 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
"My initial impression is that you have not done your background reading that any journalist is expected to do. You are using language that I have not seen anywhere else, i.e., you are making up sensationalistic jargon of your own. " yes it's called being a writer, if you like read this : http://rc3.org/2009/07/30/stealing-a-penny-from-every-transaction/i'm part of the bitcoin foundation network and i've been invited to attend the upcoming NYC event on July 30th so i'm digging in deep here NYC;) Not really. Your involvement only discredits anything you refer to. Digging in deep isn't posting bullshit to general forums when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and that could be cleared up by reading a FAQ. |
|
|
|
Blazed, I shared screen with alpha and the Amazon representative said it was used on that account. The representative told me it was used at 5:36 PM, about 5 or 6 minutes after the code was sent to you via PM. Looking at the users computer and programs, nothing indicated this person changed photos or did anything illegimately. I checked their amazon account and tabs nothing suspicious, I did not say anything when I studied this. I understand you have your reputation but the evidence here points to the OP being truthfully. I am allowing you 15-30 minutes to provide any evidence you have if anything. After which I will be releasing the escrow. Please do not have ill will towards me, I have tried to be as impartial as I can in this. In the future should I ever choose to escrow again, I will do skype calls sharing screens or literally just ask for account info and add the funds myself so that I am the only one who sees the code n whether or not its legit. I am sorry to both parties for this and I wish you both the best.
What does "shared screen" mean here, the timing seems off. you were talking to the amazon rep and saw them do this in real time? http://gyazo.com/082a76c33073af11a84b40eb528fc1be ? Because if you actually saw that, then I'd believe it. Because we have other (more screenshots, easily faked) evidence where reps do not say that. It's just odd that you claim this very early on in the dispute but then for some reason backpedal when someone else asks the same question and gets a different answer. I know if i actually talked to a representative, which answer they'd give me. I'm also interested in how someone else can say "I bought order #12345" and not have to be logged in on the account that actually purchased it to get someone's email address out of amazon. That seems ... fishy ... also. I've checked and here is the email address of the person who redeemed it? Really? Yikes. |
|
|
|
How about KingOfSports and alpha523 explain lying about the email address first before sending alpha523 his money back?  What the hell? I am so confused. LOL ok. Again, it is obvious that there is no "provability" here. Wamp wamp. |
|
|
|
The email that used the code used the code at 5:36, if the OP had been smart enough to create an amazon account and add the funds to scam u and make it look like that, they would have added the funds BEFORE sending the code. This was not the case. The funds were added after the code was sent.
explain this? what does this even mean... it takes about 10 seconds to make an amazon and gmail account. you could ask what the IP addresses were of the users who redeemed the code, if they'll give it to you. but again if there is collusion between escrow and whoever ends up on the benefit side of this, all of it can be faked. never mind the obvious redflag of someone giving you $150 for $120 because it is needed "asap" ... laugh. |
|
|
|
his email is blazeout419 and not blazedout419? fishy! |
|
|
|
Someone lost a huge bet somewhere lol... "site is up" went from 115 to 204 in the hour I last checked it. nice.
frott lost a 42 BTC bet trying his hand at martingale strategy. no that wasn't me, it was someone else! I lost over a long series of bets. kturner did a martingale of 10 losses at 66% chance to win which ended at 43, (.08333 .15675 .3125 .625 1.25 2.5 5.25 10.5 21 42). crazy! but yes the site is now above edge at 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
This thread is a ponzi scheme.
The initial poster made zero effort, and only by the hard work of those following after will the time spent face palming ourselves and slamming our heads onto the keyboard recoup.
Yet the initial poster reaps the wealth of our knowledge and insight.
|
|
|
|
he could run with the money on this address. It' not like the privkey is "down" too... Doog running with our money would be ridiculous. That said, I think it is absolutely crazy how someone can start a business, and within a week, be dealing with over 1 MILLION in funds. Before Bitcoin, there would be nothing like this ever possible. He just started a simple legitimate business, and people have sent him in total $1Mil, an amount previously unimaginable for someone with a website to handle. You have to toss in a lot of "allegedly," "presumably" and "assumedly" in there for your post to be accurate   |
|
|
|
Personally I blame mp's vagina banner for the spike in traffic that took the server out.
Huh. I didn't see that in the chat log. Screenshot? refresh til it shows... i lol every time |
|
|
|
Wow...The cynicism is awful.
Websites crash. Let's give it some time people.
I'll go out on a limb and assume the whole thing is fixed in a few hours, so thanks for the .01 BTC.
it isn't necessarily cynical - it is merely one of the possible outcomes every time the site goes down. whenever this happens we should play a game, "post how much you have invested/deposited in the site and how worried you are that you've lost it all from 0-10, 0 being not worried and 10 being quite worried!" Personally I blame mp's vagina banner for the spike in traffic that took the server out. |
|
|
|
Is the 0.01 still available?
User: 1864
122 2013-06-24 18:33:38 (1) manually crediting user 1864 with amount 0.01 maryanne23
User # 2128  Amazing site! I mean, at least TRY |
|
|
|
I get that.
I cannot calculate the likelihood of this because I don't know the bet size distribution. It would take a large number of high bets (0.5-1% of the betting pool) for this to be at all probable.
It seems weird given the fact that there have been so many bets that you would not be closer to a normal distribution. However, maybe there is a large number of big bets and the rest of the bets are very tiny.
The luck is due to 2 people running the extreme ends of low probability wins, and winning early. Estimations, but I believe 2 wins of a 1 in 1,000,000 chance happened at 750,000 rolls cumulatively? That is where the luck came from. One thing that is on the table (doog has no shortage of feature requests) is to make luck scores based on time or bet # bands. Those spam bets ended a few days ago and the luck has dropped 40-50% since then, and didn't yield much loss for the site. So the luck for the past 2 days is vastly different than the overall luck, etc. |
|
|
|
i was interested in the discussion purely from a "have more options for people" vs. "what is the simplest, successful setup." Those are not mutually exclusive, but it was considered such. Unless some sort of voting system was put in place based on % of shares, of course, it is likely impossible to parse all investors opinions. And a lot of the sentiment was similar to bugpowder and those who apparently have invested a lot: more investment isn't really wanted, and when the option to increase % of your investment to go towards bankroll happens, there will literally be no real reason for further investment. So yes, tools + concepts that make investment more robust than what it is are in exact odds with the fact that current investors don't want "more" investors when there is a 1% edge (that is currently performing at 3%). When things are on an upswing sure people want less split, but when it swings back down that extra investment absorbs things To address the sentiment voiced earlier in the thread of pure bankroll footers cashing in on the investment of those who "opt in" to have their funds used in other ways, it would be trivial to have different returns on the types of investments. Clearly the BTC going towards site investment should return a higher cut than that only footing bankroll, if that were to be initiated. I recall the rationalization for changing it is that nothing making use of this new policy has been enacted. To be fair, this was only discussed over 5-10 minutes in chat (that i saw) and then updated. There is no news feed, and it wasn't posted here. Perhaps that sort of "news feed" will come in another update to the site. I think the idea was that the sooner it is made clear that investment is left to doog's discretion, the better. I can see the validity to a complaint of it seeming like a "switcheroo" if you didn't happen to be reading chat to see the discussions, or the pattern that this could be the beginning of. The flipside of that is to trust. |
|
|
|
Was this : Your investment may also be used to fund promotions, or anything else the site owner considers to be beneficial to the overall growth of the site's bankroll. Given the anonymous nature of investing, it is impossible to gain consent of all investors before making decisions about how to use invested funds, so I am claiming the right to do whatever I consider best for the site with them. originally present in the description ? I would like to restrict the usage of my money to funding the pool. it was not. a few folks discussed this in the chat before it came up, and i voiced that some would like to have this option, but somehow it was considered "too complicated." I didn't think this was going to make it in since another agreement was that the commission % was also being made variable to cover these costs... it seems redundant that commission % is subject to change to cover these costs AND the investment can be used to also cover these costs. |
|
|
|
dooglus you should have ran an investment site 3100 bitcoins in just 3 days. BTW how is "luck" calculated? Is that the house edge? And is it on a daily basis? It's calculated bet-by-bet. And it's the number of bets that have been won expressed as a percentage of the number that you would expect to be won. So if you play a 10% chance-of-winning game 2000 times and win 200 times (as expected) you get luck=100%. If you only win 180 times, the luck is 90%. The problem is when people play the 0.0001% game (one in a million chance). Each time they lose (which is almost every time), the luck drops a bit. Then when they win, the luck jumps right up. It has been won twice already (see milestone list) in less than 2 million tries, so the overall luck is well over 100%, even though the bets themselves are mostly insignificant, being all single-satoshi bets. If anyone can think of a better way of calculating "how lucky" the players have been (individually, and as a whole) I'd love to hear it! i would go with moving averages alongside "total forever" ... as long as you have those windows (1 hour, 24 hours of luck, 3 days of luck) the overall luck doesn't matter as much when off kilter. it would be nice to see total luck 160%, last hour 90%, 3 hours 101%, 24 hours, 200% etc |
|
|
|
Here's how to make people who invested earlier gain more:
Imaging a user bid 1 BTC on 50/50. This means, out of the pool of JD, 1 BTC is wagered against him (well, actually 0.99 BTC but for simplicity I put 1).
The question is: whose BTC is being wagered against the user? Right now, it is taken from all the investements in equal proportion. What can be done instead, is that it is taken from all investments *weighted* by the time they invested they made the investment. For example, 1/5 BTC from the first month's investments, 1/4 form the second etc. In fact, better use slower decreasing weights to make the investement attractive for new users as well. For example, [1/k(k+1) - 1/N(N+1)] weight for the BTC number k, with N being total number BTC invested.
Obviously, the wins/losses then are devided in this proportions.
one issue with this is that a common pattern could be: divest all gamble invest all I don't see how that could be a problem. If you divest and then reinvest then of course your investement moves all the way to the end of the line, and will be earning less. Wheter you gamble in between doesn't matter. it is a problem because you're moving my investment out of the line, when i clearly wish to remain an investor and i was an early investor. the flipside would be having the ability to just gamble with investment as though it were deposited and not "withdraw". investing/divesting is then flagging which of your funds are eligible for use by the site's bankroll and subject to gains/losses via site profit %, and all of it is eligible for wagering with. i would do that if that were an option. of course, that is easier said than done since the auth works off of divesting, etc. |
|
|
|
Here's how to make people who invested earlier gain more:
Imaging a user bid 1 BTC on 50/50. This means, out of the pool of JD, 1 BTC is wagered against him (well, actually 0.99 BTC but for simplicity I put 1).
The question is: whose BTC is being wagered against the user? Right now, it is taken from all the investements in equal proportion. What can be done instead, is that it is taken from all investments *weighted* by the time they invested they made the investment. For example, 1/5 BTC from the first month's investments, 1/4 form the second etc. In fact, better use slower decreasing weights to make the investement attractive for new users as well. For example, [1/k(k+1) - 1/N(N+1)] weight for the BTC number k, with N being total number BTC invested.
Obviously, the wins/losses then are devided in this proportions.
one issue with this is that a common pattern could be: divest all gamble invest all perhaps there could be two "investment" options... a sort of short term holding, and then a long-term holding that you cannot move as quickly (without penalty?), where these sorts of bonuses to maturity would apply? |
|
|
|
|
i get the point but those are the features for everyone, obviously.
just because someone stands to gain or risks more with more money, the risk % of holding fiat is similar if you have 1 or 1,000,000. "losing half its value" is clearly diff for each.
but the tone, title and the chart saying FEATURES FOR RICH PEOPLE? zzz.
i'm also not thrilled about the implication that BTC is the next great scumbag tool, no matter what the implications on liberty/freedom.
|
|
|
|
I have figured out why! It seems as if paypal took the exchange fees when converting to USD from AUD so apparently its lot letting me send because i do not have the 16.88 USD in conversion fees.. IDK why but this is BS. the proof is below.  just a heads up, try searching for AMATEUR porn black next time. |
|
|
|
hi again dooglus user id 170  |
|
|
|
|
