Quote from: $username on September 10, 2014, 12:59:44 AM

Quote from: ACCTseller on September 10, 2014, 12:06:50 AM

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.

Quote from: DiceBitco.in

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.

I was not aware of this.

Quote from: $username on September 10, 2014, 12:59:44 AM

Quote

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.

Quote from: DiceBitco.in

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

My point is they lost all their money. The reason they were not able to payback everyone that was owed all of what they were owed is because they had no money left to give and thus had to prioritize. What they were doing was making bad business decisions in refunding people the incorrect amount of money. It essentially means that people were able to gamble there without risk during the time in question, if their account ended with more money then it started with then they would take all of their money plus their profits, if their account ended in the negative, they would likely have had at least one nonce skipped and thus would be made whole. They were likely rushing to make decisions in order to attempt to maintain credibility.

I wouldn't think it would have been that difficult to search their database for skipped nonces and paid out what should have been winning bets the winning amount.

Quote from: $username on September 10, 2014, 12:59:44 AM

Quote

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.

Fair enough, but I think he likely did not notice it before because it is such an obvious statement.

Quote from: $username on September 10, 2014, 12:59:44 AM

-----

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.

You are correct that they could make 200 posts on the last day, however most users would likely not do this. They likely priced their campaign based on likely averages of posts made over time. It would also remove any incentive for people who have already posted the max to stay in the campaign as they would gain nothing by doing so. Dicebitco.in would be loosing out on this exposure they are due.

It would also be unfair to users who are not posting as much now (for example because they are on vacation) but would post more towards the end of the month. People that leave now would be guaranteed a full payout , while the people that stay may not get the same rate per post. They would essentially be penalized for giving dicebitco.in the exposure they are paying for.