|
Hi, let me know if you'd accept me for your signature ad campaign despite my trust rating.
|
|
|
|
A question, has anyone actually dropped out yesterday? Other than those 2 guys who had no posts anyway. If not, the problem is non-existent.
Yes. 322685 256837 131711 131716 132620 66776 173984 154721 19897 |
|
|
|
Your internet plan isn't a good example, since signature campaigns have a fixed rule: "If you drop out, you get nothing".
Yes it is. My internet plan has a contractual obligation where I must pay about $30 per remaining month if I terminate it early. This 'fixed rule' was waived when surrounding circumstances changed. You are applying *this* statement literally, to the letter, and overriding any other circumstance or context. Despite the rule never existing in the first place in this campaign. But there's no point in debating that, I'm simply asking you to treat all creditors equally. |
|
|
|
Can I join this? And can I have others things in my signature despite DiceBitco.in sig?
 ----- What's more important, Dooglus stated (yesterday) that whoever decide to drop their sig , will get paid for that period:
So it seems like bitcoininformations's claimed preferential treatment is something he invented himself, which I have suspected (as I believed dooglus's intelligence is much higher than that). TradeFortress, what do you want us to do? Pay out right now? I would love to, but I can't do anything without Dooglus (like I said before). No? I am simply asking you to treat people who drop out the same way as you treat people who stick to the campaign. You'd pay both groups out at the end of the month, but shouldn't give any sort of preference to any group. |
|
|
|
Well, people that drop out normally don't get paid at all, because they didn't fulfill the requirement to keep the signature for the period you agreed upon. We decided that that isn't fair and we will use the leftovers to pay people anyway. I know that this isn't optimal and we might have to change it to just pay out right now.
Yes. However, normally when conditions change, people are given the choice of opting out of the contract at no penalty. Treating these people second does apply a strong penalty. Example: My internet plan rose from $60 to $70 a year ago. The plan is on a 2 year contract. I was notified and had the opportunity to break out of the 2 year contract (no early termination fee) if I do not wish to continue. I'll be sending out PMs and leaving feedback to the people that still carry this signature. |
|
|
|
TradeFortress, please tell me what rules we changed, as far as I know we didn't change anything. We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign.
You previously have said that you will pay out in order, instead of proportionally. Here's the quote from your OP: Members that stick with the campaign gets paid first, then the ones that dropped out and after that, well, if there is anything left it will be either kept or send back. You shouldn't be prioritizing any signature ad campaign creditor over another signature ad campaign creditor. So, you shouldn't 'pay out group X, then pay out group Y if there is any left'. Rather, you should add the sum of all owed amounts, find the % that is covered by the 10 BTC deposit, and spread out all shortfall equally at the end of the contract. ---- re email response: "We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign (so the funds that are left over from the campaign itself). I hope this explains that": People who did not drop out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed. People who dropped out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed. They have the same claims to the escrowed amount, and should not be treated any differently. ---- We only have 10BTC and we are not certain if this is enough I think it is irresponsible to continue this campaign if you are not certain if it is enough, actually. Imagine if you escrowed selling a miner, but couldn't pay the seller in full because the buyer never sent enough. Is that acceptable? |
|
|
|
The clause you described is something entirly different then the rule we are enforcing.
Then I advise you to edit your post. Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).
This is the note I am referring to. In my opinion it's a clarification and not a new rule Then why did you refer to it and say "[it] will be enforced"? It's clear you haven't actually read what you posted. |
|
|
|
Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not. DiceBitco.in has admitted that only winning rolls had skipped nonces. This "dude" (he used to say all the time) had accomplished to commit code into production that DID SKIP WINNING BETS on specified accounts. When he wanted to "alter" an account he added a field that flagged the account and made it skip winning rolls with maximum skips = 1. He has also posted a small source code excerpt (now deleted) that has shown it *only* skipped winning bets. It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke). They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket). That's not my argument, they are scammers if they don't pay people winnings they should have received - even if they lost money themselves. I think they have refunded people not due for a refund (they might have lost nearly the same amount without the skipped nonces), but I still consider them to be scammers if anyone made a loss due to the rigging, whether in lost deposits or in lost winnings. but in the meantime we are calling all the users that have lost bitcoins to verify their bets and if even only one bet has been skipped
we will refund their deposit up to one satoshi I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.
Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.
I agree with what you mean (the other original rules would cover it), but BitcoinInformation is implying that this is statement itself had merit retroactively which is not correct. ----- The campaign is paid per post. While people swapping mid campaign would result in less exposure for DiceBitco.in, I don't think it's unfair for them to be paid the amount for the post they've already made during this month's period. After all, someone could make 200 high quality posts in the last day, claim the payout for the month, and then remove the signature. IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds. |
|
|
|
|
I'm posting this in here because I think it's relevant.
BitcoinInformation has decided to enforce a provision made by DiceBitco.in retroactively. There is no authority for him to do so.
1. DiceBitco.in added in a statement on Sept 5th.
2. This statement has no merit whatsoever to anyone who enrolled before the date.
3. BitcoinInformation has said that he will enforce this statement that is without merit.
As an example, a signature ad campaign cannot add a clause saying "We are lowering this payout by 90%." and have it apply to people who have enrolled under the original rates. Contracts may not be changed unilaterally retroactively - any supposed changes are null and void to people who have enrolled. They are only bound by the rules present when they enrolled.
I welcome your thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Just noticed this 'note': Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).
That's not something you can enforce. You can only enforce new additions to people who (re)sign up after that date. DiceBitco.in cannot make a rule saying "New rule: we hare reducing payouts by 90%, bye" and have it apply to people who already signed up and agreed to the rules in the state as they signed up. Also, adding a disclaimer still means 'You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES'. |
|
|
|
|
Please also post here if you should have won BTC, but did not due to the nonce rigging, and was refused compensation by DiceBitco.in for your rightful winnings.
|
|
|
|
Because there are a lot of users keeping their sign to get a few bucks from their ad campaign. They are more greedy than these thiefts.
Yep. Leave them negative feedback. |
|
|
|
The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.
The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale) is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors. I agree, the escrowed 10 BTC should be used for the signature ad campaign. If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment. dooglus has already made an equitable measure that disregarded the actual rules. He can (and I argue he should) disregard this rule too for equity. It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed. There is. There are people who should have won BTC, but did not. DiceBitco.in has refused to pay them the winnings that they are entitled to. Think about it, is it not scamming when you truly won a jackpot, but you are refused payout because you didn't gamble and lose all your deposited BTC? |
|
|
|
When people gave you bitcoins they didn't have any kind of written agreement with you. Legally they can't demand anything from you. You know this very well.
You didn't have any written agreement with Graet either. His forums posts mean nothing, so you can't do anything. Graet might pay other creditors a little bit, probably very little only because he doesn't want to lose his face completely. But you're a scammer, so you're last on his list.
I believe the contract on BitFunder qualifies as a legally enforceable contract. For your information, written agreements are not needed. Oral contracts are legally enforceable. As this is a personal debt, I'm very sure that you will receive adequate compensation if you take legal action.
What's his address to serve a statement of claims?
According to my sources no one will ever receive any adequate compensation. Graet is almost broke. His promises are just words. 9 month ago he said he would repay bulk of the loan by mid 2014. Now he promised 20BTC to all of us [1], which is pathetic. By the way, he still didn't pay those 20BTC. 20BTC is 1% of 2000BTC. According to my sources Graet bought back about 7000 of his shares, which is 70BTC. So he still owes 1930BTC. I know how much his "btc businesses" make. It's very little. If you sue him, you get almost nothing after all legal fees. [2] Write this off, he is really a degenerate just like Justin00 says. [1]: Without prejudice, 20 BTC is about $10,000 AUD which is the monetary ceiling of minor claims in WA magistrates courts.  [2]: The filing fee in the magistrates court for claim not exceeding $10,000 AUD is $79 AUD. While there are further fees, including traveling costs for me, they will still make it worthy to pursue the claim. I'd like to visit Perth too [3]: It seems that you're unhappy with others pursuing legal action because you are worried that Graeme Tee will stop paying to investors who are unwilling to pursue legal action, and only settle with those who take the legal avenue. Sorry that you're unwilling to excise your possible avenues of debt recovery. You're not going to convince me on anything - you are not a party to my dispute. I have not made any formal "requests and demands" yet. Anyways, if anyone is in Australia and has outstanding Graet debt and is interested in pursuing small/minor claims legal action, send me an email. |
|
|
|
You must not be very smart since it is throughout the entire thread. I wish I had the time to be a try-hard mod to get some self-worth in my life. If you want to be the towns sheriff, at least know the rules of the land (which you clearly do not understand). Or simply grow up.
Like BadBear said, I'm trying to be open about the process but if people act like crazed animals, you are only going to push this practice down further. Especially when it is within forum rules to do so. If people more spoke about it without fear, it would be a more open topic.
I have already reached out to both parties. Quickseller gave me a lot of information about the deal which makes it look like OP sold the account with the intention to try and reclaim it later. Which is fraud. I have also reached out to the OP and offered him to buy the account back for the price I paid. I just got some queer manic response, therefore he must not want his account too badly.
I'm still happy to negotiate. I think OP and Quicksellers should work together to compensate me for the BTC I paid. Otherwise I will be out of pocket for doing something that is within the forum rules.
I'll keep everyone posted and hopefully we can come to an agreement. Fair enough, and you're right - I'm not very smart. However, I still do not trust any purchased accounts, period; hence your negative trust. That being said, I'll remove my negative rating until the issue is sufficiently sorted out. @Quickseller: Did the person who you negotiated a sale price with provide any sort of proof he was the actual owner? Ie. signed an address that was previously attached to the zedicus account? Of course not. I speculate that Quickseller may be running a hacked account laundering campaign, and the current controller of Zedicus is either an innocent victim or the hacker (or connected with the hacker). |
|
|
|
UpDown.BT, for the record you still haven't fully paid out one of your weekly payment for sig campaign. Those were the times where you got your negative ratings. I'm too lazy to backtrack to figure out how much you still owe.
Devthedev gave you that rating based on how you handled the situation.
I absolutely stand by this. It was rather a monthly campaign and that thread is now locked without paying out everyone. UpDown rightfully earned his first red from alexrossi. But somehow he's now out of DefaultTrust !!! Though, I'm NOT fond of DefaultTrust, Devthedev has done the correct thing. UpDown is falsely claiming everywhere that he has paid out everyone. I just need a list who's not paid. I'm answering on PMs. For now I know about two angry users, both of them have no signature few days before campaign was ended, one of them was been banned also. Why didnt U pay the 2 users in question ? Were they banned while they were part of your campaign ? If U found someone is changing your sig, then why didnt u post that in thread immediately to mark their ineligibility ? Those are actually part of your excuse for not paying out legit users. Your -ve should stay unless U pay out all these users or post proof that they changed sig or banned while they were part of your campaign. I've answered to Haploid below. Everybody who's go along with the rules received payments. Some people was been afraid of my disappearance and dropped signature, so maybe it's not the best behavior from my side, but I have some reasons for that, and I'm clear because, again, everybody who's go along with the rules received their payments. You should have paid everyone who fulfilled the original deal. If they kept their signature for the month but then removed the signature, you should still pay it for that month. |
|
|
|
@dooglus / @bitcoininformation:
Which rule specifically prohibits inclusion of a disclaimer? By interpreting the rules to have this clause based on 'common sense', you are making an equitable decision.
If you're willing to make this equitable decision, you should have no problem to also make another which is that the circumstances surrounding advertising DiceBitco.in has significantly changed.
Also, preferring specific creditors over others doesn't sound like the best way to do this. You should get the total amount owed, and work out the percentage that the 10 BTC covers. Pay everyone in proportion, instead of having some creditors walk away with the full amount and others with 0. |
|
|
|
Sorry I do not want to part anymore with this site, there is so much evidence of scamming by Mateo.
Please remove me from list, I do not care if I will get any money or not but will not advertise for scamming site.
LOL, thought that's very noble of you, giving up the earnings etc, but then I checked your posts (not one since you enrolled)  [ So what, I can make posts next 3 weeks easily, is it matter much that I did not posted or not last week. I am not always on PC like some others who stay online everytime here. I have my RL and very happy with that. Campaign earning I use just like bonus not for feed myself. left you positive trust, even if you didn't post. Sorry I do not want to part anymore with this site, there is so much evidence of scamming by Mateo.
Please remove me from list, I do not care if I will get any money or not but will not advertise for scamming site.
Same here. I also think it's wrong that people should have to continue with the ad campaign when the owner called it quits and is very likely to have been a scammer. Instead all the funds should be divided equally amongst the 100 participants. left you positive trust ------------------------------- Will be leaving other people that stick with the campaign and/or do not include an appropriate disclaimer negative feedback. I'll write up a new thread detailing my justification soon, and PM people first in case they are unaware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
