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.
DiceBitco.in has admitted that only winning rolls had skipped nonces.
This "dude" (he used to say all the time) had accomplished to commit code into production that DID SKIP WINNING BETS on specified accounts. When he wanted to "alter" an account he added a field that flagged the account and made it skip winning rolls with maximum skips = 1.
He has also posted a small source code excerpt (now deleted) that has shown it *only* skipped winning bets.
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).
That's not my argument, they are scammers if they don't pay people winnings they should have received - even if they lost money themselves. I think they have refunded people not due for a refund (they might have lost nearly the same amount without the skipped nonces), but I still consider them to be scammers if anyone made a loss due to the rigging, whether in lost deposits or in lost winnings.
but in the meantime we are calling all the users that have lost bitcoins to verify their bets and if even only one bet has been skipped
we will refund their deposit up to one satoshi
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.
I agree with what you mean (the other original rules would cover it), but BitcoinInformation is implying that this is statement itself had merit retroactively which is not correct.
-----
The campaign is paid per post. While people swapping mid campaign would result in less exposure for DiceBitco.in, I don't think it's unfair for them to be paid the amount for the post they've already made during this month's period. After all, someone
could make 200 high quality posts in the last day, claim the payout for the month, and then remove the signature.
IMO, the most fair resolution would be letting everyone drop out and pay for the posts made up to this point. They should receive equal treatment to others who has a claim to the signature ad funds.