Recent dadice.com development

[XinXan]

Many are talking as if Da Dice is a scam. Find me a single scam accusation, lol.

How are you even comparing?


Edit: People are unaware of the facts. There is no withdrawal that did not get honored. Nor are there any complaints regarding loss of funds, or anything related.
This is pure speculation. Da Dice hasn't yet provided a Proof of Solvency. But, that doesn't make it a scam...

A competitor just made random hits, and he got lucky at one..

i totaly agree with you.
i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
When AND if someone lost funds or didnt get withdrawal then you can start blaming them of scamming.
untill then i think its best to lock this thread and stop this lame talk.
regards.
-katerniko1

Yeah right what a shitty argument, with that argument all ponzies are not scam because they all pay at first rigth? Their plan was and is to build trust to be able to steal the biggest amount of money (hopefully im wrong) but thats how it looks right now

[fox19891989]

Many are talking as if Da Dice is a scam. Find me a single scam accusation, lol.

How are you even comparing?


Edit: People are unaware of the facts. There is no withdrawal that did not get honored. Nor are there any complaints regarding loss of funds, or anything related.
This is pure speculation. Da Dice hasn't yet provided a Proof of Solvency. But, that doesn't make it a scam...

A competitor just made random hits, and he got lucky at one..

i totaly agree with you.
i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
When AND if someone lost funds or didnt get withdrawal then you can start blaming them of scamming.
untill then i think its best to lock this thread and stop this lame talk.
regards.
-katerniko1

Yeah right what a shitty argument, with that argument all ponzies are not scam because they all pay at first rigth? Their plan was and is to build trust to be able to steal the biggest amount of money (hopefully im wrong) but thats how it looks right now

Proof of solvency can'r prove anything, scammers can also run away with funds after showing the proof, the proof is just shown to everyone, but it is not controlled by 3rd party, can't mean anything either.

[XinXan]

Many are talking as if Da Dice is a scam. Find me a single scam accusation, lol.

How are you even comparing?


Edit: People are unaware of the facts. There is no withdrawal that did not get honored. Nor are there any complaints regarding loss of funds, or anything related.
This is pure speculation. Da Dice hasn't yet provided a Proof of Solvency. But, that doesn't make it a scam...

A competitor just made random hits, and he got lucky at one..

i totaly agree with you.
i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
When AND if someone lost funds or didnt get withdrawal then you can start blaming them of scamming.
untill then i think its best to lock this thread and stop this lame talk.
regards.
-katerniko1

Yeah right what a shitty argument, with that argument all ponzies are not scam because they all pay at first rigth? Their plan was and is to build trust to be able to steal the biggest amount of money (hopefully im wrong) but thats how it looks right now

Proof of solvency can'r prove anything, scammers can also run away with funds after showing the proof, the proof is just shown to everyone, but it is not controlled by 3rd party, can't mean anything either.

The thing is that they said the had x amount of money and now they dont want to prove it, of course just because you prove you have that amount doesnt mean you will scam but not proving it its worse isnt it? They also tried to use really shitty excuses wich makes it look even more suspicious, anyways their trust is already red

[WhatTheGox]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

[XinXan]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

Well any casino could scam at any moment, thats not the thing, the thing is that they said they were in possesion of x amount of money and when asked for proof they refused, what conclusions do you get from that? Take in count they wont lose anything by showing proof.

[tspacepilot]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

[fox19891989]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

Does shorena also in the default list? It's not good to give dadice OP neg trust because all is speculation now, no proofs show dadice is or will be scam.

Unless they have proofs can prove dadice is a scam, they can post a scam accusation thread, but not rate a red trust without evidence.

[goosoodude]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to

I would disagree. The numbers simply do not add up for DaDice. The amounts being wagered at DaDice are simply not enough to cover their marketing costs of at least 8 BTC per month. Take a look at the marketing costs of DaDice verses that of BitDice or even PrimeDice. Bitdice is spending less then 2 BTC per month on marketing and they have a much higher volume. Even stunna only spends around 10 to 15 BTC per month on PD marketing and he has by far the largest BTC volume of bets.

AFAIK they have not forced their investors to divest and withdraw their investments so their current investors are still at risk.

[WhatTheGox]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to

I would disagree. The numbers simply do not add up for DaDice. The amounts being wagered at DaDice are simply not enough to cover their marketing costs of at least 8 BTC per month. Take a look at the marketing costs of DaDice verses that of BitDice or even PrimeDice. Bitdice is spending less then 2 BTC per month on marketing and they have a much higher volume. Even stunna only spends around 10 to 15 BTC per month on PD marketing and he has by far the largest BTC volume of bets.

AFAIK they have not forced their investors to divest and withdraw their investments so their current investors are still at risk.

Primedice were going to spend 50 BTC per month on the next signature campaign i recall stunna saying, i dont know why they didnt do the campaign in the end but i dont believe it was due to lack of funds.

[erikalui]

Shocking to read people accusing the dadice site which was said to be a trustworthy site before. Every gambling or dice site is definitely risky but to accuse some website without having any open scam accusation is weird. Hope this site never turns out to be a scam site and they keep paying their users as before and this speculation proves to be false. The campaign has really helped a lot of users  

[tspacepilot]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to

I would disagree. The numbers simply do not add up for DaDice. The amounts being wagered at DaDice are simply not enough to cover their marketing costs of at least 8 BTC per month. Take a look at the marketing costs of DaDice verses that of BitDice or even PrimeDice. Bitdice is spending less then 2 BTC per month on marketing and they have a much higher volume. Even stunna only spends around 10 to 15 BTC per month on PD marketing and he has by far the largest BTC volume of bets.

AFAIK they have not forced their investors to divest and withdraw their investments so their current investors are still at risk.

Right, but their current investors are also grownups, right?  People can decide for themselves how to manage risk in their lives, with their money.  I think you guys are fine in having pointed out this controversy, but what more is there to say now?  As I said above, it all adds up to the fact that some people want them to prove their bankroll and they are not going to do it.  People can draw their own conclusions from these facts.  In the end, time will tell who was right.  Right?

@Sho, I hope my question doesn't get too buried in this thread: how long should the negative feedback stand in the case that all continues to go fine with dadice?

[goosoodude]

So basically... they could scam? but they haven't? atm ive been very happy with my dealings at dadice.   Is the problem because they have investors people feel be more transparent? or that every dice site should be transparent about bankroll?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to

I would disagree. The numbers simply do not add up for DaDice. The amounts being wagered at DaDice are simply not enough to cover their marketing costs of at least 8 BTC per month. Take a look at the marketing costs of DaDice verses that of BitDice or even PrimeDice. Bitdice is spending less then 2 BTC per month on marketing and they have a much higher volume. Even stunna only spends around 10 to 15 BTC per month on PD marketing and he has by far the largest BTC volume of bets.

AFAIK they have not forced their investors to divest and withdraw their investments so their current investors are still at risk.

Right, but their current investors are also grownups, right?  People can decide for themselves how to manage risk in their lives, with their money.  I think you guys are fine in having pointed out this controversy, but what more is there to say now?  As I said above, it all adds up to the fact that some people want them to prove their bankroll and they are not going to do it.  People can draw their own conclusions from these facts.  In the end, time will tell who was right.  Right?

I think the same could be said of their other potential investors. I would argue that just because they are not allowing new investors to invest does not mean they are no longer accepting investor money.

[dooglus]

Ideally we prevent a scam, instead of just closing our eyes and let the scam with many losses happen :/

Withdrawals have nothing to do with solvency. MtGox was doing withdrawals for long time while not being solvent.

Proof of solvency is a standard practice for dice sites that accept investments. After all the bad excuses, it's clear they don't have the claimed bankroll. This hurts them so much - while an hour of their time could easily prove their solvency. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't do it, except for the obvious one: they don't have the coins.

I have to say I've been impressed with your posts recently. You have a knack for getting right to the core of the issue and making it clear. Good job!

I'm not claiming they are doing anything wrong. I was simply saying that without proof of solvency it *is possible* that they are insolvent. I don't need to prove that they are insolvent, and they don't need to prove that they are solvent. It would just look better for them if they could prove it. It still obviously wouldn't stop them from being able to steal everyone's coins, but it would at least instil extra confidence in potential investors.

so I think trust issue will now be solved too. I'm sure doog will do the right thing.

I think I have done the right thing. DaDice's actions have raised red flag suggesting that they don't have the coins they claim to have. For me this makes it quite likely that they will pull an exit scam at some point. It's possible they are insolvent and hoping that players will lose enough on their site to make up the shortfall. That's likely how MtGox was operating too, insolvent and hopeful, and we all saw how that ended up. I think the right thing to do here is to raise the concern, link to the relevant information, and let each potential player make up their own mind.

A lot of people are missing the point here. Proof of solvency should still be shown, especially now.
If you have a max payout of 20 Bitcoin players will want to know that they can trust the site to payout if they come in and win 3 max bets in a row.
Showing you have funds at least lets them see you have the funds to payout on a win.

This is a whole new chapter, I mean you only ask such questions if they don't honour withdrawal requests. Dean as usual trying to change subject... I hope what you said is true this time (that one being your last post). I sincerely hope so, I really do

You're suggesting that even if you strongly suspect a site to be insolvent and offering bets it can't safely afford, you shouldn't start asking questions until they actually stop allowing withdrawals? But by then it's too late and everyone has lost their money. Currently they're offering fixed 20 BTC payouts with a sub 1k bankroll. I've seen mention that the actual bankroll is 10x smaller, due to "kelly" multipliers, so maybe it's only 100 BTC in reality, and so could be wiped out in just 5 bets if the maximum payout doesn't automatically adjust. I don't know enough about how the site works to know if that's a real risk, but a little transparency in that regard would be useful. How can you safely offer 20 BTC payouts with such a small bankroll?

I don't see other sites also have the proof of solvency

You're not looking hard enough. It's really the expected thing to do.

Dadice has a good reputation before, I don't think they will scam players in the future, and dadice

MtGox, dice.ninja, pirateat40, etc. all have good reputations before. And bad reputations after. We are currently "before". Should we wait until "after" to change our minds?

But how about mtgox? People knew mtgox wallets before mtgox bankrupt, it was still dead, lol.

MtGox never did a proof of solvency, and it still isn't clear where the MtGox coins are, or how much they were supposed to hold in total. The best they did was asked Roger Ver to read this statement for them. He later made this apology for getting it wrong. This is why we need *proof* of solvency rather than just having some guy say "they're solvent". Bitcoin lets us do that easily, so why wouldn't we?

i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.

They have offered a series of weak excuses for why they couldn't show proof of solvency. That should be cause for concern for anyone who has coins with them. Businesses can run in an insolvent state, paying out all requested withdrawals, for a long time. But when they run out of funds it's over. See MtGox, or any Ponzi in history.

Proof of solvency can'r prove anything, scammers can also run away with funds after showing the proof, the proof is just shown to everyone, but it is not controlled by 3rd party, can't mean anything either.

Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

Their unwillingness to do the right thing and demonstrate their solvency is a warning sign that needs to be flagged. They way they reacted to the community requesting proof of solvency is another red flag. Nobody is telling them what to do. Rather, we are warning potential customers who might otherwise be unaware of DaDice's actions.

[tspacepilot]

It started because they were taking investors.  However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens.  Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them.  However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it.  I can see both sides having merit.  I also don't like being told what to do.

Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll.  I think that's what this all adds up to.

I have a question for OP Shorena:  if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand.  You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.

Their unwillingness to do the right thing and demonstrate their solvency is a warning sign that needs to be flagged. They way they reacted to the community requesting proof of solvency is another red flag. Nobody is telling them what to do. Rather, we are warning potential customers who might otherwise be unaware of DaDice's actions.

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing".  Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback.  You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand.  What's the right value and unit for X?

[dooglus]

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing".  Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback.  You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand.  What's the right value and unit for X?

I wonder how much your judgement is being coloured by wearing their signature. Or mine by being in competition with DaDice. I do know I have considered proof of solvency to be important for a long time, before I started Just-Dice, before I had such "competition".

Consider the situation: when asked about their solvency, they produced a string of feeble excuses for why they couldn't provide it. Once all these excuses were demonstrated to be feeble they would rather remove the investment feature from their site than prove solvency.

Ask yourself why they would do that. It makes them look guilty, when proving solvency would be so easy.

It strikes me that the only reason I wouldn't prove solvency in such a situation would be if I couldn't.

The warnings are there because they are a new site offering large bets with a small bankroll and are unwilling to prove that the bankroll exists. That's something worth warning about. The question of how long warnings should stay up for is a difficult one. I have scammers PMing me saying "it's been a year since I scammed, and I paid everyone back when I was caught, so can you remove the warning now?"... I don't remove it. They scammed once, they'll likely try it again. It doesn't matter that they've gone a year without scamming. If you had cause to believe MtGox was insolvent 2 years before they finally shut down, how long should you leave the warning up for? If they never prove their solvency, you have to reason to believe anything has changed.

[tspacepilot]

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing".  Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback.  You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand.  What's the right value and unit for X?

I wonder how much your judgement is being coloured by wearing their signature. Or mine by being in competition with DaDice. I do know I have considered proof of solvency to be important for a long time, before I started Just-Dice, before I had such "competition".

Consider the situation: when asked about their solvency, they produced a string of feeble excuses for why they couldn't provide it. Once all these excuses were demonstrated to be feeble they would rather remove the investment feature from their site than prove solvency.

Ask yourself why they would do that. It makes them look guilty, when proving solvency would be so easy.

It strikes me that the only reason I wouldn't prove solvency in such a situation would be if I couldn't.

@above, I understand your position here.  I think it's been made quite clear, below you start to address my question.

The warnings are there because they are a new site offering large bets with a small bankroll and are unwilling to prove that the bankroll exists. That's something worth warning about. The question of how long warnings should stay up for is a difficult one. I have scammers PMing me saying "it's been a year since I scammed, and I paid everyone back when I was caught, so can you remove the warning now?"... I don't remove it. They scammed once, they'll likely try it again. It doesn't matter that they've gone a year without scamming.

But "scamming once" isn't the situation here.  You guys have all admitted that what this adds up to is that you find it fishy they don't want to prove their bankroll.  You say you need to warn people about this, that seems fine.  However, and I understand this is hypothetical, it seems that what dadice is arguing is that they don't need to do what you say in order to provide a legit service to their customers/investors.  Presumably you would agree that at the end of the day, what matters is whether or not they can provide a legit service for their customers/investors and that time will tell about whether or not they can actually do this.  It seems to me that a lot of the strength behind you guys' argument that what they are doing is "fishy" amounts to the fact that 1) others who haven't proved bankroll have ended up non-legit 2) these guys haven't been around for too long.  On (1), presumably dadice says "well, we're not those other guys" on (2) at some point, I'd think enough time would have elapsed s.t. (2) wouldn't really be a legitmate criticism.  Consider, for example, that if you or Stunna decided to keep some information private, you'd be able to point to your long-standing reptuation as legit if people questioned you.  At some point in the future, I'd think that dadice also graduates to that class.  I'd also think that at that point, you guys would have to say "well, okay, they never showed us their bankroll, but I guess you weren't scammers".  Right?

If you had cause to believe MtGox was insolvent 2 years before they finally shut down, how long should you leave the warning up for? If they never prove their solvency, you have to reason to believe anything has changed.

Well I guess 2 years is a long time.  And maybe for you, someone who doesn't prove their solvency is always in the class of people who you have cause to believe they are insolvent.

[katerniko1]

this is pointless.
ponzi will scam becuse they promise to give you % on your invest.
when you invest in dice they have 1% house edge means on end they will probably win that 1% and they profit from people lossing money on gambling. witch ponzi dont. you cant compare those 2 things its totaly diffrent.
when you invest in dice you just profit when other people playing lose.
and till now there is no any sign of trying to scam so you can stop bumping this thread.
regards
-katerniko1

[dooglus]

But "scamming once" isn't the situation here.

OK, but "doing something flag-worthy" is. And the question is whether flag-worthiness diminishes over time.

You guys have all admitted that what this adds up to is that you find it fishy they don't want to prove their bankroll.  You say you need to warn people about this, that seems fine.  However, and I understand this is hypothetical, it seems that what dadice is arguing is that they don't need to do what you say in order to provide a legit service to their customers/investors.

What is fishy is that they would rather offer weak excuses and then remove part of their site rather than offering a proof that would strengthen their image. This undoubtedly makes them look bad when they could look good, if only they were solvent.

There have been so many instances of scammy Bitcoin services that it's not unreasonable to expect the legit ones to take the simple step of showing that they are solvent. The ones that refuse to do so without good reason are likely not able to.

Presumably you would agree that at the end of the day, what matters is whether or not they can provide a legit service for their customers/investors and that time will tell about whether or not they can actually do this.

Yes, that is all that matters. But "time will tell" isn't helpful. People want to know whether it is safe to deposit there right now. Waiting a month to see if they shut up shop or not isn't helpful. If they don't, you still can't safely invest because maybe they close down the next day. If they are offering 20 BTC payouts per roll, and have only a 500 BTC bankroll, that isn't "legit". They are taking far too big a risk of bankruptcy, with other people's money.

At some point in the future, I'd think that dadice also graduates to that class.  I'd also think that at that point, you guys would have to say "well, okay, they never showed us their bankroll, but I guess you weren't scammers".  Right?

I guess so. But at what point? I'm horrible at predicting the future. I thought dicebitco.in and dice.ninja were the good guys, and that PRC wouldn't last 6 months. I was wrong in all 3 cases...

[dooglus]

this is pointless.
ponzi will scam becuse they promise to give you % on your invest.
when you invest in dice they have 1% house edge means on end they will probably win that 1% and they profit from people lossing money on gambling. witch ponzi dont. you cant compare those 2 things its totaly diffrent.
when you invest in dice you just profit when other people playing lose.
and till now there is no any sign of trying to scam so you can stop bumping this thread.
regards
-katerniko1

Ponzis shut down because they promise to pay out more than they take in, which leaves them insolvent and unable to pay everyone. It's the insolvency that is the problem. If a Ponzi scheme had millions of BTC of their own they could operate for a while paying everyone a nice profit. It would make no sense to do so, but it could happen.

The same with dice sites. The 1% edge is no guarantee. Especially when you're offering 4% of your bankroll as the maximum payout per bet. Variance is "a bitch" as any poker player will tell you. It is easily possible for a dice site to go bankrupt if their maximum payout is too big for the size of their bankroll.

But the main issue here is one of trust. These guys refuse to demonstrate that they still have the coins they are supposed to have, but have offered no good reason for their refusal. The most likely reason is that they no longer have all the coins they are supposed to have.

[Twipple]

Shocking to read people accusing the dadice site which was said to be a trustworthy site before. Every gambling or dice site is definitely risky but to accuse some website without having any open scam accusation is weird. Hope this site never turns out to be a scam site and they keep paying their users as before and this speculation proves to be false. The campaign has really helped a lot of users  

Just because the campaign worked out, doesn't mean it is not a scam. At this stage it is a probable scam, so is the reason why there is no scam accusation against it . But all those related have already been negative repped.