Can you provide screenshots and preferably blockchain evidence (i.e. your deposit, sign the address) so that we can confirm that your claims have substance? Otherwise, there are only words to go on about and those may or may not be valid.

---

This is not to say that I think your claims are wrong, but there have been countless times that gamblers have rageposted to complain about a casino simply due to a loss or some other situation.

That's not the issue, heh.

I tried playing your game, and rolled on tails (which by the way offers better odds than heads according to your provably fair box). All of the winning generated numbers were counted as losses. All of them. Only on heads was I able to win. Close the site for maintenance and fix your game, otherwise you're opening a literal scam.

Anyone can test it out - flip a bunch of times on tails and then check the "flip history" to see the roll numbers.

Bitcointalk Username: actmyname
Amount of BTC needed: 0.01
Reason: Purchasing a game on sale
Repayment Amount: 0.011
Repayment Date: 14-21 days after loan fulfillment
Bitcoin Address: 1ActBTCi5XUMjqnyFxVWgSfE5xWicj8g3o
Collateral (if any): None.

---

If you need a signed message, I'd be happy to send one.

1. Mitchell
2. Lauda
3. achow101

The profiles' addresses are linked to the wallet

Then simply don't sell the accounts, or don't accept the accounts as collateral. What's wrong with not trusting someone because they're trying to sell an account?

Example of a 1% house edge bet: https://www.moneypot.com/bets/640264481

It seems that the 1 mine games (at least initially anyway) have a house edge of 2%.

---

But haven't we already seen <1% house edge games courtesy of JackpotRacer?

Your argument is based entirely on the fact that you think positive trust should only be given after trades. However... "Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade."

Simply trusting an individual can be a reason to leave positive trust. Do you have to have traded with someone to think that they are trustworthy? I don't think so.

And because of this, the same should be (and is) applied to negative trust.

The 0.2% house edge bet is still +ev for MP and the investors. The theoretical return on those rates & percentages yields ~1.205134 bits, and the bet was 1.21 bits. The player still pays a relatively high total house edge, since they are repeatedly gambling the wager and payout if they use the same board.

Usually, anything that promises abnormally high returns is a scam. If they have a lack of information or bad English on their site/FAQ's, they're most likely scams.

At least 90% of those messages are from the same person if the same layout is followed through and through. There is no way that it's a coincidence - the messages follow, "my name in (twitter or facebook) [name]". If every single message had that, with a following "confirm me" then there's definitely a high chance that they are the same.

Along with the fact that the UIDs are close, and that the Facebook and Twitter accounts are farmed, I think you should simply block them from the campaign and in fact ignore them completely. Do you have a full copy & pasteable list of the names?

---

Also, if two people have the same address in different posts, then you can only conclude this:

If user A posted first and user B posted second, then user B is potentially connected to user A, but user A is not connected to user B. This should hold true in most cases.

Say for example user A was a scammer and user B was a regular member. If user B posted user A's address, then user B is a scammer.

But if user A is a regular user and user B is a scammer, if user B posted user A's address, there is no linkage between A and B.

Completely wrong, though. The electoral votes DID change things. Instead of America being based on the popular vote (which candidate had more of the population vote for them) it's based on the electoral college. If it were based on the popular vote, Clinton would have won. But she didn't, due to the US's system of giving all the electoral votes to a candidate when they win the popular vote in a state.

Sure. But then the electoral college reduces the voting power of those in larger states, and increases the voting power of those in smaller states. That's not necessarily fair.

But then here's the issue with giving small states a starting value: candidates can't satisfy all those small states for a minimal payoff in electoral votes. They still campaign mostly in the more populous states. Sorry to disappoint. Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, etc. are visited.

Moreover, candidates would visit swing states more since states that are usually in their favor wouldn't matter as much (since 50.01% or 99.99% of the popular vote still gives you the same amount of electoral votes) - the problem with 51% attack.

---

And you think the presidential candidates would only campaign in the largest cities? Philadelphia, New York, and LA only add up to

New York City: 8,406,000 (2013)
Los Angeles: 3,884,000 (2013)
Philadelphia: 1,553,000 (2013)

= 13.843 million people.
The population of the USA at that point was 316.5 million. But, we need to take the population of eligible voters. Let's use the 2012 year.

235.248 million people.

Those cities make up 5.88% of the population. Do you seriously think that a presidential campaign would only worry about them?

---

Even if you campaign only in the top 50 cities (which is a LOT) that population still only adds up to 46,795,639. And if we consider the voting power to be ~2/3 of that population, you're left with 31.2 million which is about 12.5% of the total population that can vote. All the electoral college does is actually force candidates to visit swing states (so only a few states). The division is a sort of gerrymandering.

Since when was negative feedback based on the rules of the forum? Just because Lauda put negative feedback on your profile doesn't mean that you directly broke a forum rule. Their negative had nothing to do with the forum rules, and if you in fact did break a rule, then you would be banned. These past statements only apply to your response about multiple accounts.

However, you have been spamming. That is both frowned upon and a bannable offence.


These are the first two rules mprep stated. How come in your posts prior to this thread, you only used one line to reply to those threads, which were absolutely worthless?

Examples:



This is reply #21 and has little to do with even answering the original question.


Was that a necessary post?

---

And please tell me how you're able to post 4 posts within 4 minutes and keep them constructive. (That's a rate of one per minute! You still have to find the post, then think about what to reply!)

Example 1: Archive
Example 2: Archive

I don't think that turning Bitcointalk into Facebook would be the best way for it to earn more funds. I actually prefer having the same minimalistic theme, instead of adding tons of glitter to it. What are we, five?

Ad revenue should suffice.

Nothing, since most people have probably already withdrawn their funds. Besides, I think most understand that the current standings are going to be what the market was based on.

Otherwise, the books would be at a huge loss. For one, they paid off people who bet on Trump. How could you possibly take those funds back, and then pay off the people who bet on Hillary?

Unfortunately, for me, I bet when the odds were ~4.5 for Trump (around an hour before they reached 5.1 on Fairlay).
I am happy that Fairlay's minimum bet was 5 mBTC - since I wanted to bet less than that, but simply decided to go with it. I didn't want to go for too much on the election, so small bets are just fine for me

Sorry, what about the final -40 mBTC that was taken in the video? How come that's not on your data table?
Also, care to explain why there's bets of amount 0, with one of them in the "None" currency?
Archive: [https://archive.is/fy2kS]

Crypto-Games Nickname: actmyname

Well, because of that shaming, a hidden demographic of people didn't speak about their support. Then election day hit, and all the supporters went and voted. For Trump.

Alternatively, you could suppose that some Trump supporters were busy or wanted to hide the real polls and didn't vote on anything until the actual day - to hide the true numbers of the support. It's all up for grabs. I mean, think about what happened with Bernie Sanders - so many on the internet loved him, but then hardly any of the polls reflected that.