 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
|
I signed up for an account on Roobet. 2.5% house edge on dice? I laughed my head off all the way to the little round x at the top of my browser.
|
|
|
|
hi i have put your transaction in accelearation with my private method
7da3515aa3a7492b9e99ef95b7a3e7bbaf500c474de68b3dc4c756d18729abdd
we will see if work
if work i will wait for the bounty
Hi, thanks for finding interest in helping me. However, unless you can explain what you are doing and come to an agreement with me beforehand, you cannot partake in this bounty. For example, I offered Timelord a $1,000 bounty if the transaction he is re-broadcasting on Blockcypher gets confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
Also, allow users to view their balance in USD/EUR.
|
|
|
|
|
I would stay far away from VipGame in the meantime for these reasons:
- I signed up to find out that there is no 2FA, and that logins are done via e-mail - for a cryptocurrency casino in 2020 this is comical.
- The level up payouts and rewards for their VIP program are also a joke and are not even a fraction of what other competing casinos offer. A total of $47.4 in level up rewards for wagering $168,000? For comparison, Stake.com offers a $15 level up bonus for reaching their bronze VIP status ($10,000 wagered).
- I tried to partake in their Evolution Games competition to find out that not even a single live game will load because "Player is invalid" - they could not even get that one right.
- You cannot bet more than 5 decimal places in BTC. If you want to bet 0.0000157 BTC, you can't. You have to bet either 0.00001, or 0.00002. For what reason exactly? Ridiculous.
I'll be giving this website another shot in a few months when management can deliver a complete product.
|
|
|
|
|
After about a week of continuous broadcasting still no confirmation.
I think that whoever can get me in contact with someone from F2Pool will likely claim this bounty. Or any major pool willing to accept a non-standard transaction really.
|
|
|
|
|
Good catch! It ruins the integrity and fairness of the competition, have you already notified the thread posters of this?
|
|
|
|
Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post?
That's the "old" transaction (with the higher transaction fee) that gets rejected for a variety of fees (such as too high fee). It will get rejected due to another reason: "too high fees". That includes blockcypher.
I've already tried posting that TX (see post from about a week ago which includes screen grabs of various nodes rejecting that TX) How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it?
Yes, Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes' mempool ( that also accepts such transactions). But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.I don't mind trying to broadcast the newer (lower fee paid) given there has been reports that the first TX has fallen out of the mempool and/or was never accepted in the first place. He needs the one with the normal fee.
#Persistence Okay, one with lower fee: 01000000000101c0ee957139541ad18cb3367a4dd0606bbc8c5bd1585ce64e813c5c21359e3f6e0 000000017160014ef3247d77adecb1f22692e899931e75e1a5cbb26ffffffff01e63d0423000000 0017a9146b4e110311345ba00ff2bb77d569e7f4a0651c6387024830450221008467643b0f6be6b 9c47020bbc824908b5b391a752e416fefcba597d2be1ad5db02200756619fe6db4bcd694dbee6e0 fdc332f06a7b187dd3de6e756c6f7c21d3bdde0141044b8d17d6f5fae04c9213da069f4e9fdd25d f5f567f867a6a957a850c45a602b788c4a699afacbca54cfc5ba0cd659f20575f2fb20eee6ed73c f8bb7dd95e3fd200000000 Just broadcasted it I'll continue to rebroadcast it occasionally. If you re-broadcast it and it gets mined, I agree to pay you a $1000 reward. |
|
|
|
Yes,
Since 150+ nodes are still accepting it, there's a 'very very slim' chance that it will get into a mining nodes's mempool (that also accepts such transactions).
But re-broadcasting it after getting dropped isn't worth it, IMO.
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand. How is it sneaking into any mempools at all? |
|
|
|
There needs to be at least one miner who is willing to mine other peoples' non-standard transactions in the first place. I'd keep posting about this all over the Internet in the hope that it goes viral at some point and someone gives him a hand.
Until that occurs, may I have the RAW transaction so that I can try broadcasting it in various places please? Can you not use the raw transaction in the first post? |
|
|
|
Can you click the "!" in the "confidence" to check how many nodes (that they see in average) have accepted your transaction?
It says 156 memory pools have the tx. As I thought, there're too few nodes that accepted that tx. My mainnet test " uncompressed SegWit" transaction has the same behavior ( 140-170 mempools) and I have been re-broadcast~ing it through blockcypher with no avail of being mined ( as I expected). Still, there's a very very slim chance. Good luck! How can there be a slim chance? Should I keep re-broadcasting in hopes that a small miner would accept it? |
|
|
|
Why exactly does lying escalate the issue and case into something that deems the balance un-returnable?
You misunderstood the analogy. We are comparing the intent of a player who simply wanted to enjoy Betcoin and made a mistake with the intent of a player who has been caught lying multiple times and continues to do so. His funds are being withheld because of fraud. I'll make an assumption here and assume that most of the cheaters that you encounter on Betcoin will not see this thread and be encouraged to cheat should they see you return this user's funds, nor will any cheaters on your website be encouraged not to cheat. It is a poor way to make a public statement.
That is not a good assumption, from our experience. As we have stated, we still have players from 2.5 years ago when we banned this person's region who return back monthly, attempting to defraud the site. We have gained access to Discord and Telegram groups with thousands of members where the entire purpose is discussing new ways to defraud sportsbooks. We see the reactions in these groups when players start getting banned and it usually dies down for a while. However, as any member of the Bitcoin community should know, cheaters will continue trying to cheat. This is their life's work. It only takes a few times not getting caught and they are good for the year. I think that that is what I was getting at - you are withholding this user's funds, not because purely of fraud, but because it helps you to reduce future incidents of cheating. This is deterrence, and it is not a good reason to withhold funds. ... However that is merely opinion that it is not good. It will likely reduce the number of cheaters, but it carries heavy consequences such as damaging your reputation permanently. |
|
|
|
I usually don't get involved in controversial issues such as these, since it may seem like I am taking sides, but I would like to add my perspective on this.
Enforcing a player to resort to legal action is a really, really easy way to scare away existing and potential players. Having your BTC locked up by a 3rd party is most bitcoiners worst nighmare - especially on exchanges. Although Betcoin has some reasoning as well as legal rights to keep the player's Bitcoin, it is not only unprofessional, but unnecessary and incredibly damaging to the casino's already diminished reputation. Casino's survive on reputation and holding up a mere 1 BTC is doing 10 fold of damage.
Like I said, I don't like to pick sides, but this thread has taken off and as a result I see it illogical to damage your casino's reputation permanently for such an insignificant amount of BTC. You may be just fine legally , but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter to anyone besides the OP and sheds bad light.
As we said, we know that this is the difficult way to go about things for us. However it is also important that we discourage both this player and other dishonest players from coming to Betcoin, coming to other online casinos or cheating in general. This is not a new thing or something unique to Betcoin. Every online casino and sportsbook bans fraudulent players every day. The only thing noteworthy about this case is the attention it has received. Using a proxy does not mean that we cannot see where you are playing from. Literally 10 minutes ago, we dealt with another player who was playing from a banned region. We asked him where he was from and he originally lied. We then told him that we know he is playing from a banned region and he admitted it and will receive his full account balance. Had he continued lying, it would have shown malicious intent. Instead, he admitted having lied about his location and in our opinion, that was not enough to withhold his balance. The OP has not only played from a banned region, but created multiple accounts to abuse the tight limits that we have on low tiered matches. This is fraud and will not be tolerated. We want the community to know this. We also think that the vast majority of players, who are honest, know that if they play legitimately, they will receive their winnings in a timely manner and won't have to go through legal action. We pay out tens of thousands of legitimate players each week, many who receive much larger amounts than this player. As you said, this amount of BTC is nominal. What is important is the message we are sending that we will not tolerate abusive players. This player knows exactly what he has done and is playing the role of someone who is naive. He chose to sign up from a banned region and chose to cheat the site, knowing what was at risk. We have solid proof if this. If SBR doesn't think the proof is solid, they will rule against us and we will comply. I'm going to quote one part of what you said - it does not make the rest of what you said invalid, I just thought I should pay special attention to it: Using a proxy does not mean that we cannot see where you are playing from. Literally 10 minutes ago, we dealt with another player who was playing from a banned region. We asked him where he was from and he originally lied. We then told him that we know he is playing from a banned region and he admitted it and will receive his full account balance. Had he continued lying, it would have shown malicious intent. Instead, he admitted having lied about his location and in our opinion, that was not enough to withhold his balance.
-snip- and also:
What is important is the message we are sending that we will not tolerate abusive players.
Why exactly does lying escalate the issue and case into something that deems the balance un-returnable? It makes perfect sense to lie in that case. If I'm a suspect for a crime and I am asked to confess, without me knowing if the other party has proof, of course I will lie. Any logical person would. It has nothing to do with ethics, I can guarantee the vast majority of even "good" people would lie and say that they did nothing wrong. It only makes sense. Regardless of what the suspect here did, I think it's unfair that lying about such a thing is a deciding factor. I see this response almost as "we're making a public statement by withholding this user's funds" - which to me, is unreasonable because it shows impartial favor to other cheaters who had their funds returned. I hear about major criminal cases often where the suspect is subject to an insane verdict for the sole reason of deterrence to scare the public away from doing the crime that the suspect committed. Stomping on someone's well-being from a position of power in order to make a public statement is frowned upon because it is a direct abuse of power.I'll make an assumption here and assume that most of the cheaters that you encounter on Betcoin will not see this thread and be encouraged to cheat should they see you return this user's funds, nor will any cheaters on your website be encouraged not to cheat. It is a poor way to make a public statement. |
|
|
|
It is too easy to say that a broker has access to all information, and the player in question does not. That is very unusual. A player has every right to know what he has done wrong, and is also entitled to all evidence. You do not have to make that evidence public, but send it to zikzik via email for example.
What you are suggesting is that we give lessons to a cheater on how to not get caught next time. What is your specific issue with having one or more 3rd party mediators review the evidence and make an impartial decision based on it? We have reached out to SBR to see if they will be taking this case and also suggested several other routes the player can take to receive mediation. Thank you. I usually don't get involved in controversial issues such as these, since it may seem like I am taking sides, but I would like to add my perspective on this. Enforcing a player to resort to legal action is a really, really easy way to scare away existing and potential players. Having your BTC locked up by a 3rd party is most bitcoiners worst nighmare - especially on exchanges. Although Betcoin has some reasoning as well as legal rights to keep the player's Bitcoin, it is not only unprofessional, but unnecessary and incredibly damaging to the casino's already diminished reputation. Casino's survive on reputation and holding up a mere 1 BTC is doing 10 fold of damage. Like I said, I don't like to pick sides, but this thread has taken off and as a result I see it illogical to damage your casino's reputation permanently for such an insignificant amount of BTC. You may be just fine legally , but in the grand scheme of things that really doesn't matter to anyone besides the OP and sheds bad light. |
|
|
|
We have our winners! Congratulations to: 1st: akhjob - $100 2nd: Harkorede - $75 3rd: panjul07 - $50 I'll make sure these are credited asap! Thank you all for playing, I'll catch you in the next one  You didn't say that there could be 3 diff winners? You said "top 3 highest multipliers win the top 3 prizes" I was under the assumption that Harkorede would win 2nd and 3rd I was deceived. Oh well I'll participate in the next one. |
|
|
|
|
yes I definitely lost now too. Too many incredible entries, I think Roobet should definitely expand the prize pool a bit to accommodate all these insane entries.
|
|
|
|
LAST MINUTE and im here! I will share a process video on my Instagram tomorrow, so go check it out if you enjoy speed painting @theartlone. Roobet username: ArtLake Here is my final piece. Took 4 full days! Someone please quote me so that the artwork will be visible <3 Sketch: PS: Thank you so much for letting newbies join in the spirit of Halloween! There ya go! |
|
|
|
|
Need more info on this. What wallet/exchange is that? Did you do KYC on it? How can I determine the fair value of this given the additional risks? My interest is there but diminished due to above
|
|
|
|
I think the " Miner Preference" is solely based from the fee/vbyte of your transaction, since it has a higher fee than the current highest fee, it's displayed as " high". But it will still depend if a miner will pick-up your transaction. The " Confidence" however, is based from their algorithm for the confidence factor: https://www.blockcypher.com/dev/bitcoin/#confidence-factorThat includes the fee rate, number of mempools that has the txn and other factors. Can you click the "!" in the " confidence" to check how many nodes ( that they see in average) have accepted your transaction? It says 156 memory pools have the tx. |
|
|
|
@nc50lc @Timelord2067 Out of curiosity, I created a transaction with a much lower fee (50k sats/b). Obviously its not being mined, but it seems like Blockcypher is putting its mining priority as high? I find it interesting that the numbers can be so drastically different when the fee is this much lower.  |
|
|
|
Did you try recreating the wallet on another platform as I suggested?
You said this: Well... if you have a blue wallet, then you have a mnemonic seed that you can user to recreate the wallet via another service - possibly one that enables you to export the priv key of the wallet that contains the funds, then install priv key on a wallet (e.g. core) the zap the transactions and create a new transaction either after the first has slipped from mempool, or with much lower fees.
Creating a new transaction with lower fees will not bypass the non-standard error, which is the main reason that my transactions cannot just be added into a mempool and included in a block. The transaction will still be non-standard, and the only way for a transaction coming from my address to be mined is for a mining pool to manually include it. This can be done by editing source code, or even without doing that using the github link I included above. Alternatively, my Github request could be implemented but that is near impossible as I am seemingly the only one with this issue who has a significant amount in limbo. Recreating the wallet doesn't help any of that |
|
|
|
|
