The date of a message becomes underlined if it is ever edited. If you don't edit a message, the timestamp is quite reliable. Someone with direct database access could have edited the message, but not a regular account owner.

I don't see it that way.

Consider this example:

You owe me money, so I give you my address to send payment to. You send the money, it arrives at my address. If someone else eavesdrops on our transaction and sends another payment to my address for fun, that's free money for me. You have no claim on that payment. It went to my address after all, and is nothing to do with you.

I think the confusion comes when people think in terms of "my deposit address" at an exchange. The deposit address is nothing but a hash of a public key in the exchange's wallet. It's owned by the exchange, not the user, since the exchange are the ones in sole control of the corresponding private key.

You can argue that it's good PR for the exchange to share the free CLAMs that you gave them, but I really don't think you can make a good legal (or even ethical) argument that they have a duty to do so.

I expect it was poloniex then. They dug up all their CLAMs early on and held a giveaway to distribute the CLAMs to their users.

Check the timestamps when the CLAMs first moved. That will be a good way of telling whether it was poloniex or not, because I'm sure someone will know when they did their digging.

I don't know about the others, but JD definitely rounds down. If you bet 1 satoshi at 50% and win, you won't win anything. Your profit is calculated to be slightly less than 1 satoshi and rounded down to zero. There's a warning up the top telling you that the profit is zero:

I don't think I ever accidentally leaked any information. One time I told a player that I had looked ahead while he was playing at very low chance of winning, so see when he was due to hit. And he freaked out on me. He told me that just by knowing his future I was changing the future, via quantum effects. So I promised I wouldn't do it any more.

Not looking makes it much easier to be in the chat. Sometimes people on long losing streaks try "fishing" for information from me. "I'm bound to hit soon, right doog?" - if I knew the answer to that question it would be difficult to know how to answer. It becomes a game of poker - do I bluff, double-bluff? And so I don't know - then I can't accidentally leak information.


I don't think so. HufflePuff had a way of discovering his server seed. If PD had changed it, he would have just made a new account and continued cheating on that one.


I found the thread accidentally all by myself.

Us dice site operators all get a little 'spooked' sometimes, and I think it's good to err on the side of caution. It's not a good idea to accuse people of cheating though, as BTC seems to be doing in that chat log. If the player isn't cheating, there's a good chance you'll offend him enough that he stops playing and so never loses his winnings back to you. And if he is, he'll just deny it anyway.

I was once concerned that server seeds may have leaked, and so even though I thought it unlikely I couldn't take that chance, and decided to reset all the server seeds. I made the site act as if all the players had clicked the 'randomize' button, resetting the server seed, revealing the old one, resetting the nonce to 0, etc. And I made the chat tell everyone about the reset each time they logged in, and every 10 minutes thereafter. For a month or two. Until people begged me to remove the notice.

Have these been resolved? It's one thing if a network issue causes a bet to 'hang', but if the player isn't then able to verify the roll to check there was no cheating, that's no good.

So this morning I noticed there was an outgoing transaction in my wallet that hadn't confirmed for a week. I decided I would try to send it again with a bigger fee. So I did a 'dumpprivkey' on the address that funded the unconfirmed transaction, made a new wallet, did an 'importprivkey' to import the address into the new wallet, then re-sent the transaction. There was only a single output on the address, so it used the same one again, effectively double-spending it.

Once the transaction confirmed, which it did quickly, I switched back to my main wallet, and deleted the temporary new wallet, since I was done with it. Right?

I rescanned the old wallet, using the -zapwallettxes argument to delete the old conflicting transaction, and it came up showing that I had made two spends recently, not the one that I expected. Then I remembered: the change from the new spend is only in the new temporary wallet that I just deleted.

Oops.

I looked for 'undelete' programs, but didn't find anything that looked useful. I found this thread, but the git repository seems to have died. So I wrote my own simple "privkey finder":


It's much simpler than the tool this thread is about, but it did the trick. It found the deleted private keys and I was able to get my coins back.

So I figured I'd share it.

I built and ran it like this:


I was somewhat surprised to find that the private key for the change address was on the drive 5 times. It was a new wallet that I created just to double-spend that single output, then deleted. And somehow the key found itself written to disk 5 times.

It's insanely beneficial for exchanges and other services that didn't keep their wallets tidy.

I was running Just-Dice at the time of the snapshot, but regularly swept coins from deposit addresses to a single offsite cold storage address, so the Just-Dice hot wallet received very few CLAMs.

It's kind of a shame that the initial CLAM distribution rewarded those who practiced poor wallet maintenance. But what can you do.

Importing a wallet basically makes a copy of it inside the CLAM wallet. So if anyone ever manages to get a copy of your CLAM wallet, they will also have access to any coins in any of the wallets you imported into it. The official version of the CLAM client itself doesn't take advantage of that, but someone managing to get a copy of your CLAM wallet could do, as could a rogue unofficial version of the CLAM client. So recommended standard practice is to empty and retire your wallets before importing them into the CLAM client.

Not even a winky-face?

I think the unethical part is if you sell an account with 'trust' intact. The new owner receives an account with positive ratings and may as a result be trusted by people thinking he actually earned those ratings rather than simply having bought them.

Instead of pawning Rolexes, think of pawning diplomas. The new owner looks as if he has worked for something whereas in fact he only bought a piece of paper.

Run the client executable with the -reindex flag.

In Windows that probably means either using the command line cmd.txt tool to launch it:

  clam-qt -reindex

Or editing the properties of the shortcut you use to launch it, and adding -reindex to the target.

The network weight is currently showing as 742000.
Divide that by your number of CLAMs to get a number of minutes per stake.
Divide by 60 and 24 to get an expected number of days to stake.

I get 742000 / 13.8 / 60 / 24 = 37.33 days.

So it's "feasible" but probably not worthwhile unless you were going to be leaving the computer on all the time anyway.

Your point doesn't make sense. You say I should take a cut of your profits from charging people to dig their CLAMs so I won't be tempted to manipulate the blockchain. I say I'm not tempted to anyway. You say no, but the FEDs would! If so, they would whether or not I'm taking backhanders from you.


I ban anyone I see saying that they are underage. The reason we don't like people asking for loans is that more often than not it ends up with the loan never being repaid. And I banned your faucet site because it's basically a giant ad for your overly expensive digging service.


I have been unable to find any mention of your fees on your site.


I'm unclear as to why you called me Dean. I have a few theories, but can't decide between them:

1) You accidentally mistyped.

2) You think I am Dean from PRC dice; that seems unlikely since in the past you and I have had fights with Dean over various things. It would be weird if I was him.

3) You think I'm acting like Dean in some way. He's pissed you off before by not paying the commission he owed you for referrals for instance. Maybe by not letting you advertise your site in the JD chat you think I'm similarly depriving you of your due.

4) You're trolling.

I guess it's probably 3, but I'm not sure. I don't see how you could reasonably expect that I would let you advertise such an unfair service on JD.

If I sell my account, not only does my existing feedback stand, but also any future feedback made by the new owner will appear for everyone, as if the new owner is trusted when he shouldn't be.

I don't see why it wouldn't be against the rules for people to trade accounts. The main reason people do it seems to be to buy and sell trust.

Here's Panthers saying that he's for sure not QS:


Here's QS referring to Panthers as "someone else":

This exactly. We usually recommend that you "empty and retire" your wallet before using it to claim CLAMs.

Doing so protects the CLAM developers as well as yourself. If you use your old BTC wallet to claim CLAMs, then continue to use it with the Bitcoin client afterwards and somehow manage to get your computer compromised and have your coins stolen, you'll never been 100% sure that the CLAM client didn't do something sneaky with the wallet you gave it. If instead you retire your old wallet and switch to a new one, you can't blame the CLAM client when your new wallet gets compromised.

Of course, if you're going to be downloading random executables from the Internet and running them on the same machine you use for your Bitcoin wallet, you're going to end up having your coins stolen anyway. But that's a separate issue, and more about practicing safe computing than anything about the trustworthiness of this particular client.

I've PM'ed him maybe twice - once when I first added him to my network, and again when there was some discussion that he was throwing around negative trust too lightly. But it turned out that the people he was leaving negative trust for almost always turned out to be scammers.

Other than that I don't know him. I certainly never met him in person.


How does a "trust market" benefit Theymos? I don't understand your point.

How does that make any sense?

If I sold my account I would absolutely expect it to be removed from DefaultTrust.

The new owner should need to build their reputation rather than being allowed to buy someone else's.

I can see that it makes sense not to remove old negative trust when it appears that an account has been sold, because otherwise faking an account sale is an easy way for people to clear their negatives. But allowing positive feedback to stand after an account sale makes no sense as far as I can see.


Again with the "those other guys did it so it must be OK for me to do it" argument? That is faulty logic at best.

Yeah, I posted before I had read to the end of the thread. I hadn't considered bets where the player could lose but not win, like betting both red and black on roulette.


Well, the bottom line is "that's how it is; it you don't like it don't use the service".

But note also that the investors are getting a pretty rough deal at moneypot already. Most places they could invest only take 10% of their profits. There's no "app" to pay, only the site which takes a commission. Most places take just 10% of investor profits. In other words the invest gets 90% of the house edge and the site gets just 10%. So I don't see what grounds you really have to be upset when you "only" get 50% at moneypot.

As I understand it there are a few exceptions to the 10% commission rule : bitdice takes 20% and PRCdice takes 25%. But even PRC's 25% is still only half of what moneypot is taking from investors. Here's a chart for comparison. Compare the thick red line (investors at moneypot) with the three horizontal thick lines at the top (JD, BD, PRC) - for all but the biggest bets investors at moneypot do much worse than at the other places:



I suspect that the reason investors get 50% of no-risk bets is because Ryan is aware of how they can do better elsewhere and wants to make moneypot a more attractive proposition for them.


You are allowed to share your opinion, and so are the people who are telling you that they think you are wrong. What's the problem?