PRCDice.eu - Largest Dice invest site - Open since 2013! Chat, Play, Invest!

[Cyrax89721]

I asked for your help to see if you could spot anything since you were seen as a trusted person in the community.

And Oh Wait, did Dean just say dooglus was a trusted person according to him? Doesn't seem so from this:  http://i58.tinypic.com/2whi13m.png

I just want to say that this irrelevant.  Since Dooglus is seen as trusted in the community, it is in Dean's best interest to have Dooglus check into issues that the site may have and exploit them at his behest.  He doesn't necessarily have to like the guy.

Far as I can tell, Doog & Dean have come to an "agree to disagree" point and should just shut the hell up about the whole debacle.  

[BayAreaCoins]

And about your bug bounty, I never offered one.

So you don't pay a bounty for the responsible reporting of critical bugs?

You have stated multiple times before that you do, both before and after I found the bug which had caused you to suspend betting on your site.

At least he didn't threat to sue you for helping him

Is that why you took the trust off him? or was it something due to the new trust system?

I took it off due to being late two weeks in a row for affiliates.  I still trust Dean in the grand scheme of things, but not to do things when he says he will.  

Not the end of the world and I would still recommend friends to play at PRC over other places atm!

[dooglus]

And about your bug bounty, I never offered one.

So you don't pay a bounty for the responsible reporting of critical bugs?

You have stated multiple times before that you do, both before and after I found the bug which had caused you to suspend betting on your site.

You didn't get in touch with me to report it like a normal bug reporter would.

No, you got in touch with me and asked me to help you. Then I helped you privately. Then you fixed the bug. Then I went public with it.

I asked you in general conversation if you could spot anything since it was similar code to what you would be used to. You didn't think there was anything wrong at first either.

No, you PM'ed me specifically to ask me to find out how the guy was winning so much. It took me a while to find your bug, but I found it in the end and told you about it privately. We don't have general conversation. Why would you claim we do?

It's all nit picking I guess and you'll be the one in the right on this forum.

In this case yes I am in the right.

This recent exchange between us is useful as an example of how you are incapable of following a logical argument. Your arguments against paying me the bounty I am due are pitiful at best:

* you went public with it ... but only after it was fixed
* I didn't specifically offer you a bounty ... but all serious bugs get a bounty
* it came up in "general conversation" ... only it didn't
* you didn't get in touch with me first ... because I PM'ed you asking you to help find it

None of these are anywhere close to being good reasons to go back on your word re. paying for serious bug reports...

I'm done here.

... and you refuse to give me a reason for refusing me the bounty.

Edit: re. use having "general conversation", here are screenshots of my PM inbox and outbox sorted by username. You'll notice that I have PM'ed you on exactly one day - the day when you approached me and requested that I help you debug your site that was being exploited. You PM'ed me twice other than on that day - once back in December last year asking me to invest in your site, and once in August asking me to advertise your site on Just-Dice. I didn't reply to either message.

Inbox:



Outbox:

[chazley]

Dean really looks bad in this argument. I have sided with both Dooglus and Dean in different arguments, but Dooglus is 100% right here, and Dean made two egregious mistakes with regards to Dooglus that he never really admitted/made up for: The withdraw fiasco and this bug situation. It really is a shame Dean/Dooglus never worked things out, PRC could have been something special.

[pawel7777]

Finnn PM I cant say anything yet to give the op  a chance to fix what he did, so I have to keep it off record.  I have two proofs that op is hostile when threatened.

OP is often hostile even when not threatened. And don't hold your breath for a bounty.

I told him months ago about a bug that was allowing a player to slowly drain the bankroll and have still received nothing in return.

Just curious. Did you ask him to pay you the bounty back then (months ago)?

[dooglus]

Just curious. Did you ask him to pay you the bounty back then (months ago)?

Yes, I asked in the PRCdice chat. Just laughed, but wouldn't discuss it.

[pawel7777]

Just curious. Did you ask him to pay you the bounty back then (months ago)?

Yes, I asked in the PRCdice chat. Just laughed, but wouldn't discuss it.

OK, it just seemed odd that you waited few months to leave him negative trust, so I thought it's just a case of him not paying coz you've never asked/claimed.

[dooglus]

Just curious. Did you ask him to pay you the bounty back then (months ago)?

Yes, I asked in the PRCdice chat. Just laughed, but wouldn't discuss it.

OK, it just seemed odd that you waited few months to leave him negative trust, so I thought it's just a case of him not paying coz you've never asked/claimed.

It's not a big deal, and I figured he would pay if I insisted but that he was just dragging his feet like he did with my withdrawal one time, and like he did with this week's affiliate payments.

But now it turns out he really is really just refusing to pay, which is an abuse of trust.

[pawel7777]

It's not a big deal, and I figured he would pay if I insisted but that he was just dragging his feet like he did with my withdrawal one time, and like he did with this week's affiliate payments.

But now it turns out he really is really just refusing to pay, which is an abuse of trust.

Yeah, but bear in mind that neg trust from you is much more damaging than from any 'average' member. It won't be easy for him to promote his site when most people see this:



So it's pretty severe punishment. But that being said, if the story is correct, I do see your point and you had every right to do it. He should know better...

[dooglus]

It's not a big deal, and I figured he would pay if I insisted but that he was just dragging his feet like he did with my withdrawal one time, and like he did with this week's affiliate payments.

But now it turns out he really is really just refusing to pay, which is an abuse of trust.

Yeah, but bear in mind that neg trust from you is much more damaging than from any 'average' member. It won't be easy for him to promote his site when most people see this:



So it's pretty severe punishment. But that being said, if the story is correct, I do see your point and you had every right to do it. He should know better...

So what's the answer? Should he only scam people who have less trust on the forum? That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Oh, I've got an idea. How about he stops lying and starts keeping his promises? It's a crazy idea but it might just work.

As you can see, I tried very patiently to get satisfaction from him, but as usual he made a series of stupid excuses for why he wouldn't pay me, and ended up with "I'm done". It's not like I didn't try.

[MadZ]

It's not a big deal, and I figured he would pay if I insisted but that he was just dragging his feet like he did with my withdrawal one time, and like he did with this week's affiliate payments.

But now it turns out he really is really just refusing to pay, which is an abuse of trust.

Yeah, but bear in mind that neg trust from you is much more damaging than from any 'average' member. It won't be easy for him to promote his site when most people see this:



So it's pretty severe punishment. But that being said, if the story is correct, I do see your point and you had every right to do it. He should know better...

So what's the answer? Should he only scam people who have less trust on the forum? That doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Oh, I've got an idea. How about he stops lying and starts keeping his promises? It's a crazy idea but it might just work.

As you can see, I tried very patiently to get satisfaction from him, but as usual he made a series of stupid excuses for why he wouldn't pay me, and ended up with "I'm done". It's not like I didn't try.

I don't think it is proper to assign a 68 btc value to your negative trust. Yes, you did do business with this amount, but it gives the impression that he somehow scammed you for this amount, when in fact you were paid out. All he has withheld from you is the bug bounty, which would be a value considerably less than 68 btc. In my opinion, it would be best to split your trust into 2 ratings. First, a neutral rating of 68 btc risked, where you acknowledge that he has paid you out, but point out that it was much delayed and that he has in not very professional (essentially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of your current rating). Along with this, you leave a negative rating only addressing the bug bounty, with whatever btc value you feel you ought to attach to it. Seems like a perfect use of the new neutral trust feature to me.

[sickhouse]

Consdering the trust of OP I guess this doesn't matter. But can't deposit Doge
https://i.imgur.com/3pYUw8i.png

[BayAreaCoins]

I don't think it is proper to assign a 68 btc value to your negative trust. Yes, you did do business with this amount, but it gives the impression that he somehow scammed you for this amount, when in fact you were paid out. All he has withheld from you is the bug bounty, which would be a value considerably less than 68 btc. In my opinion, it would be best to split your trust into 2 ratings. First, a neutral rating of 68 btc risked, where you acknowledge that he has paid you out, but point out that it was much delayed and that he has in not very professional (essentially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of your current rating). Along with this, you leave a negative rating only addressing the bug bounty, with whatever btc value you feel you ought to attach to it. Seems like a perfect use of the new neutral trust feature to me.

Yeah, I agree with you. Dooglus' trust takes a giant giant shit on the persons profile, so I think needs to be used pretty carefully. That said, 68 BTC is not an unreasonable amount, as it is wouldn't be an outrageous bounty. When I ran MP, I personally offered 10 BTC for something of this nature which was often more than 15% of my bankroll.  I guess Dean's in quite a different situation, as he's not the counterpart if an exploit is found -- so maybe a smaller bounty of 15 to 20 BTC would be reasonable?

You guys are confused about what the 68 BTC is.

That is the amount that Dooglus has trusted him with and Doog made it very clear that he got his money back.  15-20BTC is stupid... top level devs get what $450 a day.

It took Doog a day to find it (probably less?)

[CryForMeSky]

Was there a set bounty amount that was agreed on?  What were the terms to get the bounty?

IMO there's a big difference between "hey can you help me and I'll give you X" and "hey can you help me".  Obv there are tons of shades of gray between the two depending on tone and precedence also.

[suchmoon]

Was there a set bounty amount that was agreed on?  What were the terms to get the bounty?

IMO there's a big difference between "hey can you help me and I'll give you X" and "hey can you help me".  Obv there are tons of shades of gray between the two depending on tone and precedence also.

As far as I could see in this dispute Dean is not citing lack of a contract or some other technicality, he's just butthurt that dooglus is badmouthing PRC.

[BayAreaCoins]

15-20BTC is stupid... top level devs get what $450 a day.

It took Doog a day to find it (probably less?)

The purpose of a bug bounty system is to tell people: "If you find an exploit, I'll make it in your interests to report it to me, rather then abuse it"....

You have to remember, an exploit like this can be used to win hundreds of bitcoins.

"If you find an exploit, I'll make it in your interests to report it to me, rather then abuse it"
You have to remember, an exploit like this can be used to win hundreds of bitcoins.

So how would 10, 15 or even 20 make it worth more than taking hundreds?  

It is a felony to profit off it using a exploit to win hundreds of bitcoins in that way... that alone steers most the people away from that option (probably not your group of friends... I just don't believe your story... not to change the subject.)

I'm not defending PRC, but honest people get fucked out of bug bountys all the time.

I found a big bug in Bitbooks that allowed me to withdraw losing BTC and one in E*Trade that allowed me to sell $1 stocks, get charged .99 cents because that was the most they could charge me, but the computer system would repay me as if it was a full $9.99 trade.  Guess how much I got from both of them... as much as I took (I paid Bitbooks for my lossing bets I took back and they almost stole 15.1 btc of mine.) People get so pissy about their fucked up systems being pointed out. 


Dean offered me like $30 for PRCdice.com at first  

Doog, I won't write PRCdice.com in JD any more till this is settled... if ever.

[Seketsuna]

dean should pay dooglus for pointing out the flaws in his site.... atleast show some gratitude

[NLNico]

Well since Dooglus gave DB a positive "A++" trust rating and endorsed both DB and DN with his signature, I guess "this is actually good news".



Seriously though, it seems to me Dooglus should actually get a bounty. I was not online that night so I am not sure of the timeline, but if he only publicly disclosed the exploit after the fix I think it should be ok, even if he had some negative comments about it.

In theory one doesn't have to give a bounty at all btw. Most non-bitcoin sites would either ignore you or say they will go to the police if you hack them again (I had that latter once .) Luckily we at least don't have that with most bitcoin sites.

Many bitcoin sites have a clear bug bounty program (just 1 information page) that would help in this case. Basically most specify: if public disclosure is allowed after the fix or not. Some sites do not allow public disclosure of the bugs ever. I am not sure what the "default" will be of that, although I personally feel like it's ok after fixing.

In the end the negative trust seems wrong though. Endorsing DB so much because the site worked ok for you and putting a negative trust, with an amount (68 btc) you actually got paid out, because he didn't gave an (in theory optional) bug bounty - seems wrong to me. I understand you can all "rationally" explain these positive and negative trusts on these sites. But in the end I think you would agree that your judgement of the new DB and DN were not correct. And in the end I assume that you do not think that Dean will run with the bankroll. So yeh, as much as I respect your trust and technical knowledge, I think your judgement is not always as good. I think at least a "neutral" comment with an amount of 0 would be more fair, since it's more like a comment on PRC than an actually scam accusation.

[PocketRocketsCasino]

Well since Dooglus gave DB a positive "A++" trust rating and endorsed both DB and DN with his signature, I guess "this is actually good news".



Seriously though, it seems to me Dooglus should actually get a bounty. I was not online that night so I am not sure of the timeline, but if he only publicly disclosed the exploit after the fix I think it should be ok, even if he had some negative comments about it.

In theory one doesn't have to give a bounty at all btw. Most non-bitcoin sites would either ignore you or say they will go to the police if you hack them again (I had that latter once .) Luckily we at least don't have that with most bitcoin sites.

Many bitcoin sites have a clear bug bounty program (just 1 information page) that would help in this case. Basically most specify: if public disclosure is allowed after the fix or not. Some sites do not allow public disclosure of the bugs ever. I am not sure what the "default" will be of that, although I personally feel like it's ok after fixing.

In the end the negative trust seems wrong though. Endorsing DB so much because the site worked ok for you and putting a negative trust, with an amount (68 btc) you actually got paid out, because he didn't gave an (in theory optional) bug bounty - seems wrong to me. I understand you can all "rationally" explain these positive and negative trusts on these sites. But in the end I think you would agree that your judgement of the new DB and DN were not correct. And in the end I assume that you do not think that Dean will run with the bankroll. So yeh, as much as I respect your trust and technical knowledge, I think your judgement is not always as good. I think at least a "neutral" comment with an amount of 0 would be more fair, since it's more like a comment on PRC than an actually scam (accusation.)

It just shows how flawed things get when one person has so much power.

Every player and investor on the site knows that PRC is to be trusted and has been around longer than dooglus' site and all the scam sites he has
promoted. Yet PRC gets a bad name because me and dooglus had personal arguments that don't effect players or investors?

On that note, I am done with this forum.

If you want any news or official word about PRC come to the chat or put an email address on your account to get the latest news.

[PocketRocketsCasino]

Many players and investors requested that the forum stays open to allow people to have a discussion.

There's a lot of false claims made by a few people but I want to stress that all funds are safe as always.

Thanks