Forum is working for me with Tor browser but it is much slower and I am always getting cloudflare boxes to click.
Interesting. Cloudflare check did not work for me and I kept trying multiple times. I got the checkmark box, clicked it and even after multiple attempts it never went through. It just reloaded the page and did another check. Perhaps it depends on what exit nodes are being used. |
|
|
|
In the light of this, has the forum banned Tor exit nodes on their Cloudflare? Cloudflare by itself does not ban Tor so it must be the forum (or the threat level they have chosen). The administrators should look into it. I conducted a test by visiting Cloudflare website and I managed to pass the connection security check on Tor Browser. Worth looking into. It's terrible if Tor users cannot access the forum. https://developers.cloudflare.com/support/firewall/learn-more/understanding-cloudflare-tor-support-and-onion-routing/EDIT: Something is definitely going on, but I can't tell if it's Cloudflare or BTT hosting server or maybe a combination of both. For those who use Tor, there seems to be a way around Cloudflare check when it happens, and all you have to do is select the "New Tor circuit for this site" option. The page then loads normally (currently works for me).
And I've tried this. Even if it worked, I think it doesn't solve the actual issue. EDIT2: There is a link that allows Tor users to bypass Google captcha easily. If there's no other option, maybe similar could be utilized to bypass Cloudflare checks somehow. |
|
|
|
|
A little status update.
Instead of 2 people, we will be adding 3 new people to start next wednesday.
Note:
We are specifically looking for quality posters who have a genuine interest in the forum. If you feel like you are a quality poster but there is some rule that you are not comfortable with, it may still be worthwhile to apply (and maybe make it clear in the application that this is the case).
It is a sad fact that a lot of the posts on this forum are being made with the sole purpose of making posts to meet some post requirement and lack any meaningful value. We are not after such posters.
I've gone through applications and have a few "maybe's" but I strongy encourage more applications to be sent!
EDIT: I am also quite certain we will be adding some type of a bonus or an improved weekly payment for quality posters, esteemed users etc. as it is clear that one fixed pay amount does not cover every case.
|
|
|
|
|
Payments for Round 2 have been sent
Unfortunately I can't add new participants until, at the earliest, later in the upcoming round. However, I will be reviewing applications very soon and be in touch with people who have been accepted nonetheless.
Thanks for your patience. The reason for the delay is that the site owner wants to wait until some updates are done to the site before more participants are added.
|
|
|
|
|
Payments for Round 1 have been sent
@participants, I have added some notes to the spreadsheet.
Applications are still accepted but for this week, we will not add new participants. All previous applications are still valid.
PS. Would potential campaign participants prefer if addresses were supplied privately instead of here publicly? For those that this is an absolute problem, we can work something out if need be.
|
|
|
|
I'm 50/50 on whether to support the flag or not. On 1 hand, you were just a manager and no company is going to tell an employee we are going to scam everyone. It just doesn't happen, but I am curious when you @BoXXob came to the conclusion investors were being scammed and why you didn't make a post here at least warning people?
I left BitDice around a year before the site went down. I had my own life to focus on and I did not even log into Bitcointalk for almost a year. So, at the time I left it was not clear what was happening and after that I simply wasn't around or up to date at all. As you said, nobody told me that it was going to happen and by the time I came back on the forum, BitDice was already gone. I hope you understand that when I left BitDice, they were not blatantly scamming anyone. That happened while I was gone.Anybody with half a brain cell could've figured out investors were being scammed when they stopped producing quarterly reports, stopped paying dividends, and started making countless excuses for why progress was not being made. When you left this had already been going on for 2 years. Made an assumption, sure. They had not done anything irrevocable until they actually started scamming users. Up until I left, they made me promises that things would be turning around. Concrete things that gave some reason to believe that were things like them hiring new developers. It seems clear to me that I will not be able to convince people that my genuine purpose at BitDice was to help players and investors with what I could. May I add some discussions I've had with Alan regarding my concerns about addressing investors. I hope this atleast proves that I was actively trying to make sure that investors would be addressed. Keep in mind that it often took months until something concrete was done but oftentimes they did do what they promised eventually. So I was not expecting anything immediate. And a while after these questions, I was out of BitDice anyway. As you can see, I asked for updates, then I followed up on them but I was being dragged on like everyone else.   And additionally, some talk about hiring developers:  |
|
|
|
it would be just silly to start with 20... the only reason to do that is to be loud.. i'm not loud, i'm strategic and in this for the long haul. ...time and pressure.
Marketing requires budget to spend wisely. If you do not have a budget for 20 or even more then there is no point to go for that. Quickly you will run out of funding and your business will be stuck. On the other hand, projects who are spending 10K+ or even some unbelievable amounts do not mean they are not strategic. You started with five members, because you feel that's best for you. I don't think anyone should ask any question about it. Putting budget aside, I personally feel like going all out immediately when the website just launched for public might not be a good idea. Plus, I'd prefer quality over quantity when it comes to participants. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, why don't you think the rest come from trading? Could be simply a matter of displaying 2 decimals but backend handles with more precision. When I buy or sell Bitcoin, I only get to enter 2 decimals. Maybe it comes from trades against altcoins or other currencies too, but still, the "accuracy" is meaningless. To quote from another discipline: " the end calculation should not have more significant digits than the original set of data". Agreed, we would need to know the basis for the result to argue this further. |
|
|
|
I considered setting something up to keep my own file of l0tt0.com results so that users could verify from my version that the results on l0tt0.com were the same for them as they have been for me. I think the best would be if us players could fetch the same details from Coinmarketcap and Coingecko and verify the results that way. I considered possibility of setting something like that up too but I cannot dish out cash for paid API personally for that. Even with API access, you'll never be able to fetch the data at exactly the same time as l0tt0 does. I actually got here after seeing your signature campaign thread, and the part about the 16th decimal made me curious. I guess it is a bit of a blackbox how Coingecko comes up with the result. As far as I understand they also use the Coinmarketcap API. And in both cases they use a paid API so we cannot see the results for free. I think that's a bad basis to start from, for something that could otherwise be a nice (and unique) site. You can add start and end's to our API. To show historical prices. I will post some examples shortly. Oh didn't know. Anyway, I was considering just keeping my own log for verification since, in the worst case, you as a site owner could alter the historical results afterwards. By the way, do you think if it is possible to fetch results from Coingecko and Coinmarketcap so that your result could be verified by a third party? Even without an actual provably fair system, that would be a pretty good thing. Your argument falls apart if there are 50+ people playing. Unless there's an even distribution of bets (which is unlikely to happen every time), it's still possible to cheat. If I did what you said, I would be denying someone a win and most likely giving someone else one.. Anyhow, there is a house edge. Casino's don't have to cheat man. I've seen online casinos cheat. If you're honest, there's absolutely no reason to make people doubt your honesty if you can make it provably fair. straight from the two largest exchanges. Do you know how they come up with the last 16 decimals? I get that 2 decimals come from people buying and selling Bitcoin. Where does the rest come from? Out of curiosity, why don't you think the rest come from trading? Could be simply a matter of displaying 2 decimals but backend handles with more precision. |
|
|
|
One thing I considered: What about using these decentralized exchanges / swap sites like Uniswap? It doesn't change the problem of not being able to verify the exact same result. Being used to provably fair, I agree it would be best if the results could be verified reliably. Unfortunately nothing comes to my mind how to keep the current, unique idea, but with provably fair results. Combine block hashes (see for example bitmover's Giveaway Manager) with a seeding event ( see for example RHavar's Provably Fair Seeding Event). It could be setup in such a way that results can be verified right after each new block was found. Or, now that I think about it, it could work entirely without block hashes and only use random data from the seeding event. I know it's not as cool as using Bitcoin price data, but I've never met anyone who uses that up to 16 decimals anyway. I was mainly considering options that preserve the current idea which seems to be in a key role of the website. But yes, that would be an option and I think worth considering. |
|
|
|
I considered setting something up to keep my own file of l0tt0.com results so that users could verify from my version that the results on l0tt0.com were the same for them as they have been for me. I think the best would be if us players could fetch the same details from Coinmarketcap and Coingecko and verify the results that way. I considered possibility of setting something like that up too but I cannot dish out cash for paid API personally for that. Even with API access, you'll never be able to fetch the data at exactly the same time as l0tt0 does. I actually got here after seeing your signature campaign thread, and the part about the 16th decimal made me curious. That's true. The results would vary based on how often the two APIs update their result. l0tt0.com only updates their price every 5 seconds which would be enough time to fetch a result as long as it's same on the source (Coingecko or Coinmarketcap). I guess it is a bit of a blackbox how Coingecko comes up with the result. As far as I understand they also use the Coinmarketcap API. And in both cases they use a paid API so we cannot see the results for free. I think that's a bad basis to start from, for something that could otherwise be a nice (and unique) site. Being used to provably fair, I agree it would be best if the results could be verified reliably. Unfortunately nothing comes to my mind how to keep the current, unique idea, but with provably fair results. I think it'd atleast be cool if we could reliably view results from Coinmarketcap and Coingecko. One thing I considered: What about using these decentralized exchanges / swap sites like Uniswap? |
|
|
|
@dewez: please fix your quote. Your link shows 12 decimals, but the question remains the same: where does it come from? It's not as if the last decimals are "live", the price changes only every few seconds, and when it does, all decimals change. So it makes absolutely no sense to go that "accurate", and I can't find how CoinGecko comes to this result. this is our API: https://www.l0tt0.com/api/price.php which you can view historic prices. it's 100% fair because at the end of the day even if you DON'T trust how I get the numbers- you can CLEARLY see that everyone is getting the SAME numbers. if we both play Quick Pick, and both bet on number 11, and both of us click place bet at the same time.. if the next price update (in 5 seconds) has 11 in the last 6 decimals (one of the three winning numbers of the game) we would both win. therefore there is no way I could show you one number and someone else another.. It's still possible to cheat: even if everyone gets the same numbers, you could pick numbers in such a way that you maximize your own profit. Say someone with a $10 should have won, but instead you make someone else with a $1 bet win. I guess it is a bit of a blackbox how Coingecko comes up with the result. As far as I understand they also use the Coinmarketcap API. And in both cases they use a paid API so we cannot see the results for free. I considered setting something up to keep my own file of l0tt0.com results so that users could verify from my version that the results on l0tt0.com were the same for them as they have been for me. I think the best would be if us players could fetch the same details from Coinmarketcap and Coingecko and verify the results that way. I considered possibility of setting something like that up too but I cannot dish out cash for paid API personally for that. |
|
|
|
Username: SamReomo
Rank: Sr. Member
Current number of posts: 1006
Bitcoin Address: bc1qg4zetkc85jml2d4x8l5h6cvffq63xtpyqm4u3p
When can you start: As soon as possible
Username: notblox1
Rank: Legendary
Current number of posts: 6237
Bitcoin Address: bc1qu00uau57sdtynvtleu3pvqaqz33e43p06wgvll
When can you start: thursday
Username: QueenVera
Rank: Hero Member
Current number of posts: 1048
Bitcoin Address: bc1qasruwdhwnh2saght0g62hewadurxhe9qudanpp
When can you start: When I get accepted.
Accepted. Please read the slightly updated rules again and private message me at your earliest convenience to accept your spot.
There are still sports open so I encourage more applications to be sent and I will keep an eye on them throughout the upcoming week. l0tt0.com has been very clear that they wish this to be a long-running campaign that appreciates and rewards their participants well. Thank you everyone who has applied so far! |
|
|
|
|
I chose to go with Jayce. Thanks everyone for your replies. I believe this thread will be helpful for others aswell!
|
|
|
|
|
Someone asked me when the campaign starts so I will reply all here too.
The campaign starts when we have gone through applications and have got 5 participants. I will start checking applications tomorrow so I would expect we can start at the earliest wednesday or thursday. I will keep you posted on the progress.
|
|
|
|
You know... I put great thought into the login system. I can to the conclusion that username/passwords are the greatest security risk, much greater than an email leak.. When it comes to passwords, very few people use truely unique ones. They always have some kind of personal touch; name of your dog, street... sure some numbers mixed in. Worst case, its the same accross the lot.. Now a days, with the speed of GPU's and hash rates, even one password can be used to build a dead on balls list of pretty much EVERY password you might/would use..
That is true, people are using weak passwords or they use one pass for all approach  I am not against login system that uses email address links, but I dont see anything wrong with people changing and adding usernames, login process would stay the same. So having email links- no passwords... is the right route. I'm shocked it's not the standard.
And what happens if email address in hacked like it is happenng all the time? People can lose this standard and much more  I would really atleast recommend adding 2FA on top of just using E-mail. 2FA does not seem to be an option yet. EDIT: This would also protect against compromised email. All in all, using email links for login is a great solution and near perfect with 2FA on top. |
|
|
|
|
A small request to applicants: Could you edit your post with a date/time when you are free to start in a new campaign?
I will update the application format with this information also.
|
|
|
|
|
Signatures will be ready soon and will be updated to the post when they are ready. Campaign is set to start with 5 participants this week (tomorrow at the earliest but will be confirmed based on applications). Sr. Members+ who meet the participant requirements may apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
