I have never seen "re-connection handling" ever.  Once, about six months ago, I actually saw a message saying it was attempting to reconnect.  It never happened.  Otherwise, nada.

If they are actually working on such a thing, I have a suggestion that may seem out of left field.  Perhaps it should involve actually trying to reconnect.  I just hope to notice that the action has frozen before I miss anything important, and reload the site when it does.

As for another suggestion, why no high hand bonus for LHE?  It would encourage people to play these games, and on top of that, for the stakes played, LHE generates tons of rake.  NLHE pots may be huge every now and then, but almost every LHE hand is raked several chips.

I still seem to have issues with Chrome, and used to have problems with all browsers, but for whatever reason, Safari seems to work and I played multiple tables with no problems for hours.

JSTOR themselves declined to pursue charges against Swartz, and urged the FBI not to prosecute.  The FBI took an extremely vindictive approach to the case and wanted to destroy Swartz utterly, whether or not there was a victim harmed.

In fact, just three days ago, JSTOR did almost exactly what Swartz had wanted in the first place, and made vast amounts of its journal articles available for free to the public.

The Register & Read Program is their rollout of this idea.  It's not exactly what Swartz wanted, but it's certainly a good move and will make many more people aware of a lot of information that is out there. 

Especially in light of this, it was absolutely insane for the FBI to go after this so aggressively while real crimes go unpunished.  Yes, Swartz shouldn't have done this, and it broke the law.  But it was not 35 years in prison shit.  That was insane.  In light of the fact the "victim" basically asked them to drop it, it was overkill prosecution.  Whoever spent years and maybe millions of tax dollars prosecuting this bullshit should be out of a job.

Among Swartz's other accomplishments (including co-authoring RSS when he was 14) is RECAP, a program for people with access to the PACER archive of federal court documents, which if you have it installed, automatically uploads anything you download to the public archive, to make it freely available.

Notoriously fake quote.  Invented in 2007 by Matt Carson and never seen before then.

Are you serious that you don't know how to prove you have a certain amount of BTC?


I agree, but you've basically admitted that you don't have enough BTC on hand to pay out some of the bets on your paytable, and admitted you don't even know how you'd acquire them if someone won them.  This was your previous response.


It is a serious problem to take bets you can't cover.  Nobody legit does that.  It may just be cluelessness, but if not, it is frankly scammy.  If you are spreading gambling games, as the house, it is simply not kosher to ask people to accept your marker if they win.

The update I'd like to see is any evidence you can actually pay out the bets on this paytable, as you've already admitted you can't and would be scrambling if anyone hit one of them.  When you're willing to take bets for these amounts that you don't have on hand, that's scammy to say the least.

Sorry if I missed this.  When the bet size is .005, does the single bet qualify for the progressive, or only the 5 bet, which would be a .025 bet?

If not, then it would be far preferable to do "max bet" on the .001 bet than a single bet with .005, and it would be pointless to do any betting from the .05-.2 range.

 

What could possibly go wrong? 

And no, as we've seen in the past, it would not be hard at all to start over again.  It's happened all the time.

Off by being non-optimal, or off by not being the Wizard of Odds' strategy?  The Wizard's strategy is only very slightly non-optimal.

This is the thread about whether Andrew Bitcoiner, a guy who steals people's Bitcoin in a fraudulent scheme should have a scammer tag, not your thread for whether you think having scammer tags is a good idea or having threads discussing them is a good idea.

What a stupid argument.

I haven't seen anyone claim this site is paying ANYONE back.  If it is just pocketing deposits and not cashing out, which many people have commented on, then it's run by a scammer.  Period.

By this reasoning, anyone who runs a Bitcoin gambling site could just steal all deposits from Americans or anyone where it is illegal to gamble online and avoid a scammer tag.

This has been going on for months.  Here's the previous thread about how this scamming bastard has just stolen all deposits for months.

I'm not sure why nobody has pursued a scammer listing before now.  Maybe the Gambling subforum relies more on things like mem's Bitcoin Gambling LIst, which has listed this site in the Scam/Unattended category for months.

But if this guy is not a scammer, I'm fucked if I know who is.

Odd.  The chat seems to work, but clicking the games results in nothing.

I turned off AdBlock in the domain, so it doesn't seem to be that.

Using Chrome.

The scammer tag is basically a complete joke, as much of a scam as any other BTC scam.

Do not consider the lack of a scammer tag as any kind of evidence someone isn't a scammer.  Some people just run blatant, open scams without ever getting a tag, despite everyone knowing they're ripping people off left and right.

As much of a turnoff as a lengthy download may be, losing all your BTC to some web-based scam would be an even bigger turnoff. 

That Bitcoin-QT has its inconveniences should be explained, but that the more convenient online wallets carry serious risks of loss that a noob is unlikely to be able to evaluate in an informed fashion.

Then people can decide on their own.  If someone just wants to play around with 1 BTC or so, they can probably take the risk of an online wallet, but if they want to put substantial money in play, they're probably best using an offline wallet and taking other security measures.  Offline storage, with backup, is still the best way to go for real security.

I'd personally recommend Coinbase of the online wallets, but a noob reading a bunch of recommendations and personal preferences from random people isn't going to be able to evaluate my opinion, decide if I'm on crack, and for that matter, even I am unaware of how Coinbase's track record will look in a year or two.  For that matter, they could be lying about every security precaution they supposedly take, and just be another Ponzi (although enough is known about the principals it seems unlikely).

In short, I don't think "we," whoever "we" are, can just recommend some alternative to a "real" Bitcoin client without noting that there are serious caveats and flaws to such alternatives that may very well outweigh their increased convenience.

Everyone really has to decide their own risk tolerance.

The geniuses who invested in BTC "stocks" and pirateat40 are certainly far wiser and greater people than Krugman.  I should just ignore him and pay attention to people I've never heard of instead.

Wired still exists?  Who knew?

And a horsewhipping would be nice, too.

Just deposited and played through BTC0.1.  

Nice interface.  Basically classic video poker.  My only recommendation to players is that since it is only full-pay at the max bet, don't do anything but that.  

A progressive would be nice, as long as the drop isn't sick.  Other variants like double double bonus and deuces wouldn't be bad, either.  

Well, since this was the next thing I was going to start bitching about again, I'll look.  Of hundreds of disconnects (including one with aces in the 60 BTC after which I cashed out in a ragequit), I have only seen the dialogue box indicating the client software is attempting to reconnect twice, and it didn't work either time.

Since at least some of my connect issues (though not all) are on my end, although they are generally transient spikes that instantly go away (and all my other clients immediately reconnect without problem), a functioning reconnect would be fantastic.

Yes.  There SHOULD be.  Earlier today, there wasn't.

Bryan Micon was personally processing deposits while they worked on it.  It's fixed now.