man I just randomly pick a bet there because I was having doubt when one of there admin speak with me and I start losing all the times and when I notice I was having unfair bets and then they says it was a system failure and they name it more specific. But the thing is now they says I m not the owner of the account because I posted here. Regarding your screenshot: 
The situation is a little odd. Depending on the circumstances, the system failure will look more/less like voluntary negligence or incompetence than an unintentional error. Whatever that whole system failure is... were there no secondary sanity checks/failsafes for a gambling site? And how many people did it affect? It would seem highly unlikely that you were the only victim of such an event. By the way: I recommend you to edit your posts together, rather than creating consecutive posts. Not only will you avoid the posting time limit, but you also make it more organized (and it's also a rule!) |
|
|
|
Once you bought BTC, what would be the fee for sending this further to another wallet (let's say a storage wallet)? If you bought the coins from a centralised exchange like binance or coinbase then the transaction size doesn't matter because those exchanges charge flat fees for withdrawals (like 0.0005 btc or 0.001 btc /transaction). The corollary being: withdraw as much as you can from the exchange. Further, you have to strike your personal balance across the security of an exchange (or rather lack thereof), the fee you pay each time you want to send your coins, and the actual market-related aspects of the currency. |
|
|
|
The wallet will calculate the size and thus the fees automatically for you. It is always better to manually check the mempool via a few useful websites. If you're looking for speed/efficiency for one-block confirmations, I would recommend adding 5-10% more than the current highest fee bucket depending on the network (i.e. if it barely confirms at 6 sat/byte, push it to 7 or 8; at 60 s/b, try 66 to 72). Bitcoin gives you the tools to financial freedom: you have the power to control your money. |
|
|
|
Why are you guys so pessimistic? Why not winning big while rank up to platinum? LoL
I got two tickets for the raffle. Let's see if it brings a miracle. It isn't pessimism: it's expected value. Even if you were to take part in the lowest-edge games, you're looking at a ~0.5% edge across $5,000,000: multiply the values, and you face an edge value of $25,000. Although there are some +ev opportunities if you catch them, the VIP system is not necessarily the hook that captures gamblers, but an ongoing incentive to maintain their habits. Obviously, if you expect to gain more in rewards than your expected loss, then Stake would probably have to start doing some more math regarding their business model! |
|
|
|
Why did you create a second thread when you have barely completed an organized accusation in your first? Take a step back, pretend like you have no idea what is going on, and try to formulate some structure for people to follow your ideas. As far as I could see, all the screenshots you provided lack direct evidence of your alleged unfair bets. How is someone supposed to believe you without anything concrete to process? |
|
|
|
No. Altcoin sections can create bounties for free. Signature campaigns require BTC-based payments. This is the difference. So, I take it that the merit system is useless there? I never visit that section, not because of the spamming, just because I'm not interested in alts but it seems to me that having to gain some merits in order to be accepted into (bitcoin) signature campaigns supposes a barrier for spammers who either have to give up, or they have to make an effort in order to get merit. Why would spammers bother trying to get into bitcoin campaigns when they can much more easily spew dozens of posts with generic content? Why bother actually reading anything when you can either quote someone, agree with their bullshit and rephrase it, say something extremely simplistic, and/or read the title of the thread and respond within a minute? Plus... even if they were aiming for higher-quality posts (let's be honest, the barrier of entry to beat most altcoin replies is very low) that wouldn't stop them from continuing their account farms. Participating in bounties while replying effortlessly is like writing down a few sentences every day as an analogue to the lottery: most of the campaigns will result in failure but all it takes is one to succeed. The spam is cyclical in its expansion: its prevalence gives credence to more account farming and an air of normalcy to the cesspool of irrelevance. |
|
|
|
I don't know if overpriced is the best way to describe it, after all, there is nothing forcing you to pay a certain fee Except for nodes broadcasting transactions - there is a minimum, though most people will probably want to pay more than it if the mempool isn't emptied. In the past two weeks, you could get away with decent speeds from 10-30sat/byte most of the time and even occasionally 2+ sat/byte in a few valleys. Still better than banking hours! |
|
|
|
if sigs were done away with this forum would probably be as dead as a lot of other cryptocurrency forums (like the ones for specific altcoins). I don't think anyone really wants to see that happen. Do the ends justify the means? It's almost as if we're taking the same approach to the Investor-based games section: "aye, it's illegal and a scam but we needed a section otherwise they would spam it elsewhere!!!" How many topics in the Altcoin boards are scams? What percentage of the Altcoin Discussion board is filled with useless, generic content and equally useless one-liner spam?
If you're willing to honor the whole, "signatures cause traffic, therefore traffic is good," mantra then one seeks to question whether the ends justify the means: how much of that traffic is reduced to noise, and how many individuals (not users) are actually posting in that section? Wages dictate the quality of work, and if these people are working for tokens that are most likely worthless or scams, essentially looking at bounties as gambling on a jackpot (look at some threads that echo this)... how can you expect there to be any post quality at all? It's no wonder account farming and alts are rampant there, since you want to get as many shots as possible at concurrent bounties. The egregious spam on the forum has become the status quo. So much for Rule #1. |
|
|
|
That will eventually lead you to the old saying; remove signatures from the forum. Imagine altcoin section don't allow signature; there will be no less of signature spammer. Same number of participants will flood the other section and thus, question will be there- remove signature globally? No. Altcoin sections can create bounties for free. Signature campaigns require BTC-based payments. This is the difference. Just ban anyone who spams: isn't it that simple? Most altcoin signature campaign members I come across will tend to shit out pages upon pages of one/two-liners - moderation would help in the section but if you wiped signatures that takes care of half of the work (probably more). users must contribute as well to report those posts to the moderators, the only problem is quite a lot of users either have the altcoin section on ignore or hardly ever go there to see what's up in there. From my experience, any time I want to go to that section I put aside effectively a half-hour of time for the amount of reports I would need to do. One reason to do something about the 4-second limit on reports. |
|
|
|
And it's a good way to recover a compromised account, but I was thinking about 2FA for the login system. As an extra security layer that many providers and websites have in addition to regular login systems.
With this, the very possibility of hacking someone's account is significantly reduced. If you want to use optional 2FA, incorporate the use of a PGP or Bitcoin address signature. Anything that can be linked to something outside of your digital cryptographic identity should not be used. After all, you're trying to secure your privacy since the concern isn't getting the account back eventually. Wouldn't make sense to expose something that would compromise it. |
|
|
|
According to Google, "Shill" means: "an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others"
IMO, you would not shill a scam project if you are not getting anything in return, and the fact that you know you are promoting a scam project, that means you are an accomplice and you are a scammer as well. In terms of determining its reputation, I think that's one of the hardest thing to do especially if the basis is our opinion here, unless a certain project is deemed declared illegal by the regulators. Don't put the cart before the horse. Reputation is gained and maintained over time - part of that could involve shilling. Any time you think in absolutes, you open up the opportunity for exploitation. It's like believing that every time someone decides to shove in poker, they have pocket aces. |
|
|
|
if you enjoy reading and linking to other articles. then you can confirm that: 1) Adkinsbet refused to pay money simply because of bad behavior on the forum! confirm  Fallacy - use of induction or extrapolation from a set of limited data points - survivor bias. while you explain the case of a player from the UK who received two payments to his account and only the third time (when he won 2000 pounds) Adkinsbet refused to pay him because he was registered from the UK! do you confirm? This is just not even true. The user lost 2000 pounds initially, then won it back and an additional 6300 on top of it for a net change of 5000 -> 11300. 3) Adkinsbet is lying to us that they see players with the same IP address. They wrote that they immediately understood it. But they didn't block the account, they continued to accept player deposits! They took the money and knew that they would not pay later! Do you prove it This, I agree, is something to look into. From a casino's side, they may justify it by stating that revealing practices would create routes of exploitation: the same can be said for the lack thereof, in the other direction. 4) You confirm that adkinsbet refuses to pay the player simply for using the VPN service. Although the rules say that if the player does not try to hide his location, then this is allowed! Do you confirm this? This is not what they exclusively claimed. You are creating a strawman. 5) And on the topic. You confirm that Adkinsbet refuses to pay simply because "the player's bets are similar to the bets of another player(not just the same bets, but bets made with the same strategy = just a bets on basketball)" Do you confirm that? This is not what they exclusively claimed. You are creating a strawman.
Focus on point #3. Push that, because it's the most reasonable claim I see here to use against the website. |
|
|
|
The chorus that sounds off, almost cult like is concerning. I pretty much just ignored them as they don't add anything to any of the discussions. The problem is when there is no one with common sense participating in the thread, it can make all claims seem invalid. No matter how obvious it is that the company was not acting in good faith. I did ignore the "paid dog" comments as they weren't relevant to the claim at the time. I seem to recall him saying something about it being admitted. It kind of reminds me of when some low quality posters sig spam in the company thread "good project", just ramped up and aggressive. Plenty of users will approach the Scam Accusations section, wiggle their way into something against a casino, and check to see if they can quickly pop a "did u break the ToS? lol u cheater"-type post. These blanket responses are lazy but they barely pass the spam threshold. Almost as bad as those old Auction "selling accounts is not allowed!!!" or Investor-based games "watch out this is a ponzi do not invest" posts, which are essentially the same semantics copy-pasted under slight variations every time.
People choose the path of least resistance. If someone sees the rhetoric applied on a thread already, it grants them credence to continue. A cycle of shit, sloshing around in the centrifuge of asinine replies. |
|
|
|
The only option I would add when it comes to account security is 2-factor authentication. It's called a signed message. I would recommend you to set up your own 2FA by staking your address and PGP key somewhere solid. |
|
|
|
but I don't think it would be that difficult if your intention from the start was to remain a ghost and that was something he was obviously very cautious of. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Cryptographic identities can be linked through connections and if you decided to begin a new identity, fully isolated, then you could absolutely separate analog and digital.
Thank god for colonialism, spreading language far and wide so that we can further our privacy by changing a few letters here and there. |
|
|
|
I thought it was a Black Mirror* reference. The truth is that it was meaningless and that you projected your own ideas onto all language others write. Well, "your" collected experiences and perceptions alongside a few genetic and temporal anomalies.  * which is obviously real life because it's on TV... or laptop... or phone. Everything is real if you give up finite constructs - a necessary axiom.
Should also point heads towards the direction of a less direct padding concept. Certainly, it would be terrible if we had a DT1 root add someone to their list to pad their trust: plenty of users keep their eyes out for this behavior. An additional premise would be to share and swap 'idealized lists' with other DT1 users, fragmented or whole and coordinate to ensure a particular user benefits. The problem is with the detectability of this: any DT1 user could simply feign ignorance and the highly-trusted user could similarly deign to respond to farfetched conspiracies. What a beautiful system we have. Certainly better than the old hand-picked DefaultTrust system - now we show users which should definitely be trusted by default. |
|
|
|
There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions Then what are those numbers hovering over your head?
The vast majority of free and independent thinkers view the Trust System in the following manner The "vast majority" is an a priori assumption because that's a commonly accepted way trust relationships work in real life, and that's the way in which the Trust system will make sense to most rational people.
Anyways these are minor issues and not really my concern, I just responded here for the staff's and @theymos's benefit in case they want to fix the broken forum systems at some point. Take care.
FWIW although unscrupulous use of the trust system is not typically met with punishment I see some people dismiss "bad uses" of the trust system when they aren't involved in the DT network. Dangerous precedent. Any dilution of the justification for leaving positive and negative feedback leads to a degradation of trust values. This occurs naturally by way of the 100-strong court of DT1s and their apostles. I don't think it's necessary to undermine your comment with the easy "argumentum ad populum" concept applied to ideology and culture: you can probably work it out yourself. Proof is trivial and left to reader as an exercise. |
|
|
|
.. The two users you mention haven't changed their trust in over 101 weeks; they trusted Helana prior to week one and their trusts are unchanged now in week 101. Yes, but there is little point to trusting the user when the lack thereof has the same net effect on everyone's trust settings. The only time something changes is when: Helana updates their trust list and becomes trusted by others, thereby potentially affecting DT1 Helana adds new trust feedback
But who adds someone to their trust list in expectation of either of these? |
|
|
|
Because both Hilariousandco & actmyname were left negative trust on hua_hui account, who got caught enrolled his alt in his own campaign (i've told this above). Which is same with pawanjain, who enrolled his alt as well in campaign he managed. To make it clear the forum has no rule that we can't enroll our alt in the campaign we manage. The case you are talking about has the rule in the campaign that alt accounts are not allowed. If the basis for rule-following is just obeying the forum rules, then the default state of the forum would be nothing more than a bunch of polite scammers that refuse to copy each other's scam techniques. I would probably say that the act of using your own clandestine alt isn't the most trustworthy way to do things, especially if you could simply manage the campaign and advertise it in your signature at the same time. The incentive of being paid according to one's post quality in a limited campaign makes it easy for a manager to judge their posts in a biased manner - where one might be less inclined to spam in other campaigns, someone who both runs and participates in a campaign could effectively reward themselves for spam to maximize their time. This is especially important if they had multiple accounts and had to create a constant slew of posts. |
|
|
|
to give their opinion about this. If hua_hui was got negative trust, why pawanjain didn't? Both were enrolled his own alt on their own campaign.
BUMP!!! I say that if there's another link between the set of users crptotrader, nikjain, Sahyadri and the pawanjain/hasmukh_rawal group then you can conclude decisively that they are, in fact, connected. Shenanigans have appeared enough in the past for me to hesitate on fully committing to the A->B link from crptotrader007 taking on the reputation of hasmukh_rawal - this is a very thin thread to follow and if you are willing to compromise rigor and affirm the consequent instead of creating a tautological A<->B link with multiple posts connecting the two, then you are free to do so. However, operating under such a system opens up the opportunity for malicious agents to fabricate links. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
