I am not sure how you would argue it would be sufficient to cover the usual payments. All of those expenses should have been accounted for in the amount of funds being held in escrow. If DaDice had run away and not funded the escrow after the fact then the following expenses would have been paid out by the escrow:
1: Loyalty Points
2: The fixed rate campaign when members have their month be up
3: The avatar campaign when members have their month be up
Quicktroller seems to be running out of mud to sling and we know he has to post a million times per month in order to get paid for his signature. He also seems butthurt that he shouted and shouted two months ago that dadice was a scam and as it turns out its not, his credibility is further hurt. Quicktroller, move along now man, there's no one here complaining but you and you don't even have a horse in this race. |
|
|
|
I'd be interested in working out a way to get paid without having to use a bit-x account---the crucial part being the mobile phone piece. If there's anyway to participate here without giving up privacy, I'd definitely join.
You can verification is for card and other services. If you only using for signature and cashing out no ID is required other than cell number for pin numbers to be sent to. Cell number is exactly what I'm not going to be giving them. If there's a way for them to work out payment without a cell phone, then I'd be interested. Just go out and get a pay and go sim card and use that not tied into anything else, that way your contact number, identity remains private. Unless you are that paranoid going to get spammed or details used then don't use it or you are doing something wrongfully to be that private. Anyway what ever the reason is that is yours, no one here on the campaign has had problems or if you really want go get a online Skype cell number that is totally anonymous can be deleted changed and updated but you gonna end up paying for that service. Actually I'm not going to end up paying for any of those services because I'll simply move along. I'm glad you guys haven't had problems. I don't wish any problems upon you. It just so happens that not everyone is the same and I'm not going to be giving bitx any phone number. No hate. Only peace. Marco suggests in the OP that there may be special deals available for quality posters, I know I was always in the top 3 on the dadice campaign, for whatever that's worth. Anyway, I'm moving along, I'm sure if there's something that can be worked out then marco will let me know. Cheers. |
|
|
|
WHEN WILL THE JACKPOT GO???
Current Jackpot stands at 1.39778348 BTC
Will you be the next winner - or will dooglus win it???
Roll a winning 0 with bet ID and Timestamps as primes and you could be next!!
Good luck and Keep Rollin!!
I am fairly certain that dooglus is not playing at your site. To imply that it would be possible that he could win the jackpot is very misleading Well who knows QS, we don't request ID's from our players. Thanks for the bump anyway, very much appreciated  It is fairly clear that dooglus has no intention of playing on your scam site. You have publicly asked him to invest and he made it clear that he will not give you his money. If he was playing on your scam site then you would know it because he would be the only one who is not playing with faucet funds. Quicktroller just really can't get over the fact that these guys haven't scammed anyone. Listen, QS, we've all heard your rant here, maybe you need to wait until something actually does happen before you go back to repeating your smear attack on dadice. You're only damaging your own credibility at this point. And it's starting to look sad. |
|
|
|
|
OP suggests you guys are full at the moment. If spots open up and you'd like to have me, let me know. I always got in the top 3 constructive ratings at dadice campaign so I assume that you guys would want me. Just let me know.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
I'd be interested in working out a way to get paid without having to use a bit-x account---the crucial part being the mobile phone piece. If there's anyway to participate here without giving up privacy, I'd definitely join.
You can verification is for card and other services. If you only using for signature and cashing out no ID is required other than cell number for pin numbers to be sent to. Cell number is exactly what I'm not going to be giving them. If there's a way for them to work out payment without a cell phone, then I'd be interested. |
|
|
|
my last payment still unconfirmed more than 3 days and anyone here have same issue just like me?
It appears they are including too small of a fee by a factor of 10 for many payments. A review of 81b605c6d5718078cf540444aac875b0aa7f423d840131eaec7520d11d2138f3 shows that a fee of .00001 was included when it would probably have been more appropriate to include a .0001 fee based on it's size of >1 kb and age of the input. A review of several other transactions that were signed by 1BitmixerEiyyp3eTLaCpgBbhYERs48qza reveal the same issue, although the transactions that were confirmed and signed by the above address included a similarly sized transaction fee. I am not sure why they were confirmed. They were confirmed because transaction confirmation is a stochastic process not entirely determined by hard rules. As you (should) know, transactions with no fee are also confirmed from time to time. Blocks with 0 transactions are created. These things happen. There are probabilities at play here. |
|
|
|
Is OP correct/up-to-date that there's a single hero-member spot available?
Edit: just saw that the OP says payments only to coinnut accounts, is this still true? If so, I assume there are associated withdrawal fees and that seems problematic so I think I'm not as interested as I thought. Good luck tho (and PM or post here if I'm misunderstanding something).
Sorry, no t more spot s. FTFY. And if you look closely, I'm not interested unless there's a way to get payment to a personal address. Unless I misunderstood that requirement, I wouldn't be willing to participate anyway. Best of luck! |
|
|
|
|
I'd be interested in working out a way to get paid without having to use a bit-x account---the crucial part being the mobile phone piece. If there's anyway to participate here without giving up privacy, I'd definitely join.
|
|
|
|
|
Is OP correct/up-to-date that there's a single hero-member spot available?
Edit: just saw that the OP says payments only to coinnut accounts, is this still true? If so, I assume there are associated withdrawal fees and that seems problematic so I think I'm not as interested as I thought. Good luck tho (and PM or post here if I'm misunderstanding something).
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I was trying to find that thread. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
EDIT: out of curiousity, will dadice be cashing out our loyalty points for staying true to the end? (I think I was one of the first 5 to sign up for the campaign when it started  ). Yep, check the payment tab. It actually is more than the pay..  Sounds good. Thanks again ndnhc! |
|
|
|
 Hi, This is an official announcement.  Da Dice has been brutally attacked by some logically nutty reputed members from here (these guys virtually attack everything they "think" suspicious. Word is that they store their cents buried in chests underground and worse, esp. after Greece. Can't trust these banks, you see?) and some ambitious members and some who hate everything related to Da Dice for some yet unidentified reason. The management is tired of all this, and has decided to withdraw from the forum and in effect all campaigns have been closed. You will be paid for posts till now, and you are free to remove our signatures and avatars. (If escrow balance falls short, they will be refilled by Steve, our undisputedly awesome Da Dice admin.) Cheers and sorry  ndnhc Sad to hear it. End of an era. Want to add my very large salutes to ndnhc and bf4btc for their hard work keeping the spammers away and dealing with lots of extrenous drama and other bullshit which their job entailed. Good job, fellas, I'd be happy to work for either of you again, if given the chance. --TSP EDIT: out of curiousity, will dadice be cashing out our loyalty points for staying true to the end? (I think I was one of the first 5 to sign up for the campaign when it started ). |
|
|
|
Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.< This is by design from the beginning. If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else. There is no way to change it. There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.
No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork... No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi. Policy is not a network fork in any sense. If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different? You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network. If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message. If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network. What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand. But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc. The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants. I'm using extreme to get a point across. Everyone agreed Sybil Attack were attacks not choices. So unless you think that there was noting wrong with doing that you should use same critters with antispam rules that disrupted wallets... EDIT: Just adding a link http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/Ok, but using "an extreme example to get your point across" which confuses important distinctions does more harm than good, imo. BTW, thanks for the link to the story and the sybil attack. If you ask me, people are of course free to try to make false nodes on the bitcoin network. What should happen is that real nodes stop communicating with them if they don't provide copies of the blockchain upon request or other data which you would expect a good peer to do. Again, I believe we have to differentiate between valid network messages vs behavior of people/computers sending and receiving those messages. Everyone has to be free to participate at their own willingness or it's not really going to work, ever. No one forces a peer in a peer-to-peer network to do anything at all. The peer is free to disappear at will, to attempt what it will attempt. The system works when other peers respond in a way which creates incentives for being nice. Not by creating rules which force someone to be nice. |
|
|
|
Is there a way to relabel Lucko from "Hero Member" to "Clueless Idiot"? <.< This is by design from the beginning. If you don't like the way bitcoin is designed, you should use something else. There is no way to change it. There is no way to force anyone running a full node to mine or relay any specific transaction.
No you need to change it to do that... If you don't it will not reject valid transaction. You need to add so-called antispam to it and say this in a valid translation but it is not valid for me. And when a big pools and nodes start doing this and that is blocking big wallets providers it is a big problem if they don't tell you what new rules are... this is practically unannounced a fork... No, this is what Bitcoin has always done by design and also by default since 0.3.19 released by Satoshi. Policy is not a network fork in any sense. If you change the rules of the network it is a fork. I can send a valid masage but if everyone is saying I don't care if it is valid it is not valid for me. So the protocol is different. So what else is it then a fork? Only difference is that you don't know it is coming and upgrading doesn't help since it is arbitrarily set of rules. Please enlighten me how this is any different? You're misunderstanding the difference between the rules of the network and the actions of the participants in the network. If you send a message over the network then listeners will use the rules of the network to parse your message. If they can parse it, it fits the rules of the network. What your peers do in response to your message is in part determined by the rules of the network, because if your peers send unparseable messages no one will understand. But even within the rules of the network, your peers have choices: they can rebroadcast your transaction to their peers, they can turn off their machine and go home, etc. The rules of the network is not the same thing as the actions of the participants. |
|
|
|
|
I've been deciding not to do anything different and I'm paying the consequences. Small ones, but annoyances for sure. I just realized that a transaction I sent yesterday to a cold storage address hasn't confirmed yet. It's not really a big deal because, as I said, it's going to a savings address and it will get confirmed eventually, but it's still quite an annoyance. 27K unconfirmed is a lot. Does anyone know yet who's behind this latest attack?
|
|
|
|
This thread should be bumped more. After ally player on DT agrees that we need more players there.
I was also asking myself several times why this thread isn't more active the way the threads for a lot of popular sites are (such as the thread on primedice or dadice). The best I've been able to come up with this that the players on DT chat on DT. BTW, I'm curious if there are any offers on a level 8 account. PM me. |
|
|
|
I hesitate to bring this up because people are mistaken about how, but the forks do in fact contribute to delays.
When you've got 50% of the hashing power working on a bad fork, you've only got 50% of the hashing power working on a good fork. While this situation is in effect, you can only form about 50% of the "nominal" number of blocks in the good fork.
That leaves only room for 50% of the normal number of transactions and the remainder do in fact start to pile up when they come in faster than the reduced-capacity good block chain can handle.
You are correct. However, the bad fork of the "Fork of July" lasted only for 6 blocks. Another bad fork on July 5th lasted for 3 blocks. We haven't seen anymore bad fork since. The current delay in the transactions is due to a spammer (attack) on the Bitcoin network, who sends peaks of 150 transactions per seconds on a network that can handle about 7 only. A work around - if you really want to send a bitcoin transaction, is to include a transaction fee of at least 0.0005 BTC per kb of data. A normal one input, one output transaction is 0.6 kb - so include a minimum of 0.0003 BTC. If you add any more inputs or outputs to your transaction, add more fees. If you stick to 0.0001 BTC per transactions, be ready to wait at least 18 hours before the first confirmation... at the moment. The miners will include in the next block the highest fees first, then go down the list... This situation is similar to a Los Angeles rush hour when there's an accident on the highway, and the 6 lanes traffic is diverted to a 1 lane surface street - with traffic lights... Look at it like an additional fee to be able to ride on the carpool lane - which is clear of the accident, of course! Is there a dedicated thread somewhere to talk about this (third?) attack? I've seen several discussions verging towards this topic but I haven't found the official thread on this week's attack (who's funding it now? etc) |
|
|
|
Yes but if you would read some more you would see that some additional rules were added in last days by some big pools and also big nodes. And it is a big problem for some services like BitGo...
Why is bitgo having a problem? I heard that some pools had added measures to ignore tranasctions based on a rule intended to identify the "stress test" spam computers. Is bitgo getting caught in that filter? Even if they were, other pools would mine their tx. Is the problem that bitgo isn't paying sufficient fees to be heard in the sea of spam? |
|
|
|
...
locopao
My payment from bitmixer was some 40 + hours in getting confirmed (confirmation time approximate). But, it DID get confirmed.
I wonder...:
If we (all?) asked bitmixer nicely, and offered to take the small financial hit (miner's fee), if they would change their payments to include a BTC 0.0001 fee (or whatever) to ensure that we get our payments in a reasonable amount of time?
Are they sending with no fee at the moment? That would be pretty surprising from a company which basically does btc transactions at volume for a business. I wonder if your long confirmation times have to do with the mempool backup from all these stress tests? |
|
|
|
-snip- My enhancements for Bitcoin Core have always shown as an optional feature keyworded "ljr". In the most recent versions, Gentoo users are also given options for "xt" (Bitcoin XT), and independent policy settings such as RBF, CPFP, and my spamfilter. None of this has ever been hidden, and after there was confusion the first time, I went to extra steps to ensure there was a clear document covering each and every enhancement included in the patchsets I maintain and even after confirming options, users are shown the descriptions of the options they have chosen to use. It might not have been a hidden feature but you did not publicly mentioned about it and ljr spamfilter for Gentoo package was definitely a default feature. Deploying the 'ljr' USE flag to Gentoo as a default quietly was wrong,
-snip-
Thanks for clarifying, Luke-Jr. I tried to emphasize that Gentoo doesn't even distribute binaries (or at least it used to not), that all software packages are makefiles and source code and that people who aren't interested in custom builds don't tend to run Gentoo.
But... does that mean the user will know whatever codes are there in that file? I think I'm done repeating this to you after this time, MZ. If you're using gentoo, you're taking control of your system and compiling every single package from source. When I last did this on an old laptop some 6 or 7 years ago, getting open-office compiled and running took approximately 2 days. Using gentoo linux just isn't done by people who don't take the time to look at the package options for the software they're building. If it is done without looking, then people are on the hook for what they installed. Imagine it like this, I send you a contract and you sign it. You can say later things like "o, I didn't read it" or "o, the font was too small so I put it off reading it until I had better glasses". But at the end of the day, you signed it, and you had the entire contract in front of you. The other point is that people who don't likem what a package maintainers for an open-source distro are doing with that package are totally free to build the package as they like. You can't say should "freedom" at someone as you tell them what they're not allowed to do with software they write.
#1. It was not just his software. It was official Bitcoind Gentoo package. For which he was the maintainer, which clearly make it his software. If someone else had ported bitcoind to gentoo, then they would be in charge of their port. #2. He did not made that public and even made it default. All source code is downloaded and compiled with makefiles in the gentoo system, it's quite public. Nothing is hidden #3. Even other core developers told it was not good to make it as a default. Reasonable people often disagree about things. This is expected #4. According to your view, any developer who don't need approval for commits, can add these things without making this public and without asking other developers. According to my view, people are in charge of the repos they are in charge of. Some repos may be maintained under a consensus model, but when there's an open and free license, anyone can make a fork and do what they want #5. According to your view, , when we run commands to compile a source, whatever unwanted things(especially, which were not publicly mentioned) in the program won't be malware. Hmm...?
According to my view, if you are compiling "malware" to run on your own computer, you are in the world of big-kids who have to take the consequences for the software that they put onto their own machines. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
