The "lessthan 64000" bet has a maximum bet of -154.5618 BTC.  If I bet negative bitcoins, does the house have a -3% edge?



Also, the banner at the top of the page still says "over 98% breakeven odds", which is apparently no longer true.

I've not checked, but maybe it's not that they're not processing them, but that miners can't/won't keep up?  Either way it would show up the same on the blockchain I think.

It looks like the 'Unreturned' amount needs to come out of the profits, meaning the site is still 200 BTC down.  This explains the increase in the house edge, I guess.

Here's how I think the picture really looks:

I don't know if that means they're up 2091 BTC but owe 2038 BTC in unreturned bets, or whether the 2091 BTC is profit.

I figured it out.  I posted an update here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg982716#msg982716

It looks like the house is 215 BTC down, hence the increasing house edge.

Here's the latest output:

The maximum bet depends on the funds available in the house wallet.  It goes up when they've been winning.  I can only assume that they've been losing recently.  As of June 11th they were 700 BTC down.

When I saw that message I thought "they must be losing a lot and need to recover some of their losses" and went to track down etotheipi's thread where he posts statistics about satoshidice and how much they are up or down.

I found it here: https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=80312 but it hasn't been updated since 11th June (at which point the house was down 700 BTC).

Then I downloaded the script that he uses to generate that report with a view to making an up-to-date report, but I couldn't get it to run.

From the thread that Gox linked to:


Could it be that you're seeing that "5% flow-on effect" that they refer to?

I don't understand what that means, or why problems with Dwolla would affect unrelated US Dollar wire transfers.

It looks to me like neither of these have a GBP market.

According to http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/ only Gox and Intersango have GBP markets.  Is that right?

If it was double, I could halve it.  But it seems to be kind of random.  Notice how the same 15 minute period shows two quite different volumes before and after I reloaded.

I reloaded the page, and the volumes changed, but are still wrong.  18k and 50k now:

Oh, I also notice that the daily volume at the top of the charts says 57k.  The single large bar in the lower image is higher than the daily volume...

Look at these 2 screenshots, showing the same period of time.  The first is a 5 minute view, the 2nd is a 15 minute view.

The first shows only 18k of trades at 15:40, with very little either side of it, but the 2nd shows 89k of trades at the same time (the orange crosshairs are over the point I'm talking about in both images).  How can that be?

These look like change outputs after 4 separate withdrawals of 250 BTC from the hot wallet.  It could be they split large amounts up into smaller amounts to save on fees, or perhaps they transferred coins to the cold wallet in pieces of 250 BTC.  Maybe they deposited to MtGox in 250 BTC pieces.  Either way, each of those 4 amounts is the change from sending 250 BTC elsewhere, not a deposit to the hot wallet.

I just bought some bitcoins using Intersango.

I used Internet banking to transfer GBP to their bank account at 19:27 Monday evening British time, and got an email 20:35 the same evening to tell me the money was in my Intersango account.

It always surprises me how quickly the bank transfer works.

It took about 30 hours for my order to get filled, and the withdrawal took 5 seconds.

All in all a great service.  If I hadn't bothered waiting to get a better price, the whole process would have taken less than an hour and a half from bank account to bitcoin wallet.

I paid 0.35% fees, which seems reasonable to me.  I didn't try the other services a previous poster mentioned, but would be surprised if they can match the end-to-end speed of Intersango.

Do you manage the server yourself, or do you rent it from a company?

I had a problem with bitcoind shutting down most days, and it turned out the shared hosting provider it was running on were doing some kind of backup most nights, which involved sending a signal to all running processes, which killed the bitcoind.

It took dozens of emails back and forth before the hosting provider would even acknowledge that they were sending signals to all running processes - the support staff you get to talk to aren't always particularly knowledgeable.

Your backed up wallet has 100 "pre-made" addresses that it hadn't used yet.  When you made your 10 new addresses after backing up, you got the first 10 of those pre-made addresses, and you'll get the same after restoring the wallet.

If you made transactions since backing up, the change may have gone to one of the addresses which you got as a 'new' address from before the crash, so that can get a little confusing - what used to be a 'new' address may now be a 'change' address, and vice versa.  But you shouldn't lose any coins because of it.

The rootkit would make that file appear to be normal; that's what they do.

If you can boot from a known-good live CD then you'll be able to mount your root partition and see how that file really looks, before the rootkit has a chance to run and start masking itself.

Or, run 'bitcoin-qt -keypool=9999', wait for it to generate 9999 pool addresses, then back up the wallet, and you don't need to make another backup until you've used those 9999 addresses.  "Using" an address happens each time you make a transaction which generates change back to yourself, and each time you click 'new address' in the 'receive coins' tab.  Some RPC calls will also use a pool address, but if you don't use RPC you don't need to worry about that.  9999 can be any sufficiently large number, of course.  By default it's only 100, meaning you need to back up at least every 100 spends you make.