I think there will be a big difference between a social experiment and the real thing. For example, how will you collect from people
who don't pay-back their loans from you?
Well that's probably the social experiment. You can't collect money owed if you're scammed but he's hoping that won't happen... but it will. Precisely. If you want some data for a paper or something, just look at the bunch of people who have previously been scammed inside of the Lending section  |
|
|
|
|
Alright. I will consider all of these when I make my next update to the list. ATM I have a lot of stuff going on so I haven't had the time to sit down and spend some time on the thread, but I will try to ASAP as it is getting a decent amount of attention now.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience (years) of administrating/owning Minecraft servers...offering to moderate, essentially asking for Mod, is terrible etiquette and doesn't produce good Mods. And anyone who takes up Mods like that is generally going to find they get a sub-par staff team. Now I'm sure some people who offer to moderate have good intentions, but it isn't generally a good policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Dota is popular, but combining it with Bitcoin makes it quite niche. This could be very successful, but it could also just be dead and have no participants, therefore failing spectacularly.
I guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm...as an English person...
To be honest, a lot of the people posting have just copied the current stats XD
Chelsea
Man City
Southampton
Arsenal
Man Utd
(I'll put in my username later)
|
|
|
|
|
While it sounds interesting I have a doubt over how popular it would get. It seems a tad too niche to be able to take off.
|
|
|
|
I'm interested in offering loans, more as a social experiment than investment.
You'll get scammed if you do it as a "social experiment" because that implies you won't be careful with your funds. Scammers are everywhere in the Lending section and for the tiniest amounts. |
|
|
|
Great info in this thread. Referred by another member. Booking for future reference. Thanks for compiling!
Cheers! I'll look into CR. Obviously I have a decent amount going on at the moment. |
|
|
|
We would like to finish the investigation without any intervention of third parties, so please let us do our job.
Then finish it, as everyone is waiting for you to do so. If someone posting on your thread is seriously preventing you from investigating what you think is possibly an extremely large case of fraud, then you must operate quite weirdly. I'll wait for your conclusion. |
|
|
|
LuckyBit Breaking News, live from our beloved chatbox :
0.002 x130 => 0.258 BTC 2015-02-13 21:16:18 0.002 x130 => 0.258 BTC 2015-02-13 22:01:48 * DiamondCardz wolf whistles Damn. Those are some nice wins. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair I haven't modified FJ's rating for a couple weeks when I really should have. However - the points espringe raises are completely valid. For now, I see no issue with a B rating. Remember, I have to work with limited information and I do not always have time to scan through every page of every single gambling site I review, I have to rely on my current BTC affairs knowledge and skimming quite a lot. Despite that, my reviews are generally quite accurate.
Updated the OP, as a note, to change some ratings. More will be changed soon.
|
|
|
|
Gambling Website Name: Primedice
New Ratings:A+
Trustworthiness:A+
Reliability:A+
Promotions:A++
Features:A
Overall:A+
Explain your reasoning:
i think this is the best bitcoin gambling site out there!
why?because they are proffesional 110% also there site has amazing features and its fair
promotions are the best of all gambling sites,so my rating is A+!!!they deserve it!
Isn't particularly good reasoning, it basically consists of "the site is good" without really going in-depth. Definitely not going to warrant the first overall A+. |
|
|
|
I apologize to the thread creator for us having this discussion here. I wish there was something on the forum, that would not allow a questionable gambling casino to run a moderated thread.
That is fine, I'm going to just watch the discussion. I don't consider it derailing as this is a thread designed to review casinos. This is actually a useful discussion. |
|
|
|
Interesting. I will request a response from Dean, as he can't run away from answering this. Well, he can, but he shouldn't... |
|
|
|
Project Development (incidentally the board I look at the most now  ). If you're looking for investors, Lending. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone should go out and register bitcoindomainsales.com?
Honestly though you just figure out who spams domain auctions and ignore them. It's quite simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Unlocked and brought this back up as I now have more free time. The lists are still accurate as far as I can see!
|
|
|
|
|
They are very annoying. But no-one buys them and the people end up going away eventually. It isn't a gigantic issue.
|
|
|
|
Precisely. Scammers dislike the DefaultTrust system because it makes them stand out, just like people disliked the scammer tag system not for the centralization but rather for the fact it added an obvious marker to them.
Before you were on DefaultTrust, weren't you once really against the centralization of the trust system? you used to have an account called AlternativeTrust with a different list IIRC  It seems like the majority of the people who are against the new trust system are ones that are on it, although there are some (including me) who are on DefaultTrust but are in support of the new system. I think the new system will give more users a chance to get on DefaultTrust, the current system isn't very good at doing that. I did actually  I'm still for the idea of people maintaining alternate versions of DefaultTrust. But the original DefaultTrust itself should stay. |
|
|
|
Note how almost all the people who petition to remove DefaultTrust have negative trust or have been removed from it.
The bias is quiiiite clear.
It is interesting that 38 people voted for the new trust system, however only 17 of those people have conducted trades on here before (as defined as having at least one positive trust report that is trusted by my trust list). (I excluded four people because the only positive trust they had was from repaying no collateral loans and for being "a good poster" or because they are a moderator). Of the 17 people, 3 of them likely have sufficient reputation so they would never need to send goods/funds first to their trading partner, so only 14 people who would potentially get scammed if the trust system did not work properly voted for the new system. 5 people with at least one negative trust report (based on my trust network), two of which I know have been removed from default trust list voted for the new trust system. On the other hand there were 26 people who have traded on here before (as evidenced by either positive trust by someone in the default trust network, or neutral trust from someone in default trust representing they escrowed a transaction). Looking at the poll results that way shows that scammers were very much against out current system and people who actually benefit from our current system want to continue to use it. Precisely. Scammers dislike the DefaultTrust system because it makes them stand out, just like people disliked the scammer tag system not for the centralization but rather for the fact it added an obvious marker to them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
