ndnhc, you are not serious in defending this, right? I don't care at all about any T&C, if the T&C says they can steal all the money of their users, it doesn't make it morally right.
Yep, I am. What is your definition of faucet abuse?  Edit: Talk to you later.. Have to go. |
|
|
|
Looks like he stopped!! His target was probably 100 BTC!! Target reach -> Stop -> Withdraw.  |
|
|
|
ndnhc but you are the lawyer of dadice ? Take his defense than his two accounts, which writes only to promote the jackpot LOL, just putting in what I think. Admin already said the ban is as per the T&C and Anti-farming policy of Da Dice.  I think you are talking about the pr one. what is the other?? |
|
|
|
Even primedice takes actions against faucet farmers and confiscates their balances.
No they dont if you legitimately roll. Only those who use bots get bans. If someone gets to 1-2% of their bankroll they sure would. Faucet isn't supposed to make people rich, lol without any risk. Faucet farmer = anyone who doesn't use the faucet for the intended purpose and turns out to get rich on that. Sites are liberal, but with that amounts, they can't.. |
|
|
|
people like faucet can use another site, for example crypto-games have a good faucet option, if you use faucet, win and withdraw, faucet is stopped for 24 hours
I seriously doubt they will pay 10 BTC made purely from faucet, to be honest. Unless you win something like 5-10 BTC off faucet.  You know the real reason faucet is there in dice sites? like to repeat that faucet is a complimentary tool for our players to test Da Dice and/or evaluate their playing strategies (which is a standard practice in several online casinos). -snip- the service itself should not be provided if that is the case. The real reason for the faucet, again is: like to repeat that faucet is a complimentary tool for our players to test Da Dice and/or evaluate their playing strategies (which is a standard practice in several online casinos). Doesn't justify closing it. |
|
|
|
Well, this part of the TOS was discussed here in this forum a while ago.
Reason why the account was suspended are the following faucet rolls: 198x, 9.9x, 24.75x, 99x, 202.0408x, 7.0714x, 6.6x, 5.2105x. Literally hundreds of such rolls has been made.
If you don't want users to claim the faucets too many times, why don't you add a cap on the daily claim or total claim? I think it would be a better approach than to block withdrawals as it should create less controversy. Just my 2 cents. As per the TOS they have no obligation to honor any withdraw made from faucet, so it makes the faucet pretty pointless to even have. Even if I had not done high payout odds I would still have had my withdraw denied. They should just completely disable faucet if it is pointless(CANNOT WIN). Wrong there. Da Dice will honor most of the withdrawals relating to the faucet. But say if you kept claiming faucet and kept on rolling high multipliers (I confirmed you did) some day you will sure hit it. And say 10 people won 10 BTC from faucet do you think it is actually feasible for sites to do that? Making very huge amounts by betting massive multipliers from virtually nothing qualify as faucet abuse. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
People really need to stop it. You are suffocating the network! It is only becoming worse.
They've successfully made their point though, haven't they? Just a relatively few people increasing the transaction volume and the network becomes "suffocated." The community should address the capacity issue in one way or another. If people are idiots nothing actually solves anything. |
|
|
|
|
If you weren't the very first few to get the private key, there is no much use going ahead with it. Probably you will make some 0.01 an hour (if you get lucky)..
|
|
|
|
All current withdrawals have been processed since mid-August on a daily basis. I approved them all manually. And yes, you can say "here we go again"...but I guess that's growing pains.
I think people might take you more seriously if you can escrow a significant sum with a bitcointalk escrow? What do you think? |
|
|
|
Congratz on the right pick.  |
|
|
|
6 months 10 days of operation. 926 million rolls. 11,900 BTC wagered, 19,080 members. 
Starting bid. 300BTC.
The daily bump. |
|
|
|
Everyone thinks this is shady yet QS has only 2 negatives for it.....
Well, we don't really want 117 negative trust feedbacks there... Not everyone thinks its shady, many are on the neutral grounds here, esp. default trust members. And you can give a negative feedback to QS if you like, its a free world, but your feedback doesn't have any effect on him.
At 117 saying yes :5 saying no. You can pretty well claim everyone agrees that it is shady. But not many thinks QS is a scammer, so no issues there. As you know, Mr. first post newbie/alt
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer"
is the criteria for leaving negative trust.
I voted no in this poll like most people, but that doesn't mean that I strongly believe QS is a scammer.
What about you?
Why not leave him negative with your main account, if you believe it's appropriate.
Or maybe you have?
Not leaving anything is inappropriate. Massively adding negative trusts is too. A couple of negative trusts and neutral ones is pretty reasonable whichever way you take it. |
|
|
|
No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.
How would anyone know this is the case? Let me give an example: What if you are running a bitcoin casino that I am invested in with large amounts of money. You do not know specifically that me (QS) is invested in your casino. You then use an alt to conduct a trade, and use me as escrow. There is a clear potential conflict of interest, however I do not know that I am invested in you, and you do not know that I am invested in you. It is none of anyone's business that i am invested in a casino that I have no idea is a party to the trade, and it is none of anyone's business that you own a casino when it is not a party to the trade. It would be impossible for us to disclose the potential conflict of interest. It would also be impossible for someone to prove either way that either party was aware of this conflict ahead of time. FTFY: No. I would even go further and say that 2 different people who are closely related outside the forum should not escrow for one another if both are aware that the person acting as escrow is not a neutral and independent party to the trade. That is like having a judge and a prosecutor who hang out together after work everyday. It stinks.
Another way to say it is: If I want to sell a business, and make one of my employees or partner as an escrow to the trade, do you consider that a fair deal? It gets worse when you find out that the business owner was the escrow!  (^try doing this in RL ) |
|
|
|
The reason this issue is being discussed at length is because certain users/scammers here will do anything to get their much deserved negative trust removed and are throwing everything they can at the people on DT who are tagging them. QS for example has had many accusations fired against him over the past while from just a handful of people posting under multiple accounts. There are many accounts here I would like to tag but I fear doing so as I know what it will lead to - they will do the same against me, it's already somewhat started. This is why I am upset about what is going on here, it undermines the trust system.
So your idea is basically, do not remove anyone from DT whatever happens? Or add everyone to it? You needn't be so concerned about QS, he might coincidentally get back into DT after a couple of months. Nothing much to worry about. |
|
|
|
And I bet that if it was TSP that was caught self escrowing he would be deep in negative trust (quite possibly including one from QuickSeller) for that scammy behavior. He'd get hit harder than either QuickSeller or TomatoCage.
I don't think so considering that both TC and QS are of the opinion that self escrowing is not a scam. Unless they are hypocrites, though I have seen nothing to suggest they are. Just a few posts ago... ...99.999% of the time setting up a fake "3rd" party escrow is clearly a scam.
He was talking about a situation in which resulted in money being sent to escrow and then the escrow running away with the money. This was not the case in this situation. Both at the time of the trade, and now, the other party was appearing to be happy with the trade. It is more tending towards discouraging the practice than whether you actually did scam someone. The reason for the negative trust was dishonesty, faking weird things, shady behavior and not following practices trusted people are expected to. Not because you scammed anyone. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Is it allowed to sell information on a rigged soccer match via this forum?
Thanks in advance for answers
No, it is still illegal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
