Quote from: $username on September 09, 2014, 11:29:16 PM

Quote from: ACCTseller on September 09, 2014, 11:03:38 PM

Quote

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.

dooglus has already made an equitable measure that disregarded the actual rules. He can (and I argue he should) disregard this rule too for equity.

What rules are you referring to?

I disagree that he should ignore the rule that forces users to keep up signatures. I don't think there is any signature campaign that will pay you if you leave the campaign early. Users are being paid for both their time and their posts. If someone were to make a very good post that is looked at by a lot of people on the 3rd of the month, then dicebitco.in should have their signature displayed until the end of the month as this is what they are paying for.

The escrow was used to protect users against nonpayment. Until the time comes that users are not paid the funds should remain in escrow. Granted it may not be necessary to wait until 48 hours after the period ends to pay users as they have indicated that users should be paid from escrow at the end of the period.

Quote

It should be noted that there is not any actual evidence that dicebitco.in actually scammed.

There is. There are people who should have won BTC, but did not. DiceBitco.in has refused to pay them the winnings that they are entitled to.

Think about it, is it not scamming when you truly won a jackpot, but you are refused payout because you didn't gamble and lose all your deposited BTC?

Have you seen evidence that all skipped nonces should have been a winning roll? If you have not seen this evidence then the more accurate thing to say would be people who probably should have won BTC did not.

It appears that they were trying to prioritize payments somewhat. Your argument is that they profited overall from the bug. This would not be true if they had started with (estimated) 200 BTC and ended with nothing (they claim to be broke). They either did not thoroughly investigate claims of losses enough (and "refunded" people who were not really due a refund) or the nonces were skipped on some non-winning bets as well (causing them to essentially payout huge winnings to a losing lottery ticket).

I suspect they likely did not invest enough in pentesting and security......but then again this does assume that mateo is not associated with them.

EDIT:

Quote from: $username on September 09, 2014, 11:37:39 PM

Just noticed this 'note':

Quote from: bitcoininformation on September 09, 2014, 06:12:20 PM

Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).

That's not something you can enforce. You can only enforce new additions to people who (re)sign up after that date. DiceBitco.in cannot make a rule saying "New rule: we hare reducing payouts by 90%, bye" and have it apply to people who already signed up and agreed to the rules in the state as they signed up.

Also, adding a disclaimer still means 'You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES'.

I believe this note was added prior to the last edit, and is really more of a clarification then a rule. The average person should assume this would be required without it being written.

Also the fact that the post was last edited on a certain date does not mean this statement was added at this time. I doubt that many people noticed it because it is so obvious. All it means is that they added/removed something on this date.