Anyone that was there can see right through this... you went so far as to tell Road to go ahead and send you the BTC for escrow. So to say you didn't agree to play/didn't back out is trying to skirt by on a technicality - the progress bar was at 90%.
You're right. I had forgotten about posting an address.
But I think you're reading too much into what I said about the lack of provable fairness in the game that Road proposed.
I'm not saying the Dean is dishonest, or that he would cheat me. I was simply saying that the potential for collusion was there, and that I would rather only play provably fair games. That isn't accusing anyone of anything.
do not come in the chat and spend 20 minutes arranging details of a bet and get ready to do it, then randomly back out last minute by throwing Dean under the bus. Better yet, never say a single word to the PRC community or visit the site until you come up with some kind of proof or precedent with Dean's past actions for heinous accusations. Saying "I also didn't accuse Dean of anything." is bogus. There was some serious accusations that were implied.
I came to the site because I was feeling tempted to gamble. I managed not to in the end, which I'm happy about. I came close though. If Road had transferred the 10 BTC when I gave him my address I'm sure I would have felt committed.
I don't need any proof of anything. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I simply don't feel comfortable playing a game that isn't provably fair. Playing against the house is fine with the way the system currently stands. Playing against another player isn't. That is all.
Also, comparing the sjess situation [...]
I think the sjess situation has been discussed enough. It's pretty clear where everyone stands on it.
