No, interesting list. But i think the snafu shouldnt really be part of it. The coins werent stolen. A roll-back means something different.
* It was an error
* No theft, nobody lost real 1300BTC
* You were honest and spoke with the shareholders
* The shareholders wanted it this way
So i dont see it justified being in this list. I might be wrong though about what happened.
1. You could say those coins were basically stolen, but have been subsequently lost: while the net difference was ~0, since they had been wagered the thief would "owe" the casino those coins.* It was an error
* No theft, nobody lost real 1300BTC
* You were honest and spoke with the shareholders
* The shareholders wanted it this way
So i dont see it justified being in this list. I might be wrong though about what happened.
2. This would only apply if "assuming the thief won instead of losing, he would have been able to withdraw".
3. But if he won he likely wouldn't have been able to withdraw more than the hot-wallet, since doog would have noticed something wrong before processing the withdrawal request.
4. But if (3) happened, this would have caused an even greater scandal for the casino, causing fear not to the investors (like it happened) but to the players, which is much worse.
5. So you could say that the actual amount stolen was "the hot wallet + the missed fees + the hipotetical damage caused in (4)".
6. Since the hipotetical damage is near-impossible to calculate, I'd go the easy route and just assume he stole the involved (1300 BTC) amount and be done with it.
One might think so but it runs under the premise Just-Dice scammed while in fact just-dice didnt do it. I lets JD look worse than it is. Its very different to "Labcoin scammed some thousand Bitcoins". But it looks the same in the list. One needs to learn the real things behind to justify it. But even then its a hypothetical loss only.
I only want to say that it looks like putting small timmy into jail to the murderers and thieves only because he forgot to do his homework in school.
