#bitcoin-2012-07-14.log:02:39 < steve_bobs> HORRAY CHEAP OLIVE OIL
WHERE IS CHEAP OLIVE OIL? :-) Here's the context: 02:35 < Karmaon> I am selling 100% tainted coins. 02:35 < phungus> lol 02:35 < phungus> 3 cents on the dollar~ 02:35 < Karmaon> Coins are straight from the Bitcoinica incident (the previous hack) 02:36 < phungus> whoa 02:36 < phungus> that is pretty tainted alright 02:36 < Karmaon> Come get yours now! Limited quantities available. 02:36 < phungus> eh 02:36 < phungus> buy stuff on SR 02:36 < phungus> they won't care 02:36 < phungus> lol 02:36 < Karmaon> I only have a few  02:36 < phungus> or sell them there 02:36 < phungus> even better 02:37 < phungus> open up a sellers account with those tainted coins 02:37 < phungus> start a new life 02:37 < RegimeToppler> I think the best way to get a "job" paying with bitcoins is to sell stuff online with them. 02:37 < phungus> turn over a new leaf! 02:37 < ku> wtf 02:37 < phungus> renounce your hackerous ways! 02:37 < ku> 315,000 posts in the Silk Road forums 02:37 < phungus> REPENT SINNER 02:37 < ku> that's only a third of Bitcoin Talk 02:38 < I2PRelay> <zmux> I agree RegimeToppler. 02:38 < RegimeToppler> I bet buying olive oil from troubled European countries and then selling them with USD in the US would be a good idea. 02:38 < I2PRelay> <zmux> Mining just seems like a get rich lazy scheme to me. 02:38 < Karmaon> SELLING EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL 02:38 < phungus> Coconut oil went up 30% this year 02:38 < I2PRelay> <zmux> phungus: How do you know, is there a price index for these things? 02:38 < nimdAHK> RegimeToppler: you should make a company out of that arbitrage idea, but never actually do it 02:39 < RegimeToppler> All of the European countries that produce olive oil have collapsing economies right now, and Euros are collapsing too. 02:39 < I2PRelay> <zmux> By the way, testing testing 02:39 < nimdAHK> just pay investors with other investors' money 02:39 * nimdAHK realizes that that's been done before 02:39 < steve_bobs> HORRAY CHEAP OLIVE OIL |
|
|
|
Relevant?
Session Time: Fri Jul 13 00:00:00 2012
[00:49] * phantomcircuit (~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #intersango
[00:49] * ChanServ sets mode: +o phantomcircuit
[01:01] * phantomcircuit sets mode: -o phantomcircuit
[01:01] * phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
Session Time: Fri Jul 13 00:00:00 2012
[00:49] * phantomcircuit (~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #bitcoinconsultancy
[01:01] * phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
Session Time: Fri Jul 13 00:00:00 2012
[00:49] * phantomcircuit (~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #bitcoinica
[01:01] * phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
 ? Wtf ? If this log is real, this guy's got some explaining to do I just read through all of this and missed if there was a follow-up to this post? Not that I've seen. I just searched for 'steve_bobs' in my IRC logs, and it came up a few times: $ zgrep -i steve_bobs *
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:07:02 -!- phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:23 < steve_bobs> still aren't
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:23 < steve_bobs> they're a bank in europe
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:24 < steve_bobs> in the us they're a payment processor or something
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:24 < steve_bobs> iz, you sure that's what actually happened? seemed to have been something different from that
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:25 < steve_bobs> innocent, dialcoin
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:25 < steve_bobs> iz, yeah that's not what that says
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:26 < steve_bobs> pretty sure
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:26 < steve_bobs> that's an api key
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:26 < steve_bobs> not a password
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:43 < steve_bobs> helo, it's actually impossible
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:43 < steve_bobs> the risk to the insurer would be so high that they would never accept the contract
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:43 < kiba> steve_bobs: why would it be impossible? you know something that I don't?
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:21:44 < steve_bobs> if your premiums would be more than about 5% annually of the maximum liability of the insurance typically they will simply deny your application
#bitcoin-2012-07-13.log:22:37 < steve_bobs> ;;bc,blocks
#bitcoin-2012-07-14.log:02:39 < steve_bobs> HORRAY CHEAP OLIVE OIL
#bitcoin-2012-07-14.log:22:34 -!- steve_bobs [~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
#bitcoin-dev-2012-07-13.log:07:02 -!- phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
#bitcoin-dev-2012-07-13.log:17:15 < steve_bobs> gavinandresen, how would that work for an exchange though?
#bitcoin-dev-2012-07-13.log:17:16 < gavinandresen> steve_bobs: I don't think it would work for an exchange, they'll have to be a MSB
#bitcoin-dev-2012-07-14.log:22:34 -!- steve_bobs [~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
#bitcoin-otc-2012-07-13.log:07:02 -!- phantomcircuit is now known as steve_bobs
#bitcoin-otc-2012-07-14.log:22:34 -!- steve_bobs [~phantomci@c-67-188-9-35.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] |
|
|
|
So to start I have...
Label 0 5 btc
Label 1 1 btc
Label 2 0 btc
After transaction
Label 0 4.995 btc
Label 1 0 btc
Label 2 1 btc
Do a 'custom' send, specify both label 0 and 1 as the addresses to send from, and set 2 outputs: 4.995 to label 0 and 1 to label 2. |
|
|
|
I'm now running it in gdb to hopefully get a stack trace for you, though in my experience running it in gdb is often enough to stop the crash from happening.
I finally got a crash from the version I built with debugging symbols. Here's the backtrace: Let's look at all the bets ever placed at SatoshiDice.com
there are 27 bet types
lessthan 64000 is listed
first SD Tx is in block 176627
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0xb735eb18 in BtcUtils::readVarInt (strmPtr=0x4 <Address 0x4 out of bounds>, lenOutPtr=0xbffff1bc) at BtcUtils.h:243
243 uint8_t firstByte = strmPtr[0];
(gdb) where
#0 0xb735eb18 in BtcUtils::readVarInt (strmPtr=0x4 <Address 0x4 out of bounds>, lenOutPtr=0xbffff1bc) at BtcUtils.h:243
#1 0xb735e446 in BinaryRefReader::get_var_int (this=0xbffff1e8, nRead=0x0) at BinaryData.cpp:203
#2 0xb736afd0 in BtcUtils::TxCalcLength (ptr=0x0, offsetsIn=0xbffff31c, offsetsOut=0xbffff328) at BtcUtils.h:564
#3 0xb736683d in Tx::unserialize (this=0xbffff2f8, ptr=0x0) at BlockObj.cpp:529
#4 0xb736bc24 in Tx::Tx (this=0xbffff2f8, ptr=0x0) at BlockObj.h:348
#5 0xb7367a58 in TxRef::getTxCopy (this=0x20b092b4) at BlockObj.cpp:718
#6 0xb74f0944 in _wrap_TxRef_getTxCopy (args=0xb7b4f34c) at CppBlockUtils_wrap.cxx:33750
#7 0x080f77c3 in PyEval_EvalFrameEx ()
#8 0x080f7e20 in PyEval_EvalFrameEx ()
#9 0x080fd804 in PyEval_EvalCodeEx ()
#10 0x080fe177 in PyEval_EvalCode ()
#11 0x0811acd0 in ?? ()
#12 0x0811b8e9 in PyRun_FileExFlags ()
#13 0x0811c4cc in PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags ()
#14 0x0812c7c6 in Py_Main ()
#15 0x0805da0b in main ()
(gdb) I'll leave the gdb session running, so if there are any commands you want me to type at it, I can do so. strmPtr=0x4 doesn't look good though. Pointers usually have high values, not 4... I had the same crash happen while running in valgrind: ==28163== Invalid read of size 1
==28163== at 0x840C0C8: BinaryRefReader::get_var_int(unsigned char*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84153D3: BtcUtils::TxCalcLength(unsigned char const*, std::vector<unsigned int, std::allocator<unsigned int> >*, std::vector<unsigned int, std::allocator<unsigned int> >*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84118B8: Tx::unserialize(unsigned char const*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84119AE: TxRef::getTxCopy() const (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x8531970: _wrap_TxRef_getTxCopy (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x42A484: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42ABE1: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B170: PyRun_FileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B7D7: PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54C5D5: Py_Main (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x5FAC76C: (below main) (libc-start.c:226)
==28163== Address 0x4 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
==28163==
==28163==
==28163== Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV)
==28163== Access not within mapped region at address 0x4
==28163== at 0x840C0C8: BinaryRefReader::get_var_int(unsigned char*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84153D3: BtcUtils::TxCalcLength(unsigned char const*, std::vector<unsigned int, std::allocator<unsigned int> >*, std::vector<unsigned int, std::allocator<unsigned int> >*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84118B8: Tx::unserialize(unsigned char const*) (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x84119AE: TxRef::getTxCopy() const (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x8531970: _wrap_TxRef_getTxCopy (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x42A484: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42ABE1: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B170: PyRun_FileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B7D7: PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54C5D5: Py_Main (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x5FAC76C: (below main) (libc-start.c:226) There were many other complaints from valgrind, but then again there always are. The first serious looking one was: ==28163== Invalid read of size 4
==28163== at 0x57A95F: PyObject_Free (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x443F66: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50D0AF: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50DA8A: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x488792: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50E2E3: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x432F0A: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4C7C75: PyObject_Call (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4C7D35: PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42C8A4: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54A077: PyImport_ExecCodeModuleEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== Address 0x667b020 is 448 bytes inside a block of size 2,731 free'd
==28163== at 0x4C2A82E: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==28163== by 0x42606E: PyMarshal_ReadLastObjectFromFile (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50D020: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50DA8A: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x488792: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x50E2E3: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x432F0A: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4C7C75: PyObject_Call (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4C7D35: PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42C8A4: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54A077: PyImport_ExecCodeModuleEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7) and the first serious one mentioning _CppBlockUtils.so was: ==28163== Invalid read of size 4
==28163== at 0x532DE9: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x553D1A: ??? (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x43A35F: PyUnicodeUCS4_Format (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x43B43C: PyString_Format (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42BDC2: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B170: PyRun_FileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B7D7: PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54C5D5: Py_Main (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x5FAC76C: (below main) (libc-start.c:226)
==28163== Address 0x6dc8d020 is 704 bytes inside a block of size 798 free'd
==28163== at 0x4C2A4BC: operator delete(void*) (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==28163== by 0x8531A30: _wrap_TxRef_getTxCopy (in /home/chris/Programs/BitcoinArmory/_CppBlockUtils.so)
==28163== by 0x42A484: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x42ABE1: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x4317F1: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B170: PyRun_FileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54B7D7: PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x54C5D5: Py_Main (in /usr/bin/python2.7)
==28163== by 0x5FAC76C: (below main) (libc-start.c:226) I suspect that last one is the problem. Could it be that _wrap_TxRef_getTxCopy is deleting an object while something still has a pointer to it? |
|
|
|
I just used the 24.4141% winning odds and the 4.003x multiplier off the web site. Could be a bit of rounding in those numbers. Also did include sending transaction fees.
When you lose a 219 BTC bet, you get over 1 BTC back (0.5% of your stake). I guess that's where your error is - you're forgetting about those payments. |
|
|
|
Results: 2012-Jul-26 11:31am (up to block 190903)
Address Target Should Win | #Bets | Win | Lose | Refunds | BTC In | BTC Out | Refund | Profit | RTP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1dice1e6p 1 0.00002 | 11111 | 0 (0.00000) | 10829 | 282 | 63.66 | 0.01 | 18.19 | 63.64 | 0.030
1dice1Qf4 2 0.00003 | 1064 | 0 (0.00000) | 994 | 70 | 13.64 | 0.00 | 5.58 | 13.64 | 0.013
1dice2pxm 4 0.00006 | 1537 | 0 (0.00000) | 1503 | 34 | 19.28 | 0.02 | 2.22 | 19.26 | 0.107
1dice2vQo 8 0.00012 | 1337 | 0 (0.00000) | 1297 | 40 | 31.46 | 0.05 | 4.15 | 31.41 | 0.177
1dice2WmR 16 0.00024 | 1587 | 0 (0.00000) | 1554 | 33 | 63.15 | 0.18 | 7.40 | 62.97 | 0.294
1dice2xkj 32 0.00049 | 3789 | 1 (0.00026) | 3777 | 11 | 252.62 | 100.97 | 1.29 | 151.64 | 39.971
1dice2zdo 64 0.00098 | 5456 | 7 (0.00129) | 5432 | 17 | 285.26 | 121.97 | 55.64 | 163.29 | 42.757
1dice37Ee 128 0.00195 | 6502 | 16 (0.00248) | 6438 | 48 | 1273.15 | 1173.35 | 40.25 | 99.80 | 92.161
1dice3jkp 256 0.00391 | 5314 | 25 (0.00472) | 5275 | 14 | 597.73 | 374.80 | 13.11 | 222.93 | 62.703
1dice4J1m 512 0.00781 | 8438 | 60 (0.00711) | 8373 | 5 | 1701.75 | 1085.95 | 9.35 | 615.79 | 63.814
1dice5wwE 1000 0.01526 | 14993 | 224 (0.01494) | 14766 | 3 | 2666.79 | 2367.19 | 1.80 | 299.59 | 88.766
1dice61SN 1500 0.02289 | 8532 | 203 (0.02381) | 8323 | 6 | 3213.79 | 3630.07 | 15.00 | -416.27 | 112.953
1dice6DPt 2000 0.03052 | 10573 | 334 (0.03160) | 10236 | 3 | 3573.15 | 3307.88 | 9.24 | 265.27 | 92.576
1dice6gJg 3000 0.04578 | 8496 | 413 (0.04865) | 8076 | 7 | 5150.38 | 6625.44 | 24.99 | -1475.05 | 128.640
1dice6GV5 4000 0.06104 | 9495 | 596 (0.06279) | 8896 | 3 | 3331.97 | 3117.39 | 31.20 | 214.57 | 93.560
1dice6wBx 6000 0.09155 | 16903 | 1596 (0.09447) | 15299 | 8 | 9033.67 | 9192.76 | 7.01 | -159.08 | 101.761
1dice6YgE 8000 0.12207 | 35346 | 4387 (0.12414) | 30951 | 8 | 6790.71 | 6070.73 | 0.00 | 719.98 | 89.398
1dice7EYz 12000 0.18311 | 16636 | 3159 (0.18996) | 13471 | 6 | 6877.81 | 7022.16 | 14.50 | -144.35 | 102.099
1dice7fUk 16000 0.24414 | 44733 | 10854 (0.24268) | 33871 | 8 | 15397.85 | 16059.35 | 347.79 | -661.50 | 104.296
1dice7W2A 24000 0.36621 | 33367 | 12337 (0.37009) | 20998 | 32 | 13804.34 | 13736.85 | 212.63 | 67.48 | 99.511
1dice8EMZ 32000 0.48828 | 319411 | 155631 (0.48745) | 163648 | 132 | 100375.61 | 100875.94 | 2173.21 | -500.33 | 100.498
1dice97EC 32768 0.50000 | 132700 | 66185 (0.49905) | 66436 | 79 | 50814.73 | 49076.84 | 789.20 | 1737.88 | 96.580
1dice9wcM 48000 0.73242 | 96210 | 70759 (0.73586) | 25399 | 52 | 85283.29 | 83808.25 | 467.98 | 1475.04 | 98.270
1dicec9k7 52000 0.79346 | 1057 | 848 (0.80227) | 209 | 0 | 1646.63 | 1646.15 | 0.00 | 0.48 | 99.971
1dicegEAr 56000 0.85449 | 805 | 665 (0.82609) | 140 | 0 | 620.80 | 579.86 | 0.00 | 40.94 | 93.405
1diceDCd2 60000 0.91553 | 249 | 223 (0.90650) | 23 | 3 | 61.92 | 62.38 | 0.00 | -0.45 | 100.737
1dice9wVt 64000 0.97656 | 5998 | 5743 (0.97870) | 125 | 130 | 5052.96 | 4860.19 | 239.20 | 192.76 | 96.185
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 801639 | 334266 | 466339 | 1034 | 317998.22 | 314896.82 | 4491.02 | 3101.39 | 99.025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD Profit before fees: 3101.39999807 BTC (0.975%)
Cumulative Fees Paid: 403.58410000 BTC
SD Profit after fees: 2697.81589807 BTC (0.848%)
----
Since Satoshi Dice started, there have been:
Blockchain Tx: 2441888 : SatoshiDice Tx: 1476769 (60.5%)
Blockchain MB: 1030.5 : SatoshiDice Tx: 607.3 (58.9%)  |
|
|
|
| Game | Bet | Total Cost | Win | | p(lose) | p(win) | | Odds | Winnings (neg is lose) | | 12 | 219 | 693.756 | 876.657 | | 0.0347767876049543 | 0.0112328353603796 | | 0.0112328353603796 | 182.901 |
In https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg1053597#msg1053597 I calculated that he won 185 BTC overall. Why do you get 183 for that case? Are you ignoring the amounts you get back when you lose a bet? You get 1/2% of your stake back when you lose. I ignored transaction fees on the bet transactions, since they're optional, but they're also pretty much insignificant when we're talking about a profit of 183 BTC. |
|
|
|
Whoa. This is not exactly a surprise but it was quite a bold move to rob us a third time, Zhou, shame on you.
Everyone seems to be assuming he's guilty. I've seen no compelling evidence of that so far. Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
Thanks. I think you didn't mean to strikethrough 'prevents', or if you did maybe you intended to replace it with something suggesting that the expensive sequence of losses is very unlikely, rather than 'prevented'. As it is, it's ungrammatical I think. [...]or uses a martingale strategy that prevents large losses losing too large a sum in one set of plays due to an extended series of losses, [...]
|
|
|
|
|
The big tail on the 't' looks like a 'u' and made me think 'buttcoin' when I first saw it.
|
|
|
|
Its possible to login to your account via the website without downloading/installing anything. Therefore the password does get sent to their servers. Not that any of this is entirely relevant to the situation... I don't think you're correct there. LastPass doesn't even know my password. Javascript on the browser is used to authenticate my login. [...] LastPass employs localized, government-level encryption (256-bit AES implemented in C++ and JavaScript) and local one-way salted hashes to give you complete security with the go-anywhere convenience of syncing through the cloud. All encrypting and decrypting happens on your computer - no one at LastPass can ever access your sensitive data. [unless you paste the master password into your source code and leak it to the world]. |
|
|
|
All it means is that a naive martingale method will end up requiring a large bet at some point. How many times does someone use a naive martingale method and run out of btc because they can't afford another bet? They might be ahead this set of plays, but next? Even if a player has unlimited btc, or uses a martingale strategy that prevents large losses, they can't make up the difference between what they bet and the house odds.
Is there a non-naive martingale method? I'm not arguing with you; it's an honest question. And what martingale strategy prevents large losses? Are you referring to the strategy you posted where you reduce your initial bet sufficiently that you're unlikely to suffer a string of losing bets long enough to cause you to have to bet bigger than you can afford? |
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't often look at reddit. I posted the following there, pointing him to this thread: There's a long thread on the bitcointalk forum about worldbitcoinexchange, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65867It's not clear what really happened, but this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65867.msg920163#msg920163by the owner of the exchange claims that he has lost all the Australian Dollars held by the site and has also lost control of the site. I was holding the Bitcoins that the exchange was in control of, and I still have them. As soon as the owner of the exchange is able to tell me how much is owed to each client I will be able to pay a proportion of the Bitcoins I am holding back to the clients. I have attempted to contact him, but am yet to receive a reply. This post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=65867.msg923845#msg923845by me lists the liabilities of the exchange as I understood them at the time. Some users have since contacted me regarding other debts that they are owed. I've been unable to confirm these debts with the owner of the exchange, but a ballpark figure is that only around 25% of the assests of the exchange are still around. |
|
|
|
...
In case it's not clear, there is no way of winning long term on satoshi dice without cheating. There's no way you can turn a positive house edge into a negative house edge simply by adjusting your bet sizes. I probably assume that everyone knows this when they don't. That's not to say you can't play and walk away with a profit. Just that if you keep playing long enough, eventually the house edge will guarantee that you lose.
True, but don't you think that if too many of the players bet this way, the house is more likely to bust? The table bet limits are the house's friend. I think the house limits are dangerously high on some bets and unneccesarily low on others. I've been talking to SD about the issue, but things have gone quiet on that front lately. I don't really know what they're thinking now. |
|
|
|
Here's another lucky martingale escape: lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 0.25 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.000750 Profit: -0.24925 Cumulative Profit: -0.24925
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 0.50 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.002000 Profit: -0.498 Cumulative Profit: -0.74725
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 1.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.004500 Profit: -0.9955 Cumulative Profit: -1.74275
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 2.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.009500 Profit: -1.9905 Cumulative Profit: -3.73325
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 4.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.019500 Profit: -3.9805 Cumulative Profit: -7.71375
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 8.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.039500 Profit: -7.9605 Cumulative Profit: -15.67425
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 16.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.079500 Profit: -15.9205 Cumulative Profit: -31.59475
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 32.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.159500 Profit: -31.8405 Cumulative Profit: -63.43525
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 64.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.319500 Profit: -63.6805 Cumulative Profit: -127.11575
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 128.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.639500 Profit: -127.3605 Cumulative Profit: -254.47625
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 219.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 1.094500 Profit: -217.9055 Cumulative Profit: -472.38175
lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 219.00 Outcome: WIN Payment: 876.589924 Profit: 657.589924 Cumulative Profit: 185.208174More balls than brains, that one. Kudos upon him.  It looks like the same guy was responsible for the other big loss of the last day: 2012-07-25 03:11:26 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 4.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.019500 Profit: -3.9805 Cumulative Profit: -3.9805
2012-07-25 03:11:54 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 8.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.039500 Profit: -7.9605 Cumulative Profit: -11.941
2012-07-25 03:13:31 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 16.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.079500 Profit: -15.9205 Cumulative Profit: -27.8615
2012-07-25 03:14:10 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 32.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.159500 Profit: -31.8405 Cumulative Profit: -59.702
2012-07-25 03:14:47 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 64.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.319500 Profit: -63.6805 Cumulative Profit: -123.3825
2012-07-25 03:15:30 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 128.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.639500 Profit: -127.3605 Cumulative Profit: -250.743
2012-07-25 03:16:11 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 250.00 Outcome: ABOVE MAX Payment: 250.000000 Profit: 0.0 Cumulative Profit: -250.743
2012-07-25 03:17:14 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 219.00 Outcome: WIN Payment: 876.589924 Profit: 657.589924 Cumulative Profit: 406.846924Very similar betting pattern, but he didn't know about the 219 BTC max bet at this point. |
|
|
|
There MIGHT be riskes with signing public/private keys, but I don't know enough about ECDSA to prove it false or true.
Not if you're signing an ASCII hex representation of the public key, I wouldn't think. |
|
|
|
Sure. I'm just saying what I see... Recently the players have been lucky. Two of the top three "Big Winners" listed on http://www.satoshidice.com/ which lists the biggest wins of all time have been in the last 24 hours. The biggest loss of all time was also in the last 24 hours, but I documented that 219 BTC loss in the post you replied to - it just happens that the biggest loss ever was part of a winning martingale chain. In case it's not clear, there is no way of winning long term on satoshi dice without cheating. There's no way you can turn a positive house edge into a negative house edge simply by adjusting your bet sizes. I probably assume that everyone knows this when they don't. That's not to say you can't play and walk away with a profit. Just that if you keep playing long enough, eventually the house edge will guarantee that you lose. |
|
|
|
Here's another lucky martingale escape which accounts for the last spike up and back down on the blue line: 2012-07-25 14:51:37 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 0.25 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.000750 Profit: -0.24925 Cumulative Profit: -0.24925
2012-07-25 14:52:10 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 0.50 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.002000 Profit: -0.498 Cumulative Profit: -0.74725
2012-07-25 14:52:37 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 1.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.004500 Profit: -0.9955 Cumulative Profit: -1.74275
2012-07-25 14:53:07 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 2.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.009500 Profit: -1.9905 Cumulative Profit: -3.73325
2012-07-25 14:53:38 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 4.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.019500 Profit: -3.9805 Cumulative Profit: -7.71375
2012-07-25 14:54:06 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 8.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.039500 Profit: -7.9605 Cumulative Profit: -15.67425
2012-07-25 14:54:32 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 16.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.079500 Profit: -15.9205 Cumulative Profit: -31.59475
2012-07-25 14:55:07 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 32.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.159500 Profit: -31.8405 Cumulative Profit: -63.43525
2012-07-25 14:55:41 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 64.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.319500 Profit: -63.6805 Cumulative Profit: -127.11575
2012-07-25 14:56:17 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 128.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 0.639500 Profit: -127.3605 Cumulative Profit: -254.47625
2012-07-25 14:58:10 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 219.00 Outcome: LOSE Payment: 1.094500 Profit: -217.9055 Cumulative Profit: -472.38175
2012-07-25 14:59:36 lessthan 16000 Bet Amount: 219.00 Outcome: WIN Payment: 876.589924 Profit: 657.589924 Cumulative Profit: 185.208174 |
|
|
|
SatoshiDice profits are almost 800 BTC down since my last update: Results: 2012-Jul-25 10:19am (up to block 190713)
Address Target Should Win | #Bets | Win | Lose | Refunds | BTC In | BTC Out | Refund | Profit | RTP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1dice1e6p 1 0.00002 | 10981 | 0 (0.00000) | 10700 | 281 | 61.10 | 0.01 | 17.94 | 61.08 | 0.032
1dice1Qf4 2 0.00003 | 1037 | 0 (0.00000) | 967 | 70 | 11.14 | 0.00 | 5.58 | 11.14 | 0.016
1dice2pxm 4 0.00006 | 1512 | 0 (0.00000) | 1479 | 33 | 14.48 | 0.00 | 2.22 | 14.47 | 0.059
1dice2vQo 8 0.00012 | 1303 | 0 (0.00000) | 1263 | 40 | 18.66 | 0.00 | 4.15 | 18.65 | 0.042
1dice2WmR 16 0.00024 | 1523 | 0 (0.00000) | 1493 | 30 | 26.05 | 0.02 | 6.60 | 26.02 | 0.107
1dice2xkj 32 0.00049 | 3652 | 1 (0.00027) | 3640 | 11 | 130.12 | 100.42 | 1.29 | 29.69 | 77.180
1dice2zdo 64 0.00098 | 5364 | 7 (0.00131) | 5340 | 17 | 226.17 | 121.70 | 55.64 | 104.46 | 53.811
1dice37Ee 128 0.00195 | 6412 | 15 (0.00236) | 6349 | 48 | 1244.24 | 1148.24 | 40.25 | 95.99 | 92.285
1dice3jkp 256 0.00391 | 5147 | 24 (0.00468) | 5109 | 14 | 553.11 | 362.14 | 13.11 | 190.97 | 65.473
1dice4J1m 512 0.00781 | 8172 | 53 (0.00649) | 8114 | 5 | 1604.61 | 823.09 | 9.35 | 781.51 | 51.296
1dice5wwE 1000 0.01526 | 14588 | 214 (0.01467) | 14371 | 3 | 2417.52 | 2125.60 | 1.80 | 291.92 | 87.925
1dice61SN 1500 0.02289 | 8296 | 194 (0.02340) | 8096 | 6 | 3122.05 | 3552.96 | 15.00 | -430.90 | 113.802
1dice6DPt 2000 0.03052 | 10107 | 316 (0.03127) | 9788 | 3 | 3478.98 | 3206.15 | 9.24 | 272.83 | 92.158
1dice6gJg 3000 0.04578 | 8195 | 399 (0.04873) | 7789 | 7 | 5030.24 | 6550.35 | 24.99 | -1520.10 | 130.219
1dice6GV5 4000 0.06104 | 9079 | 569 (0.06269) | 8507 | 3 | 3180.27 | 2896.93 | 31.20 | 283.33 | 91.091
1dice6wBx 6000 0.09155 | 16440 | 1546 (0.09408) | 14886 | 8 | 8925.97 | 9067.97 | 7.01 | -142.00 | 101.591
1dice6YgE 8000 0.12207 | 33122 | 4110 (0.12411) | 29005 | 7 | 6585.90 | 5832.77 | 0.00 | 753.13 | 88.564
1dice7EYz 12000 0.18311 | 16604 | 3152 (0.18990) | 13446 | 6 | 6847.82 | 6997.24 | 14.50 | -149.42 | 102.182
1dice7fUk 16000 0.24414 | 44500 | 10794 (0.24261) | 33698 | 8 | 15321.65 | 15993.57 | 347.79 | -671.92 | 104.385
1dice7W2A 24000 0.36621 | 33157 | 12260 (0.37011) | 20865 | 32 | 13776.12 | 13700.65 | 212.63 | 75.46 | 99.452
1dice8EMZ 32000 0.48828 | 317884 | 154881 (0.48743) | 162872 | 131 | 99455.79 | 99929.98 | 2173.21 | -474.19 | 100.477
1dice97EC 32768 0.50000 | 131626 | 65636 (0.49895) | 65911 | 79 | 49433.29 | 47790.93 | 789.20 | 1642.36 | 96.678
1dice9wcM 48000 0.73242 | 94745 | 69696 (0.73601) | 24998 | 51 | 78368.91 | 77135.83 | 467.98 | 1233.07 | 98.427
1dicec9k7 52000 0.79346 | 972 | 778 (0.80041) | 194 | 0 | 1393.07 | 1388.75 | 0.00 | 4.32 | 99.690
1dicegEAr 56000 0.85449 | 752 | 620 (0.82447) | 132 | 0 | 425.96 | 362.98 | 0.00 | 62.97 | 85.216
1diceDCd2 60000 0.91553 | 197 | 176 (0.90722) | 18 | 3 | 51.65 | 52.15 | 0.00 | -0.49 | 100.966
1dice9wVt 64000 0.97656 | 5969 | 5715 (0.97860) | 125 | 129 | 5036.67 | 4843.84 | 239.20 | 192.82 | 96.172
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 791336 | 331156 | 459155 | 1025 | 306741.65 | 303984.41 | 4489.97 | 2757.23 | 99.101
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD Profit before fees: 2757.23594710 BTC (0.899%)
Cumulative Fees Paid: 398.36787500 BTC
SD Profit after fees: 2358.86807210 BTC (0.769%)
----
Since Satoshi Dice started, there have been:
Blockchain Tx: 2409837 : SatoshiDice Tx: 1458898 (60.5%)
Blockchain MB: 1017.2 : SatoshiDice Tx: 599.6 (58.9%) |
|
|
|
I lose 90% of the time on satoshidice.com and I only bet on the 75%+ addresses. Maybe I should try satoshidice.net.
They should add an "I bet I'm going to lose" feature: Include a payment to yourself of 0.00666666 BTC and then all the bets in that transaction become "over x" instead of "under x". For those like OgNasty who can't help rolling high numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
