Some things to clarify for reference. I may be repeating some things.

1. BitDice was initially not a scam. Everyone that has any idea knows they were initially a very reputable casino. It was the same expectations that investors had under which I promoted the casino.

I did most of my promoting for BitDice before and shortly after ICO. And after November/December 2020 I did not run a campaign of any sort for BitDice. After that I was nothing more than a support staff and new management did not keep me in the loop about most of the things.

2. BenCodie misrepresents facts by overestimating the size of BitDice scam.

Right after ICO, BitDice sold a large portion of the ICO proceedings. This is public information. There were also exploits that cost the casino large amounts (an example was user exploiting a slot game bug for hundreds of ETH). These were made public. Then there were players who won large amounts legitimately. Based on this and my understanding, BitDice kept making losses and did not turn a profit. Not taking into account running expenses.

3. Based on previous point, BitDice lost a lot of money. This is what I believe ultimately led to the scam when they had lost too much. I do not believe it was planned in advance.

4. During the time I was at BitDice, there was no clear scam happening. They were paying players and at any moment could have started producing reports for investors and everyone would have been more or less happy.

5. I believe what lead to lack of quarterly reports was the losses the casino was making. Not something pre-planned.

6. The management were not good at their job. They focused on the wrong things instead of fixing existing issues. This lead to amount of issues such as bugs growing exponentially.

7. Based on all the previous points, my view is that BitDice tried to make the casino successful but failed miserably.

8. I naively thought for a long time that BitDice would become successful and would make investors whole. This is why I stayed. This is why I kept listening to investors and their concerns. I do not know why BenCodie seems to think there is malice in my involvement. I think it is largely because the full picture is not visible here on Bitcointalk. All the effort I put into making sure investors' questions were answered is not visible here. That makes it easy to point fingers.

9. Going back to what I mentioned in the first point, I did not do promotion of BitDice after November/December 2020. This is one part of why I think blaming me is rather out of proportion.

10. In hindsight, it is clear I should have seen the red flags sooner and left but as I have said, there was no absolutely clear as day scam happening before I left. Only behavior that could lead to it ultimately. But the fact that I stayed with BitDice so long did not make investors' situation any worse. I would argue that I was a big impact on investors being addressed at all. Of course it did not help in the end but I tried my best.

---

What I personally want to know is what happened to Alex. Why did he leave and what was the actual purpose of the new management? Did the new management purchase the site and fail to turn it into anything this miserably or is there something else involved?

You are extending your witch hunt to an innocent third-party and it is extremely inconsiderate.

If the big news you are here to bear is that I endorsed BitDice, let me save you some trouble. I did endorse BitDice. I had faith in BitDice the same way as the investors had. I also defended BitDice. I deeply regret doing so but I did not do it with ill intentions. These are not secrets. I had faith in BitDice. Investors invested their money, I invested my time.

I never presented information that I did not believe was true. When users/investors asked me something or were not pleased with something, I presented those issues to BitDice management. When I got a reply back, I relayed the information without sugar coating anything. Is it my fault and ignorance I believed their lies? Probably. Did I have bad intentions? Absolutely not.

You are free to accuse me all you want but keep l0tt0 out of it.

I am going to agree with LoyceV that there are too many potential issues to consider using it.

Most notably the fact that it is a black box for the user what happens under the hood. Too much trust required. For me to ever consider something like this, it would have to be open source.

If I wanted to share private information, I would likely use OnionShare which is open source and rather easy to use.

Your service does seem simple to use. The requirement to download an app is slightly annoying. Having the secret expire after 3 incorrect attempts seems like enough for sharing secrets that are not super sensitive. Expiring the secret after it has been viewed is another good thing. Setting asides problems that I have with it personally, someone might find it useful although I would still warn anyone to trust their secrets with a third-party.

True. I hope Stake did not blindly give wallet access to employees without having some system in between to keep access logs.

I just hope Stake gives us more information so we can stop speculating.

If it was an inside job and proper access control was in place, it should be trivial to find out who it was. Who knows until we get confirmation.

Please make the link non-clickable. Someone could easily be tricked by your quote.

Is this a fact? Never heard of it and it's quite an alarming lack of transparency if true.


You can't say it's negligence without knowing what their risk tolerance is. At their scale it may very well be worth it if they have enough volume and it's a deal-breaker for customers who play with large amounts.

I believe that there should be some middle ground with a semi-coldwallet solution with minimal delay but added security. When risking $40 million one could probably protect their funds pretty well with some clever solution and still have fast transactions.

Unfortunately I did have a connection with them due to managing their campaigns and also because I did customer support there. It seems to be clear that some people here on Bitcointalk want to put blame on me although I did not know of their plans. I left BitDice many months before it shut down eventually which confirmed the scam.

People here on Bitcointalk like to paint a very black-and-white image about the BitDice scenario. In reality it was not. I believe BitDice lost a bulk of the ICO funds before they had any plans to scam. I think it was largely due to poor management. I tried my best as support to help both investors and players but a lot of issues never got attention.

Please do not try to harm l0tt0/dewez who has absolutely nothing to do with BitDice. First time I ever heard of dewez was when he approached me about running signature campaign here. It was also a big reason why I returned to the forum.

EDIT: PS. thank you SamReomo for your kind words. I just want to run quality campaigns and I hope how I manage my campaigns is a testament to that.

Perhaps just an odd coincidence considering the fact that in that Twitter post they say Stake.com wallet has made multiple interactions with the same address previously.

I suppose the average player might not bat an eye especially if the site continues normal operation.

The only thing I am concerned is what caused this and whether or not there's something wrong with their security measures. All we know at the time is that it was likely a private key leak and that could happen because of numerous things.

Phew. That's an awful hit.

I'm sure we're all eager to hear for an official announcement regarding how it happened. A matter of employee access controls failing, a software failure or something else? That's for sure a large amount to keep out of cold storage anyway.

EDIT: Seeing a reply from Eddie on Twitter, it does look like even a $40 million loss is considered a small portion of reserves. Still, begs the question what happened if it's something others can learn from.

Payments for Round 10 have been sent

Bonus of $25 given to SamReomo for the round.

As far as I know, the accounts page is being revamped to give a better user experience.

There could also be something else that I don't know. Maybe dewez will shed some light on things.

Disclaimer: l0tt0 is not my website

Anyway, participating in discussion isn't taking advantage of anything. I simply gave my personal opinion. I personally would not want to risk my money when I see posts like these.


KYC is not the problem. The problem is that it leads to these questionable situations. If what OP says is true, Stake is asking for much more than just regular KYC and is also not accepting the documents they have provided. Thus, in my eyes, withholding their funds for no reason.

There could be something we don't know why Stake is doing this but just based on what OP has said, it looks pretty bad. That is why it would be great if a Stake representative gave an update.

This is interesting.

Unless there's something we don't know regarding this case, it makes me second-guess Stake's practices. A reply from an official representative would be pretty nice.

The fact that they ask physical documents on top of what has already been provided is pretty absurd to me. I used to be a very active PrimeDice player and then Stake before all of the KYC stuff and everything worked very well. Just a while ago a thought crossed my mind whether or not I would even dare to make a deposit to Stake without having to worry about being forced to give documents.

This goes to remind me of why I steer away from KYC casinos.

Old signatures for reference:

Wouldn't be such a bad idea I think.

I've been testing the games out a bit and I can't help but enjoy them. A nice change from the typical games crypto casinos offer like dice or plinko. Some kind of statistics might be nice to know how much I have won/lost.