Payments processed: b68d544ebae7e33799b363cf49790780c913aad37196ac414278b3a490becef5

In that case, I'm looking forward to threads such as:

- Lutpin = Lauda = phantastisch? Back in Staff after all!
- Lauda = Lutpin = shorena? Schizophrene fighting against themselves.
- Hitler = Lauda = Lutpin? I always knew it.

You're in hero rates with this round, as you've been waiting for a while already.
Likewise, Kevin77 went from hero to legendary rates.

Currently don't have an open hero spot, I can keep you for senior rates until one opens, if you wish.

---

Sorry, but all applications for the senior member spot so far are denied.

Post counts been completed, payments are rolling out in a moment.

No.

It affects the first withdrawal from a new account, especially when that account has no deposits.

Quoting the ToS on that matter:
"6. Withdrawal:
6.4. In some cases, the first withdrawal on an users account has to be manually confirmed. The site reserves the right to do this and as a result, those withdrawals can take up to a couple of hours."

---

That's more likely related to depositing highrollers winning bets like this one (1.36BTC profit).
Attempted faucet abuse was a problem in the past, but there are several rules in place trying to prevent it and catch abusers.

You have an odd style of writing, I recall that from somewhere.

tl;dr: All dice sites cheat.
Because you don't understand provably fair calculations.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion below, do not mistake for official statement from CN regarding this.

I'm a huge fan of cryptocurrencies and I think blockchain technology can improve a lot of aspects of our life over the next few years/decades.
But, there are limits. And I dislike the current situation where everyone tries to run an ICO for things that do not need to be "tokenized".

Before creating (and investing into) a token/ICO, we should ask ourselves one simple question: Does making this a blockchain token improve how it works?
If a token can provide additional features and improve the experience for users, that's great.

But if not, and if there's a concept being pressed into a token simply because ICOs are currently raising amounts way higher than any regular crowdfund/non-ICO funding,
then I'm out, because that's not what I'm looking for and that's eventually going to collapse and fail.

That's wrong though.
Check the OP, and you'll find out LTC has performed better than BTC in the past few weeks (1.21% weekly average against a 0.89% weekly average).
Of course that's subject to variance, so historic numbers are nice to look at, but don't tell us much about the future.

So let's check the numbers that actually matter for calculating the potential of an investment.
LTC has less wagers, but also a smaller bankroll. The exact numbers tell us that expected returns are almost the same:

BTC has 2811BTC wagered the last month over a bankroll of 1630BTC (1.72x)
LTC on the other hand has 27317 wagered over a bankroll of 16180 (1.68x)

Why not diversify, invest some in LTC and some in BTC, mitigate the risk you're taking.

Yes.

Do you understand how progressive lotteries work?

That number is based on usercount, not investment amount, eg an investor with 100BTC claimed would influence it the same way as one with 0.01BTC unclaimed.
For reference, the current bankroll is 1649BTC, of which 1103BTC // 67% are provided by a group of only 10 people (1358BTC by a group of 20 people // 82%).
I'd expect the actual number of BCH left unclaimed way below your calculated 65.

A little disclaimer: The following is my own view and experience, opinions voiced are mine, and mine only.

This fork meant mainly one thing for CG; a huge investment of time and work.
In preparation of the fork, there's already been several blogposts and announcements on the site, social media channels, this forum and via the newsletter.
Further, August 1st was a rather unconvenient time for the fork, since it's holiday season and staff is thin as it is, most vacation plans were already made by the time BCC/BCH became evident.

All in all, there's been a lot of tasks to handle (both informative and executive), including moving to new cold wallets, setting up a BCH node, handling several hundred transactions.
All of those tasks were done by CG free of charge, tasks that would not have been neccessary if the site had not paid out BCH to users/investors (quite a few other casinos did not do that).
CG stands to gain nothing from that process, the distributions were done for the investors, the time spent was spent for the investors (could've been spent on other tasks else).

The 12 day limit had several reasons. The main one was to limit time investment needed for the distribution.
Maintaining a node (especially an enterprise sized one connected to a huge wallet) has both technical and personel costs.
Every day the node is kept running, those costs grow, and as CG does not support BCC/BCH at this point, maintaining a node for an indefinite time is a waste of ressources.

I'd also expect from someone who stores funds on a site and is aware of a situation like this fork to take the initiative and inform themselves about how the situation is handled.
Checking the blog or asking a moderator in chat (or maybe even contacting support) takes a few minutes, and avoids running into situations like this.

---

I don't have exact numbers as I was not involved with the distribution, but as far as I know, over 95% of the investors claimed their BCC/BCH (we're talking about a group of ~500 people).

The first email was sent July 25th, when the blogpost "Update: BIP91 and BCC" was published (I know that because I got the email myself, as I'm also an investor).
It referenced this post that includes the information that
"Users will have 12 days after the fork to set their BCC addresses and receive their coins. After that, we will stop accepting new BCC addresses and you will lose your claim due to failing to meet the deadline."

A second email was sent a few days after the fork (only to those users that did not claim their BCC until then) reminding everyone of the deadline.

That's been the second one, the reminder.
Curious why you had marked newsletter updates from CG as spam/junk.

Good. I wish you good luck and great success with your future endeavours.

Do you thing projecting your anger about being rejected on my campaign management is going to help you getting enrolled?

It's been a single round payment, as announced, not a double round.
I've stopped this campaign July 31st and we resumed August 3rd, with the announcement we'd run a longer round to get back to the monday paydays.
I already used the old rates and limits (resulting in up to 14% higher payments) and included posts from the time the campaign was paused.

You don't have to, the last pages (or even just my last posts) are sufficient.

I'm not lightlord, I can't do that.
I manage the first reply, which clearly states:

---

I didn't. I denied you based on post quality, not because of your rank.

I'm not. My role around CG is purely consulting, thus I don't have any direct influence on decisionmaking.
I've currently not got the time or means to write a full explanation of the other side of the coin,
but I'll get back to you in a few hour with some insight on why and how certain measures were taken.

For now, please, stay calm. Nobody has any malicious intentions,
and I'm sure we can find a solution suitable for both parties.

Rate changes are effective with the round starting now (to make up for the little longer round, we've used the old rates in the past round).

Payments have been sent (ac6d1c6363a158ecfc2171b2a8ad5c514666254c9ddc74d24400a571e5ea67e1).

---

If you followed the campaign, you know we've been paused before this round and the escrow wallet ran dry.
I generally do not enroll people in a campaign I can't even cover payments for the standing users.
Thus, enrollments were stopped during that time.

I got you on senior special rates for the time being.

---

Enrollments:

- daarul50 as discussed via PM.

Enrolled on probation.

---

No further enrollments (all open applications are denied).

As the round was longer than a regular round (~10 days), we used the old limits/rates for this one. Starting today, the new rates are in effect.

Payments have been processed (1cc9477df7d8e2d4c0a525e64f7d562d28ee57c33f5d6cf133965e2ff1e26d2e).

---

If you would read the first reply (where all important information is collected), you'd know enrollments happen on paydays, and only on paydays.

You've not been enrolled into this campaign. Even if I wanted to enroll you, I couldn't, as you have negative trust.

---

Enrollments:

- Fishbones78 as discussed via PM.
- Fortify as discussed via PM.

---

All other outstanding applications are denied.

Payments sent (acc4b90abdf03d4003fbfa70401adc58324a72073316e69862b3e4f37346716d).