Ideally we prevent a scam, instead of just closing our eyes and let the scam with many losses happen :/
Withdrawals have nothing to do with solvency. MtGox was doing withdrawals for long time while not being solvent.
Proof of solvency is a standard practice for dice sites that accept investments. After all the bad excuses, it's clear they don't have the claimed bankroll. This hurts them so much - while an hour of their time could easily prove their solvency. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't do it, except for the obvious one: they don't have the coins.
Withdrawals have nothing to do with solvency. MtGox was doing withdrawals for long time while not being solvent.
Proof of solvency is a standard practice for dice sites that accept investments. After all the bad excuses, it's clear they don't have the claimed bankroll. This hurts them so much - while an hour of their time could easily prove their solvency. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't do it, except for the obvious one: they don't have the coins.
I have to say I've been impressed with your posts recently. You have a knack for getting right to the core of the issue and making it clear. Good job!
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.
so I think trust issue will now be solved too. I'm sure doog will do the right thing.
I think I have done the right thing. DaDice's actions have raised red flag suggesting that they don't have the coins they claim to have. For me this makes it quite likely that they will pull an exit scam at some point. It's possible they are insolvent and hoping that players will lose enough on their site to make up the shortfall. That's likely how MtGox was operating too, insolvent and hopeful, and we all saw how that ended up. I think the right thing to do here is to raise the concern, link to the relevant information, and let each potential player make up their own mind.
A lot of people are missing the point here. Proof of solvency should still be shown, especially now.
If you have a max payout of 20 Bitcoin players will want to know that they can trust the site to payout if they come in and win 3 max bets in a row.
Showing you have funds at least lets them see you have the funds to payout on a win.
If you have a max payout of 20 Bitcoin players will want to know that they can trust the site to payout if they come in and win 3 max bets in a row.
Showing you have funds at least lets them see you have the funds to payout on a win.
This is a whole new chapter, I mean you only ask such questions if they don't honour withdrawal requests. Dean as usual trying to change subject... I hope what you said is true this time (that one being your last post). I sincerely hope so, I really do
You're suggesting that even if you strongly suspect a site to be insolvent and offering bets it can't safely afford, you shouldn't start asking questions until they actually stop allowing withdrawals? But by then it's too late and everyone has lost their money. Currently they're offering fixed 20 BTC payouts with a sub 1k bankroll. I've seen mention that the actual bankroll is 10x smaller, due to "kelly" multipliers, so maybe it's only 100 BTC in reality, and so could be wiped out in just 5 bets if the maximum payout doesn't automatically adjust. I don't know enough about how the site works to know if that's a real risk, but a little transparency in that regard would be useful. How can you safely offer 20 BTC payouts with such a small bankroll?
I don't see other sites also have the proof of solvency
You're not looking hard enough. It's really the expected thing to do.
Dadice has a good reputation before, I don't think they will scam players in the future, and dadice
MtGox, dice.ninja, pirateat40, etc. all have good reputations before. And bad reputations after. We are currently "before". Should we wait until "after" to change our minds?
But how about mtgox? People knew mtgox wallets before mtgox bankrupt, it was still dead, lol.
MtGox never did a proof of solvency, and it still isn't clear where the MtGox coins are, or how much they were supposed to hold in total. The best they did was asked Roger Ver to read this statement for them. He later made this apology for getting it wrong. This is why we need *proof* of solvency rather than just having some guy say "they're solvent". Bitcoin lets us do that easily, so why wouldn't we?
i havent see anyone complaining about (lost funds,not recieved withdrawal or anything like that) so that what you are saying is just -.-.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
if they dont want to make their bankroll public that is ok.
They have offered a series of weak excuses for why they couldn't show proof of solvency. That should be cause for concern for anyone who has coins with them. Businesses can run in an insolvent state, paying out all requested withdrawals, for a long time. But when they run out of funds it's over. See MtGox, or any Ponzi in history.
Proof of solvency can'r prove anything, scammers can also run away with funds after showing the proof, the proof is just shown to everyone, but it is not controlled by 3rd party, can't mean anything either.
Proof of solvency proves solvency. It's in the name. It doesn't prove anything about trustworthiness. It simply proves that they still have the coins they were entrusted with. Isn't that worth proving? Isn't it alarming if someone who you trusted to look after coins for you refuses to show you that they still have them and makes up weak excuses about why they can't?
It started because they were taking investors. However, they've closed that program now so it would seem that everyone has had their say here already and we should probably just see what happens. Several folks have expressed the skepticism that because they refuse to show their funds, they may not actually have them. However, dadice has stated that he's not going to bow down and do exactly what people tell him to do just because they demand it. I can see both sides having merit. I also don't like being told what to do.
Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll. I think that's what this all adds up to.
I have a question for OP Shorena: if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand. You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.
Dadice has been growing and working well, they aren't going to prove their bankroll. I think that's what this all adds up to.
I have a question for OP Shorena: if, say, dadice continues to go along with no problems, how long will you let your negative feedback stand. You admit that your feedback is speculative, I'm just curious about how long you think it should stand if things continue to go smoothly for them.
Their unwillingness to do the right thing and demonstrate their solvency is a warning sign that needs to be flagged. They way they reacted to the community requesting proof of solvency is another red flag. Nobody is telling them what to do. Rather, we are warning potential customers who might otherwise be unaware of DaDice's actions.