+1 This is a very balanced statement verses how most other people are assuming they are automatically scamming.

It is also interesting that there was a 440 BTC deposit to their cold wallet @ 19tQNCrmaW6EADfJrtBaRixRkPyVrvb6yk two days ago. I think this may make to be an interesting development.

your address doesn't have 70 worth of bitcoin in it

Just give me your stupid BTC addy.

What is your BTC address?

These are two very contradictory statements. They are certainly both not true. It is likely neither is true.

People will scam for as little as .001 collateral will be necessary for almost every loan that you want to get on here.

So you want who ever loans you money's BTC address to be associated with an illegal drug site? Sounds like a great idea.

I was not aware of this.
My point is they lost all their money. The reason they were not able to payback everyone that was owed all of what they were owed is because they had no money left to give and thus had to prioritize. What they were doing was making bad business decisions in refunding people the incorrect amount of money. It essentially means that people were able to gamble there without risk during the time in question, if their account ended with more money then it started with then they would take all of their money plus their profits, if their account ended in the negative, they would likely have had at least one nonce skipped and thus would be made whole. They were likely rushing to make decisions in order to attempt to maintain credibility.

I wouldn't think it would have been that difficult to search their database for skipped nonces and paid out what should have been winning bets the winning amount. 
Fair enough, but I think he likely did not notice it before because it is such an obvious statement.
You are correct that they could make 200 posts on the last day, however most users would likely not do this. They likely priced their campaign based on likely averages of posts made over time. It would also remove any incentive for people who have already posted the max to stay in the campaign as they would gain nothing by doing so. Dicebitco.in would be loosing out on this exposure they are due.

It would also be unfair to users who are not posting as much now (for example because they are on vacation) but would post more towards the end of the month. People that leave now would be guaranteed a full payout , while the people that stay may not get the same rate per post. They would essentially be penalized for giving dicebitco.in the exposure they are paying for.

I am not saying that bitcoininformatoin and dooglas are doing anything less then a good job at managing the campaign, I am just speculating that the source of their information may not be the best source of information. Kind of like recommending them to CYA

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke).  They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

I suspect they likely did not invest enough in pentesting and security......but then again this does assume that mateo is not associated with them.

EDIT:
I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.

The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.

The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale)  is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors.

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed. Everything presented so far is speculation and conspiracy theories (I agree that it does look very bad, but they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt). To essentially amounts to blackmailing users into taking down their signature or modify it in a way that would make advertising ineffective is not the right thing to do. Anyone could equally argue that a disclaimer is warranted for any of the other signature campaigns. The difference in this case is that there is speculation that they scammed and there is essentially an angry mob after the site.

Any person considering utilizing the services of any bitcoin related site should do their homework and research the site in question. This research would surely result in them seeing these allegations and can act accordingly.

The way the escrows are working is really the most fair for everyone.

To the people who are asking for payout early - this would great for you as you would be able to join a new signature campaign early and earn more, however it would be very unfair to dicebitco.in as they would not receive the full amount of advertising they are paying for (although I honestly do not see what good additional advertising would likely do for them - however this is their decision not mine).

You shouldn't ask if the user is going to want escrow as part of the application process. It makes it look like you will be more willing to grant the loan if they agree to not use escrow.

I am not sure who Blazr is, but I can say that I am not him.

I agree. There is no real reason to be advertising a site that is not safe to gamble on. I would suggest tallying up everyone's post and crediting each post by hero members 14 shares, each post by senior members 10 shares, and each full member 5 shares and then pay everyone proportional to the number of shares they have. 

I would like to take up your offer. I can even cover the TX fees. I do have one condition though, I would need you to send the payment through 10 random BTC addresses (with the TX fees being deducted of course) before you send the BTC to my address.

The reason for my loan: to borrow $0.47 worth of bitcoin. My BTC address is below.

1ineed2borrow47centsc9nMLyPs9eBH2hq

A more accurate statement would have been to say: you are new and unknown to the people of these forums. You should use escrow before people start to provide you with valuable services.

The address in question has a 0 balance (see here. It looks like .05 was transferred to one address (likely your personal address to claim the tip) and 4.9998 was sent to 1MuCGwYWCDJCQJy5aoJaGSDDriRt1F2BPm on 3/9/14 via TX 140688a73d67f4bbaf59c117c3df67f115984d40e70ba469f4f9c76932648082

I believe that he is actually blocking PMs from everyone. It doesn't say this anymore but his signature used to say he does not deal with people via PM, and to email him if you wanted to reach him privately.

They paid out ~12 btc last month (per this post). They need a little more then 18 BTC if they are able to pay out 200 posts for all 100 participants (is it 18 based on 20 full members and 80 senior members, but some people have dropped and there are a few hero members enrolled).