Quote from: Kirito89 on December 24, 2024, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 24, 2024, 11:54:55 AM

Edit: Dont Ignore this part again "I would like to ask the Duckdice.io representative how they ended up in a situation where a user found a bet that was clearly unfair, and Duckdice admitted to the unfairness of the bet and refunded the user. If they were able to recognize and accept unfairness in one case, it’s reasonable to believe that the same could be true for my case as well. This acknowledgment shows that it is possible for the system to manipulate or affect the results, and it raises concerns that it could be happening to me and potentially others as well."

https://imgur.com/a/OYcj7X9
https://prnt.sc/w5ws9b

The bet in that case was showing a result of a loss while it was actually a win.

Sure, I'll address this, while this was in 2019, from what I can tell from the backlogs, this issue was simply a visual bug, issues, but since boy911 was one of our VIP players, back then admins considered its better to actually give him a refund/bonus on the bet to keep him happy, instead of actually saying, sorry, there was nothing wrong with your bet.

Kind of funny that all the other blackmailers we've had so far, have proceeded to do the exact same thing as you're doing, use these screenshots out of context, to try to "further" their unfounded claim.

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 24, 2024, 11:54:55 AM

Additionally, you mentioned a loss of 0.38 BTC, whereas I have consistently stated it was 0.37 BTC, which suggests an attempt to alter the narrative.

I've had the number on the top of my head, indeed I mentioned 0.38 instead of 0.37, again funny that this is your attempt to say I am altering the narrative.

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 24, 2024, 11:54:55 AM

Additionally, the results you provided for my bets do not indicate whether they were wins or losses; instead, they only display numbers, which could represent either outcome. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to verify the fairness of the results.

That's exactly what it indicates, the number of wins on that certain percentage you were playing, vs the total number of losses. The second you generated that seed to play on, all bets on it were already predetermined, it wouldn't matter when you decided to switch sides, change payout, results would have been the same ( though it simply doesn't matter, cause you literally ignored every fact proven here by myself or khaleed regarding this).

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 24, 2024, 11:54:55 AM

I understand your frustration if you’ve dealt with false accusations in the past. However, I am here seeking answers and transparency about my specific case. I’m not here to make baseless claims but to address a serious concern regarding fairness. Instead of dismissing my issue by comparing it to past situations, I’d appreciate your focus on this case and its unique circumstances.

The focus has been on this case, there's no unique circumstance about it, you made a false claim, without any evidence to back it up, its been proven that it was in fact false.

And sadly while I can't prove it, we both know very well you're the same person as with the previous blackmail attempts we've had.

Now I'd like to ask upon bitcointalk to make a judgement on this case, as I think its been dragged on long enough, OP initially claimed he had a 158 red streak on 15.5% chance, it was proven that this didn't happen, after he switched his story that he manually changed his bets, while we can't verify this, we can however verify the fairness of the seed he was using, which was verified by khaleed0111.

Kirito89,
Duckdice Support.

Your explanation raises more questions than it resolves. If it was truly just a 'visual bug,' why would Duckdice choose to refund the user instead of clarifying the situation transparently? Refunding without addressing the root cause suggests an attempt to avoid scrutiny rather than fixing the issue, And if errors have occurred before, how can we ensure they haven’t occurred again, especially in my case?

It’s normal for players and the community to raise concerns when a platform's history includes such incidents. Addressing these doubts with clear, verifiable facts instead of dismissing them as 'blackmail' or 'unfounded claims' would be a better way to rebuild trust.
If there’s nothing wrong with your system, a clear and honest approach would help put everyone’s concerns to rest instead of dismissing them as baseless.

Also, calling my concerns 'blackmail' is unwarranted. I am merely highlighting a historical instance where a user caught a discrepancy—whether visual or otherwise—and was compensated for it. This proves that errors can and have occurred on your platform. My case isn’t unfounded; it’s based on genuine doubt and past incidents.

Your baseless accusation that I’m the same person behind previous blackmail attempts is completely uncalled for and unprofessional. If you cannot prove it, why even make such an inflammatory statement? This tactic of deflecting legitimate concerns by resorting to unsubstantiated claims against users only undermines your credibility further."