I made an updated bootstrap.dat file for people having trouble syncing their client.

It goes up to block 4420063 which was staked on Mon Dec 12 13:10:22 UTC 2022.

It's available here:

    bootstrap.dat

Download it, put it into the same folder as your CLAM wallet.dat, then restart the client.

If you are using the QT client, it will say "importing blocks" in the lower left corner while the bootstrap.dat file is imported. That is how you can tell that the file is being used. It will take a while to import it, but it will be a lot faster than trying to sync using the p2p network. When it is done, the client will rename the file to bootstrap.dat.old and won't look at it again. Once it has been renamed you can delete it if you like.

To verify that you have the right file its size is 4233283532 bytes and its sha256 hash is eedf3d510c730cbc782fa30a7c3514db608ef6ca775d0257c4990428e55782ee.

There is also a folder called 'partial' which contains a collection of smaller files, each with 100k blocks in them.

Download whichever ones you need and either import them one at a time by renaming each one to 'bootstrap.dat' in turn and restarting the client for each, or append them all together into a file called 'bootstrap.dat'.

In Windows you can append the files together by running cmd, and using something like:


In Linux the command would be:

Thanks.

I tried again, and this time got a different error message:





Edit: I tried asking for 1 satoshi less, thinking maybe it's a rounding error, but that didn't help.

That CLAM address *is* your own. Its private key is the same as the private key for the 1L2G BTC address you own.

The question is how you get access to the coins it controls.

You could import your wallet.dat file containing the BTC private key into the CLAM client. But maybe you don't trust the CLAM client not to steal your BTC.

You could use the /dig command on JD, giving it the BTC address and the BTC privkey. But maybe you don't trust JD not to steal your BTC.

The recommended way forward is to move any BTC from your old wallet into a new wallet and then import the whole wallet into the CLAM client - because they way you also get to claim any CLAMs that are in old change addresses that you may not even know exist.

Alternatively, you can move the balance from just that address to a new address, then get the private key for the address (> dumpprivkey 1L2G... in the bitcoin wallet debug console), and then "/dig 1L2G... PRIVKEY" in JD. That will move the 4.6 CLAM from the xTKu address to your JD deposit address.

I think it's too late for that now, anyway. The way things are set up, distribution CLAM coins are at addresses which have *the same* private key as the corresponding BTC/LTC/DOGE addresses.

I guess a change to the protocol could theoretically allow it, and I don't think the ambiguity you mentioned is important - if I can sign a message with the BTC form of a private key, I can trivially convert the private key to DOGE, LTC, or CLAM and sign a message with that form instead. So the protocol would need to modify the meaning of "OP_CHECKSIG" to be "the provided signature is valid for the provided pubkey (as before) OR (the input being spent was created before block 10k AND the provided signature is a valid message signature of "CLAMDIG" as signed by the BTC, LTC, or DOGE address corresponding to the provided pubkey)".

Then people could dig up their outputs without needing to provide anything more than a useless message signature.

There's a risk that people could be tricked into providing a scammer with a message signature that the scammer can then use to dig up the victim's CLAMs.

Oh, but there's a bigger risk that the scammer just scans the network for people digging up their CLAMs using message signatures, and modifies the outputs of those transactions to send the dug CLAMs to their own address... to prevent this, the message to be signed would need to include the destination address rather than being a constant (like "CLAMDIG" above). Then what if there are multiple destination addresses. We can limit this kind of transaction to only work with a single destination address (then the scammer sends 0.001 to the destination address and gives the rest to the miners, so we have to fix the amount too, to be 4.60xxx minus the 0.0001 fee - etc.)

I think in theory it's possible to find a workable solution that would allow people to safely dig up their distribution CLAM using just a signed message, but it would need careful consideration.

Here's how Just-Dice digs up CLAMs and sends them to users' deposit addresses:


There's not much to it, and it doesn't require anything online at all to work, just a running clamd instance with a copy of the blockchain. You could remove the blockchain requirement too if you provided the unspent output's scriptPubKey to bitcoin.signRawTransaction's 2nd argument (it's [] in the code above, because I know my clamd will be able to find the details it needs in the blockchain):



The 'redeemScript' part is only needed for spending P2SH outputs, which we aren't.

So the 2nd argument can be something like:

'[{"txid":"dbdd78f351c4d316fa8ab8613ccd7937fdd095ef86297f4f7d4e616455ad23df","vout":1,"scriptPubKey":"76a914339caf9d4692d9cf981470abcba485844d73a74888ac"}]'

I can imagine an offline page (like bitaddress.org) which takes:

* txid
* vout
* scriptPubKey
* destination address
* privkey

and outputs a signed raw transaction that moves the standard CLAM distro amount from txid:vout to the given destination address. The first 4 of those could easily be provided by the /dig command on JD, for copy/pasting to the offline machine (somehow).

I just tried withdrawing my balance, and it wouldn't let me: "withdrawal limit exceeded" or similar.

What is the withdrawal limit? Why isn't it mentioned in the FAQ? And how can I get my coins?

I think it's that BB idiot with yet another account. And I don't think he's trolling me - I think he really is that stupid.

1) I wasn't talking to you

2) "invest" here means "be part of the bankroll". It's not an investment like you're thinking of. I'm not buying shares in his site

3) I don't see a problem with it - I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's invested in his own site and wouldn't have a problem with it.

I don't really understand the criticism. I can't think of a single site that launched with their site in its finished form.

Google added gmail after launch. Does that make them really amateurs?

Even in the world of dice sites, SatoshiDice has had numerous facelifts, PD is on its 3rd incarnation, etc.

A couple of issues I'm having:

* I often have to hit the 'divest all' button 2 or 3 times before anything happens. Is it very slow, or does it really just ignore my clicks sometimes?

* When it does finally divest, it sometimes leaves a small amount (I've seen 1 and 11 satoshis) invested.  All means all, guys!

When I found the exploit in your site's provable fairness the first thing I did was try it out on "play for free" and it didn't work.

I almost gave up, but then I guessed maybe you were only using provably fair for 'real' games, so I tried that and it worked.

It would be better if you used provably fair for all games - then people can try it out with no risk and get to understand how the game is fair.

but do you take from investor profits if any such bets win?

If so, isn't that a bit unfair?
If not, how do you bankroll those bets?

I remember seeing that asked (and answered) before, but can't find it now.

I think the answer was "the list isn't shown, but the payments go through anyway" or words to that effect.

It would be better if you could see a report listing of all the people you had referred, how much they gambled, how much that earned you, and the percentages.

Probably. He shares a lot of the same traits.

When I first visit the site, I see this:



I guess that's a kind of bug.

Not for me. Here's what I see for the first click:



and the 2nd:



Can you post a screenshot please?

You have an 18% chance to win 2X and a 1% chance to win 60X.

2 18's and 60 sum to 96% - that's the RTP if the blocks are never orphaned.

If you can find an orphan, your RTP is huge.


I expect they searched for alternatives, but none of them sounded as good:



SATOSHIKIDDYFIDDLER.COM just doesn't have the same ring to it I guess.

But seriously, it's a number (n) that you try once (n-once) when mining.

I just tried playing "for BTC".

It told me my balance was "NAN" and when I made the first click, the spinner just kept spinning indefinitely.

When I reloaded the page, I discovered I was logged out, presumably because my login had timed out overnight.

This could be handled better!

Not really - I mean if you can get past the first click, just set a target and your expected value is exactly 0 - you don't expect to win or lose anything after that point. You'll get to 2x half the time, 10x 10% of the time, etc. just as you would expect.

It's getting past the first click that is the "unfair" part (the part that gives the site its edge against you) - because 0.9900990099% of the time you fail to do it, and when you DO manage it, you're only at 1x payout - so you've taken a small risk for no payout. After that, you get 100% "true" odds.

You can think of that first click as being the house edge.

1 time in 101 it fails, and you lose.

If you get past that first bet, you have a 50% chance of reaching 2x, a 10% chance of reaching 10x, etc. In general, a 100/N percent chance of reaching Nx - it's as if they is no house edge *once you get past the first click*.

So the house edge of the game is 100/101 = 0.9900990099%.

Edit: nice result here!

Withdrawing doesn't affect profit.