now my question is how much will the app owner get if there is a zero risk bet and the Investor has actually zero risk?
The rewards from a zero risk bet are split 50% to app, 45% to investor, 5% to moneypot. But the amount being split is itself zero so it really doesn't matter. You are arguing over how to divide a zero amount of money. Do you want more than 50% of nothing? Are you prepared to fight for it? but now the app has a bet from the whale that will be zero risk for the Investor and the app owner will need to split the HE with the Investor? that is more than unfair IMO
What kind of bet do you think causes no risk to the investors? If the investors can't lose then the player can't lose either, and there's nothing to divide up. Compare the green line in the two charts showing the app earnings. There is no point at which it is lower now than it was before. App owners did well from the change, so you probably don't need to keep complaining about it. Investors have gained too except for high risk bets where they've lost a bit (up to 10%) to moneypot, and moneypot has lost almost everywhere to both apps and investors, gaining only on the top 20% of riskiest bets, and then only gaining from investors, as did app owners. |
|
|
|
All teh IPz I have on tspacepilot, very outdated but why not let it show up in Google?
Where are they from? coinchat, I guess. TF gave (or sold, maybe) the site to the current admin around that time, AFAIK. Is that actually fine? People trust admins with... What are you going to do? Leave him some negative trust? He's already at -9999... Trust: -9999: -21 / +10 That would be a score of 10-2**21 = -2,097,142 if it didn't max out at -9999! |
|
|
|
once I received a formula to be sure that I (app owner) always will get about 0.47% = very near to 0.50% of the HE
the formula was 0.06% of the bank roll
bankroll today about 450 and 0.06% of 450 = 0.27
to get the almost 0.50% (0.47%) of the HE my max win allowance for the player should be 0.27
(IMO an app with this tiny max win allowance can forget all whales and even medium whales)
I think you misunderstood. You want 47% of the house edge (ie. almost half of it) not 0.47% (ie. about 1/200th of it), and to get that you need to limit bets at 6% of 1% of the bank, ie. 0.27 what would be the formula now after the big announcement? anyone can help out with the right multiplier so I (app owner) will have the 0.50% of the HE
Now you get 50% of the house edge up to 50% of 1% of the bank, ie. 2.25 To get 47%, you can take a bet up to 53% of 1% of the bank, ie. 2.385 So you can increase your limit about 9x. but still it would contradict the Apps will now get a constant 50% of the house edge
I think it is like this. before:  after:  |
|
|
|
Is that your picture in your profile? I always imagine an indignant teenage feminists voice raging against "whatever" when i read your posts.
See these videos for some background: http://youtu.be/Yh0AhrY9GjA http://youtu.be/KAVmF-dYv4UI get the same feeling though. The profile picture was well chosen. |
|
|
|
He has offered to refund anyone who used his bogus escrow service.
Can you provide the relevant post to back this up? From my limited perusal I was under the impression that QS offered to pay back all those who used his escrow service for trade with his known alts, effectively Panthers52. No, he said he was willing to refund everyone: If anyone who has paid for my escrow services wishes to get a refund they are more then welcome to do so.
Even though you have no agreement to my above point, I have previously stated that I would be willing to refund any escrow fee that anyone has paid if they request such, so even your nullified point is moot.
|
|
|
|
I didn't see it as competing with Just-Dice because you do not take a % from their /dig.
One of the attractive things about CLAM as a choice of currency for JD was that lots of potential players already have some. If they use JD to claim their CLAM then it ends up in their JD balance and they're likely to invest or gamble it. On the other hand if they follow a link to your service not only will they get ripped off for a hefty 20% fee but what's left of their CLAMs won't be in their JD balance but on an exchange, or even converted directly to Bitcoin. I would happily give you a cut from out stuff in order to be sure you don't reverse my transactions for my business I'm taking a risk on, but your cold shoulder is well... cold. (The dangers of centralization)
I would never reverse transactions to gain a competitive advantage. That would be an abuse of my power. I'm sure you don't really think that I would; there's a huge difference between attempting to prevent you from taking advantage of JD's trollbox to advertise your competing service and using JD's position of majority stakeholder to manipulate the blockchain. I'm not trying to upset you or be a bother. I'm trying to do something positive and I've already gotten a number of comments from third parties who are heavily invested in your shit that my shit is a good thing.
Healthy competition is good for a marketplace, sure. But your service simply isn't competitive. It is deceptive. You tell your potential customers that they have to choose between 3 ways of digging their CLAMs:  1) download the client and wait for it to sync 2) pay you a 24% fee, and end up with 3.5 CLAMs (100 - 3.5 * 100 / 4.60545574 = 24.00%) 3) pay you an 81.9% fee, and end up with 0.005 BTC (100 - 0.05 * 100 / (4.60545574 * 0.06) = 81.9%) The fees are not explicit, you have to calculate them for yourself. Most won't bother. You don't mention that there's a 4th option: 4) use /dig at JD, pay a 0.002% fee, and end up with 4.60535574 CLAMs (100 - 4.60535574 * 100 / 4.60545574 = 0.002%) Of course you don't need to mention the competition's service. But when there's an existing service charging a 0.002% fee, how can you think it is "something positive" to introduce a competing service which charges either a 24% or 82% fee? That seems more like "something exploitative". If you want a cut Dooglus then remove your /dig feature and I'll be happy to negotiate with you because I feel my shit is fair.
I don't want a cut. I don't want any part in helping you trick people into using your overly expensive service. That's why I attempted to prevent you spamming links to it in the JD chat. You are free to feel however you want and I have ALWAYS respected you and I will stop since you told me. You don't need to shadow ban people on my accord because that fucks people in more way than one.
I do the same for any other competing service that people spam in the chat. It's nothing personal. Worst it confuses new people in the room because they have no fucking clue why people are ignoring them. These shadow bans are fucking horse shit the way I see it and banning people on my accord is disgusting to me... I wish you would have done this to me during Huntercoin or any other number of times I embarrassed myself. I'm taking my ban as a good thing that at least I won't embarrass myself there.(although many people in your troll box have NO clue they have CLAMS...)
tl;dr
I understand where you are coming from, I respect your opinion, I really didn't mean to step on your toes... I've went through great lengths to be sure I'm fair to you in your troll box. I always give you a % of almost everything I do in there and I've always asked before I did sketchy thing that "fuck" you out of money (Purchasing Mechs old account.) I did not see this as hurting you. I figured all of the coins would end up back at Just-dice honestly....
Taking an 82% fee to dig CLAMs and convert them to Bitcoin hurts your customers and the CLAM ecosystem and also pretty much ensures they will never even look any further at using CLAM. It clearly benefits you, since you get the 80% fee, and that's good for you, but it harms everyone else involved, doesn't it? No need to respond I just wanted to say my piece. I'm sure you could chew me up and spit me out 1000% ways from typos to business plans ect. I love the fucking doge shit out of Just-dice.com and I would regret not posting this. I still intend on investing at Just-dice and if you choose to ban me, then I will switch users and become more discreet in order to get the best returns to pay the people that have helped me.
I have no intention of banning you, but I would appreciate if you stopped using Just-Dice to advertise your very expensive competing service which contributes nothing new to the CLAM community. |
|
|
|
At the end of the day, what I did was a result of my witnessing of similar activity by one of the most, if not the most trusted and respected member of the community doing what was essentially the exact same thing out in the open and without consequence. I had posted in the thread where this was happening out in the open multiple times, so it is difficult to say that I was unaware of the situation.
You still don't get it. Escrowing for yourself out in the open isn't what you did. You escrowed for yourself in secret. |
|
|
|
Really? Do you seriously think the ~$12 in escrow fees (that I promptly refunded BTW) is sufficient cause for the multiple negative trust ratings that I have received?
Didn't you leave multiple negative trust ratings for tsp over less than $12 that his bot earned on coinchat? No. He stole ~.5 BTC. He refused to repay any of the stolen money. When confronted about the theft, he started intimidating the person who confronted him instead of countering any of the relevant facts. Both at the time of the uncovering of the original theft and now, the person who tspacepilot stole from says that he is a scammer. On the other hand, I quickly repaid those who asked for their money back. The people who dealt with me said they did not feel that my business practices were any kind of a scam. Do you see the difference? Karma is a bitch, eh? Why exactly do you bring up karma? You aren't related to tsp in any way are you? I cannot see any other reason why someone would be sticking up for someone so strongly if it was otherwise. TSP did receive a tip in advance from someone who knew with certainty that QS and panthers were the same person, and used his "tests" to "prove" we were the same person.....
No tip was needed. You were clearly the same person. I don't think you could have made it much more obvious. He was specifically aware that Panthers52 and QS were the same person long before he opened this thread. It was far from obvious as of that point in time. I see the difference. But it's ironic that you think it's OK for you to scam $12 from your victims when it's apparently not OK for tsp to accidentally earn a similar amount from coinchat with a bot. What makes you think the amount in question is 0.5 BTC? I'm not related to tsp in any way. I'm sticking up for him because you're bullying him. You deleted the part where I called you out for lying about the number of accounts you left negative trust from: What attacks on tsp? I left him a single rating several months ago, removed it after a large amount of trolling (despite still feeling that he is a scammer), then added it back on when the trolling only got worse.
A single rating? You left multiple ratings against him. |
|
|
|
What exactly did I lie about? Please quote the exact statement that I said that was a lie, and provide the proof that it was a lie.
"I've been banned for 3 days"Please point to the post where I made that exact statement. How? You removed it from your profile. I guess this is what Vod is referring to. You claimed that you had been forced to take a 3 day break from the forum, while at the same time you were posting from other alt accounts. So in what sense were you forced to take the break? That's the lie I think: From google's cache: "This is Google's cache of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977370.0;all. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 3 Sep 2015 23:43:00 GMT"  |
|
|
|
Really? Do you seriously think the ~$12 in escrow fees (that I promptly refunded BTW) is sufficient cause for the multiple negative trust ratings that I have received?
Didn't you leave multiple negative trust ratings for tsp over less than $12 that his bot earned on coinchat? Karma is a bitch, eh? What attacks on tsp? I left him a single rating several months ago, removed it after a large amount of trolling (despite still feeling that he is a scammer), then added it back on when the trolling only got worse.
A single rating? You left multiple ratings against him. TSP did receive a tip in advance from someone who knew with certainty that QS and panthers were the same person, and used his "tests" to "prove" we were the same person.....
No tip was needed. You were clearly the same person. I don't think you could have made it much more obvious. |
|
|
|
Just a friendly warning to trolls in the troll box. Please do not type ClamcoinFaucets.com or Clamchecker.com this will result in a 3 minute shadow ban to your account. If you need to help someone with one of these links please put it in a pastebin in order to avoid getting pwned (even with PM's). Another friendly warning to trolls in the troll box: If you set up a service which competes with Just-Dice but which charges a 20% commission instead of the 0% commission charged by Just-Dice, please don't be shocked if Just-Dice mutes you when you try to advertise your competing service for free in its trollbox. For fuck sake. |
|
|
|
Just a friendly warning to trolls in the troll box.
Please do not type ClamcoinFaucets.com or Clamchecker.com this will result in a 3 minute shadow ban to your account.
If you need to help someone with one of these links please put it in a pastebin in order to avoid getting pwned (even with PM's).
Another friendly warning to trolls in the troll box: If you set up a service which competes with Just-Dice but which charges a 20% commission instead of the 0% commission charged by Just-Dice, please don't be shocked if Just-Dice mutes you when you try to advertise your competing service for free in its trollbox. For fuck sake. |
|
|
|
Ive had this problem with the CLAM bootstrap aswell... the client is not recognizing the bootstrap. If it was, the client would take a long time to load, with a message like verifying blocks or something like that. From the screenshot I can tell its just syncing with the network like no bootstrap has been used.
See how it says "importing blocks" in the lower left? That means it's loading blocks from the bootstrap.dat file. You're wrong about it syncing from the network. To prove it to yourself try switching off your cable router or otherwise going offline and see how it continues making progress. If you just want to claim your clams, checkout the just-dice digging function. Worked faster for me!
Yeah, whoever made that site is a fricken genius. There's also clamchecker.com. They have fee of 24%; for every 4.6 CLAM you claim you get 3.5 CLAM, they get 1.0 CLAM and the affiliate gets 0.1 CLAM. On Just-Dice for every 4.6 CLAM you claim you get 4.6 CLAM. The site takes off 0.001 CLAM for the transaction fee and you get the rest. |
|
|
|
I downloaded the bootstrap.dat and placed if in the same map as the clam wallet.dat.
I do not see any deliverance in getting the blocks more quickly that i did before downloading the bootstrap.dat
Its it whise to delete this bootstrap, i do not thing its doing anything...or will it help later when more blocks are synchronized?
It takes a while to skip through the bootstrap file to get to blocks you haven't seen before. Leave it running and it won't take too long to finish. You can get the latest bootstrap.dat file and/or pieces of it using links in this post, which I keep updated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9772191#msg9772191 |
|
|
|
Someone pls address my question, can I keep all of my CLAM in one block? Should I break it to smaller blocks?
Also, where do you see how long it takes for CLAM to stake? In other words, how long until CLAM reaches maturity?
Common understanding at the moment is that a user might be more efficient to split their outputs up. The reasoning is that when a block is staked, only a single output goes immature - with the remaining outputs continuing to attempt to stake. It depends how many CLAMs you have, and what kind of a percentage loss you're willing to take while your CLAMs mature after staking. I generally aim to have 1% of my outputs maturing at any point in time, so I only lose 1% of potential earnings. Since it takes 8 hours for an output to mature that means I need to size my outputs such that their expected time-to-stake is 800 hours. 800 hours is 800 * 60 = 48k minutes, and the network aims to stake once per minute. The network weight is currently around 700k, so I need each output to be 700k/48k = 14.58 CLAMs in order to only lose 1% of potential profit. Smaller than 14 CLAMs per output will result in a smaller percentage loss, bigger than 15 CLAMs will result in a bigger percentage loss, but 14.5 seems like a good size for now. CLAMs take 510 blocks to mature, but also outputs can't stake until 4 hours after the last time they were involved in a transaction. The expected time to stake is roughly (network weight) / (output value) minutes. For an output of 14.5 CLAMs, that's 700k/14.5 = 48275 minutes = 804.59 hours. Note the network weight shown by the client is only an estimate. It's impossible to know how many CLAMs are actually trying to stake right now - we can only guess based on how many are actually staking and the current difficulty.
Hi, just downloaded the wallet and waiting for synchronization, but how big is the wallet gonna be? It`s on my laptop and i have a limited hard-disk space on it.
Thanks!
I don't have an exact number handy but, I expect the chain is still less than 2 gigs in size. The wallet itself is pretty small unless you do a lot of transactions, or import a lot of private keys. The things that do take up space are: 1) blk0001.dat (the raw blocks). It's currently 650 MB. 2) txleveldb (the block database). It's currently 370 MB. 3) debug.log (the logfile). It grows over time. Mine is 1.4 GB. But you can delete it whenever you like. So the blockchain uses up just over 1 GB right now. |
|
|
|
There are two points that no one has even attempted to address: - Why would someone be not willing to send first to a person when conducting a trade, if they would trust them enough to use them as escrow?
- Why would someone be willing to pay more for an item because escrow is used?
1. I don't think anyone is claiming that is the case. 2. Escrow agents typically charge a fee. That fee increases the total cost of the deal. In exchange, both parties are more confident of a positive outcome. |
|
|
|
Seems to me that the stress test, also known as Bitcoin Giveaway, has failed to harm the Bitcoin transactions in any way. While Mem pool is quite large and tx back-log has also grown, it seems that the only back-log are the spam transactions them self. Real transactions are going through as usual  I only made one transaction today. It is unconfirmed after 8 hours. I sent it using "bitcoin-cli sendtoaddress ...", let bitcoin core select its own fee - I think it's meant to use "smart fees" now - and it decided to use a fee of 300 satoshis. FFS. |
|
|
|
You are not paying for a neutral third party, the cost of using an escrow is factored into the cost of the item you are trading.
If people weren't paying for a neutral third party, why did you offer to refund the escrow fee when it became clear that you weren't a neutral third party? You have pointed out how this would be different then doing a direct trade, but you fail to document why someone would not be willing to engage in a direct trade with someone when they are willing to trust them to act as an escrow agent.
They may be willing to trade directly with you, but you didn't give them enough information to select that option. |
|
|
|
What is easest way to check Do I have clams on my LTC address.?
If you, however, don't understand "change" addresses, it is recommended you use the official CLAM software to claim. EDIT: The important point is that simply looking at your "receive" addresses in the GUI of a wallet will not guarantee that you get all of the CLAM you deserve. This seems to contradict the claim in your sig that everyone who has LTC has CLAMs, despite your casino manager's spirited and emotional objections. So much misunderstanding and inaccuracy in one sentence! 1) I don't see any contradiction here. While it's true that not everyone with LTC has CLAMs, no statement here refers to that at all. 2) Her signature doesn't say that everyone who has LTC has CLAMs. 3) I'm not her casino manager. 4) I'm neither spirited nor emotional. 5) I've not objected to anything. What did I miss? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
