The "Instant Cashout" in the thread topic is a little misleading.

Didn't Tradefortress's cold wallet "leak" much like MtGox's?  I don't know how this happens, other than if the cold wallet was a lie in the first place.

JD's is real, and is as secure as any cold wallet solution I could come up with for my own coins.

Oh dear, it's even worse than that...  I just noticed that most of these "withdrawals" are JD sending coins offsite to my local wallet for safe keeping.

I guess the point still stands - when people request a withdrawal, we give it to them. 

How many people have access to the site seed?

It's a good idea to limit that number as much as possible.  The seeds are as good as money.

I checked the logs, and no, to be honest it isn't.  Some days there aren't any >100 BTC withdrawal requests.

Here's a recent list - 19 of them in 16 days:

Not sure if sarcastic.

Maybe you mean I should have them invested if I trust the site.  If so, I just don't always want the variance, and am happy to just take the 10% commission each week.

Or maybe you mean that it's good to know that I trust the JD cold wallet system as much as I trust some hypothetical other cold wallet system that I might keep other coins in?  Like BayAreaCoins said, Just-Dice is a good web wallet.  And since I don't have to worry about the risk of the operator absconding with the coins, it's even better for me.  It means all my coins are safe (in the JD cold wallet), but also available to withdraw at no notice (from the JD hot wallet).

Because he is me.  Where would I withdraw them to?  A cold wallet?  They're already in my cold wallet.

He needs to play on a better site.

Just-Dice makes multiple 100 BTC payouts every day without delay.  What is hard about sending 100 BTC if you have it?

It's inexcusable to delay payouts in the hope that he'll lose it back to the house.

Lonely Bitcoiner seeks dice site with GSOH for NSA adult fun.

I think you mean his wins, and I think they do affect the future; when the house loses 75% (or whatever it is now) of everyone's investment there's a chance that a large percentage of investors will lose faith and pull out their remaining coins.

Whether or not 1dice1 is cheating or playing for the house, people are going to worry that something's not right.  Some of them will divest, causing your bankroll to dwindle and making it increasingly difficult for the site to ever recover its losses.

Only the biggest investor divested.  The coins are still in his balance on the site, and so they are also still in the cold wallet.

The list of investment amounts is posted once a week, soon after commission has been taken, and then left.

If the coins aren't back by Sunday, you'll see that the biggest investment has disappeared in the next blog post.

Does that make sense?

That's exactly what happened at Just-Dice.  nakowa hit us hard in the middle of July and again at the end of September, as you can see in this chart:



We were fortunate enough to recover from nakowa's beating within about a month, due to a few other large players suffering massive losses, but we lost a lot of investors due to nakowa.  He replaced them for a while, investing his winnings in the bankroll, so he ended up winning twice: once from betting, and once from investing his winnings, profiting both from the collapse of JD's profit and from the subsequent recovery.

Note also that we're still over 35,000 BTC below expected profit, and expect to stay there indefinitely.  I calculated recently that if we get average luck from now on, and continue with the same level of betting we've seen so far, it will take about 100 years for the site profit to reach 0.99%.  And your 1dice player was much luckier than nakowa I think.

I moved it here:

http://dogechain.info/address/DDJn48W6xfaFm9tRwQmgvvzqpSmvV8MB6i

Careful accusing people of scamming without proof.

Is there a bet history available for the payer so we can see just how lucky he has been?

It's pretty simple, and I don't see why this thread is so long.  RGB is saying "they claim to be provably fair, but aren't really".  That is clearly the case.

Here's what the casino themselves says about their fairness:



That just isn't provable fairness.  That is an appeal to authority (of Itechlabs) and trusting a third party (random.org).

Provable fairness is a way of avoiding the need to trust authority or third parties.  It uses mathematics itself to prove the fairness, not authorities or other third parties.

That's the end of the story.  The casino isn't provably fair because they claim (but cannot prove) that they use random.org.

Just-Dice.com has always had a 1% house edge.

You may be getting confused by one of the following:

1) Erik Vorhees apparently once said that it wouldn't be profitable to run a dice site with an edge lower than 1.9%, which is the edge at SatoshiDice, which he used to own.

2) Just-Dice used to have a maximum profit per bet of 1% of the bankroll.  This was found to be too high, and caused the profit to go negative when we were attacked by a whale.  We lowered it to 0.25%, and then put it up to 0.5% a few days later.

The bottom line is that to be confident of making a profit you need to have your maximum profit be a smaller percentage of your bankroll than the house edge percentage.

It kind of sucks, but at least I'm not him.

Yeah, but also just-dice.com has a hyphen!  That must mean it's a scam, right?!?

Seriously, someone used that argument before.

It featured red text on a red background for much of its user interface.  It had almost no traffic.  And the investment feature they copied from JD was so badly botched that early investors were able to withdraw investments made by later investors.  Kind of an unintentional Ponzi scheme.

It would have been funny if so many people didn't lose coins to the owner's incompetence.


I didn't say you were trying to promote your dead site.  I was wondering if perhaps you were butthurt because your site was such a horrific failure in every way, and so you feel like the only way to explain it is to decide that successful sites must be scams in some way.


The "someone else" made the exact same crazy point in the same aggressive way, exhibited the same faulty reasoning and had the same writing style as you.  He had also already been identified as one of your socks independently of me.  So it's either a really weird coincidence, or you're not being entirely truthful.

Anyway, thanks for playing.  It's been fun.

The software is pretty basic, but it works.

The tricky bit is how to accept and pay out fiat money when the banks and the scammers are both against you.