Quote from: fluffypony on October 19, 2016, 10:08:15 AM

So you're of the position that other investors, who may be asleep due to timezones, should just suffer the 100% loss? So in that event the investor is just "lucky", and the rest are "unlucky"?

Yes, because of this:

Quote from: fluffypony on October 19, 2016, 07:52:39 AM

An investor that divests ~~and withdraws~~ is no longer part of the bankroll.

Besides that, this is an extreme scenario because it assumes that you had the whole bankroll in a hot wallet. I don't see too much reason to consider extreme scenarios like that, better to just look at the facts. With the manual withdrawals in place, it would have been no problem to refund 100% to the most unlucky investors and 50% to those who lost 50% etc.

Quote from: fluffypony on October 19, 2016, 10:08:15 AM

And yet in the reverse all investors should be "lucky"?

No, just the ones who had a loss and were in the bankroll during the time of the bets.

Quote from: fluffypony on October 19, 2016, 10:08:15 AM

How do you not see the disconnect here?

No, seems very rational to me.

Quote from: fluffypony on October 19, 2016, 10:08:15 AM

Quote from: NLNico on October 19, 2016, 08:57:11 AM

I am honestly surprised about the replies here. I have been following your site for months and had a pretty high opinion of it since you are a trusted XMR developer.

lol sure, that's why we're listed on DiceSites, right? Don't patronise me.

That is exactly why I have been following your site indeed, to consider to add it on my site. For what it's worth: I am very transparent about that and I only add the most popular sites (which don't have a history of untrustworthy behavior.) Your site used to have plenty of days without any betting, so normally that wouldn't qualify. I have seen a rise in play since the XMR price rise, so I definitely was planning to add your site to the new version of my site. But I agree this is all not relevant to this situation.