<ri> on Just-Dice beat you by 2 minutes!


I'll give you a 50 CLAM consolation prize though. What's your JD userid?

Edit: settled via PM.

That's pretty close, but it's missing the Z.


Edit: to check if you copy/pasted the command correctly, verify that the difficulty shows up like this:

That's my public key.

It's a way of outsourcing vanity address generation safely.

Without it, as soon as you found the address I wanted, you would know its private key. Then when I funded the address you could take the coins.

The vanitygen program takes that public key does some public key magic. It finds a private key which corresponds to the address I'm looking for only after adding on the public key I gave you. So you give me the private key it spits out, I add on the private key corresponding to the public key in that big hex string, and I get the real private key.

tldr: to get the real private key you need both the private key found by vanitygen and the private key that corresponds to that hex string.

Edit: I just found this post which explains it properly.

You're saying the house has 1 CLAM, and is willing to risk it all on a single bet I think. We wouldn't actually do that, but for the sake of argument I'll let you have that.

So there are 3 possibilities:

1) the player wins his first bet, the house is bust, probability = 0.495, profit = 1
2) the player loses his first bet and wins his second, probability = 0.505 * 0.495, profit = 0
3) the player loses both bets, probability = 0.505 * 0.505, profit = -2

So the player's expected profit is:

    >>> 1 * 0.495 + 0 * 0.505*0.495 + (-2) * 0.505*0.505
    -0.01505

as you said.

If the player was always making 2 bets then his expected profit will be -1% of 2, or -0.02. So why is his expected profit greater in this case?

Well, the reason is because sometimes he's only making one bet. His expected risk is smaller, and so his expected losses (being 1% of his expected risk) are proportionally smaller.

What's his expected risk? Well, with p=0.495 he bets 1 unit, and with p=0.505 he bets 2 units. So his expected total stake is:

    >>> 0.495 * 1 + 0.505 * 2
    1.505

This matches precisely -100 times his expected profit, as expected.


Not really. You can't change the house edge. You always expect to lose 1% of the amount you risk.

What he's saying is that by sometimes stopping after risking only 1 unit, your expected total risk is less than if you always risk 2 units, and so your expected loss is less.

Less risk = less expected loss.

Remember this?


Well, I need another xJDCLAMZ address.

Just the one this time, but I'll pay 100 CLAMs for the first to find it (unless I find it first).

Get and build the CLAM-compatible version of vanitygen from here: https://github.com/dooglus/vanitygen

Then run this command:


C for 'compressed', 'P' for 'public key'.

The public key means only the person with the corresponding private key (ie. me) will be able to know the actual private key you find.

Post the key it finds here, and I'll pay 100 CLAMs to the earliest dated non-edited such post.

I didn't do anything to you. I merely requested not to see your trust ratings. I don't trust your ratings, and don't wish to see red marks against people just because you've left them negative feedback. That's what the ~ thing does.


There are many reasons I don't want to see your trust ratings. I don't want to get into them all here. We're all very familiar with how you act here, but the following is a good example:


I never cheated or scammed StrikeSapphire, and they never accused me of cheating or scamming them.

They regularly offered +EV bonuses and +EV games. I took advantage of their +EV bonuses and games. They got sick of it, because obviously the promotions were intended to attract new players. You may be referring to my counting cards at their blackjack tables. That was something I did with their knowledge and blessing. You may be referring to their paranoid suspicion that I was referring myself to claim the same bonus multiple times. I wasn't. It's hard to know what you're referring to because as usual you left your accusation too vague to properly address. But in short, you're wrong.


Oh, and once again, you're wrong. I've told you before, I don't have any alts on this forum except for "Just-Dice" or something similar, which has one post.


Entirely. 100%. Totally.


If it wasn't for your treatment of tspacepilot it would have been for something else. The escrow fraud, lying about being banned, lying about your alts, twisting people's words to suit your own messed up agenda, etc., etc.


It doesn't make me look bad because I wasn't doing anything wrong.

Are you aware of https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/commit/fcdf335 ?

It fixes an issue with -creditstakestoaccounts, and was made shortly *after* v1.4.17 was released.

I don't know if you would call it a serious problem or not.

I tried my best to help, trying to be a productive member of the community.

The OP post is kind of big and confusing and could do with some pruning.

No problem.

I often go shopping for coffee mugs but have trouble finding anything costing much more than $10-$15.



Being a rich snob obviously this will not do. I find myself wishing there was some place I could find a mug of the same quality but for twice the price. And now my wish has come true!



Thanks KingKlye!

Thanks for the heads up.

I checked them all, and found the following:

http://clamlotto.com/ gives the default nginx page (it's linked twice from OP)
All the links to inside clamclient.com just take you to the front page, for example: http://clamclient.com/#/irc/
Consider adding this block explorer: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/
Consider removing yacuna links - it's shutting down on Nov 15th
http://faucet.coin43.com/clams/ no longer seems to exist
Consider remove the node list now that the client can find its own nodes.
Consider removing the duplicate links from OP.

Take a look at https://just-dice.com/misc/wagered.txt for the daily stats.

It shows that on 2015-10-15 there was 335k CLAM wagered, and so the expected profit will have gone up 3.35k that day. It was by far the most wagered in a single day.

Previous busiest days were:

2015-08-23  227k
2015-01-31  172k
2014-12-14  164k
2015-01-21  158k

So am I bought in for the next tournament, whenever that happens? I don't see the tournament playground listed as an option any more, only the regular 5.

Can I cancel that buy-in and get my entrance fee back?

He is suggesting investing in a casino, not playing at one.

All this just to make it fairer to require that distribution outputs stake before they can be dug? I don't see how that solves our "problem". Maybe it will slow down the digging, but it won't change the end result - the active supply is getting inflated 50% by someone who plans to dump all the new supply. Dragging that out so it takes 2 years instead of 1 year doesn't help us, I don't think.

Requiring that old outputs have to stake before they can move also destroys fungibility. Some coins in my wallet would be of a different class than others. That was one of things you seem keen to avoid.

Did you see my question about how the fee-per-byte would be set? I may have missed it but I didn't see you answer.

People who think the price will drop faster than that. They sell the borrowed coins, then buy them back cheaper after the price falls to repay the loan.


Loans are automatically taken from the existing loan offers when you buy or sell at leverage on poloniex. You never see the loan request, you only see a loan offer disappear, and a new buy or sell order on the market.

You should look into it if you're sure about the price continuing to drop. You can profit from the price moving down.

I thought refreshing might lose me the buy-in I had already paid, so didn't. Oh well.

You seem to be saying that at the current price it would be insane to sell and also insane to buy.

How do you feel about holding?

I think the intention is that that would be addressed by smoothing the fee payout over time.

For example, each block you stake gives you 10% of the "reward pool", leaving the other 90% in the pool. So any unusually big fee can't be claimed by the person paying the fee. He gets only 10% of it back. I guess the fee could even only be added to the pool N blocks after it is staked, so the fee payer doesn't even get to keep that 10% by withholding his transaction until he can stake.

It turns out that number doesn't end with recurring 2's, but is in fact:

>>> 1 - 2**-0.99
0.49652222497164056

I calculated it using L'Hôpital's rule, which I vaguely remember learning about in high school.

My recent post shows strategies that give a 49.6522222% percent chance of winning, so your post (which came after) doesn't beat mine.

Are you able to beat 49.6522222%, or do you think that is a hard limit?

Here's a chart showing your two strategies, and where they fit on the curve of possible martingale strategies. The higher the payout multiplier you play with, the closer you get to the 49.652222% chance:



I wonder if flat-betting would be better?

Like we could divide the 1 BTC into N=10 0.1 bets.
Bet the first 0.1 at 11x. If we win, we're 1 BTC up, so we stop.
Bet the 2nd 0.1 12x. If we win, we're 1 BTC up, so we stop.
Etc.
Bet the Nth at (10+N)x. We're always 1 BTC up if we win.

Turns out it isn't better. What's funny is it is exactly the same.

Here's a Python script that calculates the chance of doubling up using this flat-betting strategy for various N:


And here's its output:


It converges on 49.6522222% chance of doubling up again!