I'm guessing this is a fake bittrex-richie? 05:35:32 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> hello 05:35:47 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> where is doouglas 05:35:54 (4764) <@Wilco> canada 05:36:05 (136) <@sqwerty> probably at home 05:36:13 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> damn... 05:36:29 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> i setup all 05:36:37 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> shit.... 05:36:42 (4764) <@Wilco> anything we can help with? 05:37:27 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> hahahah 05:37:36 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> well i need 25 btc worth clams 05:37:56 (4764) <@Wilco> yeah i would either send doog a email or wait for him to come online 05:38:11 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> we need clams for 10 min 05:38:18 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> i prepare btc 05:38:20 (1107458) <bittrex-richie> shit 05:39:01 (4764) <@Wilco> sounds dodgy 05:39:07 (136) <@sqwerty> way dodgy 05:39:18 (136) <@sqwerty> 25 btc clams for 10 min... then what. Be careful out there, people. Scammers gonna scam.
|
|
|
Updated bootstrap.dat again. See quoted post for details: I made an updated bootstrap.dat file for people having trouble syncing their client.
It goes up to block 437000 which was staked on Thu Apr 23 14:16:00 2015.
|
|
|
the game is just an ordinary raffle thats why no one got interested in my opinion
It's hard to come up with a provably fair way to run a raffle. OP did it, but maybe there's no market for a raffle anyway. (It's like playing dice only much slower?)
|
|
|
First, prove to me that GAW owns Paycoin. Tell me how much, and where it is stored and why you believe it belongs to them, and then explain why taking property from a corporation is different than taking it from an individual. Secondly, explain why you think it is ok to take property away from either GAW or Josh Garza. What is the EXACT criteria by which you conclude that it is fair, just and legal, to take property from someone else. You either respect property rights or you don't.
I don't think anyone is proposing taking property away from anyone. What is being proposed is a fork of the coin which is identical other than that certain coins don't exist in the fork; the current coin (XPY) continues to exist, and a new coin (XPY2) is created which is functionally identical, only without the GAW coins. Is that theft? I don't see how. As an existing holder of N XPY, I would also have N XPY2 (unless presumably I was GAW). I could choose to trade my XPY2 for "real" XPY, or vice versa, depending on which of the two I wanted to hold. They would both be listed on exchanges, and their prices would move independently of each other. If there's general agreement that the fork is a good idea people would sell their XPY, pushing the price towards 0, while buying more XPY2, increasing the price. GAW still have their millions of XPY, nothing has been stolen, but the free market has set a more appropriate price for their out-of-thin-air gains and decided that they value a coin without the pre-mine (or whatever it is - I've not been paying attention) more highly.
|
|
|
It looks like you have two windows both autobetting at the same time. One went -1 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 The other went: -16 -32 -64 -128 -256 If you consider them as two separate series of bets they make sense. Maybe there's a bug that makes the auto-bet feature somehow run two independent series of bets, I don't know.
|
|
|
it would be very interesting to see the hedge option in real time what I mean is how an OP can hedge a few high bets and hold the other bets himself.
If the casino is covering some bets itself and passing others to moneypot, doesn't that increase the potential for the casino cheating? Presumably there would be two sets of seeds (in-house, and moneypot) and the site gets to choose which set of seeds to use for each bet, giving them two chances to win each bet. I guess that could be counteracted by declaring up front "we will pass all bets with a potential profit of more than X to moneypot", but that's not ideal.
|
|
|
I had some BTC deposited at an exchange at the time. No private keys=no clams. I would have gained some extra coins if I took it seriously on time. I'm sure that I'm not the only one with a similar story.
I had control of a whole bunch of BTC at the time, and held it in a real local wallet, but I ignored the advice and reused a single address over and over. I would have gained some extra coins if I took the advice seriously. Despite holding tens of thousands of Bitcoin and over a billion DOGE split over 10 or so wallets, each containing around 100,000 different addresses, I ended up only having 52 funded addresses on the snapshot date. I guess that's better than most.
|
|
|
Biggest bet we've seen for a while:
|
|
|
so satoshi has what like 1 million clams just sitting there... lol wow
i like this coin tbh actually not a premined scamcoin like NXT or the others
this coin is legit and i might acquire some.
The initial distribution gave a little over 4.6 CLAMs to each funded BTC address. Assuming Satoshi has 1 million BTC from mining 20,000 blocks at 50 BTC each, and assuming each block's coinbase has a different address he would have around 4.6 * 20k = 92k CLAM. Still nothing to sneeze at. And the coin was "pre-mined" - it's just that after the pre-mine it was then given out to everyone rather than hoarded.
|
|
|
The three little people on the left certainly have very convincing thumbs. I'm not sure about the giant on the right. He appears to be missing both thumbs and several major fingers too. That's not what I call "prefessional".
|
|
|
I was happy to see how well the CLAM market dealt with having 20k CLAM dumped into it yesterday: The price has mostly recovered already. Usually when someone withdraws a bunch from Just-Dice to sell on the exchange, the CLAMs are bought up by Just-Dice players and/or investors and quickly find their way back onto Just-Dice. This time it's different, and only 8k or the 20k have come back to Just-Dice. I'm curious about what happened to the other 12k. I wonder whether they are being held by trading bots on poloniex who bought up the coins cheap during the dump and are waiting for the price to recover fully before offloading them at a profit. Or maybe the dump went to old existing buy orders placed by people who don't check the exchange regularly, and so they didn't yet discover that their hopeful low buy orders actually got filled.
|
|
|
Claiming it, is simply generating the clam address from the bitcoin key which allows you to add that clam address to your wallet. You could choose to send those clams elsewhere or leave them in that address. If they are moved to another clam address, pretty sure you wouldn't be able to tell if someone had "claimed" them by creating that address.
Take a look at the CLAMs which were distributed in block 5001 (just as a random example): http://khashier.com/tx/9aeedbc1c717956deebfce90e359243cb642c8caea297c56f0f3b9f3eb0321a8Most of the 4.6 outputs haven't moved since they were created, but a few have. In this screenshot we see just one of the first few outputs has been 'spent': So we can't tell that an output is 'claimed' until the initial-distribution output is spent. That happens when you move your claimed CLAMs anywhere or when you successfully stake a block with them.
|
|
|
Is there an expiration date for claiming Clams?
Nope, there shouldn't be any expiration date on claiming them. They basically just sit unclaimed until they are claimed. How could they expire? I don't think, or hope, that's even possible. Clams sit at those addresses, just as if you sent your bitcoins to a paper wallet for extended safekeeping. What I would like to understand how it's known when they are claimed--before they are moved away from those seeded addresses. They could expire by the CLAM developers deciding that "after block 500,000 any CLAMs which haven't moved since block 10,000 are no longer spendable", and the rest of the network accepting their decision and switching to the new client version. There's no way anyone can know if you claim your CLAM but don't move it. It looks exactly the same as if you don't claim it. But most people will either start staking their claimed CLAM or move them to an exchange. Attempting to stake isn't detectable, but successfully staking is. Once your claimed output stakes it shows up as spent, and a new unspent (larger) output is created. That's how we 'detect' which coins are active. It's possible that there are thousands of CLAMs that have been claimed but never moved. There's no way we can know about those until they stake or otherwise move.
|
|
|
I am not sure if they changed something serverside, or if the changes to my virtualbox guest made it work, but if you have a vm and it still not working try:
-Give the vm more ram (i upped it from 2GB to 4GB) -also up the videoram to max -switch the vm networking from NAT to bridge-hostnetworking (so that the vm has same ip like other devices in your lan network)
Now it seems to work fine here!
I also use virtualbox and was having trouble getting SWC to run in it after a week or two of not playing. I fixed it just by switching the networking from "NAT" to "Bridged Adapter". I left the RAM at 2 GB and don't think I've ever looked at the video settings. I figured this might help others experiencing the same problem. Here's how my VM looks now that it's working again: Edit: I should also mention that I had to uninstall the old version of the client - it wouldn't update itself correctly. I saw two things in the list of installed programs: one "swcpoker" and one with like "swc_msi" or something. The one with msi in its name uninstalled cleanly when I asked it to, but the swcpoker one would flash up a big window for a tiny fraction of a second but then the window would insta-vanish and the swcpoker item wouldn't go away. I ended up blowing away the swcpoker folder from inside Program Files using the file manager. After I did that I downloaded a new installer binary and installed it. Then when I tried to log in nothing would happen. No error message, but no tables showing up. That's when I changed the network mode from NAT to Bridged and it started working.
|
|
|
Perhaps wise dooglus. BUT! I still don't think it was right to remove my side of a real conversation out of a self modded thread. Not that it makes any difference, but he deleted one of my posts from the conversation too, even though I didn't include your referer link:
|
|
|
If the whole thing is based on freedom of speech then the community deserves to at least know and be informed. It's a positive thing CLAM is being picked up even if in negative ways.
Sorry if you don't feel that way, but it is as simple as that.
I think it's a positive sign that CLAM is valued highly enough that thieves want to steal it. We see the Serbian scammer on IRC trying to scam people out of their CLAMs and now this Ponzi scheme is trying to steal it too. I think if I was you I would have mentioned it in that light: "good news for CLAM : even lowlife scammers want a piece of the action!" or something. What I wouldn't have done is signed up and posted a fucking referral link to the scam!
|
|
|
It works if you have enough money and start with very low bets. Sadly, I think some sites employ scripts that prevent you from abusing martingale, that's why some people recommend to change "seeds" from time to time if you run into a wall of losses. Otherwise people would just go in with a high amount of money, like 100BTC, set the minimum bet to 0.001BTC and run on auto 24/7.
Sites don't need to "employ scripts that prevent you from abusing martingale". Martingale abuses you if you use it long enough. In your example, after 10 losses in a row you've lost 1.023 BTC, after 16 losses in a row you've lose 65.535 BTC, and don't have enough to double for your 17th bet. You can expect to hit a streak of 16 losses in a row every 56000 rolls or so (at 49.5%). See why no special script is needed? Play long enough and you'll lose without the site doing any cheating.
|
|
|
That's what makes this much harder, we are not looking for a string, we are looking for a (random) number.
Given the length and complexity of the previous puzzle, do you think this one would be so simple? You're probably not looking for a private key. You're probably looking for the IP of a minecraft server - or ANYTHING else...
|
|
|
I've only ever got bitched at on Bitcointalk when I was really out of line, but the other day I had a fuck ton of my post all around this side of Bitcointalk removed by this asshat..
I posted 1 post in regards to a new service that accepted CLAM & one follow up that the CLAM withdraw worked.
I think I only saw one of your posts that was removed, but it was a referral link to a Ponzi scam. There's a subforum for Ponzis and this isn't it so the mod's actions seem justified to me. The forum policy seems to be that if you want to promote scams, you do it in the scam subforum. I don't really see where you're coming from with this. A scam is a scam even if it accepts CLAM - that doesn't make it any less of a scam. Note that they've recently stopped their "100% guaranteed" payouts, too - just in case you needed any further proof that it's just another incarnation of the old double-your-bitcoin scam.
|
|
|
Well his strategy is definitely a gamblers fallacy thing so he just had luck and felt like his strategy was working, his only good strategy was quitting
Q: Does martingale really works? A: Yes, if you're lucky.
|
|
|
|