Quote from: $username on September 09, 2014, 10:23:14 PM

Quote from: $username on September 09, 2014, 10:15:08 PM

@dooglus / @bitcoininformation:

Which rule specifically prohibits inclusion of a disclaimer? By interpreting the rules to have this clause based on 'common sense', you are making an equitable decision.

If you're willing to make this equitable decision, you should have no problem to also make another which is that the circumstances surrounding advertising DiceBitco.in has significantly changed.

Also, preferring specific creditors over others doesn't sound like the best way to do this. You should get the total amount owed, and work out the percentage that the 10 BTC covers. Pay everyone in proportion, instead of having some creditors walk away with the full amount and others with 0.

The 10 BTC being held by bitcoininformation and dooglas is essentially collateral to secure that payment be made to participants of the signature campaign. In the event that dicebitco.in defaults on their obligations (does not pay when payment is due - 48 hours after the 30th) then the collateral (BTC in escrow) can be used to repay debt owed to the participants. Any shortfall would then be considered to be a general obligation of dicebitco.in.

The majority of the money owed by dicebitco.in (BTC supposedly lost by investors and gamblers due to the nonce skipping bug and the large winnings by the whale) is unsecured and thus should be treated differently then secured creditors.

If you are referring to some users getting paid and the ones who leave the campaign early not getting paid, then this is the expected result. The rules of the campaign are that you must keep your signature up the entire period and if you drop out or take down your signature then you are not entitled to payment.

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed. Everything presented so far is speculation and conspiracy theories (I agree that it does look very bad, but they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt). To essentially amounts to blackmailing users into taking down their signature or modify it in a way that would make advertising ineffective is not the right thing to do. Anyone could equally argue that a disclaimer is warranted for any of the other signature campaigns. The difference in this case is that there is speculation that they scammed and there is essentially an angry mob after the site.

Any person considering utilizing the services of any bitcoin related site should do their homework and research the site in question. This research would surely result in them seeing these allegations and can act accordingly.

The way the escrows are working is really the most fair for everyone.

To the people who are asking for payout early - this would great for you as you would be able to join a new signature campaign early and earn more, however it would be very unfair to dicebitco.in as they would not receive the full amount of advertising they are paying for (although I honestly do not see what good additional advertising would likely do for them - however this is their decision not mine).