Are you trying to say that because you've made absolutely zero changes to the bustabit source, so you don't need to follow the clause of the AGPLv3 to make your changes available?

This is clearly not the case, because at the very least you've made some minor changes (homepage change, background color change, you've changed "bustabit" to "bustafish"). It doesn't matter how minor your changes are, the AGPLv3 requires you to follow the license.

And I'm also going to quote you on this:

So you've obviously made changes to the script, and the AGPLv3 requires you must prominently offer all users the new source code.

I was, like 3 (?) years ago. Now I have nothing to do with it


Ok. Look at the license of that:

https://github.com/Dexon95/Bustabit/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Notice how it says:



You are not doing that. That is why you are in violation of the license

I know most people are going to stay away from betking.io because it's run by a scammer, but perhaps, for the right person it's not an interesting proposition. Some gamblers know they're going to play until they lose all their money, so for those people it could add a bit of spice and extra-dimensionality of how exactly you're going to lose all your money on betking.


But in all seriousness, I think Dean Nolan is too smart to think he can create a successful casino after using the last one to scam people. I think this whole thing is just to whitewash his reputation by creating a more confusing story and a faux attempt to pay back people

The license says:


Are you doing that? FWIW, I couldn't find a copy of the modified source code via a "simple google search". Perhaps you could directly link me, and prominently offer all users a link to it as well?  

You said you're using the `AGPLv3` licensed copy of bustabit source code. One of the requirements of AGPLv3 is that you make all your changes part of the same license and available to download. So, may I ask, where can I get a copy of the bustafish.com source code?

To add to what GamblingSiteFinder wrote, I'd also point out that in the ol' days public stats were the norm, while these days they're the exception. Also you might want to weight the bet by the USD price at the time, a lot of the old stats were when bitcoin price was a fraction of what it is now. And thirdly, I'd completely ignore the raw "bet count" as 99.999% of all bets are just dust bets by bots and often is uncorrelated with actual activity.

tldr; Dean systematically scammed everyone who trusted him. First tried ripping off Daniel by not paying the software license fee (and then after called out, pretended he rewrote the software in like a week, lol). Then he scammed his ICO investors by refusing the honor his "buy back price" scheme which was part of the deal and repeatedly promised (which made the tokens worth pennies on the dollar). And then that basically killed off his casino and he had almost zero volume, and then suddenly "whoops, we got hacked" and finally bankroll investors and players lost their money too.

I'm not sure what Dean is trying to do now. It's not clear to me what if he's just trying to "clear" his name by making it look like he's paying people back and it was all an accident. Or he actually is delusional enough to think people will trust him again? My guess is the former, he must know. His casino operated with pretty much zero volume for a long time due to his terrible reputation until the "hack". I suspect he's just sick of when people google "Dean Nolan" they see his history and he wants to muddy the waters.

There's always going to be incentives to do something wrong, I think what matters is if you act upon them or not.



I don't think user votes are particularly useful, as most users aren't familiar with the industry to give informed votes. And you'll just get some dodgy casino that incentivizes users to vote on your site, and skew things for ever.  But it could definitely be nice to have as a "editors rating" and "players rating" perhaps.

According to their webpage, it's more or less in exchange for a backlink. But even if it was for cash, I don't really think that's problematic as long as they're not changing the reviews/score based on it. (Of course we don't know that for certain... )



It actually kind  of shocks me that you don't see that is hugely problematic.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue with me. Go on their site, click "AML policy", type "ctrl+f" and search "KYC". You'll see 29 results talking about the different levels of KYC they can/might/will do ><




I will admit I do have some money in their bankroll and some sentimental attachment to bustabit, but really I have no interest in trying to promoting them. If I did, I'd just do it directly. Anyway, just the reason I brought it up is because they're a good site with no affiliate program, so it's a way for me to guess how the review sites operate as I'm no longer actually in the industry (for a couple years now?!) so I no longer get the subtle emails asking me for money to "review" my site or boost the score  etc.

....





...

So let me get this straight, it's really a 2.5/5 in your mind .. . but you're giving it a 4/5 rating right now just to ... make it look like you've reviewed more casinos?

I would strongly suggest you just give every casino an honest review/rating regardless of how much you get paid and regardless of how it'll look on your site. But anyway, it's your site, run it however you like. I'll leave you be, as I don't have anything useful to add  

Hey! Just wanted to give you props for being in business and honest for so long. I've always been really harsh on review sites, as they as a rule always end up going around asking for money or realize it's profitable to promote bullshit. So thought I'd congratulate you on bucking the industry trend, and give you a link in my signature (partly because I have nothing better to do with my signature, partly because I think your site is the best resource for someone to get an idea of what sites to play at)

You can read about it on their bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5199911.msg56811557#msg56811557 pretty much the last 10 pages are to do with it.


Besides that not being the case, you avoided my question: how much higher is their house edge than bustabit's? And how did you figure it out?

I've got zero problems with high house-edges or affiliate links or what ever, as long as sites are upfront about it.


I think a good example of an honest review site might be engadget's: https://www.engadget.com/reviews/ They review a lot of products, they have a lot of affiliate links, but they disclose there are affiliate links and do not use the presence or payout of affiliate earnings to influence their reviews/score.

In the crypto scene, in the gambling scene I think the only good example I've seen is https://GamblingSiteFinder.com and https://dicesites.com . And there also used to be thebitcoinstrip.com which offered unbiased reviews/rankings, until it was sold to a new owner who apparently figured out all the typical corrupt shit pays better. Sad.


Edit: This post has inspired me to put GamblingSiteFinder.com in my signature. I never knew what I could do with my signature, and feel they deserve a bit more credit than they are getting.

Well, the obvious problem is these "review" sites are dishonest. They purport to tell people which are the best places to play, but in reality have intentional omissions and re-sorting based on what makes the "review" site more money. I think it's rather simple, there's nothing inherently wrong with affiliate links, but if you claim "these are the best" any deviation from what you think is actually the best is dishonest.



lmao, it's only tough if you have a conflict of interest  For everyone else, it's pretty easy to say "umm don't play there, there are strictly better options"

Oh. I apologize. This is my fault. I misread what you wrote, I thought you said you only review casinos you've worked for, but you said the opposite. 100% my fault, I misread your post.



I guess you're not too familiar with them Pretty much everyone is subject to some level of KYC. They also make an effort to hide their house-edge, but it's pretty easy to calculate from their provably fair. But even just hiding the house edge is a terrible practice. Homework question: What is the house edge of their bustabit clone? What is the house edge of bustabit?



I admit their UI is slick, but it's pretty much the least important part of a casino. They might not be an evil company (e.g. bitstarz) but there's literally no reason anyone should use it. Really the whole point of a review site is to let people know where they should and shouldn't be playing. Whether intentional or not, you're doing a terrible job at that and a misservice to anyone who reads your list, and are just a collection of affiliate links  

Bustadice players have been extraordinary luckily lately (see: dicesites.com/bustadice) which means investors have not. As I am running the bustadice audit sever, I just want to confirm I have actually been auditing the bets. Even if Daniel was malicious (or hacked) I do not believe the results of the audit server could possible be tampered with so I feel quite confident they are all legitimate.

Anyway, I guess that's my yearly audit update 



[Full disclosure: there was a couple of technical hiccups with some server issues and as a result a couple of bets that I can't audit. But fortunately they were all tiny bets, and even assuming they were all illegitimate, it works out to like < 0.001 BTC ]

Not to be overly frank, but c'mon. All the links are just undisclosed ref links, and you exclude some of the best and biggest sites (imo bustabit, bustadice) because they don't offer an affiliate program.



Are you trying to say you've "actively worked for" all these casinos in the past year? I find that so hard to believe, that I wouldn't even know what position would allow you to do that? 0.0
I also kind of doubt you've worked in the industry at all based on your reviews. Like take the your roobet 4.5/5 rating. It's almost unconscionable to recommend them for any number of reasons. Their house edge is often multiple times greater than their competitors for the same thing, their KYC policies are many times worse, and have a history of highly unethical behavior of giving effectively fake money to streamers to promote their casino.



I actually was once thinking of this. If you talk to some of the real insiders (e.g. some big casino owners), they know a lot interesting of stuff that isn't public and they wouldn't want to come back to them.  One idea I had was you could ask each of the main insiders for a public key, and you could create a (1,n)-threshold scheme where any one of the participants can sign a message but it's impossible to tell which. That way you could get candid information from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, while they know it can't be attributed to them.

I was involved in creation the system that bustabit & bustadice uses for withdrawals and fees. The way its system works is insanely efficient (vastly more than any others). Users deposits go into a hot wallet, those funds are used by the bespoke coinselection algorithm to make change-less withdrawals. Amounts that can't be used for a long time are scheduled in an ultra-low priority consolidation transactions.

But the interesting about the bustadice/bustabit system, is that the fees users pay is exactly the costs of running the system for how the user uses it. e.g. On other sites you might get banned for making lots of small deposits. On bustabit/bustadice, you can deposit 1000 bits of dust and no one cares. On other sites they have withdrawal restrictions (e.g. max per time period, wager reqs) while on bustabit/bustadice you can do 1000 in a day and no one will care.

Obviously a little biased, but I think the no-bullshit style of bustabit/bustadice is the absolute best way for a casino to run their withdrawal system.

Amusingly, you might be right. At least I couldn't find anything in the terms-of-service that says "the operator has the right to refuse service to anyone at his own discretion". Although I think it's pretty much implied. But if it did contain that clause, would that make you happy?   

@symg I think the only appropriate thing to do with your accusation against StackGod is to refer it directly to law enforcement. Things of that nature are serious and something that law enforcement does tend to take quite seriously. Public accusations on the other hand just lead to a shit-show and are often pretty unfair on the accused as it leaves their name tainted even if there claim is totally meritless.

With regards to your money, why don't you just withdraw it to a different establishment that would better value the business of a gentlemen like yourself? It's not like bustabit/bustadice is the only game in town