About how much would he get with 100, per day on JD ?
I can tell you how much he would have got per 100 per week on JD over some recent weeks: Jan 4 2016 0.69 Jan 11 2016 0.71 Jan 18 2016 0.70 Jan 25 2016 0.68 Feb 1 2016 0.66 Feb 8 2016 0.67 Feb 15 2016 0.70 Feb 22 2016 0.76 Feb 29 2016 0.66 So about 0.1 per day. Or 10 days per whole CLAM. That's a little worse than my 8.333 day estimate for solo-staking, but that calculation could easily have been that much off because there's no accurate way of knowing how many CLAMs are actually trying to stake. |
|
|
|
hi, how need Clams for pure POS? 100 enough? and how much is the probability to catch the POS at 100 coins in the wallets? thank you
There are around 1.2 million CLAMs staking, and 1440 CLAMs are staked per day. So each CLAM can expect to take 1.2e6 / 1440 = 833.3333 days to stake, or 100 CLAMs can expect to take 8.333 days to stake. Roughly. |
|
|
|
how to edit this line: to include loss streak from number x to number y? if (lossStreak >= x && lossStreak <= y) That will trigger if lossStreak is greater than or equal to x and less than or equal to y. |
|
|
|
The profit you seek to make through your participation in these schemes is that which is stolen from other users.
You do understand that's how *all* gambling works, correct? No, it isn't. Most gambling doesn't involve deception. Ponzi scams *do*. Ponzi scams promise their victims that they will make a profit. It's a lie, because not everyone can make a profit. Those who don't make a profit are defrauded. Dice sites make it clear that they are offering a game of chance. They show the odds up front. "You have a 49.5% chance of doubling your money; there is a 1% house edge". Players know they might lose. Nobody's surprised when they lose a coin toss. If you can't see the difference between these two (basically: Ponzi scams are inherently dishonest, Dice sites aren't) then I don't know how to help you. |
|
|
|
if Seuntjie could get this feature implemented into his bot soon, it'd be appreciated!
The feature is almost entirely client-side, so bots can implement this feature independently of Just-Dice having implemented it. The Javascript running in your browser simply sets the chance pseudo-randomly and then asks the server to bet 'hi' or 'lo'. |
|
|
|
Just to prove the issue with the way things are going... Can you prove you where not involved? Are the accusations only going to be extended to certain people  Just a joke but you can see that the logic is faulty if they do not neg rep you without you providing evidence. I think it's quite different. I made it known that I had played at what I believed to be good dice sites. When I became suspicious that things were wrong, I posted about that too. That's quite different from posting positive reports about ponzi schemes. Everyone knows the ponzi scheme is a scam and that it will eventually stop paying out, and so it is bad form to make positive posts about it, knowing full well that it is a scam. |
|
|
|
Dooglus was doing much more then telling people about his experience, he was actively telling people to invest and deposit into these scam sites and was getting paid large amounts to do so.
This is a lie and you know it. I never told anyone to invest or deposit in either site. I said many times that I *didn't* know who was running them, and that I couldn't vouch for them. I also drew attention to the cheating at dicebitco.in and the missing cold wallet at dice.ninja before it was too late to withdraw, alerting people to the likelihood of them scamming. It's not suspicious that I was able to withdraw from the sites when I saw the clear signs that something was wrong. Anyone paying attention to the warning signs would have been able to do the same. I wasn't paid anything by either site for promoting them other than when I wore the dicebitco.in signature for 1 week. I don't remember how much they paid per week but it certainly wasn't a "large amount". |
|
|
|
|
I was asked for my opinion of this thread.
> Someone give you negative trust for participating in a PONZI?
How would anyone even know that you participated in a ponzi? Just play the game if you want to - it's your money and you can give it to a scammer if you like.
I suspect that you received negative trust for promoting the ponzi, not for participating in it. Posting on the forum about how you played the game and made a profit isn't just playing the game, it's promoting the game to others, even though you know it's a scam. You're free to do that if you like, and others are free to leave you feedback drawing attention to how you are promoting a scam.
|
|
|
|
For SIGHASH_ALL this is exactly the case as each signature is based on the modified transaction that is composed of the entire transaction, plus the output script for the vin substituted in for the input script, with the other blanked out.
I didn't realise the vin's output script was used. That changes things. without the complete blockchain preceding it, you can be sure it is already spent
You mean you can't be sure it isn't already spent I think? |
|
|
|
If someone wins the entire bankroll of JD aka 100k clams, then he'll have extreme trouble cashing them out
The bankroll of JD is 1,144,036 CLAMs, or about 11.5 times more than your guess of 100k. |
|
|
|
I was way out of line with that remark. I apologize.
It was a bug, easily fixed by removing a single dollar sign: diff --git a/build-aux/m4/bitcoin_qt.m4 b/build-aux/m4/bitcoin_qt.m4
index 2480267..338016c 100644
--- a/build-aux/m4/bitcoin_qt.m4
+++ b/build-aux/m4/bitcoin_qt.m4
@@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([_BITCOIN_QT_FIND_LIBS_WITH_PKGCONFIG],[
dnl qt version is set to 'auto' and the preferred version wasn't found. Now try the other.
if test x$have_qt = xno && test x$bitcoin_qt_want_version = xauto; then
- if test x$auto_priority_version = x$qt5; then
+ if test x$auto_priority_version = xqt5; then
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([QT], [$qt4_modules], [QT_INCLUDES="$QT_CFLAGS"; have_qt=yes; QT_LIB_PREFIX=Qt; bitcoin_qt_got_major_vers=4], [have_qt=no])
else
PKG_CHECK_MODULES([QT], [$qt5_modules], [QT_INCLUDES="$QT_CFLAGS"; have_qt=yes; QT_LIB_PREFIX=Qt5; bitcoin_qt_got_major_vers=5], [have_qt=no])
|
|
|
|
But all he needs is a 4 billion entry lookup table for each possible server+client seed and a corresponding "initial shuffle" that will benefit the server.
I don't understand. How many 4 billion entry lookup tables does he need? What's the key? What's the value? How does he use it? You understand he picks the server seed *before* you pick the client seed, right? And once he has done it, that's all his choices used up. He doesn't get to change anything once you have picked your client seed. The only scope for cheating I see is that he could pick a server seed which does badly on average against all 4 billion client seeds, but that's a different concern. You seem hung up on the "initial shuffle" part. Would you still think he was cheating if the client seed was 256 bits instead of 32 bits? |
|
|
|
while you can verify sigs a lot of times from the recent blocks, there are many times where you just dont know what the txid the vin refers to is, since you havent seen it yet during a parallel sync.
So you could verify a significant subset as it comes in during the first pass, but until the blockchain is fully there you cant verify all the sigs.
Are you sure that you need to know anything about the input transactions other than the txid and vout in order to verify a signature? I didn't think that was the case. I don't see any reason why you couldn't verify the signatures out of blockchain order. |
|
|
|
So miners gather around $1200 in total in one day(according to current market value)? Is this correct?
There are no miners. It is a proof of stake coin. Stakes are paid in CLAM, not dollars. Inflation due to staking will tend to devalue each CLAM, leaving staker holdings worth approximately a constant amount. How is this coin still alive?
Inflation isn't evil when newly created coins are fairly distributed. |
|
|
|
Hey, #nicklovesBTC
Your withdrawal request is fulfilled.
Is there some explanation for why: 1) nick was repeatedly told to "wait", when your site promises instant withdrawals? 2) deadlines set by support staff were repeatedly missed? 3) the withdrawal when eventually made included such a tiny fee that it will possibly never confirm? It kind of looks like you're playing with him at this point. |
|
|
|
I've been very patient with btc-casino up until now but I am getting increasingly frustrated with them giving me the run around when I ask about why my withdraw hasn't been issued. Here is a complete transcript of my support interactions within the site itself. I showed extreme patience with them at first but I cannot stand being lied to over and over again.
I'll leave some feedback warning that they don't honor their "instant withdrawal" promise. Let me know if they ever pay you and I will modify my feedback. Edit: even the OP of this thread promises "completely instant" deposits and withdrawals:  |
|
|
|
I just sent a transaction from my Bitcoin Core wallet and tried to use a blockchain.info link to the transaction to show the recipient that I had sent it, but blockchain.info shows an error message:  I made another transaction, and the same thing happened:  [link to tx]Please fix this annoying bug. |
|
|
|
Isn't 33% a huge inflation number?
Will staking be reduced at some point?
CLAM consensus rules are guided by CLAMour, the community petition system. If the majority want a change they'll likely get it. The current rules specify a fixed 1 CLAM per block reward, so the inflation percentage is constantly reducing. |
|
|
|
Need some clams?
You missed an R in EARNING. |
|
|
|
I'm interested for prune mode..I don't want synchronization 7 years..
You still have to synchronize the full 7 years with a pruned node. I expect someone will make a torrent available of a fully pruned .bitcoin/ folder. You would need to trust them, but it would be a good fast way of getting your "full node" initialized if you do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
