I often update the "recent profit" chart, and usually keep it to just the last week or two. But for a long time now we've been struggling to stay over the 100k profit line, and so I've been letting the recent profit chart get longer and longer. Now it is time to move on. So here's the "recent profit" chart going back a little over 6 weeks:  Posted here for the record. Now I can go back to only showing the last week or two of "recentness". It's also been a while since I posted the weekly return figures for the 1x and 100x investor: 1x
--
Dec 12 2014 0.00% 100.00%
Dec 15 2014 3.64% 103.64%
Dec 22 2014 5.02% 108.85%
Dec 29 2014 2.09% 111.13%
Jan 5 2015 8.16% 120.20%
Jan 12 2015 5.28% 126.55%
Jan 19 2015 3.55% 131.04%
Jan 26 2015 2.10% 133.79%
Feb 2 2015 2.10% 136.60%
Feb 9 2015 1.94% 139.24%
Feb 16 2015 1.93% 141.93% 100x
Feb 23 2015 1.95% 144.70% ----
Mar 2 2015 1.81% 147.32% Mar 7 2015 0.00% 100.00%
Mar 9 2015 1.77% 149.93% Mar 9 2015 0.64% 100.64%
Mar 16 2015 1.73% 152.53% Mar 16 2015 2.53% 103.18%
Mar 23 2015 1.74% 155.18% Mar 23 2015 4.01% 107.32%
Mar 30 2015 1.67% 157.78% Mar 30 2015 2.06% 109.53%
Apr 6 2015 1.65% 160.38% Apr 6 2015 2.51% 112.27%
Apr 13 2015 1.63% 162.99% Apr 13 2015 2.48% 115.05%
Apr 20 2015 1.58% 165.57% Apr 20 2015 1.42% 116.69%
Apr 27 2015 1.64% 168.28% Apr 27 2015 3.43% 120.69%
May 4 2015 1.60% 170.98% May 4 2015 0.52% 121.32%
May 11 2015 1.56% 173.65% May 11 2015 0.94% 122.46%
May 18 2015 1.48% 176.22% May 18 2015 0.37% 122.91%
May 25 2015 1.59% 179.03% May 25 2015 5.65% 129.86%
Jun 1 2015 1.55% 181.81% Jun 1 2015 4.59% 135.83%
Jun 8 2015 1.49% 184.52% Jun 8 2015 4.12% 141.42%
Jun 15 2015 1.41% 187.13% Jun 15 2015 2.00% 144.25%
Jun 22 2015 1.42% 189.78% Jun 22 2015 3.48% 149.28%
Jun 29 2015 1.30% 192.24% Jun 29 2015 -3.45% 144.13%
Jul 6 2015 1.38% 194.90% Jul 6 2015 1.81% 146.73%
Jul 13 2015 1.33% 197.49% Jul 13 2015 0.72% 147.79%
Jul 20 2015 1.42% 200.31% Jul 20 2015 10.40% 163.16%
Jul 20 2015 0.21% 200.73% Jul 20 2015 2.31% 166.92% |
|
|
|
Now, on to the part where the scammers' own small-print clearly states them to be a Ponzi scheme: Recyclix Sp.z o.o may merge these funds with the funds of other Users and its proprietary funds. These merged funds may be used for payments to other Users or for the sake of our mutual corporate aims or otherwise. However, Recyclix Sp.z o.o. shall in any case pay or return you the funds according to this Payment Policy and the Terms of Use. This tells you that they are stating they will use your money to pay other users - Ponzi scheme. While you're probably right about this being just another scam, the practice of using recent deposit to service withdrawals isn't suspicious. The practice of using a small 'hot wallet' while the majority of funds are kept separately is commonplace and makes a lot of sense. If you deposit to Just-Dice.com right now, your coins will likely be used to service someone else's deposit shortly afterwards. That doesn't make us a Ponzi, and we do weekly proofs of solvency to make that clear. |
|
|
|
Now comes the part where you'll get called a bunch of names for taking this position. It's cool though, because, THE PROFITS MAN.
Wait till the part where they royally get fucked up the ass and come a cryin' to the very folks who tried to teach them simple maths. That's all we can do. We can try to help them understand, but they don't want to. Sometimes the royal ass-fucking is the only way of getting through to them. |
|
|
|
So there is a slightly higher chance of winning when betting the whole 1 clam in one run instead spreading bets over more runs with lower chance? I didnt await that either.
Yes. I think it's fairly intuitive: When you roll once, your expected payout is P1_1 * 1000 where P1_1 is the probability of winning the single roll. When you roll ten times, your expected payout is the sum from N=1 to 10 of all the (PN_10 * N * 1000) where PN_10 is the probability of winning N of the 10 bets. We know the expected payout is the same in both games, so: P1_1 = sum(PN_10 * N) > sum(PN_10) ie. the chance of winning the single roll is bigger than the chance of winning any non-zero number of the 10 rolls. |
|
|
|
So thanks for playing, but we're done here.
Thanks for the game. No luck finding an addy, but I learned how to use vanitygen well if another contest like this arises. Me too... So the new addresses I have use 'compressed' public keys and so use less space on the blockchain each time they stake. But I was left with the question of how to migrate from the old addresses to the new ones. I ended up adding a new flag to the CLAM client: -staketo=ADDR which you can use to tell it to move coins to the new address as they stake. It results in a nice smooth transition:  but somewhat ugly transactions:  because the CLAM protocol says that input 0 and output 1 have to have the same address, so I make an empty output 1 and a new non-empty output 2 to follow the protocol. All the 0-value outputs should be 'spent' automatically when they mature thanks to my "combineany=1" setting. Edit: here's evidence that it is indeed cleaning up the zero-valued outputs it creates: $ clamd listunspent 0 99999999 '[]' 0 | grep -A1 -F 'amount" : 0.00000000' | grep conf | sort -k3n
"confirmations" : 1
"confirmations" : 2
"confirmations" : 3
"confirmations" : 4
"confirmations" : 5
[...]
"confirmations" : 497
"confirmations" : 498
"confirmations" : 499
"confirmations" : 500
"confirmations" : 503
"confirmations" : 504
"confirmations" : 505
"confirmations" : 506
"confirmations" : 508
"confirmations" : 510
"confirmations" : 511 ie. only one mature unspent 0 output, waiting for the next time we stake to get spent in the staking transaction. Here's an example of it spending a zero-valued output as it creates a new one:  The creation of new zero-valued outputs only happens when moving coins from one address to another while staking - so only once per output. |
|
|
|
I found one: Pattern: xJDCLAMZ Address: xJDCLAMZkcp7fQ3ieHfZA4SLu3aTy2Y1mr PrivkeyPart: LiqWRFz5L1CM6vYma7TyZDtdZaJ3NULaJZXtnp45UXix5epTVPkR One bounty of 50 CLAMs remaining... Edit: but it turns out I no longer have the private key for the public key I posted! So we're going to have to start over. Edit2: oh, I found it again. Phew. And I found a 2nd vanity too: Pattern: xJDCLAMZ Address: xJDCLAMZSGaTadAzcS7tcVNTa46qCr6j2s PrivkeyPart: Lnxm6XTD45N6eEnmow9eKDmotchWUBtQsrWPFeg8DwAA5SXEPj4L So thanks for playing, but we're done here. > validateaddress xJDCLAMZkcp7fQ3ieHfZA4SLu3aTy2Y1mr
{
"isvalid" : true,
"address" : "xJDCLAMZkcp7fQ3ieHfZA4SLu3aTy2Y1mr",
"ismine" : true,
"isscript" : false,
"pubkey" : "037bedfabb451755cf6061636c8004dba32cb95095ba8cba61de236a70f95e3d2a",
"iscompressed" : true,
"account" : ""
}
> validateaddress xJDCLAMZSGaTadAzcS7tcVNTa46qCr6j2s
{
"isvalid" : true,
"address" : "xJDCLAMZSGaTadAzcS7tcVNTa46qCr6j2s",
"ismine" : true,
"isscript" : false,
"pubkey" : "02c8c838d0fbd7167a8fc2e153eb6717c6f7a9886d38415aa6e8dd805087fbd7e9",
"iscompressed" : true,
"account" : ""
} |
|
|
|
oclvanitygen has no working -P switch...
What makes you say that? Are you using the vanitygen repo I linked to? I just tried it and it works for me. also check --help
Thanks. I just added documentation for the -P flag to the --help text. ./oclvanitygen -CkP 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLAMZ
Invalid character '0' in prefix '048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB'
Difficulty: 888446610538
[32.19 Mkey/s][total 209715200][Prob 0.0%][50% in 5.3h]
Yeah, that looks like you're running the wrong version. The standard vanitygen program isn't able to make CLAM addresses. I made a fork here: https://github.com/dooglus/vanitygenwhich does. [...] Once you've built my fork of vanitygen, run it like this: ./vanitygen -CkP 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLAMZ I decided to check whether oclvanitygen really works with the -P flag, because nobody has yet posted a private key that works for me, so I rented a machine with a video card: $ ./oclvanitygen -CkP 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLA
Difficulty: 264104224
Pattern: xJDCLA
Address: xJDCLAE7QkEFsQe9jENL8KgNL8txiLRAdN
PrivkeyPart: LgeVmeaXv5gMETfs6q8CYJEB9W6UhooAnwXUb9c3nf5uor5u6QpX
[25.14 Mkey/s][total 260046848][Prob 22.4%][50% in 4.6s][Found 1]
When I combine LgeVmeaXv5gMETfs6q8CYJEB9W6UhooAnwXUb9c3nf5uor5u6QpX with my private key, I get a private key which gives me an XJDCLA address. So it is working. I'm searching keys at 26 Mkey/s, 50% in 6 hours. So you guys have some competition.  |
|
|
|
Ah - that Privkey you gave me is the actual privkey for an xJDC address. Did you specify the -P flag and the pubkey? It looks like either you didn't, or oclvanitygen is ignoring it.
yes, -P dosnt work for OCL  it was ignored. It isn't ignored for me. If I copy it wrong it complains, and if I get it right it accepts it and goes on to find that I don't have a suitable video card: $ ./oclvanitygen -CkP xx8F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLAMZ
Invalid base pubkey
$ ./oclvanitygen -CkP 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLAMZ
Difficulty: 888446610538
clGetPlatformIDs(0): Unknown code -1001
clGetPlatformIDs(0): Unknown code -1001
Available OpenCL platforms:
$
|
|
|
|
using OCL, is this correct? Pattern: xJDC
Address: xJDCQtZP9MTyDVhUwHeNX7HYhXqhDuZMN1
Privkey: LmGxCNahLoFuYHsFXoYbG8T3ggjK9dBud5V7JxW8fMs1WPYYMBPQ No. That gives me these two CLAM addresses (one's compressed, one isn't): xBhBpydGF9xduGRSBt3uSWENqaeKiZRzvX xMiZ42BzUjeRgpa45Q4tWkzdeMsHhyP2U5 Neither starts xJDC. Maybe my patch to oclvanitygen.c was bad. Ah - that Privkey you gave me is the actual privkey for an xJDC address. Did you specify the -P flag and the pubkey? It looks like either you didn't, or oclvanitygen is ignoring it. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I do not understand exactly how CLAM works, but when someone is generating an address for you, wont he have access on the private key as well and thereby the ability to spend your fund on that address in future ?
It's more about how vanitygen works. If you give it a -P pubkey argument, the private key won't be useful for anyone who doesn't have the corresponding private key. And I only posted the pubkey. |
|
|
|
using OCL, is this correct? Pattern: xJDC
Address: xJDCQtZP9MTyDVhUwHeNX7HYhXqhDuZMN1
Privkey: LmGxCNahLoFuYHsFXoYbG8T3ggjK9dBud5V7JxW8fMs1WPYYMBPQ No. That gives me these two CLAM addresses (one's compressed, one isn't): xBhBpydGF9xduGRSBt3uSWENqaeKiZRzvX xMiZ42BzUjeRgpa45Q4tWkzdeMsHhyP2U5 Neither starts xJDC. Maybe my patch to oclvanitygen.c was bad. |
|
|
|
Bounty offer: I need two new CLAM vanity addresses. One for the hot wallet, and one for the staking wallet. I want them both to start with xJDCLAMZ, case sensitive. I want them both to use *compressed* public keys. The standard vanitygen program isn't able to make CLAM addresses. I made a fork here: https://github.com/dooglus/vanitygenwhich does. My public key for vanitygen is: 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB Once you've built my fork of vanitygen, run it like this: ./vanitygen -CkP 048F08DCB868F3C22397BF5BAE1F19DE55F4D936AF66DC144E098F69A488FE3266A14FDCDAFBD1897F034AA54CAE13D2AB9A9D96B487A263594F408100D6DCC0FB xJDCLAMZ -C to generate CLAM addresses -k to keep going after finding the first one -P to specify my public key I don't have a graphics card. You might find that oclvanitygen works better, but I've never even been able to check if it works at all. I made some changes to have it accept -C but don't know whether I did it right. If you want to check, generate an xJD address, post the privkey here and I'll tell you if it works for me. I'll pay 50 CLAM to the finder(s) of each of the first two working private keys posted here. Only unedited posts will count, so I can check the post timestamps.
|
|
|
|
I guess that means that difficulty will get harder in the fuature as more clams are created. You said nowadays there are 600K trying to stake. With 1.4K created each day, then, unless many clams are lost, I guess staking will be twice as hard in approx 2 years when there are 1200K trying to stake.
Yes - you can see how the difficulty has gone up over time here: http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/charts.php?type=posdifficultyThe drop just before block 400k was a JD user withdrawing 5 CLAMs over and over again into their local wallet as an easy way of splitting their coins up. The wallet spent all its time trying to decide which outputs to use so it was too busy to stake. After that I put a limit on the number of withdrawals you can make, and moved most of the coins to the staking wallet. The drop just a few days ago was due to me typing "clamd stop" in the wrong window, thinking I was shutting down my local CLAM client, but actually shutting down the JD staking wallet. |
|
|
|
This is the least clear part. You bake a 10% fee into the multipliers? Doesn't that mean there's a 10% house edge? Maybe a worked example would be useful here. I read somewhere that the house makes some bets of its own too. How does that work? Is the 10% taken only on the first few bets, to cover the house bets? Or on all bets? Basically the description seems incomplete. We need details! We put initial bets on each side, with fixed 2X multiplier, thus when one of the sides win, we get our initial bets back. Since many of you misunderstand the difference between the concept of house edge and wager commission, I’ll take this opportunity and try to explain this in more detail. This game house edge is zero but each wager is taxed with commission. The commission we take cannot be simply translated into the corresponding house edge similar to the one we’ve got in dice gambling. In the game of dice, the odds of the outcome are slightly biased towards the house and terms of payoffs are linear to the probability of outcome. In slopes, however, the odds of the outcome are strictly 50/50 (i.e. there is no house edge bias involved when the slopes are generated) and terms of payoffs are flexible. Yet, we have to charge commission to facilitate variable payouts at expense of the losing counterparty … So these are two different things. I still don't understand. Maybe you could walk us through an example, showing the first 2 house bets, and 3 player bets (up, down, up). For each of the 5 bets show the stake, the payout multiplier, how it is calculated, any "commission" that is charged, and why. For example: bet 1: house bet 1 BTC on "up" at 2x. bet 2: house bet 1 BTC on "down" at 2x. this bet effectively 'cancels' bet 1. house risk is exactly zero. bet 3: player A bets 2 BTC on "up" - this is where I get stuck. nobody bet on "down" that didn't have their bet matched already. so how can you offer any payout at all? even if the payout is only 1.1x, the house is still risking 0.2 BTC if the bet wins |
|
|
|
Jackpot due to go!!
What is this nonsense? You think it's "due"? Did the players make good progress towards it or something? It's kind of understandable when gamblers think they are "due" for a win because they have lost a lot of times, but you don't often see people who own sites falling victim of such fallacies. |
|
|
|
63900 BTC is a very big jackpot. Do they really have that much? Did they sign an address that holds enough coins? Found this as references (below), it seems someone asked this as well when their jackpot was 30,000 BTCBolded few points , it seems they are not holding the jackpot in form of BTC and the jackpot is a cumulative from all the games there so they might think that there is a tiny chance for players to hit all the jackpots altogether It means that total jackpot amount from all games is over 30,000 BTC already - in real money, but spread around different games. -snip-
And yes, you will receive this money if you hit the jackpot! That's why we claim that BitCasino.io has the biggest total jackpot amount in bitcoin industry.
Oh, I see. They have a lot of games, each with a small jackpot, and added them all up to get the total. So if we did the same at Just-Dice, where you can win up to 1050 BTC at 1%, up to 1050 BTC at 2%, etc., then you get an even bigger number. We have 989,900 such different games and that makes a total jackpot of 1 billion BTC! Does it seem a bit silly to count it that way? And are the games provably fair? I'm not finding any details about how to verify the fairness.
NO, they are using game providers such as NETENT , MICROGAMING and the others so there is no way to "verify" by your own OK. I'm surprised people still play at such places after provable fairness was invented. |
|
|
|
And how can I know what is the probability of geting one clam based on how much CLAMs I have, by time period?
PS: sorry for the bad english
One CLAM is created every minute, so 1440 per day. There are about 600k CLAMs trying to stake. 600k/1440 = 416.666 So each 416 CLAMs can expect to stake about once per day. If you have 41 CLAMs, you can expect them to stake about every 10 days. And so on. |
|
|
|
If scrypt is a scam or not, they are still paying. They can not take my money but they can a part of my profit if they like to, I cashed in already
You are incorrect, you sent BTC directly into Scamello's wallet so he own your money. You don't have any BTC, you have numbers on a screen and can only get his BTC if Scamello decides to send you some when you put in a withdrawal request, or just disappears with it. The point he is making is that he already took more beer from the tank than he put in, so he can't personally make a net loss. He doesn't care that the profit he has made is at the expense of his peers. Because hey, free beer man! |
|
|
|
|
Is this site legit?
63900 BTC is a very big jackpot. Do they really have that much? Did they sign an address that holds enough coins?
And are the games provably fair? I'm not finding any details about how to verify the fairness.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
