Still waiting for them to fix their affiliate panel's withdrawals myself. I'm annoyed with how long I've been unable to withdraw for at this point, it was supposed to have been passed up and they could have at least manually processed my withdrawal

There's plenty of APIs that will let you do this if you want to use an API. You can probably do it with Blockchain's API but if that doesn't work I'm sure Coinbase et alii have an API that will work for you. If that fails, then you could always just use a lightweight client if you don't want to use Bitcoin Core, like Electrum.

Shit, you're right. It's not that I missed it, it's that I usually only add sites if either

a) I come into contact with them and I realize they're not added
b) Someone tells me to add them!

So thanks for reminding me I'll add them later today, probably within the hour.

Edit: Why did you delete your post? Looks like I've triple-posted now.

Edit2: An update.

- Added gambling website BetterBets.
- Stats:
- Trustworthiness: A
- Reliability: A
- Promotions: A+
- Features: A-
- Overall: A

Long review: BetterBets has, for a relatively new casino established in May 2015, experienced an insane amount of growth and it's quite clear why. BetterBets uses the Moneypot API for betting and their faucet (the faucet being another positive point), making it both extremely unlikely that you'll lose your BTC and easy to transfer BTC across to other casinos. Their user interface looks awesome and has a really great aesthetic quality to it, especially with the pull-out menu. They also have a bunch of innovative promotions, enough for me to warrant giving them the coveted A+ for this category: for instance, "luck forging", a feature which allows you to build it up until you have 1,000 bets made where you can then make 20 bets at a reduced house edge of 0.5% (limited to 5x their average bet during that time), a great tool for high rollers. They also have a happy hour every Friday with a 0.25% house edge during that time, as well as a raffle, 2FA, ability to invest into MoneyPot to indirectly invest into them, and a "cashback club" where you can receive up to 20% of your house edge back based on weekly volume and even get VIP statuses if you wager enough which give you a bunch of free raffle tickets. All-in-all, a great casino with a great amount of promotions that could only be improved slightly by making the features a bit more unique (most of the features grade comes from the promotions such as luck forging).

Edit3: A 2nd update.

- Increased 777Coin's Promotions to an A+.
- Increased 777Coin's Overall to an A+.
- Increased FortuneJack's Reliability from B+ to A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Promotions to an A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Features to an A.
- Increased FortuneJack's Overall to an A.
- Reviewed FortuneJack's Trustworthiness of an A-, but decided to keep it there due to previous issues.
- Updated FortuneJack's long review.
- Updated 777Coin's long review.

Boycott Cryptsy. I'm so disgusted with them that I've been put off ever using them again. Their mods are absolutely terrible (GreenLion et alii) and all the logs I have seen just show them to be banhammer happy, immature children. Using Cryptsy is just asking for bad customer service and being experienced to their terrible staff and moderators.

The mods alone should be enough to put people off, they are a massive negative liability for Cryptsy.

Do you have dementia something? Maybe you did it while you were sleepwalking? How can you make all of this stuff and then "forget" about it.

Your excuses are really just poor. I don't see how a 17 year old is a "kiddy" either, really. You've just been caught red-handed and all the excuses you make to try and "clear your name" just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. Just give up, man.

In the A- Overall band I have focused on spitting it into two bands, one that keeps the A- Overall rating and one that has a B+ Overall rating. I should note that this is simply to show a fine level of extra distinction, and that B+ is still a very respectable grade. Further distinctions will soon be made as I plan to expand into the B band to provide a wider gradient, followed by likely moving into the B- band. C+ and below will probably be reserved for websites that you should not really gamble on, but can if you wish to, while D+ and below is for those which are just terrible. Anything that is B- or above is what I would consider a good-quality gambling site. I also will likely be moving forward with plans to produce the A* (A-star) band to show further distinction for those sites which are the best of the best in certain areas.

If you are angry that you have been moved down into B+, then I would just sit tight as I will soon be creating a finer gradient for all sites, and it is likely all sites in the list will feel the burn a tiny bit as I seek to create a list with sites that range mostly from B/B- to A+ or even A*.

Some fine ratings other than overalls were changed due to overvaluation or my own personal experiences (e.g. I dropped the reliability for Cloudbet by a fine grade due to some pretty crap experiences with trying to withdraw causing errors and support giving me a reply that didn't even apply to me). I hope this list is seen as more accurate, but I'm quite limited here with such a small range of grades at the moment and inevitably some people will be upset.

Anonibet is something I plan to do a more accurate review for later, but I have to use Tor to do this due to my IP's geolocation being blocked.

I also increased bustabit's Trustworthiness to an A and moved them up a bit in the list, they deserve it by now.

Ah. Was that the one I reported? If you know.

I could've sworn I remembered his name, that would explain why anyway. So he is quite untrustworthy anyway, seems like he just tried to make some profit off of that and when that failed he switched to trying to bait out someone to give him a measly $2 in BTC.

Oh yes, g2a is amazing for this stuff, though you should always purchase buyers protection unless you're really cheap and buying from a really trusted vendor It's usually less than a dollar for buyer's protection and that's quite cheap to ensure that you don't get scammed, they're really cheap anyway.

I clicked this thread expecting to see something interesting, imagine my surprise when it was about a trust rating I left.

Okay, let's talk.

Yes, if you contact me regarding trust ratings I will talk to you and get your side of the story and if I am satisified I will usually amend it to a neutral or remove it. You are not the party involved here and I have not received any contact from the user in question. I do strongly believe that this person could be a scammer.

Unfortunately, neutral ratings are more effective at dampening someone who already has a good trust rating, they rarely actually do anything if that person has no trust already as no-one actually checks their trust. I also feel that a negative is justified.

Don't worry, by the way, I don't plan to immediately remove my ratings and try to hide if someone talks about them, I'm fine with discussing them. No need to try to archive them (though you're welcome to if you really must).

$5 of a reversible currency for $2 of Bitcoin is a) a ridiculous deal b) extremely likely to be a scam when the person is a Newbie, using their first post and also called "profit generator" and c) just makes no sense. It is probably a scam. And while it didn't affect my rating, "profit generator"? I could swear he posted a HYIP as his first post which was instead deleted :S

Well I mean, Roger Ver made another Bitcoin forum with some other crypto-anarchists due to some crying about "censorship" (even though talking about BIP100 vs BIP101 was never banned) due to Coinbase trying to centralise our decision-making regarding the Bitcoin protocol, so if they can do it with a forum, I'm sure you can do it with a blog!

Hey, there's a first for everything! Nah, I'm only joking. You do have to be careful here though, Valve/Steam has stated many times that they won't reverse the trade if you do get scammed if you're selling for bitcoin, and if you're buying you could just as easily get scammed due to the non-reversible nature of it. Basically, if you're going first, there's always a possibility that you're going to get scammed here, even if the person or website you trade with is trusted.

I thought that you could chargeback Payza almost as easily as you could chargeback PayPal. I always regarded Payza as simply being Paypal but with a green skin laid over it...

Hmm. I wouldn't be so sure here though, the deal still seems very dodgy.

Oh come on. If you have that much of a problem with us who dislike what is happening with Coinbase and BIP101 and want to pump it so much then go off to a different forum because currently there is not consensus for BIP101. Face it. Coinbase is having too much of an influence.

This thread is not supposed to be a debate of BIP100 vs BIP101 vs BIP102 vs BIP103 vs BIP103++, or Core vs XT vs other alternatives. This thread is about protecting the decentralised nature of decision-making in Bitcoin as much as possible.

Edit: Something worth reading: http://swag.pw/2015/11/08/bitcoin-decentralisation-bip101-coinbase-and-hypocrisy/

Username: DiamondCardz
Current Post Count: 3601 including this post (so don't include it in the excluded posts!)
Current Rank: Legendary
Bitcoin Address: 171717Lqgyi88sqSqRtToFYUYmJqeq5Bui

With the two caveats agreed in PM of course.

Thanks!

Strange how you adjusted for the 150 cap. You took the first 150 posts made and then took away any non-qualifying posts, ignoring if someone actually had 150 qualifying posts. For instance, I only got paid for 146 qualifying posts even though I had 150 (I went to bed after reaching 150, I'll admit ). Only 0.0048 BTC, but worth pointing out.

Anyway, I'll be pulling out of the campaign now anyway (unrelated to this), though it's a good idea for you to look into that as people may have lost out on a lot more. Cheers!

BIP100 is not much to code (well, for developers of the skill we have).

BIP102 is coded.

BIP103 is coded (I believe).

BIP103++ is being written and coded.

Saying that BIP101 is the only one available is ridiculous. Actually, Bitpay did say BIP100 and others are fine as well. It's mainly Coinbase trying to push BIP101 and nothing else. In fact, a Coinbase member, Charlie Lee, also a founder of Litecoin, advocates against XT and BIP101. It's not our best option and we shouldn't be coerced into it.

Well I mean the whole idea of gambling is that it's supposed to be for fun, the idea of gambling is actually not to make a profit. If you go into gambling simply looking for a profit then you're asking for trouble. If you go into these websites instead looking to have a good time, be social and interact (mainly on sites with a chatbox), then it's much better. That's why BitVegas was amazing - an interactive world (even with it being in Minecraft) where you could see people, talk to them, buy them drinks and go to a VIP lounge? That's fun. That's the idea.

Bitcoin will remain volatile for the forseeable future, though. I wouldn't have called it stable (i.e. not volatile) even once during the time it has been bought and sold on exchanges, when you buy into bitcoin you need to accept that it is a volatile asset/currency/commodity and that the price of it will vary wildly.

You're misunderstanding me here. Once all the blocks are mined, we will definitely see a shrink in the money supply, but that is due to the users and things such as coins being destroyed and lost. There's no way for us to get around that. We will definitely have deflation once blocks stop giving BTC rewards.

You say that as if there are not other alternatives to BIP101 (err, BIP100 and BIP102?) that are already liked, mainly BIP100 here. When most people are just looking for a way to simply increase the block size, that doesn't mean we need to start seeing Coinbase force the solution they like the most upon us.