I knew my ears were burning! hahahh I tried it with the clam client but it threw exceptions when trying to say, get the block height. I got it to work with doge or ltc as a test as well. I think the RPC get/set portion doesn't return the expected result. I'll be back in chat at some point, I've been focused on the game i'm developing. I built it for bitcoin, but some elements I need a faster blockchain for results and the ~1 minute blocktime is attractive and well, I love clam too  Are you committed to using .NET? I've never worked with it and have an irrational fear of it. |
|
|
|
Hi. We were just talking about you in the Just-Dice chat yesterday. What do you need in a CLAM fork that isn't already in BitcoinLib? Its README says that it "Supports all Bitcoin clones" - so I expect it will work with CLAM already. |
|
|
|
anything to do with CLAM should be in this thread. and this thread should ALWAYS be on page one
I disagree. There's no point having the thread be on the first page if the latest posts are nothing but silly trolling. Better to keep it lower activity, but higher quality. Otherwise potential future CLAM users would take one look and leave. |
|
|
|
They might try to prevent another price crash and think selling slowly gives more profit...
That seems like a reasonable assumption. Dumping all the coins at once is going to get you a lot less BTC than dumping them slowly. or the "own" part might be put in question. If it is an exchange, and someone just had access to private keys without the real owners knowing about clam?
I would have thought that in that case they would want to move the CLAMs to an address they alone control as soon as possible, so the rightful owner doesn't claim them. |
|
|
|
QS has left now that I released his funds from escrow (the deal he was waiting on before leaving).
I doubt he has left. He probably just ditched that alt now that it has been caught out. He is probably focusing on his many other alt accounts now. |
|
|
|
Scrypt.cc anagram solver
ThorSWO =
Sort how =
Worst Ho
Hot rows, so worth! Who rots? How's Tor? |
|
|
|
Been thinking of how we could implement a new loyalty program promo. Here's a proposal for how it would work, feedback appreciated. If enough people like it then I would get it live on the site by Monday. New PRC loyalty program (proposal)
--------------------------------------
For every bet you make at PRC you will be awarded loyalty points that can be traded for Bitcoin.
There are three different member levels, bronze, silver and gold.
All existing and new accounts will automatically be set to Bronze level.
You will be awarded more points the higher your level:
Bronze = 0.5 points for every 1 Bitcoin wagered
Silver = 1 point for every 1 Bitcoin wagered
Gold = 1.5 points for every 1 Bitcoin wagered
As you play you will move up to a higher bonus level:
Wager 200 Bitcoin in a week or 500 in a month to move to silver level
Wager 500 Bitcoin in a week or 1500 in a month to move to gold level
Points can be traded in for Bitcoin at any time:
points Reward
50 0.05
100 0.1
250 0.25
500 0.5
1000 1
If at the start of each month you did not wager the amount required in the previous month to maintain your current level you will be moved down
to the level that matches your wagered amount.
Is this any different than simply reducing the house edge to 0.95%, 0.9% or 0.85% depending on the players' wagered amounts? You might find that advertising a lower house edge is more effective and easier to understand than introducing the new concept of "points". Also, I don't know how sound it is to reduce the house edge the most for your biggest players. They're the ones who present the biggest risk to your bankroll. |
|
|
|
Omg we can invest again?! How shockings  Dude. Why do you keep trolling me? Edit: sorry, wrong account.  |
|
|
|
That's your opinion.
I believe scrypt.cc is mining as they say they are.
Another day another coin.
I still profit everyday, have been for the last year and a half.
Will continue for many years to come.
Peaces!
Very good. You forgot to add though that you're a proven liar: So how about a proof of that transaction? Then we can move on to proving "mining". I run a command to scan the blockchain for transactions creating outputs with sizes between 50 and 70 BTC between March 10th and Match 17th: http://pastebin.com/4WrBLqZVInterestingly, the 2nd payment on Thor's list showed up: block 347034 - Tue Mar 10 11:21:35 2015 - [...] 51.82776434 but the 1st one (for 61.666 66547, which allegedly happened 10 minutes after the 2nd) isn't anywhere to be seen. However, there is this, in the very next block: block 347035 - Tue Mar 10 11:25:15 2015 - 0.025 66547tldr: there was no 61.66666547 BTC withdrawal and Thor's screenshot is faked. |
|
|
|
There are a couple of decent buy orders on poloniex over 0.006 BTC at the moment:  I don't really understand, given how many CLAMs the big digger still has to unload. |
|
|
|
Reported as off-topic spam. |
|
|
|
Updated 'dig' charts:   |
|
|
|
Best case: Fractional mining ... which is pretty bad. (Only really applies pre-hack) Let me explain something to you, dyask, because you appear to be conflating the notion of 'fractional mining' with 'fractional banking'. [...] So, no, this is not some 'paltry' couple of hundred bitcoin issue, it is a major fraud. Here's an analogy: When I go to the liquor store, the vodka is so expensive. What I tend to do is slip 9 bottles under my coat and only pay for just one bottle. That way I get 10 times more vodka for my money. The police call it "theft" but I call it "fractional purchasing". Using the word "fractional" to describe how you think scrypt.cc only delivers a small amount of the mining they were paid for appears like an attempt to give it some legitimacy, like the vodka thief's use of the word. Why not call it what it really is? If people paid for hashing that doesn't exist that's just fraud, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
You might be surprised to learn this, but your code is equivalent to mine.
Interesting, you are right, I thought left-to-right evaluation for && operator is not guaranteed. Solution may be to introduce another variable to buffer first next getchar() value, and then in case of missed match take the value of c from that buffer instead of getchar() in the while loop condition statement. I expect reading characters one by one is introducing lots of overhead, and it would be better to do some kind of buffering. Or maybe stdio.h handles that for me. There's also ungetc(): ungetc() pushes c back to stream, cast to unsigned char, where it is available for subsequent read operations. Pushed-back characters will be returned in reverse order; only one pushback is guaranteed. which could be all I need to avoid missing keys. My main aim in sharing this was to show a very simple way of scanning a device for private keys that recently worked for me. It took maybe 5 hours to scan my whole (full-disk encrypted) 1 TB root partition. |
|
|
|
IMHO your code should use nested If's instead of ANDs, that way not finding expected byte should reset search to the beginning, without ever encountering false positives or missing something:
You might be surprised to learn this, but your code is equivalent to mine. Both and don't call b() if a() returns a falsy value. For example: #include <stdio.h>
main() {
if (printf("hello\n") == 1234 &&
printf("world\n"))
printf("omfg\n");
} Then... $ gcc if-shortcut.c
$ ./a.out
hello
$ Edit: see http://stackoverflow.com/a/628538/1253362 for confirmation of this. |
|
|
|
IMHO your code should use nested If's instead of ANDs, that way not finding expected byte should reset search to the beginning, without ever encountering false positives or missing something:
You might be surprised to learn this, but your code is equivalent to mine. Both and don't call b() if a() returns a falsy value. For example: #include <stdio.h>
main() {
if (printf("hello\n") == 1234 &&
printf("world\n"))
printf("omfg\n");
} Then... $ gcc if-shortcut.c
$ ./a.out
hello
$ |
|
|
|
Yeah, the feedbacks left for tspace to me were not appropriate in my opinion. I do not agree with offset feedbacks or trust for a useless loan. Not like I am saying you are a scammer...just I do not trust your feedbacks. Same thing for Jonald...he had left 3 feedbacks last I looked. When you are in the DT network you should be more careful with feedbacks left.
I understand re. the loan to tsp, but my 2nd feedback was precisely following theymos' recommendation about how to deal with a "border negative" that I disagreed with: - If you disagree with the border-negative, leave a positive rating responding to the negative, even if you already have a positive rating for that person. Don't delete your old rating. You should also consider excluding the inaccurate-rater from your trust list.
I didn't go as far as to remove Wardrick from my trust list since I've not yet seen anything from theymos about whether the account was hacked or not. But fair enough. If you feel that my feedback for tsp brings my trust feedbacks into question then it's only right that you strike me from your trust network. |
|
|
|
Added a ~ for both Dooglus and jonald for the (in my opinion) bogus feedback.
Are you saying you think that I left bogus feedback for somebody? |
|
|
|
I advertise there but that's the extent of it
Looking at your LBC profile feedback, it looks like you were doing more than just advertising on LBC. turtlehurricane said he was only advertising. Your quote from LBC is about BurtW. They are different people. |
|
|
|
In any case, this thread was supposed to be about QS' accusations of Vod. It seems that as that ran out of steam, to keep attention from swinging back to himself, now he's trying to throw shit at dooglus. I wonder who's next? I'm not on default trust so I'm not really worth it, let's see who QS slings his outlandish speculation at next!
It was suggested in the Just-Dice chat when a few QS-alike sockpuppets showed up that ignoring them would be the best approach; starve them of the attention they so desperately crave. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
) for forking GeorgeKimionis's C# BitcoinLib for CLAM. 
