How about letting me have the black look but without the moving stars? The black look makes my laptop run hot, and I'm guessing it's the animation that causes it.

Do you mean the site profit, and 100k?

It got up over 99k at one point, but then "upup" made a single all-in 49.5% bet:

bet #333517385: 2850 CLAM @ 49.5% lo: lucky:30.4222 profit:2850 balance:5700

No, I don't have any.

I was just reading about netcoin and saw the "PIR" feature, where your staking reward percentage increases the more of the coin you're staking.

Doesn't that encourage massive centralisation of the staking? Any two users A and B will do better pooling their coins into a single wallet than by staking separately. This seems like exactly the wrong incentive unless you're looking for a totally decentralised coin.

It just happened a day or two ago I think.


I talked to their wallet manager about it. He told me they have no plans to stake any of the coins they hold. It's safer to keep them offline I guess.

If they would stake their CLAM wallet and share the rewards with their users I expect we would see a lot more depth on the "sell" side of the orderbook.

If you only start after 15 losses, you will be starting 32k times less often than if you start right after your last loss. You will win 32k times slower than if you didn't wait to play. And when you do start to play your likelihood of seeing a streak of length 35 will be 32k higher than if you didn't wait to play (since you already saw 15 in a row, which in itself is a 1-in-32k event).

Lots of people play exactly like that, waiting for N losses in a row before martingaling. It's exactly as -EV as not waiting. You can expect to lose 1% of everything you wager.

I'll keep it short...


To be fair, NLNico was the one who initially reported on the problem of the site's probably insolvency. I'm just one of the ones he attracted.


Insolvency causes you to be unable to pay your debts. Whether those debts are to your investors or to your players isn't important. Someone you owe money to is getting screwed.


What's your point? If I had been asked to prove that I had control of the 53 BTC, I would have done so. I wouldn't have made a series of weak excuses and ended up saying "the deal's off so now I don't need to prove anything". That would have made it look like perhaps I didn't have control of the 53 BTC after all.


I don't know what coinroller is.


These are the amounts wagered per day for the last 7 days before I stopped accepting BTC bets:


That's 18792 BTC wagered in the last week. DaDice has had what, 5000 BTC wagered in total? I shut down because I was uncomfortable holding such a huge amount of investor money.


Before JD shut down it was the biggest by far. After we shut down, the volume went to PD. JD switched to CLAM to deliberately lower the volume, and it still gets more volume than DaDice can achieve, even with its blanket advertising.


True. They also have every right to try to claim I am jealous of their "success". And I have every right to point out how ridiculous their claim is.


I read your posts. They just don't make much sense.


Nothing. If you stop making dumb claims about me and/or JD I will stop addressing them. Deal?

<script>
alert("this post has been hacked!");
</script>

Thanks. I'll remove them from the FAQ and the auto-linking, and replace with a link to coinmarketcap's list of active markets.

I've also made "CLAM markets" link to the coinmarketcap page in the chat.

You don't have to split it into blocks, but it will stake better if you do. Each time a block stakes, it takes 8 hours (510 blocks) to mature. During those 8 hours it isn't trying to stake. If your 150 CLAMs was in a single block, that's 8 hours wasted.

Suppose you split your 150 CLAMs into ten blocks of 15 CLAMs each. Each block would take 10 times longer on average to stake, but there's 10 of them trying, so it about evens out. And when one of them does stake, one those 15 CLAMs (actually 16 now) will be idle for 8 hours. The other 135 CLAMs will continue trying to stake.

By default the client will automatically split any block into two roughly equal halves any time it stakes twice in 24 hours. That's the default splitting behaviour, but it seems too conservative. Your 150 CLAMs is unlikely to stake twice in any 24 hour period, and so maybe wouldn't be automatically split.

As a rule of thumb, we expect a block of 500 CLAMs to stake about once per day at the moment, earning 1 CLAM when it does so. That's an expected return of about 0.2% per day.

Here's a good example of how it works in practice (click 'show more transactions' at the bottom 4 or 5 times to get to the end). The richest non-JD CLAM address was funded with 4 large deposits (lines 1, 2, 3, and 10 counting from the bottom of the image below), and left to stake and split with the default settings. Read from the bottom up, and you can see how the 5000 CLAM deposit split into two 2499.5 blocks, then the 3000 deposit split into two 1500.5 blocks, etc. Each split makes the staking more efficient, since the 8 hour delay from staking freezes less CLAMs each time it happens.



Note that you can edit clam.conf in the same folder as your CLAM wallet.dat and set these two variables to control splitting and recombining:


Those tell the client to split each block it stakes into multiple blocks of size 10, and to combine any blocks smaller than 5.

I don't really understand - the interest *is* the inflation isn't it?

I saw someone offering a CLAM loan on the poloniex loans market for 0.005% per day recently. It was only for a tiny amount, but still. that's a quarter as much as he would get simply by staking for himself.


http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/clams/#markets can answer that (ie. it isn't just the biggest, it is pretty much the only...):

That's what I thought when I read the OP. If you're completely greedy and completely rational, you don't play -EV games. You do whatever maximises your expectation, and for most gambling games that means not playing them. Obviously there are a few exceptions, like countable blackjack, games with large progressive pots, games involving skill (poker, etc.) but for the vast majority of gambling games the smartest strategy for the greedy player is to walk away from them.


Or in other words "variance is a bitch".

When Just-Dice first launched, I knew we had a 1% house edge, and was careful never to let the house risk more than 1% of its bankroll on any single bet, but still the bankroll took a hammering. After over a billion bets the site's profit was less than half of the expected 1%, and it was hard at tims to have the "toughness and discipling" to be confident in the long term outcome.

I can't imagine how much worse it would feel to be playing poker. Then you have so much more scope for self doubt to creep in. With the dice site I knew the odds were in the house's favour. Playing poker when you hit a losing streak it must be easy to start thinking "maybe I'm not as good as I thought I was; maybe I was just lucky before when I was winning" and such like.

I'm not sure I would admit to having lost funds if I was silly enough to make a significant deposit after seeing so many warnings on this thread. It would be a little embarrassing for sure.

So we had 3 big losses recently:

swim: https://i.imgur.com/ktsKIJl.png

x: https://i.imgur.com/GJCd27g.png

and now alice: https://i.imgur.com/ByiyeQW.png



Here's how they fit on the site's recent profit chart:

I know it doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't work, but it does make your game last longer, just because waiting for 10 losses in a row takes ~30 times longer than only waiting for 5 losses in a row, and so you make around 30 times fewer significant bets, and last around 30 times longer... You also make profit 30 times slower, but that's the trade-off.

I read in the chat tab that he programmed a bot to make tiny bets, looking for a streak of 1200 losses in a row at 1%, and only after that should it increase the stake to 50 CLAMs, but he accidentally typoed the 1200, missing out the '1' and so the bot started making big bets far earlier than expected.

Not only that, but also this. It was a busy evening at JD:

How did you make the backup?

You shouldn't copy wallet.dat while the wallet is running.

You should either:

1) shut down the wallet, make sure it has fully stopped, then copy the wallet.dat
2) pick 'backup wallet' from the file menu (or wherever it has moved to now) inside the Qt wallet
3) use "clamd backupwallet" to make a backup

I'm guessing that you may have just copied the wallet.dat file while it was in use. That is liable to give you a corrupted wallet.dat file.

Note also that it's not really OK to run the same wallet.dat on two different computers. It's OK if all you are doing is checking to see if the pen drive backup is working, but if you want to run two wallets, you should use two completely separate wallets. Otherwise you'll run into problems once the first 100 addresses in the keypool have been used up, since the two copies will generate different addresses after those first 100. You'll start seeing different balances on the two machines because they have different ideas of which "change" addresses they each own.

I'll reply in a single post so as not to spam this thread too much more. I'll try to make this my last post as I think everything has already been said...


I think you misunderstand.

If you prove that your site is solvent, it means you have proved that you are able to honour withdrawals if you choose to. It doesn't prove that you will, but it proves you are able to.

If on the other hand you are unable to prove that your site is solvent, it means that you are unable to honour withdrawals. That is a bad state to be in.

Do you understand my point now?  The fact that they refuse to demonstrate that they are bankrolled to offer the size of bets that they offer when it is trivially easy to do so is a red flag. It likely means that they aren't bankrolled to offer the bets, and are risking becoming insolvent, or indeed may already be insolvent.


The negative trust is to flag the suspicious behaviour so that others can have all the facts before making their own decision. I'm not making any prediction or any judgement. I am saying that refusing to demonstrate solvency when it is easy to do is suspicious. What is so hard to understand about that?


Now you're definitely full of shit. How are you more transparent than all the other dice sites?


There are some very stupid people in this thread. I didn't say that I don't think they are going to scam. I said we can't tell, but that their behaviour is suspicious and should be flagged.


He already answered that, just before you asked it:


When I "invested" in moneypot, it was a gentleman's agreement. I told him "OK, I'm in - consider me invested for X coins". The site won, and so he sent me the profit on the "investment". I never sent him the investment and he never sent it back. I didn't even prove to him that I had that many coins. Since no coins (other than the profit) changed hands, how is showing you a cold wallet address going to prove anything?


As far as I can see you have very little volume on your site. You have a bunch of people betting faucet dust and little more. Just-Dice gets more volume than DaDice and that's after I switched from BTC to CLAM to scale everything down. I don't want huge volume and never advertise whereas you plaster your ads everywhere and still get less volume that JD. What is there to be envious of?

I'm not trolling. They seem to think that "we have honoured all withdrawals so far" somehow proves that they aren't insolvent. It doesn't, as can be seen by the fact that it is used by Ponzi schemes, who are by definition insolvent.