No, I'm pretty sure that this isn't solely when you get the bonus roll payment. Rather, it's just for every constructive post that you reply to in the Bitsler ANN thread.

Not OP's post.

---

Also, the inner quote really DOESN'T make any sense whatsoever. I don't see the problem with the outer quote post, apart from the fact that it's not grammar, but rather just basic logic and communication skills.


Might be ironic but the complaint was justified (though the post was not and yes, 97%+ of gambling discussion posts are spam.)

---

It's likely that the outer quote (thisappointed) was trying to find a way to post something that looked constructive, and read through a couple posts to find this gem to criticize.

One of the easiest ways to rack up that post count is to find a shoddy post and either agree with it and repeat what is said or to disagree with it (in any way)

vodaljepa, does butthurt rageposting offer you payments? If so, then sign me up!

---

I don't think it's very necessary to continually state the same point over and over (over different threads) without clear proof to back it up. Anything you've provided is raw circumstantial assumption, and that's stretching it.

Maybe you should be a conspiracy theorist

The online status lingers for a while even after going offline - that's just how it is.


True statement.

In that case, would this be the error?

"For example, if the maximum possible hash value is 2²⁵⁶ − 1, you can prove that you tried up to two combinations by producing a hash value less than 2²⁵⁵."

Up to two combinations doesn't make sense considering how you can produce up to 2²⁵⁵-1 different hashes that would be higher than the target value (correct me on my math if I'm wrong).

I've got it now! Thanks for the clarification: it didn't make too much sense to me.

(You produce up to two combinations since one is successful and the other is unsuccessful)

---

Truly, the folly of man lies in his ability to communicate.

---

[Locked. In case there are extra comments to be made about PoW process; please PM me - I'd love to learn more]

I see what you're saying, but the problem is that AFAICT they were making the target value 2²⁵⁶-1 in the example and attempting to use 2²⁵⁵ in the second without stating it, which is incorrect when you're speaking about having a successful hash every other attempt.

I understand the maths of statistically succeeding every other attempt, which occur when the target value is 2²⁵⁵.

---

So is this just simply an error in their paragraph?

Note: I realize that there is a disclaimer that states the possibility of errors, and thus have come here to ask for an explanation.

---

On the segment of Proof Of Work, it is stated


I don't quite understand this. Is there not a huge gap between 2²⁵⁵ and 2²⁵⁶-1? If you tried up to only two combinations (I'm assuming this is a hash value of 2²⁵⁶ and 2²⁵⁶-1) then how would you be able to produce a successful hash every other try?

---

I'm not too huge on hashing so a layman explanation for that including this would also help. My thought so far on how it would work is that you're given a random value <=2²⁵⁶.

The only other logical explanation I might have is that they mean that you would produce a successful hash on average every other try if the target was 2²⁵⁵.

I would agree with this most of the time - especially when dealing with such a large [$2000] amount. However, there could be a variety of reasons to use a newer exchange - fees, exchange rates, etc. which would eventually build a reputation.

AFAICT, right now they're offering an exchange price $10 above the price of other exchanges. As well as this, there's an affiliate system where you earn 10% of the amount that people who sign up under you exchange.

This, however, obviously seems quite sketchy and I wouldn't personally do any business here.


I'm seeing some negative reviews about Payticoins over here and it seems that a lot of the positive reviews were new disqus users who are probably shills. Specifically, one user in particular has commented a total of 5 times, and they are all about either promotion of the site or retaliation against users who are calling it a scam.

The scam accusations also date back far enough for this to be a reasonable accusation.

---

Do your research.

This should be moved to Technical Discussion, probably.

---

A hard fork would split the network into two block chains - in this case, one for BTC and BCU. (ref)

Think ETH vs. ETC as a current-day example.

The price would be going down (afaik) because your current bitcoins would be able to be spent within both the BCU chain and the BTC chain, independent of one another. This means trouble for the marketplace.

---

If I'm just spouting nonsense, then please correct me and I'll edit my post accordingly.

Also, this is an invaluable read: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide

Hard fork definition

I don't disagree that it would be like that, but OP may have potentially closed the tab and then manually typed in "bitcointalk" to go to the official site rather than any phishing site. It's within the realm of possibility, so amuse me.

I still think it's to do with the typing, though.

That's a lot of question marks there, even though you're saying sentences

---

Capslock is a possibility.

You probably just mistyped the password, or forgot it. Get a password manager - that'll make things much simpler.

---

(There is another possibility, where you went to a site that was a mirror of bitcointalk.org [a phishing site, not the real site]. Can you check your history to make sure that this is not the case?)

Sort by most recent, and it'll give you the most recent quotes that are at the top of a quote stack, or any mention of your name. Simple enough.

---

A quote stack would be an inverse-pyramidal chain of quotes, where people refuse to chop off earlier quotes
ex.


and it will show you the post from the deepest quote.

So after calculating, I think I have the answer:

It's a 0.146484375% chance to hit 3 with one ticket, and it's a 50% chance to hit 1 with one ticket. Since you have these two, they should be multiplied giving you the final chance of

0.0732421875%!

(note that this is just for this specific permutation, the actual chance includes all possibilities added together: 1-3, 2-2, 3-1, 4-0, 0-4)

The real chance, if I calculated correctly, is 0.162%

---

This is a one in 1365.33 chance! What a way to get into raffles, man.

You lucky, lucky dog. Hitting that sweet 2% chance right off the bat. Beginner's luck! (You'd better tell us which numbers to pick next time)
Maybe you'll even get a fourth one?

---

I'm just happy I was able to win one to call my own, haha.

There's another thread about this same thing here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1808508.0

and there was yet another one previously, to which I answered:

I do have one method that works somewhat well: go into the search tool of BCT and type in your own name, and it'll show the most recent quote of yours (in a quote tree, even) or any mention of your username. It's a little barbaric, but it gets the job done

Here's the txid: 6d6577fcd1f4acdaa5b73d0f4c624d624c57657cfd1dec45b6773a78cad7b8e0.

Oof, I'll be pretty bummed out if I don't get a winning ticket

Username: actmyname

Hey, how did you do your calculations? You simply multiplied by 16 starting from 8, right? It doesn't necessarily work like that - seen when you apply the same to the 0.390625% chance, where you have a 6.25% of landing a prize [overall]. ^{Obviously, it's a 1/16 for winning a prize per round.} I would think that two, for example, would not be a 0.39% chance, but rather a 1/16 * 7/16 chance - which has a likelihood of 2.734375% - about every 1 in 37.

And for reaching n prizes, it would simply be 1/16^(n-1) * (9-n)/16, no?

So long as the wagered amount is equivalent, all gambling strategies, no matter how complex or simple, will have the same expected value - a negative one.

Because of this, you may choose to prolong the betting to make it more enjoyable over a longer duration or instead decide to go all-in, riskily. In this case of using a faucet, if you have the time, then you should simply grind away at max profit. Though, it's just a waste of both time and electricity. Do something useful.

0.000000023283064365386962890625% chance - you forgot to multiply by 100

That's 1 in 4,294,967,296 by the way - over half the world's population.