Quote from: dooglus on November 10, 2014, 09:17:40 PM

Great, so now we have two threads.

Is this one going to stay unlocked? Or should we use the other one?

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853348.msg9500820#msg9500820 :

Quote from: finnile on November 10, 2014, 02:09:16 PM

Dean Nolan: bay created a new one just so people could troll more so im removing his affiliate

This is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me about Dean.

He promises something (in this case "refer people to my site and I'll give you a cut of the revenue you refer")
Then he goes back on his word ("I'm not going to pay you because you pissed me off in some unrelated way").

How is "creating a thread so people can continue to discuss PRCdice (aka "troll", in Dean's mind) in any way related to the affiliate deal Bay had with Dean? It's totally unprofessional to break the affiliate deal after Bay invested so much time and effort referring people just because Bay made a new forum thread!

It doesn't mean his site is a scam, and I never said it was.

It does mean he can't be trusted to keep his word. And that's all my trust rating is meant to say.

If I was BayAreaCoins I would leave negative trust feedback over this, if it's an actual quote from the PRCdice chat from Dean (I didn't see it there - I only saw finnile's post here).

Edit: I notice on the old locked thread people were concerned that the "BTC risked" figure was misleading. I split my feedback into two separate feedbacks - a neutral one with the large amount I deposited, and a negative one with "0" as the amount risked. I don't know how much the bug bounty was, because I never received it, so I'm not sure how much I lost out on and don't really care. It's much more about the breach of trust than the number of coins involved.

Edit2: one of my cult members (joke, geddit?) sent me this screenshot, so it looks like finn's quote is accurate:

---

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853348.msg9501056#msg9501056 :

I also see Dean spreading more lies:

* At first I missed the bug, because I misinterpretted what Dean meant when he said the player was "betting low". I thought he meant he was clicking the "lo" button, but he meant low stakes. Very soon after I found the bug, while Dean was happy to re-enable betting on the site. He had no clue what was going on.

* I never saw the code of the site, and still haven't. All I saw was what was available to everyone. To say I "audited the code" is a stretch.

* When I point out bugs with other sites that have bug bounties, they pay me. I don't have to grovel to them, or argue with them. They just pay me. That's the deal with bug bounties. Find a serious bug, get a bounty.

* I have no warships. There are a few canoes with peashooters mounted on them in my moat, but that hardly counts.

I can post screenshots of the private message conversation that passed between us if that would be useful.

I just don't see what all this accomplishes.
OK I never paid you a bug bounty but in my understanding I was just asking for a little help. I didn't see it as a bug bounty type of thing. It's been 5 months now and we could have easily resolved this if you asked.

I think the trust you left is totally unfair and unwarranted, especially putting it 4-5 months later and only because we argued.

I have tried many times to have us on at least talking terms but you never wanted to. Maybe a lot of your posts I just minsinterpret what your meaning is or don't get some of your humour.

I'm not going to argue with you from now as it's gotten us nowhere and has been a huge waste of our time.

If you have any concerns or questions about the site or any form of support I will answer them but there's no point in going on about things from the past now.