Just to inform We have X wallets with bitcoins to send the payouts tomorrow and then again Our investment wallet are mostly just for investments  All will get their money #Support Any update about my non payment in over 2days now? I have asked about your payment too. It seems like they don't want to acknowledge that they scammed you, hoping people will still keep sending them free money. You invested here ? I mean, I can not believe this... Just why ?  No, of course not. Re-read what I wrote. |
|
|
|
Just to inform We have X wallets with bitcoins to send the payouts tomorrow and then again Our investment wallet are mostly just for investments All will get their money #Support Any update about my non payment in over 2days now? I have asked about your payment too. It seems like they don't want to acknowledge that they scammed you, hoping people will still keep sending them free money. |
|
|
|
I'm getting myself more and more confused. Since the odds of staking are based the number of coins. Some where that has to tie in. Are larger outputs more likely to stake then smaller output? I would guess yes? But I could be wrong. If that's the case then making my output's larger should give them more of a chance to stake more regularly.
Size is all that matters, once an output is old enough (510 confirmations since last stake, 4 hours since last transaction). Chance of staking is proportional to size in CLAMs. Making your outputs larger will increase their chance of staking. But you'll presumably have less of them. Two outputs of size 5 each have pretty much the same chance of staking as a single output of size 10. Conversely, if all outputs are equal then more output's equals more of a chance to stake. So I could divide the output's up into smaller unit's assuming I have enough CPU power to hash them all.
Let's look at a contrived example: An output of size 10 when there is 500k trying to stake will have a 1 in 50k chance of staking each minute. That's a probability of 0.00002 If you split that into two outputs of size 5, each one will have a 1 in 100k chance of staking each minute. That's a 0.99999 chance of not staking for each. So the chance that neither will stake in any given minute is 0.99999 squared, ie. 0.9999800001, and so the probability of 1 or more staking is 0.0000199999. You have a very slightly smaller chance of staking by splitting, but you have a very slightly bigger chance of staking twice in the same minute. For all practical purposes your chance hasn't really changed. The big advantage of splitting is that when you do stake, only 5 of your 10 CLAMs get frozen for 8 hours while the block matures, and the other 5 can carry on staking. My staking is all over the board. From 1 per day to 10 and everything in between. This is with 2.1K in my wallet.
I think that's pretty normal. You have 2.1k out of 557320 (current network stake weight according to my client - it's just a guess). You can expect to stake: >>> 2.1e3 * 1440 / 557320 5.425967128400201 per day, with pretty high variance. 1 to 10 sounds right. |
|
|
|
Lets look at some examples from your site. 127 kahnur 0.005 0.007 Expired 00:00:00
126 Shikaku 0.0078876 0.01104264 Paid 00:00:00
125 haha 0.0141876 0.01986264 Expired 00:00:00
124 Schemer 0.1 0.14 Expired 00:00:00
123 FIALKA 0.01 0.014 Expired 00:00:00
122 yazx 0.0026 0.00364 Expired 00:00:00
121 mrfizzy 0.00126 0.001764 Paid 00:00:00
Why was #125 not paid from the bankroll provided by the expired "investments" from #122 #124. If the only indicator to pay out is another "investment" after me, the bankroll can certainly increase to any amount and your statement from above is wrong. I wondered that as well at first. It looks like #124's 0.1 would have meant the bankroll would be big enough to pay #125. That logic is incorrect. #124's 0.1 was used to pay an earlier investor, #116 maybe. In other words #125 hadn't even joined the line of people waiting to be paid when #124 made his bet, but there was already a line. A guy near the front of the line got it. I personally don't consider any kind of Ponzi to be scammy unless they are selling it as guaranteed profit. Most of them promise to return X% profit within Y time because the are great at trading / mining / whatever. If they make it clear that you only get paid if enough people join after you, then that turns it into a game where everyone knows the risks, and I don't see anything wrong with that. This game has a FAQ: 3. So, what is the catch ? A: Every single investment will expire after 120 hour. Hence every player needs to have more players investing after him before the investment expire. The best way to do this is to spread the word about www.CrazyPonzi.com to as many bitcoiners as possible using your referral link shown in the dashboard. I think that's good enough. The English could be improved, and I'd like to see it explicitly state that you either get paid out in full or not at all. At first I was thinking I'd get whatever was in the bankroll when my bet expired, up to the full 140% but apparently that isn't the case. But that's a nit pick. [ Edit: it seems to me that making bets all-or-nothing just encourages people to place a long series of minimum bets instead of a single large bet, because then they can get paid out partially. You should pay out whatever is in the bankroll when a bet expires to simplify things. ] I'd prefer a little more transparency in this game. Maybe show the bankroll after each "paid" status as well as the number of the bet which enabled that older bet to be paid out. Players have to decide whether they trust the operator not to run with their coins, just as they do with any other gambling game (provably fair or not). Probably fairness makes cheating detectable, but can't prevent it happening. tldr: IMHO this isn't a scam (it's just a gambling game with a whopping 10% house edge and in which the operator can potentially cheat by betting against himself). |
|
|
|
Well, we just got "whaled" again...  I'll edit some charts in here when they're ready. aluthra's chartsall-time:  last 24 hours:  last 2 hours:  site chartsall-time profit:  recent profit:  Sigh... it feels like we've been stuck around 70k profit for months now. |
|
|
|
Quick question. For staking purposes, would it be better to have all outputs tied to one address, or does it not matter. What if you had 100 clams divided into 4 clam outputs. so 25 outputs all tied to one address, or 25 different addresses.
It doesn't matter at all. Staking works on outputs, not addresses. |
|
|
|
http://cryptoone.info/WHOS legit this site or your SITE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, HAHAHA what a clone !!!!  This scam has stopped paying. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060155.msg11385912#msg11385912 for proof. What you found is OP's next scam. |
|
|
|
Ahh thankyou Dooglus for this clarification I thought that the 1% fee will be leaving the net profit to be 1.99x though than this is how I assume that they are both different since 50% at gambling sites is leaving a profit for 1.98x. Since this is about 50 % chance will it still be the same assuming that it is not at 50 % chance to win Doog? P.S : I got it right at the bolded part though  although it is not entirely correct The 'house edge' is effectively a fee on the entire payout amount, including your stake. 1% of 2 is 0.02, leaving 1.98x from the 2x payout. If a site was to charge 1% of just your profit, that would be a better deal for the player. Especially for the high-chance bets (like 98%) where almost all your payout is your initial stake and the profit is relatively small. |
|
|
|
Why not just update the client to allow conditional zero-fee transactions, just like BTC, LTC and DOGE which CLAM was originated from?
BTC, LTC and DOGE codes all allow nMinFee = 0 if the transaction priority is over 57.6M. It is disappointing we cannot do the same on CLAM network.
It would mean making a hard-fork, and everyone would have to upgrade. It doesn't seem worth it just to save a tiny fraction of a CLAM. The fee (0.0001 CLAM per kB) is worth about a hundredth of a US cent. |
|
|
|
I am sorry too for my outcome about your comment (it was late you said it).
Have a nice day
Can you address this one? It seems like there's some kind of problem with a payout: Trans ID : 663f91a85e7266cfdac157cf502bc37ca58b5330b5222fc75512b73a3de00f61
NO payment still..
We are 100% sure we paid 0.6 BTC to this address already  Then please 100% show me the proof as there is nothing from you in it. I checked this and it hasn't been paid. At the bottom you see the 0.1 deposit. Above it you can see there is no 6.5x payment back to the sending address:  Are you only paying the smallest investors, and not the 0.1 BTC investor? You need to aim bigger if you want to get rich from this. Pay out the 0.65 BTC and wait for the really big idiots to play! |
|
|
|
Dooglus
Think what you think
If you cannot do anything better than calling somebody "scum" then it shows up your inteligent (which seems its like in -X)
So i will not loose any of my time to argue with somebody who is so stupid to understand it
Have a good day,
BitOne
Sorry about the "scum" insult. It was late and I wasn't thinking straight. Just because you're running a Ponzi scam to steal people's hard-earned coins there's no need for me to be rude like that, and I apologise. I guess there's nothing I can do to help these fools save themselves from your scam, so I'll stop posting. See you in your next thread after this scheme collapses, and we can do it all again! |
|
|
|
I hat 22x in a row in the past and IIRC just-dice had a 32 losing streak for martingale.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg7060900#msg7060900 for details of that. In summary: The longest winning streak at 49.5% (2x) at Just-Dice is 30 in a row. The longest losing streak at 49.5% (2x) at Just-Dice is 32 in a row. Obviously the chance of winning changes things drastically. If you're playing with just 1% chance of winning, it's not unusual to see losing streaks of a few hundred bets in a row. As PenguinFire said there is no maximum. Its very unlikely to lose 22, 32, 42 or 662 times in a row, but eventually it will happen.
I'm not sure about 662. That will almost certainly never happen, due to limitations on the amount of energy in the universe, etc. Consider that you're about as likely to break into a random Bitcoin address (a 160 bit number) by brute force as you are to roll 160 in a row (at 50%). Then consider that to roll 640 in a row means doing that 4 times in a row without any failures in between. Then consider that 662 is even bigger than 640. 30 loses in a row is 1 in a billion chance, there are reports of a little bit more but not much more since no one would have enough bankroll to sustain more than 40 loses in a row even if you start with 1 satoshi bet
Even if you flat bet, or bet 0 on each roll, you still won't see much longer than a losing streak of 30 at 49.5%. It's not because people run out of bankroll (they typically just drop their bet right down and keep playing, just to see when they "would have won". It's because very long streaks are incredibly rare. They are free to set their OWN odds. So .... no regulation and they set their own odds. They might be turning it up and down you don't know.
Anyways there is no max you could lose, you could lose it all. And the house always wins, especially when they program their own rules.
All good Bitcoin gambling sites are provably fair. You can check that they aren't cheating. Regulation doesn't stop sites cheating anyway. It just stops them cheating when the regulator is looking. One really shouldn't gamble, just ever. You're playing against 'invoke GetTickCount' from Windows (random number generator), and it's really not the way to go.
First off, it's really quite dangerous for the casino to randomize their rolls using something as predictable as a system clock. It's possible someone will be able to exploit it and predict their rolls with enough accuracy to beat the house edge. And secondly, all decent Bitcoin gambling sites are provably fair. That means they can prove that their rolls are made fairly using techniques like publishing the hash some seed used to generate the roll before you play, so you can check that they committed to your roll before you made it. You'll typically be playing against sha256 or similar rather than a random number generator. before JD shut down the first time, Doog did some stats on longest losing and winning streak at 49.5%.
I believe loses was as big as 32 in a row, and wins was 19 or 20.. i'm not 100% sure of the stats. its in the old JD thread somewhere.
Remember that this isnt simple 50/50. at 49.5/50.5, the max loss streaks will be longer than the max win streaks. (thus you can see the house edge in action, sortof)
RIght, that's actually an interesting point, a1choi, the longer the streak you're multiplying out, the more you're going to see that divergence between wins vs. losses multiplied out and getting bigger. Ie, as you say, you can observe the house edge in action. In the analysis I did (linked at the top of this post), the 5 longest winning streaks at 49.5% were four 27's and a 30, while the 5 longest losing streaks at 49.5% were 32, 27, and three 26's. It's interesting that you don't really see the house edge in operation there, in that the winning streaks were longer than the losing streaks "on average". (I know, you can't average streak lengths like that...): W L
30 32
27 27
27 26
27 26
27 26
|
|
|
|
Indeed yes if you have both the same number for win and lose your profit is 0 and your net profit will be in minus since there is a cut in every winning that you got but since you are saying that both fee and the house edge are the same in this term, then your statement is wrong.
Assuming you are playing at 2x payout with 49.5 % chance and you got the same number for win and lose then your net profit is not on minus but if you are playing with 50 % chance then it is a minus
A 1% house edge is the same as paying a 1% fee on all payouts from a 0% edge game. * 1% game: pays out 1.98x at 50% * 0% game with 1% fee: pays out 2x at 50%, but takes 1% of that, leaving 1.98x. Get it? |
|
|
|
Dooglos
Please read post before it before jumping to conclusion
"Seems like our financial system have somewhere done a wrong calculation !" really? It accidentally multiplied by 3.33333333333 instead of 5? You don't have a "financial system". You're running this scam by hand. If you so hate this website then dont come here and dont throw on us sh*ts Do your own thing and so we will do I like this website. I dislike scum like you polluting it. I'm doing my own thing warning people about your scam. Why don't you find something better to do than stealing from people? |
|
|
|
ahmed i quite dont understand your question but you can reinvest what amount you want "Starter - Invest 0.01 - 0.04 BTC GET 5x your investment in 24 hours" He sent 0.015 You paid 0.05 That isn't 5x. Understand now? He caught you cheating... |
|
|
|
The fact that he will actually not give my whole btc back including the winnings since it will make him stupid and that according to previous history of the site,they never actually give back any btc they have stolen (basing on the reviews i found on the net), so im giving him the option to just give my deposit back, a 4 btc loss is better than a 14btc loss.
If he's stolen your coins, he's stolen your coins. You don't get to give him any options. Those sites are a joke. The reviews are way off base. I saw one where the reviewer was talking about having played poker on PrimeDice. I think they must be paid reviews by a competitor site deliberately discrediting the competition. Check the other reviews by the authors who reviewed this place and you'll find they had similarly horrible experiences everywhere else they played too. |
|
|
|
It only resets your Coinage for the particular Coins that are moved. When attributing Coinage to Staking, Coinage is just the measure of when it will Stake but not exactly how much it would Stake so you can have maximum Coinage but the amount received would still be the amount of Coins times the amount of days past so if a prime wallet is offline for a while it would have maximum coinage but would still Stake more Coins when brought back online the longer it's left offline.
If they didn't want the "prime" staking rate, they would simply comment out the "prime" private key from the paycoin.conf file then restart the wallet. Then it would stake like any regular muggle wallet. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
No need to thank us
WE thank you that you trusted in us when nobody trusted in us !
Nobody trusts you, they are simply hoping to get in early enough. They know you are going to scam the last investors and they hope it isn't them. |
|
|
|
Can you explain it with a graphic example like: 10 players go to a 0% house edge casino that has 1 btc limit bet, they start betting at 0.01 like the example above. When they bust theoretically they would have won just as much so they would break even right? Untill they hit a 8 losing streak when they wont be able to double again so they would lose more than win??
In the recent example the biggest bet was 0.64 BTC wasn't it, and so it would be identical to your example. When they lose, they lose 1+2+4+8+16+32+64 = 127 bitcents (1.27 BTC). That happens 1 in 128 sequences. They win 0.01 on each of the other 127 sequences, so they win 0.01*127 and lose 1.27*1. |
|
|
|
Lets say everyone uses martingale, dooglus explained that they would all break even theoretically. BUT if say the casino has a bet limit, that would fuck up all these martingale players because they expect to break even until they hit the limit, when they hit the limit they start loosing, am i right on this?
First off, most players won't break even. Some will win and some will lose. Each player's expected profit is zero, but their actual profit at any point in time is likely to be nonzero. Casinos always have a bet limit. They have a finite bankroll. The point is that the amount you expect to win from all the times you don't hit the limit (whether it's your limit or the house's limit) is the same as the amount you expect to lose from all the times you do hit the limit. They cancel each other out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
