If I write "/offsite 2x" on chat, will the invested offsite amount automatically be adjusted so it's always the same as invested onsite? I have just tried it, but the invested offsite doesn't seem to change. I'd like to just bet 1% kelly, but having to manually adjust the invested offsite amount is really annoying. I'd have to do that even more often if you change to a default 0.1% of the bankroll.
No, /offsite 2x sets your offsite amount to be equal to your onsite amount at that time. It will immediately begin to drift from there. I never found an efficient way of having your investment stay at 2x as it grows and shrinks, although I can see that that would be useful. It seems there are two independent but related factors: 1) different people want to use different "Kelly" factors 2) different people want to keep different amounts of their wealth "offsite". There's currently no way of expressing (1) at JD. You can only approximate it by setting (2) regularly, which I can see would be annoying. It's more of Doog's way of staying "accountable," so to speak. While he is trusted not to do anything, there's nothing *stopping* him from doing it (or someone else, if they somehow got ahold of the site and its wallets). He's trying to keep it from being a centralized system (51% would effectively be centralization, in a currency that's meant NOT to be centralized).
I'm obviously conflicted. The more CLAMs staking at JD, the bigger my 10% cut of that staking is, and so ideally we'd have all the CLAMs. But on the flip side, it simply isn't healthy for a coin to be so concentrated in a single location. Even if the site has perfect security and I am the perfect custodian for CLAMs, it still looks bad for a single wallet to contain more than 50% of the active CLAMs. I guess if you see CLAM as "JD's casino chip" then it doesn't matter, but that's kind of rude. CLAM existed before JD, and is still cared about by its creators. I expect they have the same kind of conflict: they like seeing the increased demand for their coin that JD brings, but at the same time don't like seeing it monopolised by JD. Im not sure why it shouldnt be viable. I mean the just-dice server has constantly to calculate things for the investors. Another var in the calculation doesnt matter really.
If we have 100 bets per second and 1000 investors, currently the site has to do ~100 calculations per second. Each investor's share of the bankroll is fixed, and so I only need to keep track of the total bankroll. If each investor has their own different Kelly factor, then their share of the bankroll changes after every roll, by a factor which depends on their Kelly factor and their share of the bankroll. That means doing 100k calculations per second. It's a huge difference. I wonder how other sites do it. What time will this happen? Will u set a date or when JD reach a new all time high?
Nothing is decided at all. I wanted to get feedback from people. Two thoughts I hadn't had: * Investors just lost a bunch; it would be unfair to drop the maximum profit now - but if we wait for profits to go back up, couldn't gamblers make the same argument? The fact is that almost nobody is playing for the maximum profit anyway, so the point is mostly moot. * There's no way of setting your "Kelly factor". You can only approximate it using /offsite, and have to regularly adjust it to keep near the Kelly factor you want. Dropping the maximum profit to 0.1% from 0.5% only makes that situation worse. At first glance my idea seemed like a good one, but now I'm much less happy with it. I think I would rather just reduce the maximum offsite multiplier to 20x than mess with the 0.5% figure the way I'm currently thinking. |
|
|
|
Edited out for now, will edit in with the full details later. It would be preferable for people to be presented the full story rather than vague details here and there.
I just stumbled upon this post, claiming to be from Stunna: Breaking the house How Primedice was exploited for $1M in Bitcoin This is the story of how we lost around $1 million worth of bitcoin to a hacker who exploited our online casino’s RNG system. This happened last year, but we’ve decided to share our experience for transparency and so that others can learn from our mistakes. August 2014 Shortly after the launch of the third version of Primedice, our team faced an adversary that challenged the existence of our website. Our team had nearly two years of experience building bitcoin gaming sites, however I personally had pretty limited coding experience. We were under heavy pressure to avoid further delays and released after a short week of closed beta testing. The heist began immediately after launch with two unusual players, Nappa & Kane. We noticed unusual betting patterns from both those accounts. Kane was automatically cashed out, we reviewed Nappa’s bets and thought they were highly unusual but could find no wrong-doing and cashed him out after a delay and a brief email exchange September 2014 After getting spooked by his delayed cashout on Nappa, the exploiter waited a few weeks and created a new account named “Hufflepuff”. Hufflepuff was the largest bettor Primedice had ever seen, he was often seen betting upwards of $8000 worth of bitcoin every second for hours on end. Our entire team was shocked that Hufflepuff continued to beat the house edge (1%) and stack up more and more profit over time. We were highly skeptical of his winnings and were forced to hold his cashouts time and time again to investigate and each time our developers could not find any wrong-doing. We couldn’t justify greatly delaying his withdrawals when there was no evidence he was cheating. There was also strong incentive for us to promptly pay him, so he’d keep playing. We heavily explored what we thought was every possibility, ran simulations and did the math and came to the conclusion that he was just incredibly lucky. The Discovery About two days after sending his final withdrawal placing him above 2037 profit on the Hufflepuff account alone, our main developer detected the exploit after we found a handful of accounts sharing the same server seed. To understand how Hufflepuff beat our system, one must understand how our provably fair system (RNG) works. A user is shown an encrypted random value (the server seed) before they bet and they must also submit their own random value (the client seed). These two random values are combined and used to determine win or lose. The random encrypted random value used for the bet then is shown to the user after the bet so that they can be guaranteed that their bet is not rigged. You can find the detailed and in-depth explanations of provably fair here: https://primedice.com/verify and http://dicesites.com/provably-fairPart of the functionality of our site is that we have to give out decrypted server seeds (to assure users no bet manipulation has occurred) and put a new random seed in place, essentially trashing the old revealed seed. Hufflepuff found a way to “confuse” our server, and made it give out a decrypted server seed that was also an active seed. This was done by sending it more requests than it could handle in a small time period, think hundreds of requests in under a second. The result of this is that he knew all the information required to corroborate the outcomes of his bets. He knew whether if he would win or lose, and could wager accordingly. We figured this out after frantically checking our servers after a eureka moment. We suspected something could have been going on and eventually realized the possibility of a timing attack described above. Our database had seeds that were both inactive and in use at the same time all connected to Hufflepuff. Along these “Schrödinger” seeds existed many seemingly unused seeds connected to the same accounts, indicative of the rapid fire of requests needed to obtain these. Déjà vu Unfortunately we detected this exploit after cashing out Hufflepuff and his handful of accounts 2400+ coins (roughly $1M at the time). Given the nature of Bitcoin there wasn’t much we could do but take it on the chin. We reached out to Hufflepuff via his bitcointalk forum account and demanded the return of the coins, however this backfired unbelievably hard. It turned out that our developer had improperly patched the glitch. In response to our message, Hufflepuff created a new account named Robbinhood and proceeded to rapidly win 2000+ additional bitcoins using a work-around to the patch. He was unable to cashout more than 50 or 60 coins this time around as our site hot-wallet was drained. Shortly after he privately sent us this message which was preceded with the dox of a primedice employee: “Your offer is declined. Your demands are laughable. I’m happy to walk away and leave you be, but if you’re going to take this further, then so will I. I don’t think you want this to go further. I actually enjoy this shit. Your move. Oh, and by the way, there are some pending withdrawals that you need to process.” And that was the day the house didn’t win… Evidence for transparency and investigative purposes Hufflepuff’s deposit address: https://blockchain.info/address/1BiPXmDrHm7VXZnWy6NnW1ZbPc4dcpfkH5His primary withdrawal address: https://blockchain.info/address/14iS2UvcLK33xkC1K1qL1dhEbp49aiNfNpEmail: hufflepuff@anonymousspeech.comRobbinHood withdrawals: https://blockchain.info/address/14HQ67ZhmATviHi9RdYhbUriAGSFmJpYoB— Note — : Nappa/Kane were two other usernames used early on, amongst many others. Kane’s Withdrawal address: https://blockchain.info/address/18dMBap634aESPTeD3FGcAgJ2S9n4qtBTZNappa Deposit address: https://blockchain.info/address/16h9ggSzUWdvagEJdNvWVYiUkytw6SJgiBNappa email: kritonian@outlook.comSome IP’s used between accounts: 184.75.221.106, 184.75.223.34 , 151.224.50.156 , 76.179.22.16 Any information that leads to the return of the coins from this incident will be greatly rewarded. We invite you to analyze the above bitcoin addresses and find out where the bulk of the coins ended up if you have the skills. It’s also important to note that this incident is proof of the strength of our integrity and provably fair system. If at any point we attempted to rig Hufflepuff’s bets (skip nonces etc) we would have instantly realized he was cheating and we would have 2400+ more bitcoins. Hufflepuff only took a brief break from playing after we halved our max bet, I believe he would have cleaned us had we never discovered what was going on. We fund our own bankroll so no users were negatively impacted as a result of this. Sorry for the long read, Stunna & Primedice Contact: Stunna@primedice.com |
|
|
|
so, let's just say scrypt.cc is a ponzi (which I am dubious about at best)....
Why would these obviously quite clever "scammers" make up such a bullshit stupid lie claiming they had 850ghash of scrypt asics when it is pretty obvious that to have 850ghash of scrypt asics is quite unlikey given the overall network hashrate of scrypt coins?
Why on earth would they say that? WOuldnt they just say they had 250ghash or similar?
You see, that doesnt make sense to me. I dont believe the site is a ponzi, yet 850gash seems excessive. So, maybe they are not telling us everything, maybe they are keeping their cards close to their chest?
Personally, I dont give a shit. You ponzi fuktards can play with each others ass all day long making yourselves feel better by thinking you've done the world some sort of justice.
I dont think they're a ponzi, I am happy with their service and I will continue to hold funds in their site while it's earning me a nice roi.
Are you posting from multiple accounts? The anger in the 5th paragraph seems so similar to that of many other victims here. Why are you so mad when people point out facts to you? If I was invested in a scam and someone pointed it out to me while there was maybe still a chance of getting some of my coins out I'm sure I would be grateful, and probably wouldn't call them "fuktard" or accuse them of engaging in ass play. |
|
|
|
Still when bitcoin goes to 0 it will collapse as any ponzi does. A great quote "If Nakamoto is as amoral as he is ingenious, then he pocketed the early bitcoins and laughed himself to the bank." KH at SCC is a commodity that users on SCC are buying and selling just not as grand as bitcoin and will shut down faster if everyone has no trust in it.
The price of bitcoin was very very close to zero for over a year, and it didn't collapse at all. More than a year after starting, 10,000 BTC was worth the price of two large pizzas: I'll pay 10,000 bitcoins for a couple of pizzas.. like maybe 2 large ones so I have some left over for the next day.
Since then the price of bitcoin was bid upwards and sold back downwards many times. That doesn't make it a Ponzi. scrypt.cc on the other hand pays returns to its investors. It claims to do so by mining shitcoins, but as has been shown that isn't realistic. There just isn't enough hash power mining shitcoins to account for the 850 GH/s that scrypt.cc claims to be mining with, and so they are likely paying returns using deposits from new investors. That is what makes a Ponzi a Ponzi. There's nothing amoral about Satoshi mining bitcoin early. He invented something which people find useful, and profited in doing so. |
|
|
|
Im not sure if i understand your thinking about that because i believe you wanted to make sure that clams are more safe. So in order to do that you would need to make sure that clams exist outside of jd. Taking every other asset into account goes too far i think. Because these assets doesnt have any advantage for the protection of clams. The overall existing clams are still mainly invested at jd. Only if there are clams that really kept outside of jd would make a difference in protecting clams as a currency.
You have a certain amount of wealth that you are willing to risk investing in dice sites. Suppose you decide that Just-Dice is the best place to invest, and you agree that risking up to 0.5% of your wealth per roll fits your risk profile. If Just-Dice doesn't offer 'offsite investing', then you will need to convert all of that value to CLAMs, deposit it all into Just-Dice and invest it all. That's risky. Just-Dice might shut down, might get robbed, the price of CLAMs might crash, etc. But Just-Dice does offer 'offsite investing'. So you can convert just 1% of that value into CLAM, invest it in JD, and type "/offsite 100x". Now you are only exposed to 1% of the currency risk, and only risk losing 1% of your wealth if JD is robbed while still having the same exposure to the bankroll. I don't need to check whether you also converted the remaining 99% of your value to CLAM - in fact you probably didn't. The other 99% is offsite, and it makes no difference to me in what form you hold it (or even whether you really hold it at all). |
|
|
|
They mean you can call by voip and the messages are sent over the phones internet.
I get it. But it doesn't make any sense to require that I have a carrier set up. I use wi-fi only on my tablet and can Skype using it just fine. |
|
|
|
To the ones that know scc is not a ponzi all the ponzi talk is off topic. C. If it is a ponzi its just as ponzi as bitcoin is if all goes to 0 "collapse".
Bitcoin can't be a Ponzi scheme, pretty much by the definition of what a Ponzi scheme is. It doesn't pay returns, for a start. It's a simple commodity that you can buy and sell, with a price that floats on the market according to the laws of supply and demand. There's nobody in control, it runs in a distributed manner according to consensus. It can't just shut down overnight. scrypt.cc on the other hand does pay returns, does have somebody in control and could just shut down overnight taking everyone's money with it. Does that help to explain the difference, and why people are saying your idea was dumb? |
|
|
|
when hackers attacked...
Why admin warn to NOT to deposit btc?? Why he just not run off, take all the money, including incoming deposits?
Presumably because the hack was real. Just because you're running a Ponzi doesn't mean you're immune from having crappy site security. If the hackers had access to the hot wallet addresses, they would be able to steal new deposits before scrpyt.cc could move them somewhere safe. Why site works four days before 30th, and why admin care about security of people /all emails locked, his statements about what to do, "setting" window disables so hackers cant change anything, etc../ ? Why there is and will be progress of the site?
Whether it's a scam or a real mining operation, it makes more money when it's online than when it isn't, and it makes more money when the customers are happy than when they aren't. Why not make the best site you can in either case? If it's a scam, presumably security is still important. The site operator would want to make sure no hackers are able to withdraw user balances, because every extra withdrawal made is less profit for the site. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't making investors prove they have offsite clams achieve the goals that you originally intended? Have investors sign address with specific code and monitor that address (or just check from time-to-time) to verify investor has said offsite clams.
Dont give dooglus strange ideas. I want to keep my 100x offsite.  Though i think dooglus might have not included this because it either would mean manual work or coding work to proove this. The reason I don't ask you to prove that you have the offsite CLAMs is because I don't expect you to keep your whole bankroll in CLAMs. You could have it split between 100 different asset classes, and invest them all at 100x offsite. You could invest all your CLAMs at 100x safely because you have 100 times more value in other coins (or houses, fancy cars, etc.) than you have in CLAMs. You have no offsite CLAMs, but you do have offsite wealth that could easily become CLAMs on demand... |
|
|
|
Just-Dice relaunched in December of last year and very quickly attracted almost all the CLAMs into its bankroll. After a month of operation Just-Dice had around 70% of all the CLAMs that have ever moved in its wallet. It is clearly bad for a coin that is meant to be decentralised to have a single entity (no matter how trustworthy) being in control of more than 50% of the staking weight. It makes 51% attacks easy to carry out. And even if the controlling entity is trustworthy, the way that proof of stake works means that the wallet with the >51% of staking weight tends to orphan a disproportionate number of the blocks staked by the rest of the network, encouraging the rest of the network to switch to the >51% side. On January 19th I added the "offsite investing" feature, in an attempt to get the big investors to move the majority of their coins off of Just-Dice into their own local wallet. While the feature worked perfectly from a technical point of view, it was a spectacular failure in terms of achieving its goal: 12:43:35 INFO: 321,277 CLAM were dug up and 427,208 CLAM were staked for a total of 748,484 CLAM
12:43:35 INFO: Just-Dice's onsite bankroll of 557,707 CLAM represents 74.51% of that amount
12:43:35 INFO: if all the distributed CLAMs were dug up, the total money supply would be 15,201,609 CLAM
12:43:35 INFO: the total bankroll of 27,095,023 CLAM is made up of 557,707 CLAM onsite and 26,537,316 CLAM offsite
12:43:35 INFO: the average multiplier (total / onsite) is 48.58x In the 5 months that offsite investing have been available JD's share of the active CLAMs has risen from 70% to almost 75%. What seems to have happened is that gamblers are using the "/offsite max" command to gamble with their coins with a positive expectation. This dilutes the bankroll, and forces the more conservative investors to also risk more than that would want to in order to maintain a worthwhile share of the site's profits. I've received many complaints from investors saying that 100x is too much and that it should be reduced (complaint 'a'). I've also received requests from people wanting to be able to benefit from JD's staking without the risk of being involved in the bankroll (complaint 'b'). I've come up with an idea that should address both of these issues. Currently JD's maximum profit is 0.5% of the total bankroll (onsite + offsite). That means that investors are risking between 0.5% and 50% of their onsite coins to a player who is making max-profit bets. (0.5% if they have no offsite investment and 50% if they have the maximum offsite investment). Investors basically have a range from "half a Kelly" to "50 Kellys". The complaints are (a) "50 Kellys is too much - it dilutes the sensible investors" and (b) "half a Kelly is too much - I just want to stake". My idea is to reduce the maximum profit to just 0.1% of the total bankroll. Then investors are risking between 0.1% and 10% of their onsite coins per roll. It changes the investor range from "tenth of a Kelly" to "10 Kellys". That should address both complaints. A tenth of a Kelly is incredibly safe, and 10 Kellys while dangerous is much less diluting than the current 50 Kelly maximum. What do you think about that idea? Do you have any better idea? Edit: some feedback from the chat: 13:21:29 (1122749) <PotHead> dooglus, idk, changing numbers will still not do much, but the 0.1xkelly is cool. hmm maybe theres enought sensible investor that averages with the risky investors? (still think kelly does not work here) 13:21:49 (301465) <Vabis> dooglus you scared me. i already thought you want to take away offsite investment.  but your proposal is fine i think. It only lowers the risk of huge wins eating away the house. 13:22:20 (1010) <@v1rtu0so> I am going to write up my response to this tonight I believe. Thanks for the heads up Dooglus! 13:25:10 (301465) <Vabis> max profit would be 28,191 clams then 13:25:14 (301465) <Vabis> way enough i think 13:27:57 (605159) <GamblingBad> dooglus making 10x kelly when people have lost on 50x kelly is that fair? 13:31:19 (1009018) <@TigerTatas> As a gambler.. I'd kind of like to still have the ability to shoot for 100k+ wins |
|
|
|
Scrypt.cc ist a knowed Ponzi or not ? And scrypt.cc make Advertising of badbitcoin.org, i can don´t trust badcoin.org...
scrypt.cc has all the signs of being a Ponzi and refuses to prove that they are actually doing the mining they claim to be. Which it's not possible to prove they're a Ponzi, it would be easy for them to prove that they aren't if they weren't yet they choose not to. badbitcoin is involved with scrypt.cc financially and so their opinion of scrypt.cc is likely biased: Declaration of Interests. We have personal and project investments in Scrypt.cc badbitcoin has a history of investing in scams despite claiming not to do so knowingly: [...] also in Paycoin (XPY) and Hashstakers. We would not invest in anything we considered to be a Ponzi or Scam. So I guess they're not very good at judging. |
|
|
|
What's weird is that is mostly seems to be the victims of the scam who are getting angry - but they're getting angry at the people trying to warning them, rather than the people ripping them off.
Most users here are adults, we don't need warnings. We can make decisions ourselves. We don't need you shoving shit down our throat, you sound like the same kind of people that knock on my door on Sunday mornings trying to force me to follow their religion beliefs. There are no victims here, site's up and running, bro. Unfortunately being "adult" doesn't make you smart. There are lots of stupid adults. You can make better decisions if you are better informed. You should never get mad at people presenting you with information since it only allows you to make better decisions. Nobody is "shoving shit" anywhere. I would never go door to door (it's inefficient) or try to convince people to believe in made up Gods. Presenting fact in a public forum is quite different. You are free to ignore my posts. Your last sentence is very telling. It's like you have never watched a Ponzi scam unfold before. They all run just fine until they stop running just fine. That's how it works. |
|
|
|
Can you try if it works when sharing with WhatsApp?
I don't seem to be able to install WhatsApp. Maybe because my tablet has no phone number? I'm not sure. Edit: that's exactly the reason. An app which aims to give you free calls and text messages requires that you pay for a call and text messaging service? Seems kinda silly: NO ADDITIONAL FEES: WhatsApp uses your phone’s Internet connection (4G/3G/2G/EDGE or Wi-Fi, as available) to message and call friends and family, so you don’t have to pay for every message or call.  |
|
|
|
I'm going to be blunt here. Why the fuck are you doing this?
Instead of improving or maintaining the site you've decided to become the babysitter of those who can't be responsible for themselves? I'd imagine the people wanting/using this feature are the ones who bitch and complain when they want out too wasting more of your time. This is an extremely confusing and disappointing business direction if this is where JustDice is now going.
I did it because I didn't think it would be too much work. But people aren't reasonable. I regularly have people trying to break the terms of the deal they themselves came up with. I'll let the existing deals run their course and not enter into any new ones. |
|
|
|
Mine or not mine scrypt.cc pay money to invetsors
Admit or not admit persons Herr not care if these money come from mine or selling fetus for stemcell at silk road!! (think most unethical think you mind imagine!!!)
not one cares if mine is real only that is pays
This is the core of the problem: "investors" don't care whether there is any mining going on or not so long as they make a profit. They know it's probably a Ponzi but could you please stop talking about it because it might scare the new victims that the old victims need in order to continue to profit. All the "facts" and "proofs" being presented here are very inconvenient to those attempting to profit from this scam which is why they respond with such vitriol. |
|
|
|
I am not sure why you guys spew so much hate here. It is really sad and I hope you can work on that self esteem. I think people who feel good at themselves don't treat other people this way. But its ok, you only make yourself look bad at what you are saying.
What's weird is that is mostly seems to be the victims of the scam who are getting angry - but they're getting angry at the people trying to warning them, rather than the people ripping them off. |
|
|
|
Everytime he repeats sharing he gets the same problem. His version is 2.4.3.
I have 2.4.3 as well, and use sharing regularly. I got to the 'balance' tab, tap 'receive', scroll down, tap 'share bitcoin address', select 'gmail', type my email address, and click the triangle icon in the top right to send the email. It has never sent me the wrong address. Is it possible you're being scammed? Either way, I can't imagine you are liable for anything. You sent coins to the address you were given. |
|
|
|
So logins are back, everything looking good for the 30th.
So, ponzi screaming fukers, what's gonna be your bullshit explanation once rewards start coming in again and withdrawals starter working?
It's all part of the ponzi plan huh?
You seem to be using the same argument as all Ponzi shills use: "it hasn't stopped paying yet so how can it be a scam?" While deposits come in faster than withdrawals go out of course they're going to keep things going. It's hard to say whether this latest downtime was due to crappy security or all part of the scam. Which of the two would make you feel at all secure in your investment? It seems you are stuck having to believe either that they can't be trusted to secure your funds, or that they can't be trusted at all. |
|
|
|
Your broke ass can't afford investments and we all know that with envy comes hate. I have over 50 grand in there right now, I'm not concerned. To say the least. I think you have it backwards. I'm not broke exactly because I don't 'invest' in dubious ventures like this. Whether or not this is a scam, all the signs point to it being a scam. If it isn't, and you manage to profit from it, that is entirely down to good luck rather than you having made a good investment decision. If you really have "over 50 grand" with this scam, that is a shame. I hope you are able to withdraw it before the inevitable messy end but I fear it may already be too late. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My broke ass can't afford to 'invest' in the scrypt scam? OK...
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0)
Address: 1KkPM7qnfAuWYDDcDQfcrVR1kKkkdZT3Xw
H0MCEZJGHIzYL9xcee8WPhRs9aqAdrmeM7VHUYACMgrsdEsv7E+rR0sNOJa3zgHHYUW+QOCJelna5NE9WpG7oSc=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
