There are additional risks from issues like this, where the payout is sometimes sent to the wrong address.

I used to have a pet newt.

I called him "tiny".

Because he was my newt.

It seems he's wanting to have the Ponzi run entirely on the blockchain, so the users don't have to make an account on the website.

But it's a mistake to take random code from github and use it without understanding it or checking that it works as intended.

I'd have thought the opposite. The higher the throughput of a HYIP, the more "interest" you need to find from somewhere, and so the less able you are to meet your obligations in a timely manner.

It's all very well to say that any shortfall will be made up from staking, but that fails to take into account just how long it takes to earn a 25% return on the total throughput when only part of a single deposit (and possibly the operator's 2% fee on all throughput) is staking at any given time.

I don't think you understand the point I am trying to make.

Check the 2 examples I linked to. Check in your database to see which address they are set to pay out to. It isn't the 1st or 2nd "input address".

Edit: I posted a github issue for the bug too, though the repository there hasn't been touched for 18 months, so I guess it has been abandoned.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

One bug that I didn't fix is in the way the script determines which address to pay out to. It looks at the first input of the deposit transaction, finds which transaction created that output, and the uses the address of either the 1st or 2nd output of that transaction as the address to repay. There's no comment to explain why such a strange strategy is used, but it will often result in the wrong person being paid out.

See https://i.imgur.com/A0BvC0h.png and http://clamsight.com/tx/c38a5be7810f6ef6ac74c08d263198d100a779ddc5d963a56ddb28bda78c5815 for a couple of examples.


It says 6 on the site:

"Note: Transactions are added above after 6 confirmations."

I'm middle-aged I guess, don't own a rocking chair, and can't remember the last time I read a dead-trees book.

While the log does appear to record the address I make using B6 (99 dice), it only starts recording once entropy collection is complete. Any I generate before that are lost.

I don't see any way of encrypting the private keys I generate using B6 (99 dice), and don't feel safe storing unencrypted private keys. Could the option of encrypting paper wallets be extended to the 'wallet details' tab as well, for people who don't want to trust the in-browser RNG and prefer to provide their own by rolling dice?

Thanks!


11:56:45 INFO: sent 0.1953125 CLAM to (598917) <ri>


11:57:10 INFO: sent 0.09765625 CLAM to (598917) <ri>

I have enough vanity addresses now to last for years!

"in b4" is an old Internet meme.

See https://encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=In_before_X or http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/inb4--2 for details.

I wouldn't say it's "safe to assume".

Dumping 19k CLAMs on the poloniex market right now would set a new bottom.

It would be a waste of money to do it, but we've seen similar moves before by butthurt CLAM holders.

This is the first public mention of such a proposal I have seen.

I think making a more concrete offer might help.

Except:


That percentage stays pretty constant, so the CLAMs weren't scooped up by traders, and are still on JD.

I suppose the traders could be storing them in the JD bankroll until the price recovers.

12:17:30 INFO: sent 1.5625 CLAM to (598917) <ri>


12:17:54 INFO: sent 0.78125 CLAM to (598917) <ri>


12:18:56 INFO: sent 0.390625 CLAM to <you>

Thanks guys!

08:35:56 INFO: sent 3.125 CLAM to (598917) <ri>


($0.10/kW)/h is just as valid as $0.10/(kWh), if less conventional, in the same way as (0.1/2)/3 is the same as 0.1/(2*3).

So don't be too ashamed...

04:01:26 INFO: sent 6.25 CLAM to <you>

23:42:33 INFO: sent 25 CLAM to (598917) <ri>


23:43:46 INFO: sent 12.5 CLAM to <your top secret JD identity>

Any more? At what point does the ever-halving reward become too low to cover the cost of running the search?

I'll also continue paying for any more that people find, but the reward halves for each one.

The next one is 25 CLAM, then 12.5, 6.25, etc.

Please report them here, so I know what order they were found in. And either include a JD userid in your post, or PM it to me if you don't want to post it here.

Wow, that's impressive. I thought I was doing well with my:

    "You have reported 20 posts with 95% accuracy"

I wish I could find out which of my 20 posts was "inaccurate". Because they were all clearly scammers.

Thanks for that!


Nope, I just enjoy the game.

What's the fee for the 'pot' game? It seemed like it was 8% last time I played. If so, isn't that a little high?