Nope, it is not related to the forum software.  I'm not seeing the stacked diacritics in my browser and we're both using the same forum software.  What's going on is how your system deals with these stacked glyphs.  It may be related to whatever font you're using on your system or it may be related to your browser.  One thing we're sure of is that it doesn't have to do with SMF because you see it and I don't.

Twipple, what's your interest in this?  Do you really think you're adding anything to the above discussion?  We can see you posting repeatedly here and in the dadice thread but to what end?

I'd think that everyone can agree that everyone has said their piece and that time will tell at this point who was right.  Certainly those calling for proof of bankroll have made their arguments known.  We've all seen the refusal to do so.  Lets just see what happens.  Flame wars aren't really going to add anything or make anything more clear than it already is.  The next step is for people to make their own decisions about where to play dice and what to do with their money.  What am I missing?

grendel25, another thing you can do, thanks to the reasonably simple and easy-to-use PD api, is just send your bets through a command line interface.  You won't have any graphics or additional info coming down that you don't request.  Probably this is the ideal way to play on PD if you have a metered connection.  I've posted some starter scripts for you to do this in the past in gambling.  I can dig them up for you if you need them.

Which is part of what makes me ask about the motivations behind the attack.  I really wonder if it's just a bluster war gone nasty.  I know that NLNico didn't like being denied when he felt like he offered a good favor to dadice.   I know dadice didn't like being told what to do or to show his bankroll to Stunna.  So now here we are, with two camps beating their drums.

From what I can tell, those who are skeptical have had their say and have left their feedback.  Dadice doesn't want to kowtow to them so he's going to do his own thing (which, as we all agree, has been going just fine).  Time will tell who was right and what the situation really is here.  Now, everyone who puts money on dadice is an adult and can judge things for themself, I think.

Quickseller has a well-known agenda against dadice, as you can see by looking back through his post history and that of his alt ACCTSeller.  You have to take his arguments here with a grain of salt.

@above, I understand your position here.  I think it's been made quite clear, below you start to address my question.
But "scamming once" isn't the situation here.  You guys have all admitted that what this adds up to is that you find it fishy they don't want to prove their bankroll.  You say you need to warn people about this, that seems fine.  However, and I understand this is hypothetical, it seems that what dadice is arguing is that they don't need to do what you say in order to provide a legit service to their customers/investors.  Presumably you would agree that at the end of the day, what matters is whether or not they can provide a legit service for their customers/investors and that time will tell about whether or not they can actually do this.  It seems to me that a lot of the strength behind you guys' argument that what they are doing is "fishy" amounts to the fact that 1) others who haven't proved bankroll have ended up non-legit 2) these guys haven't been around for too long.  On (1), presumably dadice says "well, we're not those other guys" on (2) at some point, I'd think enough time would have elapsed s.t. (2) wouldn't really be a legitmate criticism.  Consider, for example, that if you or Stunna decided to keep some information private, you'd be able to point to your long-standing reptuation as legit if people questioned you.  At some point in the future, I'd think that dadice also graduates to that class.  I'd also think that at that point, you guys would have to say "well, okay, they never showed us their bankroll, but I guess you weren't scammers".  Right?


Well I guess 2 years is a long time.  And maybe for you, someone who doesn't prove their solvency is always in the class of people who you have cause to believe they are insolvent.

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing".  Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback.  You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand.  What's the right value and unit for X?

Okay, it seems that Thai has some combining diacritics which are allowed to stack and they go off to the left or to the right or straight up.  So it's not actually the text being sideways it's like a huge stack of accent marks over a letter that are stacked up over the line above.  I couldn't really get that particular font effect on my system (I did a bunch of the combining diacritics by entering them again and again in vim, but I don't see the stacking effect).  Anyway, that's not too surprising since, as far as I know, I don't have any Thai font support packages installed.  Anyway, here's a stack overflow with links to further resources on the phenomenon: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9310177/whats-the-character-encoding-used


ก็็

Right, but their current investors are also grownups, right?  People can decide for themselves how to manage risk in their lives, with their money.  I think you guys are fine in having pointed out this controversy, but what more is there to say now?  As I said above, it all adds up to the fact that some people want them to prove their bankroll and they are not going to do it.  People can draw their own conclusions from these facts.  In the end, time will tell who was right.  Right?

@Sho, I hope my question doesn't get too buried in this thread: how long should the negative feedback stand in the case that all continues to go fine with dadice?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

You're welcome.  Glad we got to the bottom of it.  I told you it can be very useful to actually cut-n-ptase from the terminal session.

Interesting, well, on my display it looks all horizontal like all the other text.   I guess I can do some reading on this character to follow up on my curiosity now that I know which one it is.  Cheers guys!

Yah, other people were complaining about the colors (and I showed that fix above), but personally, I thought the site looks pretty good!

Well, but that's not doing the weird sideways text thingy that the OP shows in the screenshot.

You made bitcoin.conf it ~/bitcoin but bitcoind expects to find it in ~/.bitcoin (notice the leading .).  This is actually typical on UNIX-like systems---programs keep config files in directories or files that start with a . in the user's home dir.  This is because filenames that start with a . are hidden by default so they don't clutter your directory listing.  Anyway, I think if you do this, your problem will be solved:


EDIT: johnny (below) is correct, I had it incorrectly.  I fixed it so that there'll be less confusion if OP copies-n-pastes the my answer without reading below.  Thanks johnny.

Whoops, thanks, I missed that.  Got it now

From what I can tell, these complaints add up to this:

Someone wants proof about bankroll, dadice decides not to provide proof.

Is there really anything more to it than that?

I can see why they wouldn't feel good about revealing their resources to Stunna (their biggest competitor, right?).

EDIT: I also want to stay away from any drama.  I'm not an investor in the site but at the moment I'm not seeing the sketchy part of this and I'm wondering if competitors of dadice are merely stirring up FUD to hurt their business.  I dunno the facts, but I'm curious about the motivations of the parties involved.

What's even more interesting here is what changes theymos might be making to the trust system.   Here he says that the trust system algorithm isn't very good. I wonder what changes he might be making!

When you say "it's known", I wonder if you can point us to some reference.  Ie, I'm curious if this is a smf thing, a browser thing, a unicode thing, a font thing, etc.

Pretty much every time I'm online there I call out in chat and in the freeroll table for anyone to start a ring-game with me.  Sometimes I have success, Jayson plays in the ring, and a few others I've seen,  but unfortunately a lot of folks are there just being freeroll zombies.

I wonder if it would help if you somehow make access to the freeroll based on some kind of loyalty points for having played in raked games.  This is a lot like what seals used to do with the "krillrolls".