Onedice.me is a scam | RandyFolds Sold account

[RandyFolds]

All's well as long as the positive trust is removed.

Ok, remove the positive trust I'm fine with that, but giving me negative trust based on BS is just trust system abuse. Calling me or the site scam while i never scammed or intended to scam anyone is just shitty act.

Some investors are pissed about your move so you know.

I will not discuss anything with stunna as he made his conclusions and decisions already. People on this forum should use their own brains and not blindly listen what few people say here, especially when they run competitor site's.

[1715022294]

1715022294

[moreia]

Also, I'm not sure if account selling is still allowed on this forum but it has been proven to almost exclusively been used for fraud purposes or to spam for signature campaign money. Theymos needs to come out and condemn it if this is still the case which I believe it is.

Why do you think that your opinion has any more influence than anyone else and that you can just call theymos out like that?
You're the king of assumptions, and this thread especially the domain registrars proved nothing. No valid evidence in this thread what so ever

[Quickseller]

Looks like RandyFolds is a hacked account, and the hacker was trying to sell it. Tecshare, do you have any further info?

He tried to get me to buy his account also, and I asked him to make at least one post (as it had not posted in ~1 year) to get the attention of the true owner if it in fact was hacked, and he refused to do so (he actually ignored my request, which I would consider a refusal). I also asked him if he can sign a message from an old unedited post with a BTC address and his response was

find one and I will see

[Nimbuss]

Looks like RandyFolds is a hacked account, and the hacker was trying to sell it. Tecshare, do you have any further info?

He tried to get me to buy his account also, and I asked him to make at least one post (as it had not posted in ~1 year) to get the attention of the true owner if it in fact was hacked, and he refused to do so (he actually ignored my request, which I would consider a refusal). I also asked him if he can sign a message from an old unedited post with a BTC address and his response was

find one and I will see

So what you are saying, that he did not have access to that account and yet after he started a dice site with it? Doesn't make any sense.

I see you are one of those account traders, I bet you don't reveal your sold accounts once sold. I wonder how would someone react after paying you 4BTC for that Hero account on default trust list you have for sale and then having everyone calling him a scammer because he bought that account.

[Quickseller]

Looks like RandyFolds is a hacked account, and the hacker was trying to sell it. Tecshare, do you have any further info?

He tried to get me to buy his account also, and I asked him to make at least one post (as it had not posted in ~1 year) to get the attention of the true owner if it in fact was hacked, and he refused to do so (he actually ignored my request, which I would consider a refusal). I also asked him if he can sign a message from an old unedited post with a BTC address and his response was

find one and I will see

So what you are saying, that he did not have access to that account and yet after he started a dice site with it? Doesn't make any sense.

I see you are one of those account traders, I bet you don't reveal your sold accounts once sold. I wonder how would someone react after paying you 4BTC for that Hero account on default trust list you have for sale and then having everyone calling him a scammer because he bought that account.

I am saying that he did not want to attract attention to the account by posting with it. If the account was hacked several months ago the new owner could have made a new account when he was unable to access his old account. If the old owner saw his old account making posts they he might claim that it was hacked.

I did not purchase nor sell this account because there was a question over ownership. If you want to scam then confidentiality will not be kept. If you want to use your account for non obvious scamming purposes then there is no reason for me to disclose that an account was sold.

[Stunna]

All's well as long as the positive trust is removed.

Ok, remove the positive trust I'm fine with that, but giving me negative trust based on BS is just trust system abuse. Calling me or the site scam while i never scammed or intended to scam anyone is just shitty act.

Some investors are pissed about your move so you know.

I will not discuss anything with stunna as he made his conclusions and decisions already. People on this forum should use their own brains and not blindly listen what few people say here, especially when they run competitor site's.

1. Your website claims to be "provably fair" for investors, this is a blatant lie.

2. There is a mountain of evidence that you are giftcoins / luckynumber / zeeshanblc . You could actually start viewing some of the evidence and try to refute it instead of claiming it is all one giant coincidence.

3. It's extremely pathetic that you purchased a default trust account just to leave me negative feedback in retaliation. Supposedly the same account claims to have invested 300 coins on the site.


All bitcoin dice investment schemes could very well be scams, but in this situation I'm 100% certain that yours is.

[TECSHARE]

Looks like RandyFolds is a hacked account, and the hacker was trying to sell it. Tecshare, do you have any further info?

No this is not hacked account if you really want to know.

If you have not been hacked please contact me and I will verify for everyone here. If you are really the original account owner you know how to do this outside of the forum.

[Varicon]

Just thought I'd offer another opinion on this site after seeing it launch..

For those who don't know, there's an older casino/dice site running under the name 'LuckyNumber' which was proven by another user to not be provably fair (link to this post).
The casino's "provably fair" method was created in such a way that ANY bet at ANY time could be manipulated and force a loss to the user, regardless if he chose a client seed / different bet chance.

After I saw this, I thought that luckynumber might be using this to pull extra funds by manipulating bets, so I did a little research into the site and found that giftcoins (the 'administrator') and zeeshanblc (a 'player') where the same person. The link for this information can be found here.

What they were doing was creating a large number of fake bets, raising the volume of their site to make it look active and to make it look like players were winning lots of coins off the site. However all these alternative accounts were linked directly to the address linked on zeeshanblc's account.


How does this relate to onedice?

Looking at the first post in this thread, there are a few things that show that luckynumber and onedice are the same site.

• Both domains registered by the same registrar (Tucows)
• Both websites share very similar meta descriptions and meta keywords

I've gone and taken a look at the two sites myself to make a comparison and see what else they share in common!

• Imgur album with a few pic comparisons
• Site structure is the same, ie js files stored under /assets/front/js/file.js
• Both sites spell loses as 'looses' (css class)

Furthermore the style of writing by RandyFolds is pretty close to giftcoins, it's a sort of broken English thing.

[dooglus]

I posted in the self-moderated thread, but in case it gets deleted I'll post here too:

I see problems with this site:

1) The game isn't provably fair for players since the betid is used in generating your roll. If you make a big bet and were due to win, the site can easily just delay your bet for a fraction of a second, process someone else's bet first (or insert one of their own) and give you a different betid. That will give you a different roll, which you might lose. They can keep doing this until you get a losing roll.

2) Similarly it isn't provably fair for investors.

3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.

4) I don't see any proof of solvency. Where's the cold wallet?

5) OP seems to have bought his forum account. RandyFolds didn't write like that. Buying accounts with positive trust for the purpose of running a site that claims to be provably fair for players and investors but isn't should set off alarm bells.

[BTCmoons]

I posted in the self-moderated thread, but in case it gets deleted I'll post here too:

3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.

Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)? There is a scam accusation that someone purchased a default trust account to backup the purchased account with positive trust. This person is claiming to have invested 360 BTC in the site and if your bitcoin moved to what could be their cold storage then this could be disproved.

[dooglus]

3) The investment model seems broken.

Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)?

No, I can't, because why on earth would anyone send any money to this site? I certainly didn't.

[BTCmoons]

3) The investment model seems broken.

Can you post the TXIDs of when you sent money to "invest" (and hopefully the TXID of when you withdrew your profits)?

No, I can't, because why on earth would anyone send any money to this site? I certainly didn't.

I see now that it says on their website that .1 BTC for one share or .001% ownership.

Your post semi implied that you sent .1 to test the investment feature.

Another flaw in the investment feature is that the bankroll will go up and down.  Say for example the bankroll was 10k BTC now and someone invests 1k BTC making the bankroll now 11k BTC, this would mean that you should need .11 BTC to purchase .001% ownership. By offering the price of one share at a static price, they are essentially shorting investors who put money in when the bankroll was smaller.

[dooglus]

Your post semi implied that you sent .1 to test the investment feature.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I just read the site and posted based on what I read.

Another flaw in the investment feature is that the bankroll will go up and down.  Say for example the bankroll was 10k BTC now and someone invests 1k BTC making the bankroll now 11k BTC, this would mean that you should need .11 BTC to purchase .001% ownership. By offering the price of one share at a static price, they are essentially shorting investors who put money in when the bankroll was smaller.

Since each 0.1 BTC share buys one 100 thousandth of the profit, they can't sell more than 100 thousand shares without them having to pay out more than 100% of their profits to investors. (I guess since they charge 10% commission on that they could in fact sell 111,111 shares, pay out 111% of their profit and take 11% back in commission, leaving them with 0). So the bankroll can't really get any bigger than 10k (or 11.111k) BTC.

By selling the shares as if the bankroll was already 10k, they're shorting everyone who invests when the bankroll is actually smaller than that.

At least they've put some thought into this scam - the fake provable fairness is one step more evolved from using the current time (like luckybit did), the investment scam isn't immediately obvious, etc.

[BTCmoons]

At least they've put some thought into this scam - the fake provable fairness is one step more evolved from using the current time (like luckybit did), the investment scam isn't immediately obvious, etc.

I think they saw how successful that DB was in getting people to quickly invest in their bankroll to crazy amounts. They appear to have invested a good amount of money into this scam, buying both the RandyFields account and the chalidore account in order to give credibility to the scam. I would guesstimate that they spent at least 3-4 BTC buying the two accounts plus some additional small amounts for hosing and the domain plus some additional amount for sock puppet accounts

[Tomatocage]

RandyFolds sent me this PM in response to the negative Trust rating I left him:

hi,

"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."


I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.

Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.

If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.

Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.

[Quickseller]

RandyFolds sent me this PM in response to the negative Trust rating I left him:

hi,

"Possible hacked/sold account. This does not appear to be the original owner of the account, and the new owner isn't simply using this account to participate in sig campaigns."


I really respect you but sometimes you just make wrong judgements.

Giving me negative trust while I did nothing wrong or against forum rules, did not scam or cheat anyone.

If this account is sold/bought - this is allowed and nothing wrong with it. Please point me where it states that bought accounts must be used specifically for signature campaigns.

Bold parts added by me for emphasis. Why is RandyFolds so focused on account selling/purchasing being within forum rules when the real issue is whether RandyFolds is the real RandyFolds? Well, I guess I kind of answered my own question.

I would suggest editing your negative trust to say that the account appears to have been purchased with positive trust in order to give the apparance of being trustworthy and tried to run a scam.

I don't think there is any problem with buying a senior account to conduct business with (although this is very risky) as long as the account has zero trade history so any counter-party should know it is appropriate to approach any transaction with skepticism and to take the appropriate precautions.  What happened in this case is the account was purchased with the intent of getting counter-parties to use less skepticism.

Also it appears that chalidore has been taken off default trust

[Tomatocage]

I would suggest editing your negative trust to say that the account appears to have been purchased with positive trust in order to give the apparance of being trustworthy and tried to run a scam.

I don't think there is any problem with buying a senior account to conduct business with (although this is very risky) as long as the account has zero trade history so any counter-party should know it is appropriate to approach any transaction with skepticism and to take the appropriate precautions.  What happened in this case is the account was purchased with the intent of getting counter-parties to use less skepticism.

Also it appears that chalidore has been taken off default trust

Good idea. I'll do that now.

[TECSHARE]

I have received no contact from RandyFolds. I am assuming at this point either he sold the account or it was hacked.

[john1975p]

I have received no contact from RandyFolds. I am assuming at this point either he sold the account or it was hacked.

Most probably it's sold accout, I saw some thread on Digital goods section that someone want to buy positive trust account and want to pay good money for that.

[dooglus]

I posted in the self-moderated thread, but in case it gets deleted I'll post here too:

I see problems with this site:

1) The game isn't provably fair for players since the betid is used in generating your roll. If you make a big bet and were due to win, the site can easily just delay your bet for a fraction of a second, process someone else's bet first (or insert one of their own) and give you a different betid. That will give you a different roll, which you might lose. They can keep doing this until you get a losing roll.

2) Similarly it isn't provably fair for investors.

3) The investment model seems broken. For 0.1 BTC you get 0.001% of the profits. That would be fair if the bankroll was 10,000 BTC but I very much doubt it is. Suppose the true bankroll is 1,000 BTC. That means the site is paying out 10,000 times 0.001% or just 10% of their profits to investors, and taking 10% commission on that. The net result is that the site only pays out 9% of their profits and keeps the remaining 91%. That would be fair if the site themselves had bought the other 90,000 "shares", and 9,000 BTC in a cold wallet to back that up with, but that seems unlikely. I mean there's nothing wrong with this model, but it's a very bad deal indeed for investors compared to other sites.

4) I don't see any proof of solvency. Where's the cold wallet?

5) OP seems to have bought his forum account. RandyFolds didn't write like that. Buying accounts with positive trust for the purpose of running a site that claims to be provably fair for players and investors but isn't should set off alarm bells.

It took a few days but eventually they got around to deleting it: