On win you keep betting 1 bit at 1.08x.

On loss you're beting 4, 20, 100 bits at 1.25x - trying to get the lost bit back. There is no magic there. Same fallacy.

How big is your bankroll?

Yep, totally different. Let me guess, multiplier on loss is 4x? You're not the first to think that a fix for martingale is more martingale.


I expected there to be some... you know... CODE. For auditing and shit.


LOL.

LOL, well at first glance there is NOTHING in the script that alia was claiming it did, and given how small it is I doubt that the second glance would reveal more. Just a couple of multipliers to adjust bets on win or loss. Also it looks like alia was still running the script after she said she won't do it with her own funds - the 1.08 bets really stood out in her bet history.


We need TMAN to give you a new nickname. "shitcunt" doesn't quite cut it anymore.

Your word is worth shit, as we've seen with nullius' donation or aTriz' dox.

Nobody has audited it yet and if a truly reputable person does this they would likely conclude that the script is a fallacy at best.

I apologize, you're trying to do GaaS (gambling as a service). That isn't really better in any conceivable way.

So there are two scripts now 

The old one that "investors" bailed on and you're not using it yourself - worth a lot of money and can't be audited.

The new one that you want to start selling - you want someone to vouch for it.

It's déjà vu all over again.

What difference does it make if she's female and/or has a brother and/or can find someone to play her brother on skype? Women can't scam? Come on, let's be real here. It's just another obfuscation attempt trying to make it sound like gender is at issue here.


There is another thread for aTriz. This is alia's scam thread. I'd rather have her ramble here than anywhere else on the forum.

alia, you had RBGKey offering to audit the script. Take him up on that offer, don't pose any other conditions, and let's see what he has to say. If fully expect you to weasel out of this or to reject his conclusions but feel free to prove me wrong.

Shut up already you scamming e-whore. We have heard enough of the filthy shit that comes out of your mouth!

We've been going in circles for 20 pages. Case is closed.

I doxxed Nullius weeks ago. He has not denied it, therefore it stands as fact.

i'm old enough to be your father, 15 or 19.. my eldest child is older than you and if she was a shitcunt like you she would of been sent to some mental institution

quiet hermaphrodite - adults are here.

I saw that.  It gave me a good chuckle.  I read every post in that thread, most of them with a smile.

But I don’t want to make this thread redundant to the one in Meta.  The purpose hereof is different:  Quickseller has stated seriously, multiple times, that I must have an old account which he characterizes as going back to 2011.  He has made some rather specific statements about this—thus leading me to believe that he must have identified an account which he would allege to be mine.  Others, including Alia, have concurred in his assessment that I must not be new here.

Thus the question is raised:  Who am I?  Or more specifically, what is the 2011-vintage username which Quickseller alleges to be mine?

With this reply we can conclude that Nullius is confirmed to be (hype building drumroll)...... NOT ALIA!!!! (or her brother)

Q: What about deleting DOXes?
A: Nope, we don't delete them either as long as they comply with the following rules:

Quote from: theymos on August 05, 2016, 04:23:54 AM
<...>
1. Personal information must be confined to the new "investigations" board (under Scam Accusations), which is only visible to Members and above. Personal information is defined as anything which links a user's online identity (username, email, etc.) to their meatspace identity, excluding links that the person himself has posted. It is not allowed to post somebody's personal information in any other public place, including in signatures.
2. It is not allowed to post someone's dox if it is especially obvious that you're just using the dox as a weapon. For example, if there are no remotely-plausible trade complaints, then the person can't be a scammer, and their dox should not be posted.

It seems to me that alia should be indeed banned.

snip

Even if you can get a "trusted" member to concede to using skype with you, I doubt that any "trusted" member would agree to allowing you to set terms, especially in such a way that your face is not viewable, because part of the whole point would be to verify you as a person including your facial expressions when asked questions and verifying various information that the trusted member would attempt to live verify with you and things like that. 

Also, I doubt that you would be allowed to chose who is the trusted member doing such a speculated video interview, unless there is some kind of obvious conflict of interest or some kind of past interaction with you that kind of shows potential problems with any particular trusted member, of course you could state your objections but that might not rule the day if you want such a favor (not favour) as to attempting a video verification of you. 

Further, remember earlier that there was a bit of an exchange between you, me and suchmoon attempting to figure out what you had meant by "one way verification," and that was contemplated as a kind of video interaction in which you would be in the video, but the "trusted member" would not be in any video because there is would be no need for the trusted member to be in such video since s/he is not the one who is being verified (you and possibly your brother would be).

I guess part of my point here is that if any trusted member would be ready, willing and able to do this verifification thingie-ma-jiggie, then the trusted member would be attempting to set the terms of the interview and not you, but it seems questionable either whether at this time, any such video interview would help to establish anything useful to the forum and/or whether there would be any such video interview process that would be sufficiently comfortable that a trusted member would be willing to employ for any speculated video identity verification process. 

Earlier, you seemed to concede that a video interview would not really help to fix anything, but now you are back on the video interview idea - and seeming even to convolute terms, such as asserting that your face would not be visible, which seems like a real deal breaker, to me, even if there could be some agreement that a video could be helpful in some regards in this matter.

I’m not sure if you’re trolling, or just stupid; so I’ll treat you like you’re just being stupid.  Or maybe I’m stupid, because I just don’t get this.  To better assist in working through all this stupidity, let me spell this out:

Arguendo, I will here trust your word that “favours” is your little brother, and thus not a girl.  But you see, people doubted that your little brother was a girl.  Skyping him and interviewing him would prove that he is, indeed a girl!  —Right?



Sooooo...  If your little brother could prove that he’s a girl on Skype, why should I trust your same proof?

Remember that for the purposes of this question, I am trusting your word that you have a little brother, and “favours” is his account.  Please don’t contradict that.  You would not wish to lose my trust!

Alia, please explain.  ELI5!  I admit, I must be almost as stupid as suchmoon.  I’m so confused.

P.S.,