I am confused. You do not see that they obviously lied about having that bankroll? Or do you not see the problem with that lie?
I simply said that investment decisions are personal one, mine are diverse than yours and viceversa. Back to your questions, I worked with many businesses and a lot of them fear divulging their financial stats outside the company, even the most transparent one, also a common problem is also that many people in businesses fear backtracking from wrong statements, bad choices, etc because this could very often mean
"losing their face", aka one's own sense of dignity or prestige in social contexts. To my understanding bitcointalk forum is a social context and, even if they may have realized their wrongs in not allowing a public display of cold storage addresses, they may fear losing their dignity and prestige into it thus preventing a public release of the cold storage addresses. IMO, I think the most sensible says is the dooglus one i quoted (below).
I don't want to comment on rest but the very first point: "it could be them withdrawing the same coins to their own wallet over and over again to make it look good" I think any one can now verify that using blockchain. One of the guys has already posted associated addresses with Da Dice wallet
So this would just be speculation / allegation. Its not Da Dice's duty to proof anything, it duty of person who makes such allegations to prove it.
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.
Let me be clear, at the moment, the problem I see was that such an
issue may hamper Da Dice businesses growth prospect but IMO we still have to see real wrongdoings justifing
-ve trust feedbacks. I hope not to be wrong or I may lose
BTC.
TBH I think you didn't read much of the actual posts during the discussion.
"
fear divulging their financial stats outside the company" They were the one to promise a public cold address and kept giving silly reasons why they couldn't provide it. It was obviously never about that "fear". Actually they are already very transparent about the "financial stats" by saying the bankroll and profit amounts - so they do not have that fear. Proof of solvency is simply proving they do in fact have that bankroll.
They did not have any reason not to provide proof of solvency other than the fact that they don't have the 500+ bitcoins.
I like to emphasize that this is the world of unregulated unlicensed anonymous bitcoin gambling sites. We had and have MANY MANY scams. My concerns about the cold wallet storage were not "trolling" like our expert fox says. If we, as a community, like "self regulation" so much, we should actively check the gambling sites ourselves. Is the provably fair implementation really good? Is this site solvent? Do they lie about anything? I think these things are really important. We should stand up against these scammers, even if they look like nice people or create a nice website. We should look beyond that and question every site's legitimacy. Unfortunately, others go for personal benefit and don't care so much as long as they can earn money on it (by signature campaigns or other ways) - although this may just be naivety for some.
My question for cold wallet address was very normal and ALL of their weak excuses are very concerning. To me, it is really obvious that they do not have the said bankroll. I -seriously- cannot imagine that anyone with an objective view and bitcoin gambling sites experience, actually still believes that they have a 500+ bankroll after reading the complete discussion.
In the end I do agree with you that everyone can put their money on any scam or non-scam site as they like. I personally think that the behavior of DaDice around the proof of solvency issue is very concerning and makes them untrustworthy which is why I left a warning feedback. If we would only add negative trusts for those sites who already scammed, we are not achieving much.
TBH I kinda feel not discussing with DaDice signature accounts (or newbie shills) anymore about it. No offense at all, but it kinda feels like I am just repeating myself 10 times and I am just talking to a wall - without any chance of the other party to seriously consider the things that I am saying. If you are the exemption I would be happy to reply again, but I do really hope you read the whole discussion first in case you didn't do it yet. Especially with shills like fox who has no idea at all about dice sites (counting activity by a "players online" stat, lmao) - it just really feels useless. My original reply was just to sandy47bt who said something about cold wallet storage Sawdice "problem" while DaDice clearly never showed their cold wallet. That is a fact and my goal was not to go into the same discussion again.
