Quote from: dooglus on May 21, 2015, 04:31:44 PM

Quote from: tspacepilot on May 21, 2015, 04:13:27 PM

I think you need to change "do the right thing" to "do what we say is the right thing". Presumably they don't agree that doing what you say is the right thing. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that you guys remove your negative feedback now, I'm suggesting that at some point in the future, if things continue to go fine with dadice (they offer their service, people use it, can withdrawl as needed) then it would seem that you'd admit that your warnings were unfounded and you'd remove the negative feedback. You'd say, "well they never proved their solvency to me but I guess they didn't really have to do that and it's been X (days/months/years/centuries) now and I guess I can safely remove this warning. " If that's right, I'm curious how long you think the warning should stand. What's the right value and unit for X?

I wonder how much your judgement is being coloured by wearing their signature. Or mine by being in competition with DaDice. I do know I have considered proof of solvency to be important for a long time, before I started Just-Dice, before I had such "competition".

Consider the situation: when asked about their solvency, they produced a string of feeble excuses for why they couldn't provide it. Once all these excuses were demonstrated to be feeble they would rather remove the investment feature from their site than prove solvency.

Ask yourself why they would do that. It makes them look guilty, when proving solvency would be so easy.

It strikes me that the only reason I wouldn't prove solvency in such a situation would be if I couldn't.

@above, I understand your position here. I think it's been made quite clear, below you start to address my question.

Quote

The warnings are there because they are a new site offering large bets with a small bankroll and are unwilling to prove that the bankroll exists. That's something worth warning about. The question of how long warnings should stay up for is a difficult one. I have scammers PMing me saying "it's been a year since I scammed, and I paid everyone back when I was caught, so can you remove the warning now?"... I don't remove it. They scammed once, they'll likely try it again. It doesn't matter that they've gone a year without scamming.

But "scamming once" isn't the situation here. You guys have all admitted that what this adds up to is that you find it fishy they don't want to prove their bankroll. You say you need to warn people about this, that seems fine. However, and I understand this is hypothetical, it seems that what dadice is arguing is that they don't need to do what you say in order to provide a legit service to their customers/investors. Presumably you would agree that at the end of the day, what matters is whether or not they can provide a legit service for their customers/investors and that time will tell about whether or not they can actually do this. It seems to me that a lot of the strength behind you guys' argument that what they are doing is "fishy" amounts to the fact that 1) others who haven't proved bankroll have ended up non-legit 2) these guys haven't been around for too long. On (1), presumably dadice says "well, we're not those other guys" on (2) at some point, I'd think enough time would have elapsed s.t. (2) wouldn't really be a legitmate criticism. Consider, for example, that if you or Stunna decided to keep some information private, you'd be able to point to your long-standing reptuation as legit if people questioned you. At some point in the future, I'd think that dadice also graduates to that class. I'd also think that at that point, you guys would have to say "well, okay, they never showed us their bankroll, but I guess you weren't scammers". Right?

Quote

If you had cause to believe MtGox was insolvent 2 years before they finally shut down, how long should you leave the warning up for? If they never prove their solvency, you have to reason to believe anything has changed.

Well I guess 2 years is a long time. And maybe for you, someone who doesn't prove their solvency is always in the class of people who you have cause to believe they are insolvent.