Quote from: holydarkness on December 30, 2024, 05:23:59 PM

Okay, this thread got reopened and the inevitable confusion that follows, having to address two simultaneous threads that's identical yet different is several minor details, has already begun.

OP, to straighten two things:

DuckDice's explanation through Kirito89's statement never changed. I've explained about this numerous times in your other thread. If there is any discrepancies or changed narrative, it's just because you misinterpret them, be it intentionally or unintentionally. I believe I've explained about this consistency on their narrative to an extent. I would advise you to really give them a read and try to understand the situation I am trying to help you understand through those words.

Second [and I am somewhat sure you'll say I am siding with DuckDice, taking money from them, biased, and the likes after reading the following sentence. I can assure you that I am not, but of course, I can't force you on a perspective] if there is any change in narrative and discrepancies, it's actually from you.

First you want a proof of PF and the losing streak. The PF has been explained exhaustively, about how there are several other independent 3rd party verifier aside from what they provided themselves, and I think we can pretty much rest assured that the chance they're manipulating rounds are somewhat minimal. Because otherwise, there will be at least a dozen of scam accusations raised against them with valid proof where the result of PF did not match what their platform said. I doubt there were not any people who randomly check the PF, and from these people, FJ happen to have the rounds where the outcome were not manipulated.

They must have a five-leafed clover if they could pull such stunt.

So, the lack of valid complaint that they're caught red-handed with manipulated outcome, where what's shown on their platform were different from the PF verification, would be an inferred testament that their game is indeed fair.

This bring us to the last of your concern, the losing streak, and this is where, IMO, your narrative is the one that changed, not theirs. First you gave a piece of info [the screenshot], and when DuckDice, with the huge help of khaled0111 actually managed to reconstruct the betting history, with the result pending you said,

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 21, 2024, 03:49:02 PM

Quote from: Kirito89 on December 21, 2024, 02:55:53 PM

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been a bit busy with holiday preparations.

So here is the OP's bet, with server seed unhashed.

Server seed unhashed: b36be07c87f1e0abe44f325cb4e7c80f7c8db147838d2532ca560bf549e86c47

Server seed hashed: cdd08e0c9cd4c8c25730b7c8168849164f06a192dc891b5fb10008ef767e631d

Client seed: PCEazJjcLcOyfxN0pOUbpK2dLdfqqa

The nounce the OP provided is 9650, So I assume his bet happened before then.

He claims somewhere on this seed a 158 losing streak on 15% happened, so if any fine bitcointalk members will be able to automate this to give out a spreadsheet of each bet would be very helpful, if not I'll get to it eventually, though I might be a bit delayed with holiday season.

Kirito89,

Duckdice Support.

I will wait for either you or any other Bitcointalk members to verify the streak, as you mentioned. If someone from the community can automate this and produce a spreadsheet of all bets on this seed, it would indeed be very helpful.

I hope this process can finally bring clarity to my concerns. Once the results are confirmed, I’ll act accordingly and update my posts and reviews based on the findings. Let’s work together to resolve this matter in a fair and transparent manner.

Upon a result that the losing streak did not exist, rolled the next key-information, [I deliberately quote in full instead of snippet so people who did not read the other thread will have a better chance of understanding the communication that transpired]

Quote from: Horsbyname on December 23, 2024, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: Kirito89 on December 22, 2024, 02:22:14 PM

Quote from: khaled0111 on December 22, 2024, 02:04:29 PM

Quote from: Kirito89 on December 22, 2024, 12:41:41 PM

Will check aswell for under 8449 (15.5% chance on the other side) but I'm guessing it will be something similar, which is not even close to the 158 losing streak he claims.

I just checked it too and can confirm the numbers you gave are correct.
- For bets with 15.5% win chance on under 1550, the longest losing streak is 41, from roll number 12 to roll number 51.
- For bets with 15.5% win chance on over 8449, the longest losing streak is 57, from roll number 5074 to roll number 5130.

Thank you for confirming it aswell. Really appreciate your help on this matter.

So with this, its been proven that OP's claim of the 158 red streak on 15.5% chance is in fact a lie...

Really appreciate your help on this khaled0111 and also a big thank you to holydarkness, if you didn't catch that part where OP posted a picture of one of his bets, we would not have been able to come upon his actual bet history and to be able to disprove his false claim.

Kirito89,
Duckdice Support.

Thank you for reviewing the streak, but I want to clarify that the bet I provided was from an earlier session and was shared only to prove my presence and account ownership. The 158 losing streak I mentioned occurred much later, possibly close to or even beyond 35k bets.

Before hitting that unbelievable 158-loss streak, I also experienced multiple smaller streaks, such as 30, 40, or even 70-75 losses in a row. These streaks were frustrating, but what truly felt suspicious was how the outcomes seemed to react to my actions. For example, whenever I switched sides, the results would immediately favor the opposite side. At some points, it genuinely felt like Duckdice was playing against me.

I would be truly glad if you could restore access to my account so I can personally review all my bets. That would satisfy me greatly and help clear up my doubts. It also raises questions because earlier, it was claimed that my account and bet history no longer existed, yet now you’ve been able to provide information about my bets. This inconsistency only adds to my concerns, and I hope for clarity moving forward.

Can you enlighten us what actually happened here and why that statement only came out after they disprove the claim of losing streak? While previously you simply said that you wait for the verification, without mentioning that the data will be useless? You could and should have mentioned it right then and there where Kirito stated as below, that the data would be irrelevant, so what happened?

Quote from: Kirito89 on December 21, 2024, 02:55:53 PM

He claims somewhere on this seed a 158 losing streak on 15% happened,[...]

I never claimed you took money from Duckdice. I appreciate your time and efforts in responding to this thread. However, I made a similar accusation to another user (Abubhakar) to see how he would react when accused of something he never did. This was meant to highlight how baseless accusations feel when made without evidence—something I am currently facing from Duckdice’s representative.

If I were to ask you which bets were wins and which were losses from the data they provided, your immediate response would likely be to ask, “Which side were you playing?” That’s exactly the issue—the history they provided doesn’t even indicate whether I was betting on the high or low side, making it impossible to evaluate the outcomes properly. Without this critical detail, their so-called proof becomes even more questionable and incomplete. as per Khalid 'The Number do not mean anything since its not showing if the bet was placed on high or low side'

I wasn’t aware that the data Duckdice would provide would be incomplete, showing just numbers without indicating whether each bet was a win or a loss. Naturally, I expected them to provide meaningful and transparent information.

Additionally, you mentioned my earlier statement where I said I was waiting to see the results. Did you also notice that in the same part, I clearly stated I would apologize to Duckdice if I was proven wrong? It seems you overlooked that part. My approach was always fair—I was open to admitting fault if they provided proper evidence, which they failed to do.