< 2.5

Dangerous because it seem's to pass chrome's IDN policy and displays unicode instead of punycode.  Firefox has a user flag for those that wish to force enable punycode, chrome doesn't.
https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/idn-in-google-chrome

Is the investigation pending forever?  Fairlay should provide an estimated of when they will complete the "investigation".  This should be communicated privately to the player or with the player's permission.... publicly to the community.  A statement should be made by them so they can be judged by the community on their decision, otherwise as of right now, without ANY information communicated publicly OR privately, this is stealing/scam.(communicating just to 3rd party such as SBR doesn't count unless their is good reason for it, and it seems as SBR is on the players side at the moment)

Also, if Fairlay did in fact make a mistake or was negligence in handling the matter appropriately, when returning the funds they should provide additional compensation for the fund freeze, because of the extended time and lack of transparency and communication regarding the matter.  The compensation should be excessive, such as equal to the amount frozen, if they want to make good with the player and community.

Fairlay should not only return the frozen funds, but also provide compensation if it was done in their error:

-failure to communicate to customer while communicating information to other channels
-said they will give a phone call, but didn't
-have arbitration listed in TOS, but don't actual provide it
-didn't provide any information to the cause and nature of the incident, nor a timeline for resolution

They will need a very solid explanation for the lack of transparency in their actions.  Most services and exchanges return funds for violation of TOS, and just ban the account.  Even then, unless an exchanged is defrauded (via hack or other means), freezing money indefinitely and keeping it is stealing.  It would only be acceptable to transfer it to the damaged party or the legal system jurisdiction overseeing the manner.

Where does PrimeDice draw the line on advertising the theoretically possible, but close to impossible, 112 BTC Jackpot?

1) Would PriceDice feel its ethical for a site to advertise a 11,200 btc jackpot, with similar rules:

Roll 77.77 twice in a row to win! The percentage of the jackpot won depends on how much you bet.
Over 1 BTC: 100%
Over 0.1 BTC 10%
Over 0.01 BTC 1%
Over 0.001 BTC 0.1%
Over 0.0001 BTC 0.01%

Yes its theoretically possible to win, but requires betting 1 BTC one hundred million times to have a good chance of winning it, and in the process you will lose around 1 million BTC to the house edge.


2)This is very borderline false advertising, using such a high amount jackpot in a title of your post without details

Example of a similar unethical title for comparison:  Free 112 BTC deposit bonus
Fine Print Rules: Earn up to a matching 112 btc bonus, must wager 10000 times deposit to earn the bonus

3) Basically you are unethical luring players via a jackpot that will no one will ever win.

I can't believe everyone got this wrong:

There is only one way certain way to prove ownership, and that is by giving your PRIVATE KEY to that someone.

After that moment, both you and them become "owners" of that address as both of you control the ability to sign messages and move funds (if any exist). If one of you discards the private key, and has no physical/mental backup of it, nor any recollection, they lose ownership.

1) Having a signed message that belongs to that public hash does NOT prove you have ownership, it's mearly proves to someone, that you possess that signed message, but you might or might not be the orginal actual signer or owner.

2) Showing that a dust amount from that address has been sent to another address of someone's choice, does NOT prove you have ownership, it only proves that someone, but not nessesary you, is the owner.

A good real life example of the misconceptions of 1 or 2 is all the OTC scams that take place, where the scammer is a man in the middle but appears to be an owner.

If you want to prove ownership of an address that has funds, you move the funds out first, and give out the private key, proving that at one point you possessed ownership of the previous address that had a balance. (Warning: giving out a single private key and xpub key for an unhardened hd wallet derivation can lead to an attacker taking all your wallet funds)

It ranges from a few hours, to a few days. And sometimes you need to email them to remind them.  Eventually you will get it.




They advertise this, which is not true in all cases, its true for small withdrawals and when the hot wallet is not empty.

It's my understanding that the dilution fee is applied right after NOT right before the investment, therefore a new investor will get part of his own dilution fee back, which is important for a large investor.

Example: whole site bankroll is 1 btc, and you invest 100 btc, you will get around 1.99 of the 2btc dilution fee back right away.

Good luck with the girl.

In addition to the IP, to prevent abuse just have more captchas.  Solve one captcha for the first claim, two for the second claim...five for the fifth claim.

An alternative, you can present the user with 10 captchas, 5 of which are real and 5 are which are from a "solve a captchas" bitcoin paying service. 

5 captchas solved are worth about 3 bits and should provide a nice way for users to fund the faucet for you.

The 50th million spin was a day ago.

Agree with Dooglus, just fix the wording from:

"MoneyPot uses a fixed transaction fee that is specified by the user in the calculation of the actual transaction fee."
to
"MoneyPot uses the priority level that is specified by the user, and will be charge a fixed fee for the transaction.  Actual fee used in the transaction is dynamic and can vary based on transaction size and bitcoin network transaction activity"

And in the selection,
"Default - 200 bits (per kb)     Priority - 300 bits (per kb)"
to
"Default - Fee: 200 bits          Priority - Fee: 300 bits     "

Problem solved.

Using create-unsigned-tx.py I get a
"TypeError: Non-hexadecimal digit found"
after I input the corresponding private key for the auth UTXO.


Also tried using the testnet example from the github wiki and got the same error.

If it takes too much time to compute the public key at least you can do some mining:

Mining Bitcoin with pencil and paper: 0.67 hashes per day
http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dqhixzGVo

With the 90 btc in the given example not being auto canceled, won't this effect other users who see these bets as on the books as providing liquidity, yet they can't bet against it?

What is the purpose of the penalty, is it to deter users from providing liquidity, or to fund supports time as a manual review/operation has to be done?

Technically users can set up a 24/7 system to self monitor and cancel bets over there balance via api, but that is much more work then fairlay doing it on their side by default (with perhaps an option to opt out, for liquidity providers who plan to add more balance and don't want bets canceled)

Your system is able to monitor and impose a penalty (and I'm assuming avoid any race condition bugs/exploits) yet it can't be set up to auto cancel these bets instead?

Hey Fairlay, think you missed my questions https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673475.msg14277623#msg14277623

This is a bit unclear for me, can you offer an example?
Say a user deposits 10 btc.  They can create 10 unmatched bets of 10 btc each for a total of 100btc in market liquidity, right?
Are you saying that after the first 10 btc gets matched, the other 90 btc won't get canceled?
And if another user tries to bet against those remaining 90btc will the system allow a match putting the original user into a negative balance plus 0.1mBTC fee?

I said lower the discount not increase it :-)

If you are almost sold out that means you shouldn't be selling them so cheap.

Looks like so far no one has had issues with your giftcards, so if they are in fact more or less legit, you should consider lowering the discount, pretty sure you will still sell out.

It's generated client side so more advanced users can still pick their own :-)

I suggest you make the client side generator 4 English words from this wordlist: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/english.txt

It will be a similar amount of entropy as your generator (~44bits along with reCAPTCHA) but much easier to remember and write down.  

http://preshing.com/20110811/xkcd-password-generator/

Edit:
You can even get by on just 3 words (33bits) since this will be 8.5 billion combinations.  Cost to solve 1000 google reCAPTCHAs ~ $0.80 cents. And no one has $6 million USD in their bustabit account to be targeted.

The sources in your example rely on trust.  You need to trust they won't change the data, that their website is up and running, and that they have a complete history of the data (hard drives fail and maybe they didn't make a backup)

The best external source is the blockchain since it's public and unchangeable.  For example, Pevpot uses a blockhash as the external source, and about 2 hours worth of hashing iterations on it.  The blockchain is public and no miner has enough incentive (or power) to undo 2 hours worth of blocks.  

You should look at
https://www.pevpot.com/provably-fair
https://www.pevpot.com/verify
as it is superior to your method.