This seems to have won:
05af9b3a9bea13bec3cbe7b93e0521ae0df8b2e38e5df503b08b35fa08840d49

This paid four of a kind on three lines.

I haven't seen anything back yet, and it's hours later.

Incidentally, I've never had problems getting the 0.00000001 BTC for a losing bet.  For example, here's one:
58e5d941521372fa2e337231809819ddb10c60160a1060d9099b77a27a0a0024

I don't really care.  I've never personally needed to try to get anyone a scammer tag.  If someone shows up offering ludicrous interest rates, I assume that just like in the real world, it's a Ponzi scam or some other sort of scam.

I'd just like to know there's some mechanism of getting these creeps marked.

My suggestion in this thread is there should also be a tag for just whoever doesn't pay.  Who cares why?  I'd just like to know whether someone carries a ball and chain of debt behind them and never pays it.  Why?  I'd just like not even to have to think about whether to buy anything or invest anything with that person.

I already do my own due diligence and I think anyone who ever invested with pirate is a fucking retard.  Who the fuck would have invested in that shit?  Were you people out of your minds?

But I think there should be a tag other than SCAMMER for people who are in default for any reason.  The problem with SCAMMER is it has a moral connotation.  I don't care about that.  I think it just makes sense to have a list of people who are not reliable, for whatever reason.  Save the moral condemnation for church.

It seems the site is understandably reluctant to name someone as a scammer without evidence of intentional fraud.  That's reasonable, since it could be defamatory to call someone a scammer without proof.

However, people investing in something are probably more interested in whether or not a certain individual or business pays, not necessarily whether they're a scammer.

Why not have a value-neutral term just for people who have defaulted for whatever reason?  There seem to be plenty of people who just stupidly got involved in blatant scams like pirate, and I'd avoid doing business with people that naive and incompetent even if they have the purest of motives.

DEFAULT would be a nice tag, and all it represents is that they owe money and are not paying it back in a satisfactory manner.  Also, the DEFAULT tag could go away if the debts are satisfied, unlike a SCAMMER tag, which is forever.

EDIT:  apologies in advance if this is already a recurring subject or if I'm discussing it on the wrong subforum.

Why is BTC gambling any more pointless than gambling in general?

In any event, it sure beats the Ponzi scams, ripoffs and swindles that seem to typify a large part of BTC commerce at present.  (At least to the extent there are legitimate gambling sites although a fair number of these also turn out to be swindles.)

Yes, and I was pointing out that legal or factual impossibility is a much more narrow concept than that.  The fact that you happen to have run out of money due to mismanagement is not impossibility, but merely difficulty.  Impossibility is something like agreeing to build a house on a barrier island that just got washed away by a hurricane, that is, something outright impossible.

I believe you are exaggerating the scope of the common or mutual mistake doctrine.  This doctrine only applies when the mistake is so fundamental to the nature of the agreement that either the parties both failed to understand the actual terms of the contract, and hence there was no meeting of the minds, or the misunderstanding essentially resulted in an agreement that is impossible to carry out.

For example, Boba Fett hires Han Solo to do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, unaware that the parsec is not a unit of time.  Since the agreement is effectively meaningless, it would not be fair to force Han Solo to attempt to do this.  However, even in this case, Han Solo would have to return any money he took as part of the agreement.  He doesn't just get to keep it.

In this case, whatever underlying facts there are are not fundamental.  The agreement itself is quite simple, at least the part that some people are attempting to enforce.  Harnett took money from a number of people, which was supposed to be payable on demand.  There was no mistake about that part of the agreement. 

That there were numerous financial blunders by everyone involved doesn't void the contract, any more than a contract is voided because the price of soybeans went up in the months between when a contract for soybeans was signed and when delivery is due.

I could probably count the number of cases I've seen in the real world where common mistake was found and voided a contract on the fingers of one hand.  After suffering a horrible industrial accident.

I can't think of a single case in which such a mistake completely absolved the one who breached the contract of having to pay back money.  If nothing else, that would be considered unjust enrichment.

Instead of a guarantee, you could add 10% or 20% if the pool was below a certain amount.  Maybe have a minimum number to run it and cancel it if it doesn't meet that.  That would limit exposure while still having an overlay.

That would probably have to be done manually, but the Big BTC started that way too.

There are so many indicia of scamminess already I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.

One problem with trying to compete with Seals, which also has HU, is that there are a number of regularly scheduled tournaments on Seals and often the start times on OVP conflict with them.  Especially without a two monitor setup (like I used to have before Black Friday), it is virtually impossible to play both sites at the same time. 

It might attract more people to schedule events both before and after major Seals tournaments, or at the very least avoid conflicting times.  For instance, a 10 or 50 chip freeroll for something to do on the half hour instead of the hour might get more Seals players (who are most of the BTC poker players at present).

When I've been there in a freeroll that attracted a number of people, a couple HU ring games usually tended to start up.  Lately, though, I've just showed up to see two or three people and no games, while Seals is active.

Not sure how to advertise it.  I've been very pleased with the site being snappy (perhaps because of few players) and cashouts being fast.  If I'd had better luck recently, I'd have kept at least a couple BTC there at all times.

So is the Monday PLO gone?  I'm not seeing it in the tournament list.

There's a tournament in the lobby, *Hourly PLO8 50*, that supposedly starts on November 7 at 10:00 a.m.

Obviously, that's in the past.

I suppose it's not harming anything, I'm just tired of looking at it and it'd be nice to have that hourly available again, even if few people seem to want to play it.

I have the same issue with it crashing with a flood of exceptions as others have reported, both using Crossover for the Mac (a WINE frontend) and plain old WINE on Peppermint Ice Linux.

However, I also have an unusual condition under Linux, which is that the program boots up, shows the splash screen, and then, if I am at a table, I hear the sounds and so on, but the window is completely invisible.

This might be unique enough to me that it's not worth checking.  It's odd, though.

Also, under OS X, I have difficulty resizing the window to get to the chat input, because the dock is in the way of the bottom of the screen.  I doubt you can do anything about that and the problem there is probably fixable from my end.  The only thing I could see is maybe the default table window size should be a bit smaller.

There really isn't a way, at least with the crappy Mavens software, to be sure the site owner or other insiders aren't cheating, although any serious cheating would become very obvious.  If you've played poker online a while, you might remember the Absolute/UB cheating scandals, which involved insiders using hole card information to cheat.  It also resulted in the cheaters winning absolutely absurd amounts that were statistically almost impossible to achieve without cheating.

I'd be more worried about collusion between players, as the site has no policy prohibiting two players from the same IP address from sitting at the table.

There have also recently been a swarm of seemingly Vietnamese players playing the hourly freerolls and talking to each other in Vietnamese, perhaps cheating.

It looks like the SEC is going after pirateat40, which actually somewhat surprised me.

Bitcoin 'Pirate' scandal: SEC steps in amid allegations that the whole thing was a Ponzi scheme

This depends on what kind of user you are.  If you already prefer the user interface of satoshidice, you're probably already using that.  It's a good system when you're using a standard Bitcoin client.

However, one of the advantages to MC over SD, particularly for people who use other online gambling sites, is that you can easily pay out to a non-wallet address, like a Seals deposit address, while making the bet from a site that does instant cashouts (like Dragon's Tale).  This bypasses having to mess with a wallet at all, and other than the single confirm, the bet is nearly instant.

This system wouldn't really work with many of these sites, as they generally limit the number of digits allowed after the decimal point.

I could see adding a system like this to MC, but they would, again, require using a Bitcoin client.  I generally only keep Bitcoin in an offline wallet when converting it into "real" money.

A)  I have the issue of Chrome sometimes locking up when a new table is opened.  I generally have to reload or even restart the browser.  This problem appears to be with the Mavens software, as Seals also sometimes does this.

B)  Paying 1st and 2nd seems to work.  There is no playing slow to try to sneak into the money, as there is no advantage to it.  I'm not sure if paying an even number of players would tend to fix this problem, though it seems that with 4 players, there is still some opportunity for delaying.

The only fight that seems to be occurring here is your fight against reality.

Dooglus is one of the sharpest people on here, and his point appears to be valid.  I don't think I can trust a site that operates the way you seem to be operating, and I am pretty sure other potential players here have reached the same conclusion.

Hi.  I just created an account, but can't receive the validation code.

The account name is MistCat.

I get this dialogue box when I try to get the validation code:

An error occurred attempting to send the validation code to XXXXXXX@gmail.com.

Please check into this.  Thanks.

And give me 100 chips if you're still doing that, too.  Thanks for that as well.

EDIT:  Rather than throw in another post just to say thanks, I'll say it here.  Validation code arrived, account is activated.

I agree on the hoax aspect.  It doesn't seem like whoever did this really thought through the mechanics of what getting "$1 million USD" of Bitcoins would entail, or more likely, didn't care, because they were never intending on getting it.

I just hope for the pranksters' sake they covered their tracks better than it looks like they did.  Even without the tax returns, demanding money in return for silence is generally going to be considered extortion, and for a change, they've picked on someone politically connected enough to demand the feds "do something."  

If you look at the blockchain info for the two addresses given by the alleged extortionists, they have a number of very small transactions, all in amounts like 0.01 0.0011100101 BTC and so on, all in the last day or so.  If you trace those back to the last address in the list, it is generally a recently created account with no activity until recently.  If you go back five or six, though, occasionally you hit an address that actually has a substantial amount of money in it.  For example, one I can find has 326 transactions, the earliest 2-18-2012, and currently contains 191.31036195 BTC.

I'm not going to post the blockchain link here.  I'm not particularly interested in "solving" this thing, and you can all duplicate this same "feat" easily enough and post it here if you like.  

My guess would be the odd tiny transactions are binary code of some sort, perhaps adding up to a message like "lulz."  But whoever did this apparently does have some knowledge of the network and how to mask transactions to some extent.

My first belief was they were just completely throwaway accounts created never to be used.  Some people went to some trouble to put a small amount of money in them in oddly structured transactions, though.