I think it is likely he is doing more than just escrowing the funds. For instance, the thread has the exact same awful font and formatting as notaek's Magnumwallet campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he at least has access to the Duckdice Pr account.

Right, it is almost certainly based off of total withdrawals within a fixed time period. If this wasn’t the case, any exploiter could drain the hot wallet by simply withdrawing a medium sized amount over and over.

It’s pretty obvious you are talking to a fake condoras on Telegram, I don’t see why he has any obligation to go beyond telling you that use isn’t him when there is no way to stop someone from using your username.

Only thing of value in this thread is that people can now tag your alt (fjunderwood).

I’m assuming that shitpost is just sarcasm, referring to how easy this script makes it to report the idiots who post that in every thread.

Manual withdrawals for larger cashouts is common practice. Considering how you seem to use a variety of dicing sites, you should already be aware of this practice.

Not to mention, they did pay you out in the end.

Why would you spend $1.5k on a hero account that had clearly been hacked? Is that how much accounts go for these days? I can't see this being worth more than $150, hopefully you've learned your lesson.

This is purely speculation, but perhaps this is a hidden reward for reporting good posts?

alanst (the other Newbie with an avatar) has 500+ good reports and 3dOOm responded to a thread regarding a usercript to make reporting posts easier. I guess a mod/admin would need to confirm this, though.

This situation is pretty much why I only tag accounts that have been sold, not account sellers. I don’t think it is fair to just allow some people to sell accounts because they happen to be a good guy otherwise. The distinction is purely subjective.

Nice find. I think if you look in the history of most lenders that accept accounts as collateral, you’ll find they sell them pretty often. Some even expunge these accounts from their loan histories so it isn’t as obvious.

Good to see merit activity picking up again in the past few weeks.

I'll admit, I was a bit skeptical of how effective the system would be at first (and a bit salty I had potential Legendary activity at the time). Definitely has been a positive addition to the forum as a whole.

Why not make it just show users' overall trust scores under their name in threads/posts, but keep individual profile pages the same as they are now. A guest would be able to see whether a seller has green trust, neutral trust, or red trust, but wouldn't be able to see each individual feedback until they make an account themselves.

What is your background in? What work have you done besides the white paper and an idea?

Does space journey leave eat into my holiday leave? I was planning on taking a trip to Mars later this year, but might have to re-think things if this is the new policy.

I sure hope not, the tickets were non-refundable.

I would probably just return it unless you are 100% sure your contact with the project isn’t someone like you they just hired to do some marketing. Given you yourself believed they were legitimate at first, you could be screwing someone who naively believed the same.

Seems like a pretty reasonable scenario to me, considering his email and password both reset recently. Better to be overly cautious when that's the case.

Since it seems we're addressing inactive/former DT2 members, I think its worth noting xetsr was finally (and rightfully) excluded. That being said, he did have a number of valid ratings before he went AWOL. If someone has the time to go through them (similar to mexxer and Shorena), it might be worth it.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=174480
Current Amount of Posts (Including this one): 876
SegWit eligible BTC Address: 3FSAMdZVESrmcuZrAvqf8niFMxgHAPnqQ4

Given the two most "active" sub-forums are alt-coin related, it is safe to say signature campaigns have a large effect on the forum.

A small change I think might benefit this ecosystem would be dividing the "Bounty" sub-forum between campaigns that pay in a currently tradable tokens/coins and those that pay in yet to be minted coins. Essentially, escrowable vs. non-escrowable campaigns. This would serve as something of a quality filter, while still remaining fairly hands off in terms of actual screening.

I was a bit confused by this as well. The game is similar to Moneypot, where the bet multiplier will continually increase to a certain point, at which it crashes and you receive nothing if you haven't cashed out yet. "SpinBPS" is the crash point of the round, and "BPS" is the user's cashout point, which can be both set automatically or done manually. Whenever BPS < SpinBPS, the user loses their initial wager.

Both SpinBPS and BPS are only included in the second Google doc, so the first one doesn't really give any info.

I don't think the issue here is the system's provable fairness, although I haven't verified it. The bug was that for a certain number of rounds, the user would get paid out their auto-cashout multiplier regardless of whether it was higher than SpinBPS.

Credit to FortuneJack for making the bet history public. Although I disagree with their verdict, I appreciate the transparency in comparison to other casinos that have been in similar positions.

Here is my take on the matter after looking at the bets and withdrawal history more closely. I'd appreciate if both parties read it in its entirety before dismissing any points.

To start with, verusfides did receive 2+ BTC from the bugged rounds of Adrenaline. However, I think it is hard to say this is due to intentional abuse. Here is my reasoning for that:

1. Verusfides only doubled his bet sizing once, and that was after the second bugged round. I think this is pretty reasonable to do after doubling one's initial deposit, and 2 60x wins in a row doesn't necessarily indicate a game is bugged.
2. Adrenaline is essentially a re-skinned version of Moneypot. Setting an auto-cashout multiplier doesn't stop the player from manually cashing out at a certain point. Verus continued to manually cash out at low multipliers, even after upping the auto-cashout to 200x. If he was intentionally abusing what he perceived to be a bug, he would be losing money by doing this.
3. All of his higher wagers above .2 mBTC were not made during bugged rounds, and half of them did not have an auto cashout set. He actually lost money during this part.
4. Adrenaline was a recent addition to the website, and this was verusfides' first time playing. Owing to the nature of slot machine "jackpots", where users can trigger a set of bonus spins that award very high multipliers consecutively, it is entirely possible a new user might believe this to be an intended game mechanic.

Owing to the above reasons, I think it is fair to say that verusfides did not act in bad faith by continuing to play with his winnings.

The next question is did FortuneJack act in good faith as well?

According to FortuneJack's logs, verusfides immediately tried to cash out. This brought his bugged winnings to the site's attention. Indeed, FortuneJack manually reviewed his withdrawal and denied it. Rather than freezing his account, however, they allowed him to keep playing.

This means that FortuneJack was aware that verusfides' balance was illegitimate prior to winning the plinko jackpot, not after.

To me, it feels unethical to essentially "freeroll" a customer, allowing them to continue gambling with no intention of ever paying out in the event that they were to win anything else.

In my opinion, FJ should have frozen his account at this point, awarded him with the .2 BTC bounty for major bugs, and adjusted his balance accordingly. If that had happened, neither party would be in this situation.

It also seems to me unfair to retroactively penalize someone for hitting a jackpot they earned in good faith. Given verusfides not only identified a critical bug through his play, which in itself should have earned him the .2 BTC bounty, but also lost out on a large potential financial windfall through no fault of his own, I believe he deserves higher compensation.

First, I looked to see what would have happened if verusfides had been credited the .2 BTC immediately and placed the same wagers on Plinko. A graph of his balance is shown below.



Verusfides would have busted and been down over 1 BTC before finally hitting the jackpot. Given his previous deposits to the site total less than .5 BTC, it is unlikely he would have continued this betting pattern and achieved the same result. Therefore, I don't think FortuneJack should be forced to pay out the full 20 BTC.

What I propose as a reasonable solution, and I hope both parties will agree to this, is to re-evaluate verusfides' plinko bets as if he started with the .2 BTC balance FJ should have paid him anyway, instead of the 2.082 BTC he had at the time. Rather than take the face value of each bet, count them proportionally to what his correct bankroll should have been at the time, ie. 10% of what he actually wagered. This would result in verusfides hitting the jackpot for 2 BTC, instead of 20 BTC.

In my opinion, a 2 BTC payout is the fairest solution. This is arguably what the outcome would have been had FJ been more proactive with the situation, and also happens to fit nicely between the numbers both parties are offering by a factor of 10 on each side.