This:
as far as that screenshot goes, he said that no updates happened after i reported the bug, there was a update. all i said there was a update and i proved it. and i said originally i can not prove that the update was for the bug, just stated facts there was one.
And this a few days back:
then they do site upgrades after i report this bug, again can i prove they also were doing this to fix that bug no.
The two statements contradict each other obviously. Or fix the punctuation/grammar in this last sentence, because honestly I took it as a badly expressed statement that you CAN prove this update was to fix a bug.
To summary my POV:
1. All bets were created via valid requests to the server.
2. The last bets from amGigolo's series have been created via API calls, not through the browser.
3. I can see no reason for a refund since I can find absolutely no evidence of any bug.
Additional info:
4. The update in the screenshot was for the web client to handle the new competition. There was a server code update, competition related too.
5. No, I am not manipulating server seeds obviously. It's not even possible. That's why we have the Provably Fair paradigm in the first place.
Please keep this ANN thread on-topic. amGigolo: if you want to elaborate on your case more, please start a new topic. It will be easier for others to follow.
Cheers,
Ethan