I didn't sell anything. That would imply that I somehow received payment. I didn't.
Is he still a frequent customer/user of your site? If he is betting then on a NPV basis you are receiving a portion of every bet he makes. If he chats with others in your chat room then your other customers have a way to get automated answers about things on Wikipedia  He has never bet: name: tsp
wagered: 0
bets: 0
balance: 0
profit: 0
losses: 0
wins: 0 and I'm unaware of him running any bots on the site. Good joke though. You're quite a funny man. |
|
|
|
Remind me how many million dollars were stolen after others relied on your positive trust ratings and endorsements?
I don't know. I did leave positive feedback for dicebitco.in after I had successfully withdrawn over 100 BTC from my balance there. They later were caught cheating and so I left them negative trust. I don't think anyone can be expected to be able to predict which sites will turn out to be scams with 100% accuracy. When I left my positive feedback there was no evidence that they would end up scamming. You'll notice I've left very few positive feedbacks since that mistake, with moneypot (now bustabit) being the only site I've since left positive feedback for. |
|
|
|
What wrong did doog do when someone else asked for 1.5BTC bounty from DogecoinMachine and the one who found the bug just asked by himself that 0.5BTC out of that 1.5 will be given to doog because he helped verify the bug.
I don't think I was paid anything at all, nor did I ask to be. And whats wrong if doog put a red trust on someone who lied(or didn't fulfill his part of the deal) and again changed it to neutral after he(DogecoinMachine) completed his part of the deal? You're suspecting that he is selling trust just because he acted as a neutral third party and put negative trust on a liar and again changed it to neutral when he(the liar) started being honest?
I don't think I gave them any kind of trust feedback did I? The whole thing was kind of a mess from start to finish. The site operator we were talking to was embarrassingly clueless and refused to even accept that there was a problem with his site despite being spoon-fed the information he needed to verify it. The negotiation on a bug bounty never ended in agreement and a third party independently discovered and published the bug anyway. |
|
|
|
I didn't sell trust. Except when you want a scammer to show as being trusted and give them a reputation loan. You keep bringing up the same issues over and over. You were claiming that tsp couldn't be trusted with any amount of money. I tested this theory. It turned out he could be trusted with 1 BTC and I left trust reflecting that. I didn't sell anything. That would imply that I somehow received payment. I didn't. I am just pointing out problems with your trust and trust list.
Not very effectively, but thanks for trying. More people should be held accountable for the trust feedback they leave. |
|
|
|
[words] so it looks like he's not using his Forex experience here  You're clearly a novice trader at best. Look at the right hand edge of the chart. Netcoin is exhibiting a very strong cock-n-balls "boner" formation, which is predictive of the price exploding upwards:  |
|
|
|
I think we are talking about two different instances. You had said that dooglus removed his negative trust after crypto-games paid the non-existent bug bounty that they did not agree to prior to the bug being reported. I cannot see any way that is possibly the right thing to do. And I cannot see how that is anything other then selling trust.
Maybe you should make it clear what you are talking about. I'm pretty sure you have your facts wrong: I didn't find a bug at crypto-games, someone else did; I was merely acting as an "escrow" for the bug. (that means I was an independent third party, in case you're unclear on that point) I neither left nor removed negative trust for crypto-games. When I remove negative trust I replace it with neutral trust so a record stands but it no longer counts against the account. I didn't sell trust. I understand that you're mad because I didn't remove Vod from my trust list, but stomping your feet and making things up to try to get me into trouble isn't going to work for you. |
|
|
|
If he had expressed such a feeling that would have been OK. But he didn't say he felt that my site was less than honest, he claimed it was scammy. It isn't. He said I am a deceptive person. I'm not. He was lying about me and my site, so I left feedback saying not to trust him. The guy was shilling for a known Ponzi, saying they were a good investment. Would you trust someone who did that? I wouldn't. Check the reference. He was working through the sub-forum posting single-line crap in every thread just to bump his post count. The forum is overrun by people posting crap just so they can join signature ad campaigns. This guy was a particularly ugly example of that, adding nothing of value. Well, that's because he refused to pay me the amount we had already agreed upon, and because his site was a scam... He was offering bets that he was unable to pay out. These are just a few examples that did not take any kind of extensive research.
Someone should take a look at some of the feedback you've left. I'm sure there's actual real cause for concern in there. His trust list is composed of those who are already on DT and a few that echo his sentiments towards a few sites that he thinks are a scam (the fact that the site is a scam is irrelevant), so I think others can make their own conclusions about these people on his trust list. Oh and they also have zero trading history  I don't think I have anyone who is already on the DefaultTrust list in my trust list. I tend to add people whose judgement I trust. Those will be people who I mostly agree with. Well spotted. I don't think it was clear they had a deal. I would say quite the opposite.
We had a deal. We arranged it via private messages. I think I posted the private messages on the thread in question, but I can post them here if necessary. Edit: my trust list:  I don't think any of those accounts are on the DefaultTrust list are they? Edit2: I just checked. DefaultTrust has 13 accounts in its trust list: BadBear
DeaDTerra
dooglus
dserrano5
escrow.ms
HostFat
Maged
OgNasty
OldScammerTag
philipma1957
SaltySpitoon
theymos
Tomatocage I have none of those in my trust list, but I do have DefaultTrust in my trust list, so indirectly I have them all. |
|
|
|
Issues concerning Just-Dice, JD rain bots, JD trivia bots, etc. should be taken to the Just-Dice thread.
Issues concerning ClamChecker should be taken to the ClamChecker thread.
I'd like the chance to defend myself and reply to some of the points that were made. In particular I don't and never have supported DDoS, and don't and never have tried to limit what anyone does with their CLAM. I guess I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
|
#include <stdio.h>
main() {
int c, i;
// privkeys are preceeded by: 3081 d302 0101 0420 and are 32 bytes long:
while ((c = getchar()) != EOF)
if (c == 0x81 &&
getchar() == 0xd3 && getchar() == 0x02 && getchar() == 0x01 &&
getchar() == 0x01 && getchar() == 0x04 && getchar() == 0x20) {
for (i = 0; i < 32; i++)
printf("%02x", getchar());
printf("\n");
}
} Simple and useful program, dooglus, thanks for sharing it. One follow up question, I can see how you're just checing for each byte and then printing if you find them. But the code you pasted just checks for 7 bytes. There should be a check for 0x30 before the 0x81, right? Or what am I missing? Suppose the disk image contains: "2930 3081 d302 0101 0420 privkey". Checking for 0x30 would cause my simple program to miss that privkey completely, since it never backtracks. I figured it was better to maybe get some false positives than to miss some private keys. In tests, my code encountered bytes like these, and so missed the privkey: 0081 d302 0101 0420 3081 d302 0101 0420 privkey It output: 3081 d302 0101 0420 privke since the 7 bytes before the real 8 byte prefix triggered the matching code. I'm guessing that's quite an uncommon situation. |
|
|
|
People use Shapeshift.io for a 10% fee when Poloniex charges .2%.
10% is expensive. But you're charging over 80%... Not seeing your point... we provide a service that has yet to be provided in CLAM and I believe it will bring additional security & attention to the Clamcoin network.
There's already a digging service - Just-Dice offers it. What's new with your service? Nobody ever tried charging such high fees before; I guess that's new. But is it needed? Hopefully you choose to do the right thing here soon and stop accepting investments in order to decentralize CLAM.
The way to decentralise CLAM is for someone to offer a competing service, not to artificially limit the biggest source of demand for CLAM. If I was to stop allowing people to invest in Just-Dice, who do you think would buy the thousands of CLAM that the digger dumps on the market each day? What would they use them for? Investing in JD accounts for the lion's share of the current demand for CLAM. |
|
|
|
I was thinking if the end user self affiliated because that is what I would do.
Would you really use clamchecker to dig your CLAMs? Would anyone who realised they could dig for free and avoid the 81% fee? I don't think so. If the end user was their own affiliate your "shit" would in fact be "not together" on that math.
I edited my comment because I understood where you were coming from, but I'm glad you grabbed it in a quote so I could point out where I was thinking from.
OK, so if they refer themselves they get an extra 0.002 BTC, and so 'only' end up giving you a 74% fee: >>> 100 - (0.005 + 0.002) * 100 / 0.0276 74.63768115942028 That still doesn't seem overly reasonable. The offer on the thread you linked to seems good - you're giving them 3.5 + 1.0 CLAM plus 0.002 BTC (= 0.33333 CLAM) for a total of 4.8333 CLAM per dig, which means you take a small loss for each dig. I would be a little worried about the small print that says "we do reserve the right to refuse this offer" but I have no CLAMs to dig anyway. I'm sure you are doing the math right now for the end digger being the affiliate.
Good guess! If the 500,000 CLAM holder dumped his entire stash right now... CLAM would drop even below the sites profitability mark for the BTC dig option. I'm just not ready to take that risk tolerance & we would like to become a "back bone" of CLAM as well, but that takes capital. If by "back bone" you mean you want to prop up the price no matter how much is dug up, I think that's a silly thing to even try to do. There are millions of undug CLAMs out there. No way can anyone prop up the price if a significant portion of them are dug and dumped. If you truly think CLAM is worth the level of BTC it is at at the moment... put 3,000 Bitcoins on the bid.
I have no view on the value of CLAM. I guess it's worth whatever people will pay for it. I'm not going to spend thousands of BTC propping up the price. Why would I? That's a huge reason why Just-Dice was so successful in the first place because you used to put your BTC where your mouth was. I'd be happy to up our payments with a little security on the ass end. Right now all I see is the market dipping when people win big on Just-Dice.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I used to be a big investor in Just-Dice when it was using BTC, much like I am a big investor now that it's using CLAM. Other than that, I don't know what you mean about money-where-my-mouth-is. Give the gamblers and the market some confidence if you are so confident my fee's are so bad.
I think your fees are bad given the current price. It seems to me it would make sense to have the BTC price you offer depend on the exchange rate, rather than using an artificially low price "just in case". |
|
|
|
You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice. I'm not aware of that offer, and didn't know you had a thread. Do you have a link to the offer and the thread? No I can't Dean. Investigate it on your own. You don't even like affiliate programs any ways! I'm not Dean. You seemed to be complaining that I didn't mention a promotion which I wasn't aware of. All I've seen is the site itself, where you offer to pay 3.5 CLAM or 0.005 BTC in exchange for 4.6 CLAMs.
You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee:
>>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276
81.884
That seems like something that might be worth pointing out.
Your fucking maths off too FYI. Forgot the affiliate. Next time you troll me at least have your shit together. I was calculating the fee for the end user. He gets 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs. That's only 18% of the value. I'm not trolling you, and my "shit" is "together". |
|
|
|
Can this be used on other wallets other than bitcoin if so would be good as I have lost a few wallets in the past on one drive that I have not used in ages and has had deleted partitions and all sorts go wrong on it. is their any windows version to t his tool or just Linux?
My code should work on any wallet and any OS with a C compiler. You may need to change the 8 bytes it looks for. Make a new wallet, load it up in a hex editor, look for the 8 bytes which precede each private key. |
|
|
|
You could also point out that if a digger self affiliates through BTC and posts their txid on our thread they get 4.5 CLAM + .002 BTC, which is more than the Client or Just-Dice. I'm not aware of that offer, and didn't know you had a thread. Do you have a link to the offer and the thread? |
|
|
|
Thanks. Til which date is the bootstrap? the wallet is now busy with he beginning of July.
Click the link in the post you quoted - it tells you there. It's up to about an hour ago. |
|
|
|
It is totally free for your users to check for CLAMS and we provide different options for them to dig if they chose not to go the client route (we also provide a link to the Github for the client).
You always seem to forget to mention the fees. It's totally free to check for CLAMs, but if they want to get paid in BTC you pay 0.005 BTC for 4.6 CLAMs, worth 4.6 * 0.006 = 0.0276 BTC at current prices. That's an 81% fee: >>> 100 - 0.005 * 100 / 0.0276 81.884 That seems like something that might be worth pointing out. |
|
|
|
How big is the chain? My computer is downloading for 2 days.
It's 646000 blocks, and 640 Mb. You can download a bootstrap.dat file from here to speed up the sync process. |
|
|
|
I also find it very interesting that the timestamp on your computer when you created your PGP key was ~24 hours prior to when dooglus first started posting in this thread, and blindly was supporting you despite clear and concise evidence that you are a scammer and that you resort to intimidation tactics to install fear into anyone who calls you out as a scammer. The fact that you were unable to get they keyserver link right on your signature for a good while is an indication that you really do not know what you are doing when it comes to PGP, so I think it would be unlikely that you changed the time/date on your computer prior to creating your PGP key.
I wonder what exactly you were needing to encrypt less then 24 hours prior to dooglus blindly supporting you. It seems very fishy to me. I would not be surprised if it was something malicious
I find it weird that you think this is evidence of anything. I've never seen any clear concise evidence that tsp is a scammer. I've seen you repeat the same tired old arguments over and over, but they are not at all compelling. It seems much more like a personal vendetta than an attempt to out a scammer. I don't blindly support anyone. If you have something to say, just come out and say it; don't hide behind crap like "I would not be surprised if it was something malicious". Clear concise evidence, remember? Edit: also, how are you seeing the timestamp? When I import and examine the key he links to, I see: $ gpg --import /tmp/x
gpg: key 8E4D7635: public key "TS (Traditional Spacepilot) <traditional.spacepilot@gmail.com>" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: imported: 1 (RSA: 1)
$ gpg -vv --list-keys
gpg: using PGP trust model
/home/dooglus/.gnupg/pubring.gpg
------------------------------
pub 4096R/8E4D7635 2015-08-19
uid TS (Traditional Spacepilot) <traditional.spacepilot@gmail.com>
sub 4096R/6B64DBE3 2015-08-19
$ Note the 2015-08-19, but the first I posted in this thread was the morning of the day *before* that: I think the negative feedback should be removed.
Doesn't that kind of break your odd conspiracy theory, in that I posted *before* he could have sent me the encrypted malice (TM)? |
|
|
|
Isn't offline investment technically the same as offering kelly risk level investment?
Like say I invest 1 CLAM at JD with 100x offsite which is the same is investing 1 CLAM at 50x kelly risk?
Nah, it's very different. Let's imagine you have 10 BTC that you want to invest, and want to do so at a full kelly (the ideal). But you also want to minimize your counterparty risk, so you'll want to deposit as little as possible on the site. With offsite, what you'd do is deposit 1 BTC and specify 9 BTC offsite. With leveraged investments, you'd deposit 1 BTC at a 10x kelly. Assuming a 1% house edge, in both cases you'd be risking 0.1 BTC a bet ... which is exactly what you want (a full kelly). So perfect. Now, lets say your investment does well and you make 2 BTC profit. With offsite investment you'd have 3 BTC + your 9 BTC offsite, and would be risking 0.12 BTC ... which is exactly what you want (A full kelly). With leveraged investments you'd have 3 BTC + your 9 BTC offsite, but would risking 0.33 BTC ... which way too much (to the point of landing you in negative expected growth territory). And the exact opposite happens when your investment loses money, the leveraged investment you'd start to risk too little and would be under-utilizing your money. Right. The difference is that with Just-Dice's "offsite" feature, your offsite amount stays constant at whatever you declared it to be, but with leverage your imagined "offsite" amount is a fixed multiple of your onsite amount. |
|
|
|
The user doesn't owe the exchange money until a purchase is made on the exchange. Until a purchase is made on the exchange, the BTC deposited at the exchange belong to the user.
Once the user deposits coins to the exchange, the exchange owes the user those coins. The balance in the deposit address is irrelevant. The exchange will probably use the deposited coins very quickly to service the withdrawals of other users. Sometimes people watch the balance on "their" deposit addresses and panic when the balance unexpectedly drops to zero. The fundamental mistake they are making is to think of the deposit address as being "theirs" at all. It's an address in the exchange's wallet, and the exchange is free to use it however they like. Imagine someone getting upset when they deposit $20 into their bank account and see the bank give the same $20 bill to some other customer. When you deposit $20, the bank's liability to you grows by $20. But what they do with the individual bill you deposited is none of your business. It's the same with exchanges. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
