. Slots and etc things are out of provably fair, they are programmed for profit, not for fair decisions.
P.S idea is good..
Slots can be 'provably fair' but it's a little different. In dice, you control the odds, the amount you wager and also the direction of your range (low or high). This makes it so that even if the casino tries to manipulate the results, any bet can be won. In slots, I would expect a hashed server seed + nonces. That way, it's one static server seed so results are essentially randomized (otherwise casino may just simply return losing outcomes given a static client seed) and you can check afterward. I'm not entirely certain on how the slot outcomes are expressed: if there is a certain combination/icon given a range or if it's simply based on 'amount won' and a visual representation is made. I do understand however that the visual aspect of slots is just that - the real results are mostly irrelevant to what you see on the screen before the final image. Feel free to correct me if you found any mistakes and I will revise it in response. (PM would be preferred)
By the way @OP, doesn't DiceBot have an automatic provably fair verifier? |
|
|
|
It seems like JackpotRacer exhibited psychological projection onto MP Staff, pushing the whole 20 BTC tip thing under the rug while complaining about literal pennies that were tipped to an owner.
The thing is, he always threatens MP with "polls" which always end up with him getting the shit end of the stick. Cognitive dissonance. Things didn't go his way, therefore something must be wrong with the owners, not him. The votes didn't tick toward his favor, therefore alts must have been used to swindle the votes. He was given a negative feedback, therefore " giving red trust without any reason and a lie= misusing the trust option here." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
