Awesome to see the numbers finally synced up as they should be! The problem was my code was assuiming that if the tx was coinstake, that the net difference in balance from that tx was the minted amount. The JD staking wallet has those transactions that send outputs to other wallets in the coinstake tx, so that created a negative mint  Just switched that out and indexed it with pindex->nMint instead which should be accurate. 1) I'll fix this, its actually a variable populated for different coin's page with the coin name and 'd' on the end  I'll make an exception for clams in there. 2) I hid the burn address for clams. This is what is causing this row count to be off. I can either a) show the burn address or b) fix the row count. Although the burn address coins are gone, some users might be interested in seeing the address. Thoughts? 3) In my context it is 'amount in' would mean amount deposited into the address, and 'amount out' means amount taken out of the address. A bit different then inputs/outputs of bitcoin protocol, maybe I should word it better to be more clear (maybe withdraw/deposit or credit/debit). So for your example, 19 clams sent out from the wallet into the coinstake tx, 20 clams sent back into the wallet in the coinstake tx. PS - I haven't checked this, but I do believe the JD staking address has the most transactions out of all the addresses I have indexed on my site. Quite the accomplishment We were playing around this morning with "timelocked" outputs. Here's one, and it displays wrongly in your block explorer: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/tx.php?tx=9cf10e3816012c8ff6a658d59ae34897476a3489be50b55934bc67132f0f450aWhen I spent it, it showed up correctly: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/tx.php?tx=9ae57b97316ed7b725624cb2a64612b65e95797cc7a954d7e0b255318a89c4ddthanks for the heads up on that one. I will see if I can get those accounted properly. It appears that I formed that scriptPubKey backwards. In future we'll be standardising on having the TIMELOCK check at the end of the scriptPubKey, like this: "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <key> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG <locktime> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP" |
|
|
|
Apart from dumping on Poloniex. Do you think the digger is investing in JD?
Maybe Doog can answer that one?
Every time I look into the digger's transactions, he appears to be sending his CLAMs to poloniex. From there they mostly move to Just-Dice. There's no way (short of attempting to gain inside knowledge from poloniex staff) that I can tell the difference between him simply withdrawing his deposited CLAMs from poloniex to Just-Dice and unrelated third parties buying his CLAMs on the poloniex market and withdrawing them to Just-Dice. We have seen higher levels of trading on poloniex recently, which suggests that for the most part he is selling his CLAMs to JD investors. Then again maybe he's selling them to himself and investing them. tl;dr: idk |
|
|
|
In the past reputation loans (which there has not been an explanation as to why the loan was given other then so tspacepilot can prove he will repay) has been something the community does not appreciate and others have received negative trust for both giving and receiving such reputation loans. The reason for this is that there is no reason for the trade other then for the trust rating.
This case is the opposite. There is no reason for the trust rating other than the trade. This causes their trust rating to reflect that they have had more of a history of trading honestly then is true because they would have one trust rating and zero honest trades (and no receiving money and then instantly giving it back is not an actual trade).
Then that doesn't apply in this case either. My trust rating of him is very explicit. It says: "I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems." I'm not suggesting that I'm basing my rating on a long history of successful trades. I explicitly state that it's based on a single loan of 1 BTC worth of CLAM. To respond to your implication that my rating is based on hearsay, as I mentioned several times in the past, my rating is based solely on what tspacepilot said, and what my understanding of the rules of coinchat are/were. However I really did not even need to rely on the former because tspacepilot admitted to receiving money that he knew (at the very least after the fact) did not belong to him: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252748#msg3252748 (he locked/censored the thread, so I cannot use the "quote" feature of the forum) I cashed out more than he wanted from his site which gives out free bitcoins for chatting. I don't see how it could be any more clear that he received money that he should not have......would a signed confession be enough? How about an admission in open court? Nobody's claiming that tsp didn't receive more than TF wanted to pay him. That much is clear. What is being disputed is whether tsp is "a scammer". As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money. tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done. I'm sure you've heard this version of events many times yet you continue your attempt to paint tsp as a scammer. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Awesome to see the numbers finally synced up as they should be! The problem was my code was assuiming that if the tx was coinstake, that the net difference in balance from that tx was the minted amount. The JD staking wallet has those transactions that send outputs to other wallets in the coinstake tx, so that created a negative mint Just switched that out and indexed it with pindex->nMint instead which should be accurate. 1) I'll fix this, its actually a variable populated for different coin's page with the coin name and 'd' on the end I'll make an exception for clams in there. 2) I hid the burn address for clams. This is what is causing this row count to be off. I can either a) show the burn address or b) fix the row count. Although the burn address coins are gone, some users might be interested in seeing the address. Thoughts? 3) In my context it is 'amount in' would mean amount deposited into the address, and 'amount out' means amount taken out of the address. A bit different then inputs/outputs of bitcoin protocol, maybe I should word it better to be more clear (maybe withdraw/deposit or credit/debit). So for your example, 19 clams sent out from the wallet into the coinstake tx, 20 clams sent back into the wallet in the coinstake tx. PS - I haven't checked this, but I do believe the JD staking address has the most transactions out of all the addresses I have indexed on my site. Quite the accomplishment We were playing around this morning with "timelocked" outputs. Here's one, and it displays wrongly in your block explorer: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/tx.php?tx=9cf10e3816012c8ff6a658d59ae34897476a3489be50b55934bc67132f0f450aWhen I spent it, it showed up correctly: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/tx.php?tx=9ae57b97316ed7b725624cb2a64612b65e95797cc7a954d7e0b255318a89c4dd |
|
|
|
So overall about 5% of total possible clams have been claimed? That's interesting! Some of the big exchanges should take notice at some point if clam remains valuable. I imagine Karpeles would be interested in a way to repay his creditors. If he had access to any private keys that is...
The point of the chart was to show the effect of the ongoing large dig. Our digger is working backwards through the blocks, and is in the mid 8000's at the moment. He has many CLAMs still to dig, as shown by the chart. |
|
|
|
Dooglus, was there actually any reason behind the loan to tspacepilot other then to give him positive trust? As far as I can tell there is not based on the facts publicly available.
I made the loan to see whether he would pay it back, not to give him positive trust. If he hadn't paid it back I would have given him negative trust. If there was no legitimate reason to give the loan other then to give a trust rating then you were giving a reputation loan and there is no room for you in either level 1 nor level 2 default trust and should be removed and excluded immediately and should receive negative trust because those who give reputation loans do nothing more then give credibility to those who ultimately plan on scamming.
I'm not aware that it is against the rules to test people's trustworthiness. But I don't think I've ever seen a list of rules, so maybe it is. That would seem like a strange rule though. It seems to me that it is better to give ratings based on evidence than on heresay, which is what I did. |
|
|
|
If I won 10 <1% odds bets in a row I'd probably chase that dragon pretty hard as well.
Which dragon ? i need luck like that too And holy dental's graph .... Should have cashed out a happy person... :S It seems to be a reference to this expression: This term is a bit more complicated than merely "smoking opium". It starts when you have your first high, the world is peaceful, everything is perfect, you're numb, but in the best way possible. But, soon, it starts wearing off. Fast. Your mind races, you're pulled out of your dream world. You crave the drug more and more, wanting to feel the same way as you did on your first high. You go to the dealer and buy the same amount you had the first time, and smoke. Still feels good, but not as good as first time. You go and buy more. Closer, but not quite there. You're stuck, you don't know what to do. You want to go back to that little dream world and stay forever, but your body is already developing a tolerance. You panic. You use all your money to buy more and more and more, but still, not the same as that first time. You realize that you have no more money, so you start selling your things, pawning whatever could get you that next bag. Still, nothing compared to what you had on that first, magical time. So, you're broke and own nothing. But you don't care, all you care about is getting back to the first high. You start stealing, doing "favors", whatever gets you the money for the attempt. Your life becomes a living hell, all in search of a repeat of the first high. That's chasing the dragon. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_the_dragon#Metaphorical |
|
|
|
we are changing invest model from 10% from profits, to fixed percent from wagered amount:[/b]
Instead of charging a commission on profits, for every bet placed the house has leveraged 1%. 20% of this 1% is taken by the house the rest goes to investors.
This low fee ensures that the house will always make a small profit, 10% of which will be used as funding for giveaways and promotions.
Do you really mean that? 10% of the 20% you take will go to promotions? Or 50% of it? I think you mean 50%. By not charging commission on profits, this frees the investor to withdraw their coins at any time without the risk of missing potential commission free gains after a loss.
That's a funny way of putting it. The investors are free of the burden of ever enjoying a commission-free gain? As previously we are gonna take 10% of house profits, [...]
You just wrote that you aren't going to take commission on profits any more. And now you say you will? This is unclear. [...] the rest 10% will be used for leaderboard payouts, affiliates and other various giveaways. I hope this step will attract more users, which means more profits to investors.
Do you mean that you will be taking 10% of the *expected* profits for yourself, and another 10% of the expected profits to fund promotions? In other words you have doubled the commission rate? We had various discussions about it, and decided to change current hashing mode from SECRET:USER_SEED:USER_ID:USER_BET_NUMBER to USER_BET_NUMBER:USER_SEED:SECRET.
I'm curious as to why you felt the need to change it. Did you feel the old way was exploitable? Or what's the reasoning for the change? |
|
|
|
You could check that the addresses the webpage shows match the receiving addresses shown in your wallet app. That way you don't need to risk any funds.
I guess if the bits don't arrive in your wallet you can always just import the corresponding private key into bitcoin-core or some such to retrieve those bits.
I tried sending some bits to a couple of the addresses on the list and they didn't show up on my wallet. idk its pretty weird cuz the list shows like atleast 200 addresses when in the wallet ive only created like 3. i dont really know HD wallets work, anyways thanks for your help. Oh, well the list is infinite... You can keep generating addresses forever. The way it works is that your wallet generates the addresses in order, and looks them up one at a time on the blockchain. When it finds N in a row that have never been used, it stops looking. N is probably 5 or 10 or some small number like that. So if you funded the 100th address, your wallet won't have bothered looking that far ahead. I made a change to https://dooglus.github.io/bip39/ so it will let you know if the xprv key you enter is invalid, rather than just saying "Calculating" forever. |
|
|
|
it seems to have worked it gave me the private keys, going to try sending some bits to one of the address shown on your site and see if they show up on my HD wallet.
o btw the derivation path shows as m/44'/0'/0'/0/y where y is the only number changing, i guess that makes sense cuz its 1 wallet.
You could check that the addresses the webpage shows match the receiving addresses shown in your wallet app. That way you don't need to risk any funds. I guess if the bits don't arrive in your wallet you can always just import the corresponding private key into bitcoin-core or some such to retrieve those bits. |
|
|
|
Here's a chart showing what percentage of the CLAMs given out in each distribution block have moved so far:  |
|
|
|
do you happen to know how to get multiple private keys for a wallet if i have the extended private key (xpriv).
I don't know any easy way of generating the keys from an xpriv - it would be nice if https://dcpos.github.io/bip39/ allowed us to edit the xprv field ourselves. I'll look into making that change. Try this: https://dooglus.github.io/bip39/I made the xprv field editable. I can't promise it works right, and the error handling isn't good at all. Click 'generate' then edit the xprv, and it won't tell you the value is invalid, it will just say "calculating" forever. But paste in a valid xprv code and it seems to work. Edit: I made a pull request in the dcpos repository for this change to be merged into his site too: https://github.com/dcpos/bip39/pull/16 |
|
|
|
is that only compatible for mycelium phrases or can i use other hd accounts phrases as well?
and do you happen to know how to get multiple private keys for a wallet if i have the extended private key (xpriv).
It works with any wallet that uses BIP39 seeds, and BIP32 derivation. Mycelium uses "m/44'/0'/x'/y" as its BIP32 derivation path, where x is the account number (starting for 0 for account 1, 1 for account 2, etc.) and y is 0 for receiving addresses and 1 for change addresses. Other wallets use different strings. You can use the BIP32 tab at https://dcpos.github.io/bip39/ to enter any BIP32 derivation path you like. If you put m/44'/0'/0'/0 in there, then you'll see the Mycelium receiving addresses for account 0 (what Mycelium calls "account 1"). Apparently hive wallet uses "m/0'/0", and other wallets presumably use their own version. You can play about with the BIP32 derivation path field until you see your receiving address being generated. I don't know any easy way of generating the keys from an xpriv - it would be nice if https://dcpos.github.io/bip39/ allowed us to edit the xprv field ourselves. I'll look into making that change. |
|
|
|
Did I miss any questions that need answering? I skipped a bunch of your long-winded post.
If you usually freeze funds until you investigate scams, then why would TSP expect anything other then you to freeze his account until you investigate if he has repaid you or not  I have no reason to suspect tsp of being a scammer, and so didn't feel any need to freeze his funds. I have also yet to see any evidence that TSP had actually received the loan that you both have claimed that was made, only that it was repaid  I posted a screenshot of my tip to him here. Does me being QS (if true) make any of my points any less valid? I intentionally did not initially give any opinions in this thread out of fear of being flamed (I did give my opinion after being flamed by TSP), and I only asked questions that were previously ignored. Do you think my questions should continue to be ignored regardless of who I am or am not? I think a valid question is a valid question whoever asks it. But it's hard sometimes to pull valid questions from the surrounding noise. Almost everyone in this thread was accused of being $username that (correctly) agreed that TSP is a scammer. It appears that TSP's ways have not changed in this thread. Does this have anything to do with the number of people opposing TSP in this thread? I don't know. |
|
|
|
I think I was finally able to fix the error in my block explorer showing the JustDice wallet 'special' coinstake tx's as a negative mint. If anyone sees any issues with balances, please let me know  I am still working on getting the charts to display for very large transaction histories, hopefully have that worked out soon too. http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/richlist.phpGreat news! I'm happy to see the chart for this address again - it was beautiful last time I saw it, shortly before it became too big to plot. Transaction Count 55679 Balance 535,799.154328 Minted 55,695.532970 I believe that every "deposit" into that address was the result of staking, and so the transaction count should be the same as the number of stakes. It looks about right: minted / tx_count = 55695.532970 / 55679 = 1.00029693 1.0003 seems about right for the average block reward size Edit: there's a typo on your address claim page: "For daemons: ./clamsd signmessage addressgoeshere nametosignfor" It's "clamd", not "clamsd". Edit2: your row count is off by one: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/richlist.php?count=5 only shows 4 addresses, not 5. Edit3: it looks like the 'amount in' and 'amount out' columns are labelled wrongly on the address.php page. I see staking transactions with Amount In=20, Amount Out=19. The output should be greater than the input surely? |
|
|
|
(*) You are QS, are you not? You write just like him and have a specific unique tell-tale 'tick' that I've never seen in anyone else. Why the continued use of sockpuppet accounts? I am Panthers52. I don't see the point to your question. Does me being QS (if true) make any of my points any less valid? I intentionally did not initially give any opinions in this thread out of fear of being flamed (I did give my opinion after being flamed by TSP), and I only asked questions that were previously ignored. Do you think my questions should continue to be ignored regardless of who I am or am not? You're refusing to answer my question? Using a sockpuppet account to try to make it look like someone other than you supports your crusade against tsp seems dishonest to me. I answered your question directly. I am Panthers52, and that is who I am. I am unsure how else to put it. As I mentioned in my last post, I did not state any opinions when I first posted in this thread, I showed support for no one. I did nothing other then ask questions. How could that possibly be dishonest? You have not addressed the majority (any) of my legitimate concerns in my previous post. You have not addressed PistolPete's concerns about giving a reputation loan. You have not complied with PistolPete's request to add him to level 2 so he can give you a negative rating. I believe you should in no way be trusted after giving a reputation loan. Someone who engages in the practice of giving reputation loan should absolutely not be trusted enough to be in Level 1 Default Trust. It always surprised me how revered you are. Yes, we all heard the stories about how Dooglus sat on a cardboard box in his hotel room, while sending back the investor funds one by one on his laptop, with the feds closed him on in. Your his entire reputation seems to have been derived from that, where everyone conveniently forgets that you simply couldn't have disappeared with that bag of Bitcoins. Your dox is available on 8 pages of the first page of google SERPS searching for "dooglus" You (like QS) keep bringing up unrelated points. I've no idea what the cardboard box in hotel room is relating to, but you're clearly trolling. Can you try to stick to the matter at hand? Re. PistolPete, I'm not going to add someone I've never heard of to "level 2". Did I miss any questions that need answering? I skipped a bunch of your long-winded post. |
|
|
|
(*) You are QS, are you not? You write just like him and have a specific unique tell-tale 'tick' that I've never seen in anyone else. Why the continued use of sockpuppet accounts? I am Panthers52. I don't see the point to your question. Does me being QS (if true) make any of my points any less valid? I intentionally did not initially give any opinions in this thread out of fear of being flamed (I did give my opinion after being flamed by TSP), and I only asked questions that were previously ignored. Do you think my questions should continue to be ignored regardless of who I am or am not? You're refusing to answer my question? Using a sockpuppet account to try to make it look like someone other than you supports your crusade against tsp seems dishonest to me. @dooglus - both you and TSP are the only one's in this thread claiming that I am QS. You are not the same person as TSP are you?
I am more than happy to answer your question. I am not tsp. I have no other accounts on this site, other than one called "Just-Dice" or "Just Dice Support" or some such, which I created a couple of years ago but decided against using. Edit: I found it. This is "his" only post: |
|
|
|
I am saying that the offense where which tsp had stolen money involved tsp's identity not being known at the time of the offense. From what I have reviewed, it was only until some kind of an investigation (maybe into IP evidence?) that it was discovered that tsp was the one who was stealing money via bots.
OK, so if that's what he was up to he would have changed identity once he was caught, and made a new one. If someone thinks they can hide their identity being associated with a scam they will pull off, then the threshold for how much money they would need to be able to take given the chance to scam will be less then if your identity would be clearly associated with a scam. I gave him no reason to suspect that I wouldn't honor any withdrawal request. Nobody has ever complained of being unable to withdraw from Just-Dice.
There has been at least one instance that resulted in someone being unable to withdraw money from Just-Dice when they were in possession of money that was not rightfully theirs. He never complained. He understood that I had frozen his funds while I investigate a scam. That's quite a different case. Do you really think it would be unreasonable that someone receiving a reputation loan would not have their account frozen until they repaid such loan, especially considering that there is precedent to freezing such accounts?
Your triple negative is somewhat confusing. Do I think it would be unreasonable that he would not be unable to withdraw? ie. do I think it would be unreasonable that he would have been able to withdraw? I think it would be unreasonable to leave positive feedback based on the fact that he didn't withdraw if it was impossible for him to have withdrawn, yes. In order to have evidence that somebody is trustworthy I think they need to have been given the opportunity to abuse trust, and not taken it. You(*) asked me not long ago whether I would feel comfortable lending tsp various amounts of money. I wanted to test it. It turned out I did, and my feeling was accurate. (*) You are QS, are you not? You write just like him and have a specific unique tell-tale 'tick' that I've never seen in anyone else. Why the continued use of sockpuppet accounts? How much interest exactly did you earn from this loan?
You saw the loan payment and the repayment. They are for the same amount. I didn't charge interest. |
|
|
|
has anyone developed a decent gambling strategy for .01 - 1.0 BTC bankrolls yet?
No. |
|
|
|
1 BTC is much more than he is accused of stealing from coinchat. Why would he steal dust from coinchat but not steal a whole Bitcoin from me?
There are a good number of people who create new accounts to scam in the lending and currency exchange sections. I am not yet an expert of reading minds, but something tells me they do this to avoid having their primary identities revealed as being a scammer. I don't understand your point. Are you saying tsp is someone's secondary identity? I've never seen him in the lending section. Or maybe because he knew that he had no choice except to return the money, or thought that you would not process any withdrawal request as long as he owed you money.
He did have a choice. He could have withdrawn the money, or he could have returned it. He chose to return it. I gave him no reason to suspect that I wouldn't honor any withdrawal request. Nobody has ever complained of being unable to withdraw from Just-Dice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
