no matter how much it would benefit you or I
".. no matter how much it would benefit you or me ..." Please send my 1000-CLAM grammar bug bounty to "President, Brad Pitt Lookalike Club, Basement, Mom's, 39876 Thanks. I'm looking at getting a testnode up and running. Please provide a CLAM-testnet address for your 1000-CLAM bounty. |
|
|
|
This is a complicated question since the house will always win. They don't need to have cheats to accomplish this. If they play the game unfairly that's something else.
This is why I'm always holding off on playing online. I would rather gamble in an actual casino rather than online.
That makes no sense. If the reason you avoid playing is that the game has an edge in the favour of the house then you should prefer to play online where the edge is usually smaller than in an "actual" casino. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm making my posts too long.
Suppose I deposit 1 BTC. I get 3.01 extra, for a total of 4.01 BTC. I then wager enough to clear the bonus, and end up with 100 BTC in my balance. How much of my balance will you let me keep, and how much will you confiscate? Can I withdraw 3.01, because that's the bonus amount, or 4.01? What if I deposit a further 10 BTC before I have finished clearing the bonus. Then how much can I withdraw once it is clear?
|
|
|
|
The bonus isn't worthless. It is to test out the provably fair system and try your luck at unlocking an enormous amount of money without having to make a single deposit. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's worthless. Even a lottery ticket costs a dollar.
About 1/1000 people unlock the bonus, and about 1/10 of those do it without creating multiple accounts. That's good odds when you consider it is a free shot at winning that sum of money. As I said, there was a guy that recently did it and cashed out over 2,000 USD, so I'm not sure I agree with you on that point.
You seem to be talking about the no-deposit bonus. I wasn't. You failed to quote the post you were responding to. Here it is: I just signed up at betcoin.tm to take a look around, and I see confusing information about various bonuses. For example, under " FIRST DEPOSIT BONUS": if you deposit 1 BTC you will receive an additional 3.01 BTC in your account. to withdraw any winnings from this you need to bet 888x 4.01 BTC ( 1 from deposit and 3.01 from the bonus ) so in total you would need to wager 1555.88 BTC
Fair enough - I deposit 1 BTC and have to wager 1.5k to clear the bonus. But then: If you meet the unlock requirement for your bonus, the maximum amount of your balance which becomes available is the original bonus amount.
What does that mean? Suppose I deposit 1 BTC and manage to turn it into 1000 BTC while wagering 1.5k BTC. Am I only allowed to keep 4.01 BTC of it? That seems to be what that condition is saying, and it seems very wrong. The wagering requirement is huge. After wagering 1.5k times my initial deposit I am very likely to either be bust or up a lot. It's unlikely that I'm only up a few BTC by that point. Putting a tiny cap on the amount I can withdraw in the unlikely event that I profit a lot makes this a very unattractive offer. See, I was saying that the "first deposit bonus" is worthless, and that it is much better for the player to reject the bonus. Do you disagree? I'm also not clear about this: If you meet the unlock requirement for your bonus, the maximum amount of your balance which becomes available is the original bonus amount.
Suppose I deposit 1 BTC. I get 3.01 extra, for a total of 4.01 BTC. I then wager 1555.88 BTC to clear the bonus, and end up with 100 BTC in my balance. How much of my balance will you let me keep, and how much will you confiscate? Can I withdraw 3.01, because that's the bonus amount, or 4.01? What if I deposit a further 10 BTC before I have finished clearing the bonus. Then how much can I withdraw once it is clear? AFAIK, the house edge is and has always been 1.65% for BetCoin Circle, which is our most popular game. The house advantage of Dice is 1.88%, as you said. I'm not trying to withhold information from you I am simply used to people asking about Circle, not Dice. Apologies.
So again you had misunderstood what I was talking about? I clearly said I was talking about dice. I even included screenshots of various dice games including yours. You didn't respond to my question about how I was meant to know there's a 0.5% refund for losing dice bets. We have 2FA.
OK, I see it now. I couldn't see it before. Is it new? It would be useful if you could provide the secret in text form as well as QR-code form, so I can make a paper backup of it. |
|
|
|
3. Dooglus' calculation of the house edge is incorrect, as it does not take in the 'consolation prize' if you do not win. 0.5% of your bet is returned when you lose. However, since our house edge is 1.65%, it is clear that it isn't the lowest worldwide and we'll have to look into a.) the person that wrote the content for the About Me page and b.) any more mistakes that could have been made such as this. Thanks for pointing it out.
I don't see any mention of this 0.5% refund. Where can I find it? Under "How to Play" I see: What is the house edge for BetCoin ™ Dice?
The house advantage is 1.88% for all games except < 1, wherein the house edge is 1.838%. That is different than the 1.65% you claim in the post I'm replying to. If you pay 1.9574x for a win at 50% and 0.005x for a loss, the house edge is 100 - 1.9574 * 50 - 0.005 * 50 = 1.88% 4. The bonus info is super clear on the website - we aren't trying to hide anything and there have been people that have unlocked it. There was one recently that cashed out 5 BTC (though he was promptly called a shill). 888x rollover requirement and you can withdraw the original bonus amount. If you're playing games that have super high odds (95%+) and betting high to try and unlock it, the amount applied to the rollover requirement is reduced.
It's clear, but it's such poor value I wondered if it might be incorrect. Players would be much better off refusing this "bonus" than to have their winnings limited by those terms. Please let us know if we missed something.
You completely skipped my last question about security and 2FA. |
|
|
|
This casino blackjack is set up wrong.
In rules dealer must hit Soft 17.
Dealer does not know true meaning of soft 17.
If Dealer is hitting for example 16 Ten + Six and receive an Ace for its next card the dealer will draw again. This is not definition of soft 17. This is dealer hitting a hard 17. I'm not sure if is advantage for player or house because dealer will bust many time hitting hard 17 but time against me dealer hit the hard 17 to 21 and beat my 20.
Hitting soft 17 increases the house edge. Hitting hard 17 decreases the house edge, but is almost certainly a bug, so maybe they'll use it as an excuse not to pay you if you win from it. It sounds like the game is coded to treat any 17 containing an ace as a soft 17. It would presumably hit like this: A6 -> A6T -> A6TT bust. This clearly needs to be addressed before it is used to avoid paying out winners.
I posted in the other betcoin.tm thread but never got a reply: I just signed up at betcoin.tm to take a look around, and I see confusing information about various bonuses. For example, under "FIRST DEPOSIT BONUS": if you deposit 1 BTC you will receive an additional 3.01 BTC in your account. to withdraw any winnings from this you need to bet 888x 4.01 BTC ( 1 from deposit and 3.01 from the bonus ) so in total you would need to wager 1555.88 BTC
Fair enough - I deposit 1 BTC and have to wager 1.5k to clear the bonus. But then: If you meet the unlock requirement for your bonus, the maximum amount of your balance which becomes available is the original bonus amount.
What does that mean? Suppose I deposit 1 BTC and manage to turn it into 1000 BTC while wagering 1.5k BTC. Am I only allowed to keep 4.01 BTC of it? That seems to be what that condition is saying, and it seems very wrong. The wagering requirement is huge. After wagering 1.5k times my initial deposit I am very likely to either be bust or up a lot. It's unlikely that I'm only up a few BTC by that point. Putting a tiny cap on the amount I can withdraw in the unlikely event that I profit a lot makes this a very unattractive offer. Edit: I found another problem. The "About" page says: Advanced computer encryption algorithms ensure that every game is provably fair, and BetCoin™ games have the lowest house edge and the highest return to player ratio (RTP) available worldwide.
but I checked out the dice game and it actually has the highest house edge and lowest return to player ration (RTP) available worldwide. I guess there's something wrong with the advanced computer encryption algorithms!  >>> 100 - 1.9574 * 50 2.13 That's a massive 2.13% house edge, biggest even than Satoshidice's 1.9% (last time I checked). Just-Dice, bitdice.me, primedice, prcdice, betcoin.ag, safedice, fastdice, and pretty much every other dice game I can think of has a 1% house edge. So how can you claim this 2.13% game has the lowest house edge available worldwide? Edit: I was wrong. safedice is 0.5%:  PrimeDice 1%:  bitdice.me 1%:  betcoin.ag 1%:  etc. I'd like to sign a message saying I love you guys, but my first impressions aren't good. Edit: I also don't see any way to secure my account with 2FA. You say "BetCoin™ customers don’t need to worry about their funds’ safety, as they enjoy state-of-the-art, hacker-proof security", but you don't even offer google authenticator protection? With our system, even if your account password or your email account are compromised, the funds on your BetCoin™ account will be safe as the perpetrators will not be able to cash them out to another wallet than the one you have registered with.
Maybe you're going to ask me for a signed message before I can withdraw, but that's little comfort if a hacker is able to log in and gamble away my balance using just my username and password. Or do I need to sign a message each time I log in as well? Can I has answers? |
|
|
|
Now we are making it clear to the community that it is but an "expression of support", with no actionable plan. Very new age! For that explanation I thank you.
I don't see that she has an option. As you point out later in your post, over 80% of the stake weight is controlled by JD wallets. So Creative could say "any proposal gaining more than X% support will be implemented", those words would hold little weight when she doesn't have the power to enforce such changes on the staking majority. It makes much more sense to treat petition support as what it is: a fair way of gauging which petitions the stakeholders support. Let's state the obvious, rather the elephant in the room. Ineffectual by design due to the qualities of this coin (more about this below). With the added advantage for those who this rigged system favors. I hear you loud and clear so will others who read the thread and are frustrated by continual justifications for inaction.
It's not clear to me what you're trying to say exactly, but you seem to be thinking that the CLAMour system was put in place to avoid having to change anything, and that the status quo somehow favors those who came up with the CLAMour system. I don't see how you can argue that letting whoever controls the stolen SilkRoad or MtGox wallets dig up large numbers of CLAMs favors anyone currently involved in CLAM. I personally would be in favor of limiting the number of CLAMs that those large wallets can claim in the future. But am not willing to "throw my weight around" to make it happen. The system isn't rigged, and "no majority supports it" isn't an unreasonable justification for inaction as I see it. It would be wrong to make a change to the rules which less than 50% of the staking weight supports, no matter how much it would benefit you or I. Wouldn't you agree? Ironically, the voting (this magical way to express your feelings) came about when the larger community, those who cared (if you magically expressed yourself we can at minimum say you care) had been using this forum to express their desires to do away with a largely unfair system that discriminates amongst new comers, favors past criminals and exposes the very people who support the network to risk. No matter what the original intentions, that is the present day reality.
If "the larger community" truly supports ending digging they should use the CLAMour system to voice their support. Then we can end digging. Raising an army of trolls to shout on the forum is easy, and proves nothing. Using the CLAMour system to prove support for your clause is easy - so long as that support actually exists among significant stakeholders. Just-Dice wallets make this decision and you are smart enough to know that.
The wallets vote how I tell them to. And I tell them to vote according to the wishes of the JD investors. About 84% of the staking community are simply voting by proxy via Just-dice [don't quote me on the 84% as that number is dynamic and I have not recently run the math]. This may not have been by design but it is reality. It is as true if not truer (as it may be more powerful) then any given line of code in the coin’s protocol.
I didn't check the numbers recently either, but 84% sounds plausible. I'm not sure what your concern is about this however. I can guess: a) you think that I am misrepresenting the JD investors' wishes, and having the wallet vote how I want rather than how they want b) you think that if a petition I disagree with gets somewhere close to 50% support I will start "rigging" things to make sure it never actually gets there Am I close? If you can be more explicit about your objections hopefully I can address them. I currently don't attempt to prove that I'm representing user wishes fairly. I could include per-investor support in the weekly investor report that I post to the JD blog which I currently use to prove that the site is solvent. That would give a once-a-week proof to each investor that their wishes at least were being included in the total at that point in time. But it doesn't stop me cheating for the other 167 hours of the week. This reality makes it impossible for simply a community based update triggered fork change. Many may not like it but it is now part of the corpus of the coin
I am willing to make community-supported changes to the wallets run by JD. If there's clear support for ending staking (or for doing anything else for that matter), I'll push a change (either after having create it myself or received it from the community) to the github repository implementing that change, release a new version of the client, and run that version of the client on JD. We can make up nice sounding terms and play cloak and daggers but the reality is clear. Of the voting community the majority already expressed what they want so lets not gloss over the issue.
Where did this happen? How were you able to ascertain that the majority had spoken, let alone been in support of change? If you can point me to this majority support I would love to see it. It would save having to go through this silly CLAMour nonsense. But until you do, this is the best way anyone has come up with of gauging support. To exaggerate your (assumed) position: in a country of a million people, if 10 of them get together and vote to oust the president, and 9 out of those 10 vote in favor, do they have a majority? You can show proof that 90% were in favor, and so it's a clear majority. But what about the 999990 people who didn't care or even know about the vote? You seem to be saying that because they didn't vote they should be ignored. I would disagree. Now that we have cleared the air I will put on my best hippie cap and go chant my wants barefoot in the park. Another powerful way for one to express their desires.
I'd personally prefer you go the opposite direction and be more direct in your criticisms so that we can get to the bottom of things. |
|
|
|
The 0.5% is how JD determines the max profit per bet based on the total effective bankroll (both onsite and offsite). Let me try to explain it with a simple example.
Suppose I invest 100 CLAM in JD, the JD bankroll will increase by 100 CLAM and the max profit will increase by 100*0.5% = 0.5 CLAM. That 0.5 CLAM is how much I can lose at most in one bet to the JD players. Now suppose I love taking more risk, and I enter "/offsite 900" in the chat to declare a 900 CLAM offsite investment (this can be done even though I have no more CLAM in my personal wallet), the site total effective bankroll will increase by 1000 CLAM (100 onsite + 900 offsite). The max profit will increase by 5 CLAM, which is how much I can now lose at most in one bet. So now I am actually risking 5% at most per roll instead of 0.5%, but still the max profit is 0.5% of my total declared investment.
That's pretty much exactly right. My only small criticism would be that when you "/offsite 900", the max profit increases by a further 4.5 CLAMs (not 5) since it already increased by 0.5 when you invested the first 100 CLAMs. You are correct that you would then be risking up to 5 CLAMs per roll however. |
|
|
|
Technically speaking, one cannot be a schmuck and a pussy at the same time.
Huh, I never realised that schmuck is derived from the Yiddish word for "penis". Origin of schmuck: Yiddish shmok, literally, penis First Known Use: 1892 Origin of pussy: perhaps of Low German or Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse pūss pocket, pouch, Low German pūse vulva, Old English pusa bag First Known Use: 1699 Thanks Soros  |
|
|
|
Do you have numbers on total unique votes?
I would also expect whoever has large numbers of stored keys (maybe the original developer(s)?) to come out of the woodworks and start to dig/dump. The next few weeks will be very revealing. I would love to believe in the honest nature of those who concocted this system of distribution under a cloak of "fairness" but I'd be fetching for straws.
When is the voted on petitions expected to be acted on?
Thanks for the update and fix Doog.
I found and fixed a bug in my petition support counting code this morning. It was skipping some votes when it counted. So for the last week Just-Dice mostly hadn't been voting, and when it was, the vote counting code was skipping some of them. Both are fixed now, but we need to wait a week to get a good representative sample of the votes. I can do something like this to show the support count over the last 500 blocks of all the petitions with more than 5% support: $ clamd getsupport 5 500
{
"threshold" : 5,
"window" : 500,
"endblock" : 779942,
"startblock" : 779443,
"support" : {
"5afa074c" : 170,
"694c26a6" : 26,
"7a69a853" : 75,
"ea06c089" : 74,
"ff839af9" : 111
}
} That shows that 5afa (stop digging) has 170/500 or 34% support. As I understand it, the voting runs forever and is intended to give everyone feedback of what the stakeholders support. So we see currently 34% of the stake weight is voting to end digging, and 66% of it isn't. 5afa074c has the support of 39.08% of the Just-Dice bankroll, but JD isn't 100% of the staking weight. As for the developers claiming their massive premines, don't you think they would have done that already if they had a massive premine to claim? If I was a developer with thousands of CLAMs to dig up and I saw the price of CLAM sliding from 0.01 BTC to 0.001 BTC over a 3 month period I'm pretty sure I would have dug them up at that point. |
|
|
|
So I was just working through the CLAM issue tracker. I saw that issue #252 was still open even though I already fixed it. I checked that "clamd getsupport" really did work: clamd getsupport
{
"threshold" : 0,
"window" : 10000,
"endblock" : 778536,
"startblock" : 768537,
"support" : {
"0000cb61" : 34,
"02fde4a4" : 6,
"066b223d" : 3,
"26dfbf81" : 8,
"5afa074c" : 43,
"694c26a6" : 2,
"7a69a853" : 25,
"c9328886" : 2,
"ea06c089" : 18,
"eff96b06" : 10,
"ff839af9" : 33
}
} and was surprised to see the vote tallies so small. Then it occurred to me that since I moved JD to new servers about a week ago, the staking wallet hasn't been supporting any petitions at all. Oops! It's fixed again now. Before: http://khashier.com/tx/496955fa5e0533cde6d83215bc49874cd58013b182f9b85e810e7ea675b6a0cb After: http://khashier.com/tx/ccdb1b89321f0946b7fe6fc21c3c793a6c1cb49365fe6814f6a0f0181b2e0c35Sorry for the downtime. Edit: now we see the tallies increasing again: $ clamd getsupport
{
"threshold" : 0,
"window" : 10000,
"endblock" : 778660,
"startblock" : 768661,
"support" : {
"0000cb61" : 34,
"02fde4a4" : 8,
"066b223d" : 3,
"26dfbf81" : 8,
"5afa074c" : 53,
"694c26a6" : 7,
"7a69a853" : 29,
"c9328886" : 2,
"ea06c089" : 24,
"eff96b06" : 10,
"ff839af9" : 46
}
} |
|
|
|
Unofficial result for #6: 25238990480fd040ff51f793de5f998d4c3e062f09feaa0f6cf6bab34e44edfc
edit: mm so the "Verify" script says 1,553,035,541 tickets, but the Draw page says 1,553,025,541. This gives 2 different winners (by verify script 5 BTC bettor, by draw page 10 BTC bettor):
>>> print 0x25238990480fd040ff51f793de5f998d4c3e062f09feaa0f6cf6bab34e44edfc % 1553035541
1100532042
>>> print 0x25238990480fd040ff51f793de5f998d4c3e062f09feaa0f6cf6bab34e44edfc % 1553025541
260547462
Which one is correct?
edit: previous draws also seem to add 10k tickets at verify script? So I am guessing the draw page is correct.
I wrote a script to verify the first draw. Here's what it says for this most recent draw: 05a583cf14b26fe400fbb9710213c43f0db2551199bd97f04713365955c9a2d3 0.00230000 : 0 - 229999
095e1dc03c03a563a98f33a4ba52dfa1ef5d7dc3abe83058cc1dd54e8720201f 0.00997120 : 230000 - 1227119
16cc778a0c24951802a08906b0c69ff432849c04f599ea2a2045c38dddc164ca 0.00010000 : 1227120 - 1237119
1cdc5f039ebe981c51c085f71de7b98383633ff0db81904cc065d647a1f577c8 0.01777700 : 1237120 - 3014819
2feb810fb825fe7fa9229d7d381327f74e6ddf6af8b991105f387e164983de44 0.01174635 : 3014820 - 4189454
2ffa4be958adaa3b9182cc425772af9548f4f7435bbd87cec240ab3a21ed6677 0.00323263 : 4189455 - 4512717
320f7520c1c263ee4b0e12af92ff1c3ff92714da4a8ca018d4abfaeae9c93d26 0.00387760 : 4512718 - 4900477
3e97cc5eff116395714e9b43ca3d14baa54e67581ca10c31c778f385413371b2 0.00472135 : 4900478 - 5372612
3f7b04a495892075619c702483de5de13aa4cd442bc41e4a472891a403e102f5 0.05000000 : 5372613 - 10372612
407de19779c74bacca8f2829b6f053ab9d295bd15eba86585e9b8ab5833ee226 0.04987120 : 10372613 - 15359732
451fd42a88aabbb312a15ffc97508348c32874c71eac68114eb509898a7a3b7d 0.00087120 : 15359733 - 15446852
46f760b049d4152c3323b915dfbcced9d9e2c65e51b93b85cea455519287f1bb 0.00997120 : 15446853 - 16443972
5061bf827d248b4bb8d069868a761cea78d1a08370dc629adcfd38db8c5e813d 0.00399281 : 16443973 - 16843253
51b04285e819b137b6249f5e307895421d2477c20bb69a59bf2cf64d89217d1a 0.00660135 : 16843254 - 17503388
5446a0e05167ffc4fb7f4b55135e70940369abfe31436d0306c86ee243f70bc0 0.00297135 : 17503389 - 17800523
57dc2f128a40ae5e5b6e27437457c01788879c44e91f24212da4038b193851bb 0.00504980 : 17800524 - 18305503
606a17e69f234f0258c3026ace6cbdc30adaa1a5664ae84d52985d85c4869111 0.01000000 : 18305504 - 19305503
61edb7e469a7eee6f0a2de3565f2342eb714216e248915d576d81920bae1cce1 10.10097220 : 19305504 - 1029402723
8a17455f7b7b0d7287b7da5507c74ad1299ca2329ae5890dfb3bb8d90f2bfa4e 0.01000000 : 1029402724 - 1030402723
92d8e3adfe981f1185cf2faf5dd7b60157877d1056fbb405eb8788f6815c4185 0.00022721 : 1030402724 - 1030425444
a24c841ebbcb8f29d4183fab258eb1d971c30468aeef97785897c7b88bc1d010 0.00097135 : 1030425445 - 1030522579
a54b8ae76fd84ba7edb8c24e456cf31a0937d0f2a704304c3c94244a40aa371b 4.99997135 : 1030522580 - 1530519714
a7a19f7e9c4d4719ba7dbe8d235f80a749254bd0564d51be0c2dabdd7382e688 0.00100000 : 1530519715 - 1530619714
a9dafbec95ab39c20cd03d98cc096011d306a8300ae5e805c180d4ec2e6f8728 0.00400000 : 1530619715 - 1531019714
b437100d449d6939a774d3901937b6a584301c5c0aa072f12ad2fb60eea10b4d 0.00014451 : 1531019715 - 1531034165
b859e7193acec1b3aef2826d734181f4a661cf27e8a9a47f726ab256e1cf7b30 0.00997120 : 1531034166 - 1532031285
bd30905fb1ee25fc1c9297a7f3c3e8707e8db89098418e788e4b5516b5f819f4 0.00997120 : 1532031286 - 1533028405
f6ec2a7654950d48a43ec0ad45755b2abd79b0c7d4c5032915ef74baede6a06f 0.19997135 : 1533028406 - 1553025540
modulo 1553025541 Edit: I just noticed that https://www.pevpot.com/draws/6 has off-by-one errors. The first tx bought 230,000 tickets, 0 through 229,999 - but the linked page says 0 through 230,000 (which is 230,001 tickets). Taking 1 from each number in the 'to' column would fix this. |
|
|
|
It's a 5 Big Blind table.
5BB
Ha! Thanks for that. It's written in the table's name... Happen to know of any sites that allow free play (fake chips I guess) on OFC?
http://gambit.com/ has play-money OFC. Edit: Am I reading this right?  Is that telling me that the highest number of players at any hold'em ring game is 1? And if so, how do some of the tables have a hands-per-hour number of over 100? |
|
|
|
As far as I know, ranlo is also a player at seals. I've never seen him discuss betcoin on this thread (which, on the other hand, is somthing you seem to be doing). Just sayin', people can put whatever avatar they want, that doesn't mean that they can't post in some thread or another as long as they're on-topic. As far as I know, there's nothing preventing people from playing at both sites happily (well, except that windoze-only thing of swc, but other than that ...).
I've been playing at betcoin.ag more than SWC recently because they offer an in-browser game, but their customer support is probably the worse of any site I have ever experienced, and their in-browser game is really buggy too. So today I tried Seals again. Fired up my old Windows virtual machine, logged in, and tried to sit at a 0.5/1 no limit hold'em table:  Is that a bug? Why can I only buy in for 5 big blinds? The average pot size on the table is over 10 chips, so I guess that has to be an error. I've not played for months, so it isn't some kind of rathole protection. |
|
|
|
A guy called "dochouse" recommended your live blackjack game to me yesterday. I tried signing up using his referral link, but when I tried to play the game it gave me an error message that's too small to read. Does anyone have good eyes?  Some feedback: Before registering the game wouldn't load. It got stuck at a screen showing that my battery was only 75% full, but it's 100% full. The sign-up process was a nightmare. In Chrome the 'register' button wouldn't do anything. In Firefix the checkbox for agreeing to the terms didn't show up. It must have taken me an hour to get signed up. Then I got an invisible error message and the game wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
Have you ever run any metrics against the likelihood of a particular number or sets of numbers that come up often, or more often that statistically should allow for random? Just curious I've done some tests. The gold standard for random number testing it the die hard test suite. I generated some million numbers (slighty modified version of my Python script, which is linked from the "Fair?" tab on just-dice.com as well), and with different seeds, and all die-hard indicators showed that it is indeed very random. Yeah, I did the same. I think I used a package called "dieharder" or some such, before I first launched Just-Dice. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.phpI don't have the results, but they were good enough. |
|
|
|
In theory, the probability of an inter-block interval exceeding 50 minutes is about 0.0067, or one out of 148.
I'd be interested to see your working. How did you get that probability? |
|
|
|
Although it doesn't concern CLAM development, it is likely worth mentioning the 'President of the United States' set of CLAMour petitions. The more protected political speech on the chain, the more resilient we could potentially be in terms of legal challenges. http://txti.es/potus2016I'm not sure whether to add those to the /clamour list or to consider them in the same category as "dog humping own mouth". |
|
|
|
Hi guys, can you add petition e2ef93da (Postpone digging into the future) to the http://txti.es/clamour (Not sure who has the rights to do that, so I am posting it here) Its alternative to "Remove digging" and would be nice, that "5afa074c" voters would be informed about this option. I hope that some of them may rethink their vote. I just added it. For multi-line petitions I'm just putting the first line with [...] to indicate there's more if you click the link. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
