Nice... here goes my entry... ChainBetting.com ChainBet.org ChainGambling.com My address: 1Dk4Si2w8StdGVsMW7AYMchTf99NKdVec8 I have three more brands to suggest... ChainRoller ChainRolling ChainPay Another great name that could be used hit my mind. This is ChainProfit. |
|
|
|
Amazing that this thread still tops this sub-section !!!  |
|
|
|
What's the relationship between Coinlearn.org and Coinlearn.com? The latter looks like a half-finished site that will offer courses in Bitcoin once it's fully developed. Is it an upcoming project by the same people?
The answer of your question is given in this article  http://coinfire.io/2014/06/23/behind-faucets/Thanks for the information. Here's the relevant bit: CoinLearn: 1. For months, while I was developing the site including logo, I knew CoinLearn.com was free. It got booked the day before I tried to actually book it online. So, again I needed to decide which domain I needed to settle upon and change logo and texts accordingly. I guess it goes to show that it's always a good idea to register the domain first (I should know, I once missed out on a domain that I wanted by 7 days). Coinlearn.com doesn't look like a typical domain squatter and they seem to have actual plans for their site. This could be a good thing if the site ends up being good but it could also be a bad thing if it further adds to the confusion. Last I checked the .com a few months ago. It seems nothing has changed except for their template. Thesite is still blank with no real functionality. |
|
|
|
Nice... here goes my entry... ChainBetting.com ChainBet.org ChainGambling.com My address: 1Dk4Si2w8StdGVsMW7AYMchTf99NKdVec8 I have three more brands to suggest... ChainRoller ChainRolling ChainPay |
|
|
|
Funny video. Was that fat guy part of an American Pie movie ?
I've not seen the movies but I doubt it. It's from a British show. You did not see American Pie ? It is by Chris Moore  |
|
|
|
crazyponzi?com By replacing the dot with a question mark you are implying that it might not be a ponzi. Leave it to the nerdos to work out how to register a " question mark com" domain. Funny video. Was that fat guy part of an American Pie movie ? |
|
|
|
Nice... here goes my entry... ChainBetting.com ChainBet.org ChainGambling.com My address: 1Dk4Si2w8StdGVsMW7AYMchTf99NKdVec8 |
|
|
|
|
@OP I have two suggestions...
1. Escrow 0.1 BTC to some trusted member on this forum.
2. Mention in the OP that editing a post will lead to disqualification. Otherwise the people posted first can edit their post and include all good names posted later.
|
|
|
|
Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.
So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?
+1 Remove all levels of trust or default trust.
Everyone same level.
Free for all let the market determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.
+1 Both are good idea. There will be abuse, but there are ways to handle that... i. Restrict trust feedback power to a minimum certain level... say Member/Full Member. ii. Have proper warning in each and every forum, like now given with newbie messages. These wont stop some account farmers, but you can not save a chicken either. Centralized trust, like DefaultTrust are bringing in centralized abuse, which is a bigger threat than some newbie screaming scam after trying convert 0.01 BTC to 1 BTC overnight. |
|
|
|
Trust ratings should be an INDICATOR of some one's trust, not the be all end all. Right now it is designed to be all and end all.
Trust ratings are simply an indicator of someone's trust, not the be all end all. I see many people successfully trading with users that have negative trust. Is it ? Example ? Friedcat wasn't enabled to 'scam' by his rating, the early batches of Blades were enabled by his even earlier Blades and subsequent ratings. What do u mean ? Care to elaborate ? |
|
|
|
If you are going to argue that who people should trust should be determined in a decentralized way then I would say scammers would manipulate this and exclude who is trustworthy and include fellow scammers. There are a large number of scammers who have excluded me from their trust network while they have added their alts and fellow scammers to their trust network. The fact that scammers outweigh honest people (especially when it comes to the number of accounts) means that any voting system will result in scammers appearing as trustworthy and honest people appearing as scammers.
+1 Any decentralized trust system will eventually be taken over by scammers.They have more to gain that we do. I don't get paid in any way for what I do here. But you can bet there are rooms full of Chinese hackers that are making a pretty penny scamming ignorant new users. I'm on the same page with you on this. This is the reason decentralized exchanges and marketplaces will most likely be unsuccessful. But, DefaultTrust has also been tricked in a gross way. FriedCat has stolen probably more than what DefaultTrust has ever saved and he is still standing at +150 !!! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=49840 |
|
|
|
Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll.
I hope I don't have to do that - it would be a lot of needless work.  Why ? Otherwise wont that be a partial judgement ? Should DefaultTrust judgement be served like this way ? I'm trying to work out a personal policy to determine when a ponzi should be flagged as a ponzi - so that everyone is treated equally. One of the ways they wouldn't be flagged was if they clearly stated for a reasonable person that they could lose all their money and that a return is not guaranteed. (OP does not do that.)
Not sure what personal policy you are talking about and whether that fits to DefaultTrust. First of all, the site clearly states that it is a A bitcoin gambling game. Is not it enough to say that a player could lose as well ? Moreover, as Dooglus pointed out, it is mentioned in their FAQ as well (though I'd expect the statement to be more clear)... This game has a FAQ: 3. So, what is the catch ? A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard. I think that's good enough. Since the OP called me out as an abuser and contacted my default trust sponsors, I don't feel removing the trust until my policy is developed is an appropriate thing to do - I think the community should stay involved.
This time you are getting clearly personal, which is absolutely unexpected from someone in DefaultTrust. You can not deny the fact that OP contacted you first and when he did not get any response from you and found that you are still posting in the forum, then only he created this thread and contacted your DefaultTrust sponsors. How come you claim that someone will be -ve trusted because of some personal policy you'll create at some point of time ? |
|
|
|
I'll look at it again in my morning. If the OP wants to be more realistic with his site, and clearly list the risks associated with his game (he doesn't even state you can lose coins!) then I can reconsider my trust.
As I can see, you are posting in the forum again, but NOT here. Are you reconsidering the trust you have left or planning to leave it as is ? I think some of the ideas the community has left here have merit. 1) Display the bank balance after each transaction - this way everyone can see if you are being honest or if you are slowly building up a balance to disappear with (because that's what ponzis do) 2) Display a link to the blockchain transaction after each deposit/withdrawal. 3) Make it clear on the website when and how a player can lose what they have deposited. I think, the community including QuickSeller, Shorena & me almost agreed that this is not a scam, though it has a few drawbacks that every dice site that accept investment in bankroll do have. Even dooglus summarized it as not a scam... tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself).
As a community, we suggested some improvements that joker may consider to implement. But, that does not hold us the right to tag him as a scammer anymore. QuickSeller, Shorena & Dooglus all are in DefaultTrust and they voted against terming joker as a scammer. Moreover, one of the reason that you are in DefaultTrust now is because Dooglus trusted you. IMHO, irrespective of whether joker implement the changes or not, you should remove the -ve feedback or at least change it to neutral. Otherwise, logically you should leave -ve feedback on every dice site operator that accepts investment in the bankroll. |
|
|
|
|
Would I be able to receive the Gold in physical form without spending any extra penny ?
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, independentreserve.com is the exchange serving Australia. |
|
|
|
I think if you check the current condition, understanding the game will be easier to you. Bet #218 was expired and #219 has been paid. Why ? Because, the bankroll was 0.00198702 BTC, i.e. less than 0.00222264 BTC, but more than 0.00182 BTC. Now, after paying #219, 0.00182 BTC has been deducted from the bankroll and it has gone down to 0.00016702 BTC. If no more investment come in next 24 hour, then #220 will also expire as 0.00016702 < 0.00222264.
You are wasting your time Joker. If someone claims that he did not understand the game even after this explanation and still think that it is a plain Ponzi, then either he is too stupid to judge a scam or plain lying to support the Dice lobby. I think, u contacted Dooglus & TomatoCage. None has chimed in. Even if you convince Shorena, Vod will still keep his feedback. The reason is plain & simple. A few people on this forum does not want an honest investment based game to rise and so that investment based dice sites can keep on stealing. Interestingly, pure scammers are not marked as scammer. Becasue this dice lobby knows those are not the competitor as they'll fail today or tomorrow... e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=480605, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511134, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=512093 etc. Please do not comment on something that you do not know clearly. This would only complicate the situation. Vod is not associated with any gambling lobby. Rather, I have seen him suggesting people against investing in dice site. Ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060290.msg11372036#msg11372036Shorena is probably a gambler, but he is a very logical person. So far, I have seen, Shorena has always stood by what is logical. The problem here, I believe, the name 'Ponzi'. Though working on same principle, Nine9.ninja has not been given -ve trust. Vod just assumed CrazyPonzi is similar to other Ponzi scams and did what I could to save naive investors. I hope, he'll understand the game and rectify his feedback. Moreover, I think, both CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja needs to be moved to Gambling section. |
|
|
|
Unless you can solve this problem in a way that is publicly verifiable you can not be called provably fair and will always have someone calling you a scammer. Not because you are a proven scammer (that would be too late) or because you are disthonest (which can not be proven) but because you could scam.
I think you are not correct in this judgement. Both you and I carry signatures of dice games that accept investment in the bankroll. We already know, that the operator of these games can easily play & win in his own game as the seed in DB is known to him. In this case, we always give the operator a benefit of doubt, though his actions are not publicly verifiable. Do we leave him -ve trust because he could scam ? In this case, I think, Vod is getting too partial to CrazyPonzi.com just because of the word 'Ponzi'. |
|
|
|
I came across their thread a few times and didn't give them negative trust.
Is that the new standard of trust now? No. I am just pointing out that I previously looked into them and didn't think they would be a scam. From the looks of it they chose their name poorly however I don't think they are the same as other ponzis as the rounds are scheduled to end at a certain time so you need to have enough people invested after you in order for you to not lose. Although thinking about it a little bit, this does sound a little but like weekly ponzi which was run by scammer James Volpe aka TheGambler aka moreia so maybe it should be looked into to see if the OP, is an alt of him. Otherwise they are really no different then any other Bitcoin casino but with a somewhat non traditional name. I mostly agree with you here. Anyone who spend some time in Investment Based Games, knows CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja are the only two honest games running in that section. Killing any of them with -ve trust will only benefit the other scammers, because then all will be at par. Both of these games run almost on the same logic and it seriously will be very dumb for the operator to cheat in these games. |
|
|
|
What is mining?? Anyone tell me...  I want to know about cloud mining...?? Please Guide me Thanks Using computer equipment to solve complex algorithms in order to be rewarded with coins. I'm not sure cloud mining a real...GAW kinda soured many people on that whole thing. Cloud mining is dependent on the principle of economics that states mass scale production cuts down the cost. Most of the cloud mining operations run from a location where electricity is either free or dirty cheap. It is not profitable to mine in most of the western countries due to high cost of electricity. Hence miners chose to go for cloud mining companies. +1 A great explanation indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
