Quote from: RacingStar on October 04, 2019, 05:15:29 PM

Quote from: devans on October 04, 2019, 01:37:30 PM

Quote from: RacingStar on October 04, 2019, 11:49:39 AM

@devans
Can you provide evidence that the sites along with the bitcointalk account has not been sold?
Who holds the keys to the cold storage for the two sites?

I don't see how I could prove that, but I'm open to suggestions. What makes you think I've sold the sites or my bitcointalk account? oO

Nothing has changed with regards to the multisignature wallet: Ryan, myself and a trusted third party each hold a key to it and the wallet is still used as the primary storage for bustabit's and bustadice's funds.

Not easy to prove, if this account has access to an address which was previous posted and can sign a message perhaps?

I assigned a non-zero chance that the site was sold, hence my inquiry:
-Not mentioning the upcoming changes
-New quite harsh TOS

-"All funds of deleted dormant accounts including their balance and any bankroll investments are forfeited by the user and assumed by the operator."
This should only apply to newly created accounts, imagine someone is in a coma for 2 years, users should also be notified by email of new TOS.
- There are more ethical ways of implementing this:
Dormant fee (like what banks do) OR User can specify an emergency cashout address which is used after two years OR All user must specify cashout address upon account creation, OR just don't have a dormant fee since most sites don't.

-"Other cryptocurrencies sent to the service's deposit addresses can not be accessed by the operator and will not be credited to the user's account or returned to the user."
A more ethical way would be doing what other exchanges have done, usually non recoverable for small amounts, recoverable at the sole discretion of the operator for amounts exceeding $xxxxx and will incur a fee of $1000+20% (random example).

-If there was a new owner, they possibly want double the profit, if bankroll reduction was the goal while increasing volume, the house edge could have been lowered to 0.75%, giving 0.25% to owner and 0.50% to investors, and increasing the dilution fee.

-I'll try to be non-bias, in favor of the site not sold: same hashchain as RHavar pointed out, quick replies and transparency, no hard evidence of site sold.

I mainly just wanted to discuss this topic and bring it to attention, or as a possibility in the future.

Terms of service agreements have to err on the side of caution. It's unlikely that devans will enforce much of it (for example, a large percentage of bustabit's userbase is from the USA and the Netherlands, and he could have blocked their withdrawals at any point, but he continually chooses not to). Similarly, although devans is reserving the right to take over dormant accounts, I'm sure if a player resurfaced, devans would credit the balance appropriately. It's what I would do, at least.

Having a harsh agreement in place simply removes liability in extreme circumstances. For players with unreasonable demands and expectations, a harsh agreement lets the operator have peace of mind: they can use their discretion when it comes to issues like this. If devans receives Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Cash from a player, he can choose to return it at his own discretion, but a player has no right to demand it. This just makes things easier during operation as players know exactly what to expect.

As RHavar stated, seeing as that the hash chain for bustabit has not changed, I'd say there's a near zero chance that bustabit has changed hands.