The script on its own does well enough, but needed a small hack to make it handle multiple posts at once. Efficiency does increase by a staggering margin, at least 10x greater... I would say that my most reported day easily surpassed your total report count.

Bump. Relevancy has not decayed.

The problem with these account sales is that even when it goes through, a buyer would have to wait 14 days for the security email to expire. The whole process allows for tons of scammers to use the unsaturated account market to target the niche users and con them out of their coins.

... and then even if you wait, the original owner could easily claim, "I got hacked," and get his account back without much issue. If they were to appropriately wipe any historical reference to the account sale, then they would be even more solid. After all, who is going to believe a Newbie account stating, "I bought this account," if they didn't have proof?

---

One good thing about the changes, though, is that it does cause a self-rupturing cycle: there is less and less incentive to buy accounts, which leads to fewer accounts on the market and thereby more scamming opportunities which create more deterrents to the account market.

Unfortunate that there's no room for Monero in that allocation, though I suppose when you finally decide to give cryptocurrencies your 110% you'll have enough for the coin.

I'm going to stay pedantic and say, "that doesn't mean that each USA dollar will be backed by bitcoins!"

---

I'm interested in seeing the reasoning behind OP's predictions. True knowledge requires a logical/reliable justification and a statement that aligns with one's belief system. To merely state a proposition and to later claim, "I was right," is only partially true. Yes, one can be correct about a result but it doesn't mean that they themselves are correct in their belief.

Despite looking through the entirety of the thread OP linked, I found not a single nugget of rationale behind the claims.

What is this amount of redundancy? It is a large amount of redundant redundancy indeed, large it is.

Wouldn't that make sense, from an anti-fraud PoV? You want to have at least one generalized clause that gives you flexibility to act upon players who may be trying to find loopholes in your ToS. This, at the very least, lets you KYC them and bar them from play (services can limit players, of course) if they are doing something that actively harms the casino and is not found in the ToS directly.

You might say, "gee, that's a lot of power you're giving them," and that's exactly right. But that's the point of it.

Normally I would side with the cynicism of the gamblers in the proverbial battle, but if you examine the clause closely you need to respect the careful semantics: they reserve the right to carry out verification. They don't need to, but they have the ability to: that is what you're agreeing to. If I reserve the right to call someone an asshole, it doesn't mean I have to do it.

The payout doesn't matter. Suppose you play with a 2x multiplier: that is a 49.5% chance of winning. Therefore, in 100 bets, you are expected to get 99 points. Suppose you play with a 3x multiplier: that is a 33% chance of winning. Therefore, in 100 bets, you are expected to get 99 points.

With any particular payout M you have an associated probability P and the equality can be expressed as the following: M = 1/P * 0.99

Therefore, when you want to calculate the total number of points one will get (statistically/on average), then you are going to get the expression MP * n, where n is the number of bets that one plays. Notice, though, that it expands into P/P * 0.99 * n = 0.99n. The only difference comes in volatility, but when you consider a duration of 4 hours it is a little difficult to say that they were just lucky for the entire time.

I think when it comes to predictions, you can say that you were correct about something in hindsight but to determine that one predicts accurately and reliably, that would require a much more extensive sample size than just a few predictions (which, honestly, are a bit vague). Moreover, since we love survivor bias, I'm sure there is another list of the predictions that were not successful... right?

I'm waiting to see this:

... though, since your range is the entire year, you still have 5 months left.

VPNs are not the be-all, end-all. The only difference is that now you're passing through some other network as a proxy but it's not as if the culprit can't be found out via other methods than IP detection.

The Facebook account is definitely going to be a dead end (at least analytically) - unless he's a total moron, there won't be information to be gleaned from investigating a fake account and the sign-up process is accessible enough to where you can probably create one in a few minutes.

A new thread won't derail this current scam accusation. What you're doing right now is adding more fuel to the fire and exacerbating things with your frustration.

Would you like it if a random gambler comes into your conversation while you're explaining what happened, and then hijacks the whole discussion? Especially when they don't give any evidence... three times.

---

Also, double/consecutive-posting is against the forum rules. I suggest you simply edit the two posts together.

I don't think the rollover is the big concern... most sites do have rollover and although it's a little bit scummy (essentially ripping into your balance every time you deposit) it's not terrible.

I can twist the equivocated semantics into either, "bet 50% of your deposit cumulatively," or "one or more bets at a minimum stake of 50% of your deposit."

If I read it left-to-right, the latter is the only logical conclusion that I can glean from the clause. Here is the compartmentalization of each semantic category:

[You] := subject
[have to make] := action
[at least one] := quantity
[bet] := object
[with minimum stake] := descriptor
[of 50% of your deposit] := details of descriptor

About that promotion: how the hell did the first place player sonx get so many points? 140K points the previous two days and 170K today means that in those 4 hours, they averaged 9.72 and 11.81 bets per second respectively. As far as I can tell, that's not possible to attain with consistency on the dice game: it seems to cap out around 8 bets per second.

It's kind of strange, the resolution of this:

You have a player that voluntarily gave up KYC, presumably expecting to be cleared of concerns and to be given his winnings. Unfortunately, though, the KYC turned out to have no effect on the case and they decided to close out their account and only return the deposit.

Outcome:

Sportsbet.io gets a user's KYC for free.

---

Am I missing something here?

Nah, nah. He means the GBP token. The two transactions add up to over 10+Mn GBP

You're asking for a loan on the same day that you are trying to trade BTC for PayPal?

---

It's not even at a discount, so what's going on here?

What do you need the loan for and how do you intend to repay it? Unfortunately, documents aren't exactly the best collateral since they can be bought for much less than 0.03 BTC. If there is any actual collateral, then your loan may spark some real attention.

Bolded fragment is very confusing. The halving has already passed, if that's what this guy is referring to. Maybe a couple years counts as "almost" in their chronology.

Isn't it better to disincentivise spam? Participation in the spam megathreads leads to further spam, and it's really hard to glean any additional information from someone's content when it gets buried by 400 semantically-identical posts with various padding strategies.

Imagine a forum where you were removed from a signature campaign if you helped contribute to spam threads: all the participants would be posting in discussions that have actual substance. Repeatedly pointing toward the volatility and manipulation of Bitcoin markets is not conducive to an interesting hub of ideas - something this forum should aim towards.

Exactly. Signature campaign users are not career people or hires. They are independent contractors that are getting paid to do ridiculously easy work... and when they can't even manage that, they get angry that they were fired for a shit job.

Entitlement city.

Ambiguous wording in contracts means that you are going to run into some problems. That is why they always make a big fuss out of the whole "You" and "We" pronoun game because any non-specificity can result in a legal loophole... for you or for we.