I'm back, and disappointed but unsurprised to find that OP hasn't made any kind of sensible response to my posts.


The word "sheeple" in someone's vocabulary is pretty much unique in this respect.  Using it three times in a short succession is quite conclusive:



You couldn't say anything like the same about MtGox.  They never published a list of user balances, and only once (to my knowledge) did any kind of proof of holding coins with the 424242 BTC transaction or whatever it was.  What you could say about MtGox would be:

"MtGox held large amounts of customer funds but never proved they were solvent.  It was therefore not particularly surprising when they declared bankruptcy.  Just-Dice on the other hand proves their solvency every week, and has been doing so since shortly after launch, well before MtGox shut down, so there's really no similarity".

That would be more truthful but wouldn't help your case.

I wonder what your real motivation is behind this witch hunt.  Is it something to do with your own failed casino site I wonder?  Weren't you the guy who tried to copy JD's investment model on a crappy video-based roulette site and ended up "losing" customer funds somehow?


"Yours truly" means "me", not "him".  Doesn't it?

Oh, by the way I managed to find the post where I was previously called a scammer for not publishing transaction IDs.  It's from "tmbp" who I've long believed to be the guy who ran casinobit (into the ground), and I'm not the only one:

But this isn't a flaw in logic at all.  It's a decision not to release personal information about JD customers to the public.


I don't see the relevance.  JD is provably fair.  Whether or not there are "fake" bets on the site is unrelated to whether the site plays fair with the "real" bets.

But to answer your question, "no".  You're not a scammer if you make a non-provably fair game.  Almost no fiat gambling site in the world is provably fair.  What makes you a scammer is if you are scamming people, not the absence of proof of the absence of scam.


Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.  You can think what you want.  Others might be tempted to share your opinion if you could present it in a way that makes sense to them.

If there's a flaw, please describe it and how it could be exploited?  What's the worse that could happen if I was some evil MySQL/PHP-fueled genius with a fake bet machine?  What's the doomsday scenario here?  You seem to be comparing JD to MtGox, but JD is provably solvent, and whether or not Gox had "fake trades" on their site wasn't related to their eventual demise.  So what gives?

The bit about the cold wallet was meant as a joke.  Someone said:


to which I replied:


Sorry if you didn't get that.  You see, hackers can't get into the cold wallet.  Because it's cold (ie. offline).  Funny, right?  Sigh.

Anyway, here's the full unedited log:

We have free speech, and I wouldn't try to stop you exercising it.  Just-Dice isn't a scam, and from what I see you don't even have a slightly convincing argument that it is.

I don't like Klye's argument style much either.  It's not helpful to shout "retard" and "mongoloid" at people.  But I think you started it, calling everyone "sheeple" and such like.  Your whole style in the chat was aggressive and abusive, so it's not entirely surprising you were met with the same in exchange.

Moving on, can we have a discussion now?

I'm not going to publish player deposit addresses.  If they want to, they can.  There's a bot for that.

This isn't "sketchy" in the slightest, and proves nothing about my trustworthiness.

I'm going out for a bit now, but I look forward to reading your reply when I return.

Please take your time and make your best effort at laying out a logical argument.  It's worth the effort.

Not by me you weren't.  I was incredibly patient with you even though you failed to present any kind of reasonable point.

Eventually one of the chat moderators with less patience than myself put an end to your pointless trolling.

I can post a log of the chat if you like so others can decide whether:


or whether you were just trolling.


This is the kind of nonsense you were spouting in the chat too.  I'll try to address it.

* I don't add any fake bets to the site.  The server often struggles to keep up with the volume of real bets we get.  I don't need to add any more volume.  I add artificial delays to low-stake bets precisely to reduce the number of bets going through the server.  This is documented in the FAQ tab.

* Even if I did add fake bets, this wouldn't have anything to do with whether the site is provably fair or not.  The fake bets wouldn't affect your chance of winning or losing.  You can verify that all your rolls were made fairly.

* Why would the presence of fake bets make the site look more secure than it is?  It wouldn't.

* Why would I care about making the site look like it's worth more than it is?  It's not for sale.  I've turned down several huge buy-out offers.

* Players bet on Just-Dice because it's provably fair, and because it has a long (in Bitcoin years) history of reliably paying out winners.

* I don't need to attract investors.  I have too many already.  They're diluting my share of the profits.  I don't need to make the site look more attractive to investors.

Did I miss anything?  Oh, you think I use MySQL and PHP?  I don't.


Someone asked me to provide complete blockchain transaction histories for all players once before, too.  Was that you?  I could quite easily provide a bunch of fake deposit transactions to go along with any fake bets.  You're probably not realising that most of the bets are really tiny dust bets, worth fractions of a cent.  It would be trivial to find enough untainted coins to produce txids for deposits to these 'fake' accounts.  So I'd be publishing personal information of every player for no gain at all, other than kind of convincing you that I'm not adding fake bets to the site that make no sense for me to add anyway.  No thanks.


As it currently stands, there's a third-party bot in the chat that you can register your deposit address with, for the purposes of collecting 'rain'.  Many players chose to disclose their deposit address, and along with it their deposit history.  I don't want to force that disclosure on everyone.


I don't know if you're familiar with how Just-Dice proves its solvency on a weekly basis, but we've been doing it since before MtGox closed.  Search the FAQ tab for "Is this site a scam or Ponzi scheme? Is it insolvent?" for full details, but basically we:

1) publish a weekly list of investor balances
2) keep the majority of invested coins in a well-known address

Each investor can then check that the coins they invested are still held by us.  This is something that MtGox wouldn't have been able to do since they apparently were insolvent, and something that has become quite fashionable since the MtGox collapse.

If you have any remaining concerns, please feel free to bring them up and I'll do my best to address them.

The hot wallet contains everyone's deposit address, so it's hard to see the whole balance.

The cold wallet address changed about a week ago. I updated the FAQ with the new address and a new signature.

Was the site really down for a while? I wasn't offline for long so I guess I missed it. Or maybe it was a localised cloudflare outage.

I took the existing open source intersango exchange software that britcoin (which later was rebranded as 'Intersango') was running on, changed the colours, made a bunch of other changes, and installed it on Andre's web server.

So depending on your definition of "made" I guess that's either a 'yes' or a 'no'...

I'm not sure, but at least 27:



Note that with over a billion bets so far we would expect the longest losing streak to be about 30 bets long.  2^30 ~= 1 billion.

Over 2.6 billion DOGE invested last I checked.

Most of it is here in an offline cold storage wallet:

http://dogechain.info/address/DT4ZXv7ByoGbrkE6umxLpVesy5BUWmRqxw

A few typos/errors:

https://blockchain.info/address/13cbkpKW2DdhEUmeGC2h9HyxbBdtc7Wcth has a typo: "Sealth Address Data".  Should be "Stealth".

https://blockchain.info/support-desk says to report bugs on github, but there's no github repo for the website itself that I can see.

https://blockchain.info/support-desk says "Any none english questions".  I think you mean "non-English"?

Just-Dice.com has a 1% house edge, but after more than 1.1 billion bets has only kept 0.32% of the amount wagered.  The reason not many sites offer much less than 1% edge games is that the smaller the house edge, the greater the effect of variance, and the more likely the site is to go bust.  In other words, the smaller the edge, the bigger the bankroll the house requires to be safe from going bust.

Sites which offer player-vs-player games can obviously afford to take a much smaller cut, since they are guaranteed to win a little from every bet.

You should be able to bet about 176 BTC at 50% if the max profit is 176 BTC, since at 50% your profit is about the same as your stake.

SatoshiDice doesn't have the same max profit across all of its bets though for some reason, and never has done.  I don't know what the reasoning is.  Maybe they're willing to risk more than they can really afford (from a risk-of-ruin point of view) on the low-chance high-payout bets because you're unlikely to win many of them?

I like the feature that allows me to enter 99 dice rolls to generate a truly random address, but it is lacking the ability to encrypt the keys with BIP38 and so leaves the paper wallet vulnerable to physical theft.

How hard would it be to allow BIP38 encryption on the 'details' tab?  It seems I currently have to choose between allowing bitaddress to generate the randomness or having my paper wallets unencrypted.  Please let me use true randomness and encryption at the same time. 

You're right.  Here are all the bets of 0.1 BTC or more within 10k bets either side of the 1B bet.  Note there was only one such bet with a chance to win less than 97%, and that was your bet.  Note also that every one of the 181 such bets won except yours:

That's close enough.  It looks like the 390060 account has played a little more since you posted that, but the other two are spot on.


I noticed your pattern.  It seems to be pretty simple: switch hi/lo on every loss, leave it the same on a win.  But sometimes you stop alternating on a loss, and I couldn't work out why or when.  Is that just gut feel?


I don't think so.  Every time you hit 'randomize' you get a new random seed, which isn't based on the history of your account at all.  The accounts which change hands for lots of coins are the ones with a large loss from investing.  Investors on pay commission on new profits, not on profits made after a big loss.  So while you're recovering investment losses, all profits are commission free.  Such accounts are worth up to however much they will save their new owner in commission.


Not sure why you struck that out, but I'd be happy to walk you through the verification process.  The first place I'd refer you to however is the 'Fair?' tab on the site, and the verifier linked at the end of that tab.

It's looking like that 64 BTC loss was this player's last bet.  They've already withdrawn hundreds of BTC of profit over the last few weeks.  Maybe they have the discipline required to quit while they're ahead!

A few facts that haven't been mentioned here:

* That losing sequence went 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 - so 11 losing bets in a row.

* That guy had been coming to the site day after day, and winning 10 BTC each day on 3 different accounts.  So 30 BTC per day.

* This is the first time he busted - previously he only got up to 64 twice and won it both times.

* He's still around 460 BTC *up* overall.

* Here's a chart of the combined profit against number of rolls from the 3 accounts:



So while it's true that in general martingale isn't a winning strategy, in this case it all worked out pretty well for him!

Edit: here's a list of the bet details:


Edit 2: here's a list of all his bets over 20 BTC.  Notice he won 2 out of 3 at 64 BTC and 9 out of 12 at 32 BTC!

Do you have anything to report on the deposit issue?  Is it a Bitcoin-wide issue?  Odd that the same thing would affect PrimeDice and CoinRoll at the same time, but I've not heard of any problems on Just-Dice.  Could it be a DDoS issue perhaps?

Probably because your web browser mangled the file. Try using curl or wget to download it.