[FULL] DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign - Continued

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Sorry I do not want to part anymore with this site, there is so much evidence of scamming by Mateo.
Please remove me from list, I do not care if I will get any money or not but will not advertise for scamming site.

LOL, thought that's very noble of you, giving up the earnings etc, but then I checked your posts (not one since you enrolled) 

[

So what, I can make posts next 3 weeks easily, is it matter much that I did not posted or not last week.
I am not always on PC like some others who stay online everytime here.

I have my RL and very happy with that. Campaign earning I use just like bonus not for feed myself.

left you positive trust, even if you didn't post.

Sorry I do not want to part anymore with this site, there is so much evidence of scamming by Mateo.
Please remove me from list, I do not care if I will get any money or not but will not advertise for scamming site.

Same here. I also think it's wrong that people should have to continue with the ad campaign when the owner called it quits and is very likely to have been a scammer.

Instead all the funds should be divided equally amongst the 100 participants.

left you positive trust

-------------------------------

Will be leaving other people that stick with the campaign and/or do not include an appropriate disclaimer negative feedback. I'll write up a new thread detailing my justification soon, and PM people first in case they are unaware.

[1714773542]

1714773542

[1714773542]

1714773542

[1714773542]

1714773542

[1714773542]

1714773542

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

@dooglus / @bitcoininformation:

Which rule specifically prohibits inclusion of a disclaimer? By interpreting the rules to have this clause based on 'common sense', you are making an equitable decision.

If you're willing to make this equitable decision, you should have no problem to also make another which is that the circumstances surrounding advertising DiceBitco.in has significantly changed.

Also, preferring specific creditors over others doesn't sound like the best way to do this. You should get the total amount owed, and work out the percentage that the 10 BTC covers. Pay everyone in proportion, instead of having some creditors walk away with the full amount and others with 0.

[ACCTseller]

@dooglus / @bitcoininformation:

Which rule specifically prohibits inclusion of a disclaimer? By interpreting the rules to have this clause based on 'common sense', you are making an equitable decision.

If you're willing to make this equitable decision, you should have no problem to also make another which is that the circumstances surrounding advertising DiceBitco.in has significantly changed.

Also, preferring specific creditors over others doesn't sound like the best way to do this. You should get the total amount owed, and work out the percentage that the 10 BTC covers. Pay everyone in proportion, instead of having some creditors walk away with the full amount and others with 0.

The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.

The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale)  is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors.

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed. Everything presented so far is speculation and conspiracy theories (I agree that it does look very bad, but they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt). To essentially amounts to blackmailing users into taking down their signature or modify it in a way that would make advertising ineffective is not the right thing to do. Anyone could equally argue that a disclaimer is warranted for any of the other signature campaigns. The difference in this case is that there is speculation that they scammed and there is essentially an angry mob after the site.

Any person considering utilizing the services of any bitcoin related site should do their homework and research the site in question. This research would surely result in them seeing these allegations and can act accordingly.

The way the escrows are working is really the most fair for everyone.

To the people who are asking for payout early - this would great for you as you would be able to join a new signature campaign early and earn more, however it would be very unfair to dicebitco.in as they would not receive the full amount of advertising they are paying for (although I honestly do not see what good additional advertising would likely do for them - however this is their decision not mine).

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.

The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale)  is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors.

I agree, the escrowed 10 BTC should be used for the signature ad campaign.

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

dooglus has already made an equitable measure that disregarded the actual rules. He can (and I argue he should) disregard this rule too for equity.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed.

There is. There are people who should have won BTC, but did not. DiceBitco.in has refused to pay them the winnings that they are entitled to.

Think about it, is it not scamming when you truly won a jackpot, but you are refused payout because you didn't gamble and lose all your deposited BTC?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Just noticed this 'note':

Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).

That's not something you can enforce. You can only enforce new additions to people who (re)sign up after that date. DiceBitco.in cannot make a rule saying "New rule: we hare reducing payouts by 90%, bye" and have it apply to people who already signed up and agreed to the rules in the state as they signed up.

Also, adding a disclaimer still means 'You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES'.

[ACCTseller]

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

dooglus has already made an equitable measure that disregarded the actual rules. He can (and I argue he should) disregard this rule too for equity.

What rules are you referring to?

I disagree that he should ignore the rule that forces users to keep up signatures. I don't think there is any signature campaign that will pay you if you leave the campaign early. Users are being paid for both their time and their posts. If someone were to make a very good post that is looked at by a lot of people on the 3rd of the month, then dicebitco.in should have their signature displayed until the end of the month as this is what they are paying for.

The escrow was used to protect users against nonpayment. Until the time comes that users are not paid the funds should remain in escrow. Granted it may not be necessary to wait until 48 hours after the period ends to pay users as they have indicated that users should be paid from escrow at the end of the period.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed.

There is. There are people who should have won BTC, but did not. DiceBitco.in has refused to pay them the winnings that they are entitled to.

Think about it, is it not scamming when you truly won a jackpot, but you are refused payout because you didn't gamble and lose all your deposited BTC?

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke).  They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

I suspect they likely did not invest enough in pentesting and security......but then again this does assume that mateo is not associated with them.

EDIT:

Just noticed this 'note':

Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).

That's not something you can enforce. You can only enforce new additions to people who (re)sign up after that date. DiceBitco.in cannot make a rule saying "New rule: we hare reducing payouts by 90%, bye" and have it apply to people who already signed up and agreed to the rules in the state as they signed up.

Also, adding a disclaimer still means 'You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES'.

I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.

[ACCTseller]

--snip--
Current members

Username	Posts at start	User ID	Rang	Bitcoin Address
-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------
BitsBitsBits	265	322685	Full	1P28xYEDFJd9CHH7XUcZjAP52tiiyqGhsj

--snip--

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

[mnporter2001]

--snip--
Current members

Username	Posts at start	User ID	Rang	Bitcoin Address
-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------
BitsBitsBits	265	322685	Full	1P28xYEDFJd9CHH7XUcZjAP52tiiyqGhsj

--snip--

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

Interesting theory !

Mines correct by the way

[franckuestein]

^ ACCTseller

I've checked my post count and wallet address, too.
They're both correct on the OP and we have to trust bitcoininformation and Dooglus. They're trying to do the best for the last month of the Dicebitco.in campaign

We have to be patient and don't disturb, payments are going to be send on the pay-days.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

DiceBitco.in has admitted that only winning rolls had skipped nonces.

This "dude" (he used to say all the time) had accomplished to commit code into production that DID SKIP WINNING BETS on specified accounts. When he wanted to "alter" an account he added a field that flagged the account and made it skip winning rolls with maximum skips = 1.

He has also posted a small source code excerpt (now deleted) that has shown it *only* skipped winning bets.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke).  They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

That's not my argument, they are scammers if they don't pay people winnings they should have received - even if they lost money themselves. I think they have refunded people not due for a refund (they might have lost nearly the same amount without the skipped nonces), but I still consider them to be scammers if anyone made a loss due to the rigging, whether in lost deposits or in lost winnings.

but in the meantime we are calling all the users that have lost bitcoins to verify their bets and if even only one bet has been skipped
we will refund their deposit up to one satoshi

I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.

I agree with what you mean (the other original rules would cover it), but BitcoinInformation is implying that this is statement itself had merit retroactively which is not correct.

-----

The campaign is paid per post. While people swapping mid campaign would result in less exposure for DiceBitco.in, I don't think it's unfair for them to be paid the amount for the post they've already made during this month's period. After all, someone could make 200 high quality posts in the last day, claim the payout for the month, and then remove the signature.

IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds.

[ACCTseller]

^ ACCTseller

I've checked my post count and wallet address, too.
They're both correct on the OP and we have to trust bitcoininformation and Dooglus. They're trying to do the best for the last month of the Dicebitco.in campaign

We have to be patient and don't disturb, payments are going to be send on the pay-days.

I am not saying that bitcoininformatoin and dooglas are doing anything less then a good job at managing the campaign, I am just speculating that the source of their information may not be the best source of information. Kind of like recommending them to CYA

[ACCTseller]

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

DiceBitco.in has admitted that only winning rolls had skipped nonces.

This "dude" (he used to say all the time) had accomplished to commit code into production that DID SKIP WINNING BETS on specified accounts. When he wanted to "alter" an account he added a field that flagged the account and made it skip winning rolls with maximum skips = 1.

He has also posted a small source code excerpt (now deleted) that has shown it *only* skipped winning bets.

I was not aware of this.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke).  They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

That's not my argument, they are scammers if they don't pay people winnings they should have received - even if they lost money themselves. I think they have refunded people not due for a refund (they might have lost nearly the same amount without the skipped nonces), but I still consider them to be scammers if anyone made a loss due to the rigging, whether in lost deposits or in lost winnings.

but in the meantime we are calling all the users that have lost bitcoins to verify their bets and if even only one bet has been skipped
we will refund their deposit up to one satoshi

My point is they lost all their money. The reason they were not able to payback everyone that was owed all of what they were owed is because they had no money left to give and thus had to prioritize. What they were doing was making bad business decisions in refunding people the incorrect amount of money. It essentially means that people were able to gamble there without risk during the time in question, if their account ended with more money then it started with then they would take all of their money plus their profits, if their account ended in the negative, they would likely have had at least one nonce skipped and thus would be made whole. They were likely rushing to make decisions in order to attempt to maintain credibility.

I wouldn't think it would have been that difficult to search their database for skipped nonces and paid out what should have been winning bets the winning amount. 

I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.

I agree with what you mean (the other original rules would cover it), but BitcoinInformation is implying that this is statement itself had merit retroactively which is not correct.

Fair enough, but I think he likely did not notice it before because it is such an obvious statement.

-----

The campaign is paid per post. While people swapping mid campaign would result in less exposure for DiceBitco.in, I don't think it's unfair for them to be paid the amount for the post they've already made during this month's period. After all, someone could make 200 high quality posts in the last day, claim the payout for the month, and then remove the signature.

IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds.

You are correct that they could make 200 posts on the last day, however most users would likely not do this. They likely priced their campaign based on likely averages of posts made over time. It would also remove any incentive for people who have already posted the max to stay in the campaign as they would gain nothing by doing so. Dicebitco.in would be loosing out on this exposure they are due.

It would also be unfair to users who are not posting as much now (for example because they are on vacation) but would post more towards the end of the month. People that leave now would be guaranteed a full payout , while the people that stay may not get the same rate per post. They would essentially be penalized for giving dicebitco.in the exposure they are paying for.

[Omikifuse]

I will drop for campaign, since the new events.

I made only 8 posts so far, not including this one, so I won't be paid anyway.

Good luck for those who stay.

[pawel7777]

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

Good point. Everyone should double-check their details, just to make sure. My addy and number of posts are correct.

[Mitchell]

@bitcoininformation

How did you validate these payment addresses are correct? Was it from the individual enrollment posts throughout the thread or was it from the OP of the signature campaign? I have not personally audited the list to make sure the enrollment posts match your list, however I might want to independently verify these addresses are actually addresses that users intend to have payment sent to. Dicebitco.in may have (intentionally or not) have incorrect payment addresses on the OP. If he was paying out then it would not be an issue, but since any payments sent to any address would be coming from a very limited set of funds it should be somewhat confirmed by each member. Either via PMing all the users in the campaign, starting a new thread for users to post their payout address, or using the address on the user's profile (similar to how PD pays out), or some other way.

Dooglus created the list posted in the OP, so I don't know how he got the addresses and starting posts. I'm assuming he copied it from the DiceBitco.in OP. Please do check that list if everything checks out.


TradeFortress, please tell me what rules we changed, as far as I know we didn't change anything. We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign.

The "no changes allowed"-rule is nothing more then a clarification in my opinion. All signature campaigns enforce this by either assuming that people will respect that common rule or by stating this in their OP:

...
3. Do not remove your signature or edit your initial post for 30 days
...

...
You will be disqualified and barred from the campaign if:
 - you change or alter the signature during participation
 - you do not meet the 50 post requirement after your time is up
 - you make the majority of your qualified posts in a small time frame
 - you cause serious trouble on this forum such as a flamewar or scam
...

So I do not think that this is a equitable decision.

IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds.

I have always been for this option, but that would violate the contract I have with DiceBitco.in. It clearly states that we use the escrow-ed funds if they don't pay out. Yes, the situation has changed, but that doesn't make the contract invalid as far as I known.

The contract is the following (if you find anything that could be used as a loophole, do tell me):

BitcoinInformation Escrow

First Draft

30-07-2014

Basic Information
This message will be a binding contract between Dicebitco.in and BitcoinInformation, which ensures payment of campaign members which take part in the "[DiceBitco.in] [Make the most out of your sig!] Make coins by simply posting!"-campaign. BitcoinInformation will be send a specified amount of coins which will be used to pay campaign participants if Dicebitco.in defaults or disappears. If Dicebitco.in pays in time the coins will be returned.

Fee's
BitcoinInformation won't charge anything for this service, but donations are always welcome.

Amount of coins to hold onto
The coins that will be escrowed are 5BTC

Procedure
The agreed amount of coins that BitcoinInformation will hold onto will be send to the following address: 1ExgQhoWP9aEJrSYgHKRt9EF8Hwa8aFprF. Once received, BitcoinInformation will sign a message stating that he is in control of these coins to proof to the participants of the campaign that escrow has been done through BitcoinInformation.

BitcoinInformation will return the coins to Dicebitco.in, once they did there first payment. If they fail to do so, the coins will be used to reimburse the participants.

Agreement
If Dicebitco.in agrees with this contract he shall send the coins to the address specified above. If Dicebitco.in does not agree they are welcome to send suggestion to BitcoinInformation which will be used to improve this contract.

In the end I will have to talk with Dooglus about how we continue this. You can disagree as much as you like, but I can't do anything until he gets back (since this is something we both agreed upon doing). This, however, doesn't mean I am behind it. I really prefer to just pay people for the posts they make and be done with it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

TradeFortress, please tell me what rules we changed, as far as I know we didn't change anything. We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign.

You previously have said that you will pay out in order, instead of proportionally. Here's the quote from your OP:

Members that stick with the campaign gets paid first, then the ones that dropped out and after that, well, if there is anything left it will be either kept or send back.

You shouldn't be prioritizing any signature ad campaign creditor over another signature ad campaign creditor. So, you shouldn't 'pay out group X, then pay out group Y if there is any left'. Rather, you should add the sum of all owed amounts, find the % that is covered by the 10 BTC deposit, and spread out all shortfall equally at the end of the contract.

----

re email response: "We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign (so the funds that are left over from the campaign itself). I hope this explains that":

People who did not drop out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.
People who dropped out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.

They have the same claims to the escrowed amount, and should not be treated any differently.

----

We only have 10BTC and we are not certain if this is enough

I think it is irresponsible to continue this campaign if you are not certain if it is enough, actually. Imagine if you escrowed selling a miner, but couldn't pay the seller in full because the buyer never sent enough. Is that acceptable?

[Mitchell]

You shouldn't be prioritizing any signature ad campaign creditor over another signature ad campaign creditor. So, you shouldn't 'pay out group X, then pay out group Y if there is any left'. Rather, you should add the sum of all owed amounts, find the % that is covered by the 10 BTC deposit, and spread out all shortfall equally at the end of the contract.

----

re email response: "We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign (so the funds that are left over from the campaign itself). I hope this explains that":

People who did not drop out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.
People who dropped out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.

They have the same claims to the escrowed amount, and should not be treated any differently.

Well, people that drop out normally don't get paid at all, because they didn't fulfill the requirement to keep the signature for the period you agreed upon. We decided that that isn't fair and we will use the leftovers to pay people anyway. I know that this isn't optimal and we might have to change it to just pay out right now.

We only have 10BTC and we are not certain if this is enough

I think it is irresponsible to continue this campaign if you are not certain if it is enough, actually. Imagine if you escrowed selling a miner, but couldn't pay the seller in full because the buyer never sent enough. Is that acceptable? [/quote]It is not, which is why I will talk to Dooglus as soon as I get back, which I stated before if I am not mistaken.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Well, people that drop out normally don't get paid at all, because they didn't fulfill the requirement to keep the signature for the period you agreed upon. We decided that that isn't fair and we will use the leftovers to pay people anyway. I know that this isn't optimal and we might have to change it to just pay out right now.

Yes. However, normally when conditions change, people are given the choice of opting out of the contract at no penalty.  Treating these people second does apply a strong penalty.

Example: My internet plan rose from $60 to $70 a year ago. The plan is on a 2 year contract. I was notified and had the opportunity to break out of the 2 year contract (no early termination fee) if I do not wish to continue.

I'll be sending out PMs and leaving feedback to the people that still carry this signature.

[pawel7777]

Yes. However, normally when conditions change, people are given the choice of opting out of the contract at no penalty.  Treating these people second does apply a strong penalty.

What's more important, Dooglus stated (yesterday) that whoever decide to drop their sig , will get paid for that period:

...

I would recommend that everyone who is concerned that DB is a scam should stop wearing the DB signature completely, switch to some other campaign, and at the end of the month we'll pay you out for the 9 days you wore it for.

Then you don't need to add a disclaimer.

It seems unreasonable to expect anyone to pay you for advertising a site with "this is a scam" tagged onto the ad. Even if the rules don't explicitly prohibit it, common sense does. Why would anyone pay you to say they suck?

[pabloangello]

Can I join this? And can I have others things in my signature despite DiceBitco.in sig?