|
I recently made a huge mistake with my CLAM wallet which resulted in ~70% of my old CLAM outputs getting merged together into large new outputs.
So my ability to stake has been hugely reduced.
Oops!
|
|
|
|
I believe the first time I had heard of the rounding issue was after the launch of PD3 and one of our developers immediately said that was incorrect. However, I will be having a conversation with our developers and bring up the points you responded with as they do seem valid.
It must be hard having to trust developers, and not really knowing what's right and what isn't. I was never able to delegate anything at JD, because I don't really trust anyone but myself to get things right. I'm not sure if that's a strength or a weakness.  While PD2 was running I was always told/under the impression that PD2 was running at a very very slight disadvantage (1/1M bets). Obviously our intention wasn't to secretly increase our house edge a rather insignificant amount
I think the problem stems from trying to get the rolls to go from 0.00 to 100.00 - it's kind of unnatural to have 10001 different possible outcomes. The new scheme in PD3 is much better, with 10000 possible outcomes (0.00 through 99.99), because they are all equally likely. In PD2 all the outcomes 0.01 through 99.99 came up one time in 10000, but the highest and the lowest came up one time in 20000 each, and that's where the accidental extra 0.005% house edge came from. Maybe a simpler example would help. Suppose you want to pick a random number from 0 to 10. You have two 10-sided dice. You can't just roll one of them, because that only picks 10 different numbers, and you need 11. So you roll both of them, giving a number 00 through 99. Then you divide by 10, and round to the nearest whole number. 05 to 14 gives 1 (10% chance) 15 to 24 gives 2 (10% chance) etc. but only 00 to 04 gives 0 (5% chance) and only 95 to 99 gives 10 (5% chance) So if someone bets the 50% bet, for 1.98x payout: "less than 5"... they win if they roll 00 through 44, and only have a 45% chance of winning, even though half the numbers (0 through 4) are winning numbers for them. So you've advertised a 50% bet but it's really just a 45% bet. It's 5% worse than advertised. In PD2's case, you're not rolling 10 different numbers, but 10 thousand different numbers, so the error is a thousand times smaller. Instead of a 5% error in house edge, it's only a 0.005% error. It sounds like an insignificant amount, but 0.005% of 400k BTC (the wagered amount) is 20 BTC. Which is still insignificant compared to turnover, but would probably be significant when shared between the people who lost when they should have won. Also the PD3 algorithm was fixed right after you noted it to us, we simply forgot to update the verification page.
Fair enough. It probably seems like I'm shrugging off a lot of your feedback or ignoring it but I've been incredibly busy and haven't gotten the chance to properly respond/look into everything you've suggested. I made sure to get all the feedback I could from you prior to launch and we discussed this feedback heavily with our team. Some of the changes are yet to come after we sort out priorities. While it probably hasn't seemed like it this past week, I've always valued your opinion and input. I get it. It's obvious you're swamped with problems at the moment. Good luck getting it all sorted out! |
|
|
|
The blockchain takes up around ~230MB of disk space at the current height of 69600 blocks.
I think it's 145 Mb to download. The rest is indexes which your client will create from the 145 Mb it downloads. Your wallet keys are basically converted to clam keys on import, and there's virtually no danger here unless your machine is compromised. The once imported data is not stored anywhere in the CLAM client, but that's not to say you shouldn't use multiple btc/ltc/doge wallets (you should). However, there's no way to tell if you own or owned the coin without full key pairs (unless I'm seriously missing something here).
I think you have this wrong. The CLAM client stores your private keys, which are THE SAME as your Bitcoin private keys. If someone gains access to your CLAM wallet (and the password, if encrypted), then they also have access to the BTC, LTC, or DOGE at the addresses you imported. It's possible to convert from BTC addresses to CLAM addresses (and back again) without knowing the private keys. I posted a short Python script which does exactly that not long ago. See this post: It's a small Python script that takes any number of BTC, LTC, DOGE, and CLAM addresses and gives links to the corresponding blockchain explorer pages for the equivalent BTC, LTC, DOGE, and CLAM addresses.
|
|
|
|
@dooglus
congrats... I guess you're making alot ฿฿ or perhaps $$ out of CLAMs
If I may know, how many of your outputs getting staked everyday?
I've never sold any CLAMs - so what I'm making out of CLAMs is a lot of CLAMs. lol. I'll probably hold them until they're worthless, or worth a fortune - same as I do with BTC. I don't know how to count the number of stakes per day without counting them myself - there are lots. Here's a screenshot of the most recent stakes to give you an idea of the frequency of staking:  Then nothing staked until 17:21. So I guess about 20 per hour, or around 500 per day. I have a feeling that the screenshot shows an unusually good hour though, so maybe it's half that. But with the lotto wins as well I'm sure the average is higher. first, can anyone tell me how big is CLAM blockchain?
Here are the sizes of the big things in my .clam/ folder, in Mb: 11 database 69 txleveldb 139 blk0001.dat so it's pretty tiny - my whole .clam/ folder is 256 Mb in total, and includes 43 backups of my wallet.dat. second, I know I can check beforehand what-could-be-my clam address balance by going to khashier explorer
but is there another way claiming clams other than using wallet.dat
maybe something like converting my btc priv key to clam priv key (if that even possibe) then importing it to the CLAM qt client
Yes. Your BTC privkey *is* your CLAM privkey; they are the same thing. Just export it from your bitcoin wallet and import it into the CLAM wallet. |
|
|
|
Allowing people to borrow on margin seems like an interesting idea. It certainly would set dicebitco.in apart from the others.
Giving people the freedom to invest with a 10X Kelly seems like the way to go, but I fear that this could go bad so fast. It would "artificially" inflate the bankroll and max bet.
However, I wouldn't mind actually letting people really borrow from me for a percentage if the "auto-buy-to-cover" feature were enabled.
They're not really borrowing from anyone - they never get access to the borrowed coins - they're only allowed to invest them, and only for as long as they are able to pay back the loan - so there's never any chance that they will default on the loan, and so there's never a need to hold any collateral. In effect the lending means the site is operating a fractional reserve operation, which many will dislike the thought of. But I think in this case it is sound to do so. There's no chance of a "run on the bank" causing problems, since all loans are automatically secured by restricting what the lender can do with their loaned coins. Sudden large changes in the maximum profit per bet would probably result from this feature, and were another reason I didn't love the idea. When you say it could "go bad fast", mostly that only applies to people who over-borrow, don't you think? It wouldn't go bad for the site itself. One thing that was pointed out when I brought this up in the past is that investing at huge leverage is effectively a big gamble. No sane investor would do it, but guess who would... that's right - gamblers would! It's a way of gambling with high variance and a positive expectation. So maybe offering such a feature would turn the whale gamblers into whale investors, and we'd be left without any whale gamblers. I still think it's an interesting idea though. |
|
|
|
They do look at all the comments and all the issues , its just matter of priority but it all goes on to do list.
They rly take all comments seriously .
Its just that Stunna doesn't reply to every single comment. And dev is not active on this forum.
He replied to tell me I was wrong, but I wasn't. When I pointed that out, he stopped replying. That's OK - he's busy, I get it, and maybe he doesn't want to have to deal with the fact that around 37 thousand winning bets weren't paid out. Potentially that's a lot of coins he owes people. I understand wanting to brush that under the carpet. U know when u tested pd3 every single issue u pointed out was considered ,most of it fixed , and u got reply from the dev about every single one of them .
I remember two: * it's hard to tip because the chat scrolls too fast - consider not having the pop-up menu scroll with the chat * the provably fair algorithm as described isn't fair. it rolls high more than it rolls low At launch, the first hadn't been addressed at all, and at least according to the documentation neither had the second. I'm told the 2nd was fixed but if so, the documentation was incorrect at launch. Maybe there were other things I pointed out in beta, I don't remember the details. edit: just remembered , maybe u are a bit edgy coz btc price is drooping ... U said once on pd chat u are losing alot of $$$ on each small drop . And this one was huge :S .
I've seen bigger rises and bigger dips than this. They don't really bother me any more - it's just Bitoin doing its thing. |
|
|
|
First of all u can't call a 50 btc a "little" , that is a fact.  lol . I didn't. I deposited a lot, and gambled a little. I didn't gamble the whole 50 BTC. As it turned out, a single 1 BTC deposit would have been enough:  And yeah it's a bit weird, i use blockchain.info and set it to always send min fee of 0.0001 , and never had a problem. But i never do such huge transactions so i guess there would be problems with min fee on them .
Anyways ur unconfirmed tx gets back to ur wallet after 72h or so ? Right ?
"large" transactions are often cheaper than small ones, if you're talking about the value rather than the byte count. I'm pretty sure all the transactions are confirmed, and blockchain.info just failed to index the blockchain properly. It's a little concerning that that can happen, because presumably it means people using their wallet can easily double-spend, and sites using their API to accept deposits will also be getting incorrect information. While writing this post, I loaded up firefox to log in to my 'tablet' account and take a screenshot of the bets to show they were 'little' relative to the 50 BTC deposit. The page came up with the header, but was still loading when I clicked 'my account'. I got an error page:  I know I probably shouldn't click anything while the page is still loading, but it would be better if the site didn't fail even if I did. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that post before; it's quite convincing. My suggestion (as a tiny investor) is to cut the max bet to 0.5% or 0.25%.
In the past I have told people "if you want to risk 0.5% instead of 1%, just invest half as much". The problem with that is that the two aren't equivalent. If I invest 100 BTC at 1%, I'm risking 1 BTC per bet, and after a whale wins a max bet, I have 99 BTC left I am risking 0.99 BTC on his next max bet. If instead I risk 200 BTC at 0.5%, I'm still risking 1 BTC per bet, and after a whale wins a max bet, I have 199 BTC left. I am risking 0.995 BTC on his next max bet. So although the two strategies started out looking the same (risking 1 BTC per bet), they very quickly diverge (*). Something I was considering for Just-Dice, but never actually implemented, was allowing people to "borrow" coins to invest. It would work like this: All investments risk up to 0.5% per bet, but you are allowed to "borrow" up to N times the amount you have deposited (for some N, maybe 10). This borrowed amount isn't available for betting or withdrawing - it can only be used to invest, and to repay your loan. Maybe you're not even allowed to withdraw at all which you have a loan outstanding. Borrowed coins can be invested just like regular coins. The only difference is that if your investment does poorly, and you lose to the point where your total balance is close to being insufficient to cover your loan, you get auto-divested and your loan gets paid off from your remaining balance. This would allow me to deposit 50 BTC to the site, "borrow" another 450, say, and invest a total of 500 BTC into the bankroll. I would be risking 0.5% of that 500 BTC per roll (2.5 BTC). If a whale came and won a bunch, I would get auto-divested when my 500 BTC investment reached 455 or so (2 max bet losses above me being unable to repay my 450 BTC loan). So my remaining 455 BTC investment would be divested, and the 450 BTC loan would be paid off, leaving me 5 BTC in my account. This would allow those who want the high-risk, high-reward effect of full Kelly to approximate it (as shown above, marked (*), 2 half Kellys doesn't make a full Kelly), while also allowing the more conservative investor to use half-Kelly. I never implemented this on JD because I was concerned that a few "whale" investors would use it to dominate the bankroll. But now that I'm the whale investor, that doesn't seem so important.  |
|
|
|
Just don't send transactions without fee and problem solved . The problem is that some transactions require more than just the minimum fee. The best thing to do is to let the "bitcoin core" client decide how much fee needs to be included - then you always have just the right amount. Unfortunately it seems that the definition of "just the right amount" isn't agreed upon between the various clients, sites, and miners. An unrelated point (but I don't want to be accused of post-padding, so I'm writing it here): Yesterday I was out of the house, using my tablet, and didn't have access to my usual account, where my invested coins are. I wanted to play a little, so I deposited 50 BTC onto my tablet account, and won a little. When I got home I read the posts on this thread, and freaked out a little that I had over 100 BTC with these guys I don't know, so panic-withdrew it all - partly as a test to see if I could, and partly as an overreaction to the posts in this thread. The withdrawal was "pending manual withdraw" or some such for an hour or so until I passed out for the night, but upon waking this morning I see that it was processed shortly after I went to sleep. One weird thing is that even though my withdrawal transaction has lots of confirmations already, one of its inputs is still unconfirmed according to blockchain.info. See my post s about that here and here. |
|
|
|
He's using matured coins and this Tx has already got 6 confirmations. Cool, thank you. I had to do some reading up on zero fee transactions! I was not familiar with mature coins It used to be that if you sum (age of input in days)*(size of input in BTC) over all inputs in a transaction, and got a number greater than 1, then your transaction was free (so long as it was less than 1000 bytes, and so long as no output was smaller than 0.01 BTC). But I think the rules changed recently, because I see this in the client's source: double CTransaction::ComputePriority(double dPriorityInputs, unsigned int nTxSize) const
{
// In order to avoid disincentivizing cleaning up the UTXO set we don't count
// the constant overhead for each txin and up to 110 bytes of scriptSig (which
// is enough to cover a compressed pubkey p2sh redemption) for priority.
// Providing any more cleanup incentive than making additional inputs free would
// risk encouraging people to create junk outputs to redeem later.
so now I no longer understand the rules for free transactions - and apparently neither does blockchain.info, because a couple of days ago I saw a withdrawal maybe by Inkha (I think) which the DB client thought was OK to send without fees, but which b.i marked as having insufficient fees. The transaction took over an hour to confirm, too, so I guess a lot of the miners are also still using the old rules. What we need is a centralised body to sort out this mess - maybe one of the big banks would be willing?  |
|
|
|
Block 68455 minted 950.2716788
Possibly the largest lottery reward yet?
That was me! According to the bot in the IRC channel, yes: 11:06 < creativecuriosit> &lotto.top5
11:06 < SuperClam> Height | Reward
11:06 < SuperClam> -------------------------
11:06 < SuperClam> 68455 950.27157880
11:06 < SuperClam> 54989 773.07535090
11:06 < SuperClam> 37893 704.66066719
11:06 < SuperClam> 54088 580.22232479
11:06 < SuperClam> 38886 571.24572027 That's the only reward I have in the top 5, although my 2nd biggest reward ( 567.51201935) only just fails to get 5th place. |
|
|
|
There's something wrong here. I just requested a withdrawal from a site, and according to blockchain.info the withdrawal has many confirmations, but one of its inputs is unconfirmed (as indicated by the red 'U'):  That's meant to be impossible, so probably indicates database corruption at blockchain.info. Here's a link to the tx in question: https://blockchain.info/tx/02248ff5fe93483473f1c48baf7b23ac342ddb510ffba1e865d82e4272cf6548Here's the unconfirmed parent transaction:  |
|
|
|
Dicebitcoin is justdice 2.0 its clearly obvious.. same colors and even the be the bank feature.. and yeah he entered the sign campaign like if he needed the payment.. so he launched his same site from other location and he is dicebitcoin account or he sold his crappy engine/site to another guy and now is supporting him..
Pack your shitty arguments from here dooglus and go to play to your crappy site. Which was rumored that you made alts and played high stakes on your own site to screw investors.
Oh, you moved your post? I replied to it where you originally posted it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716312.msg8342937#msg8342937To address your half-crazed conspiracy theory: * the colours are completely different * pretty much every new dice site has the 'be the bank' feature that JD pioneered * the design is totally different * DB is nothing to do with me * I don't make alts, other than accounts with "dooglus" or "Just-Dice" in their name; your rumours are false |
|
|
|
Oh, I noticed something else... they all have "dice" in their names. It must be some acronym involving dooglus.
dooglus is creating everything |
|
|
|
You lost the 1 BTC bet.
You are essentially playing two games:
Betting on a 10x multiplier
Betting on (x)x multiplier.
You win the 10x mutiplier. 10 x 1 BTC = 9 BTC profit
You lose the (x) multiplier. -1 x 1 BTC = -1 BTC profit
9 BTC profit + (-1 BTC profit) = 8 BTC profit.
You seem to be counting the stake twice: profit = 10 - 1 - 1 = 8. There's only a single 1 BTC stake. The jackpot bet is "free" - if you lose the jackpot bet, by rolling anything other than 77.77, you don't lose anything, so the stake must be 0, so the profit should be 10 - 1 - 0 = 9. Not 8 like you're currently paying. Doog you seem to have recently inhibited an extremely negative attitude towards Primedice. On dicebitco.in's thread you have a very positive attitude and are helpful towards them when pointing out issues you may have. Here you have a more incriminating sort of approach. Is there something wrong you'd like to talk about?
I've been out all day, and was planning to put together a long response to this, showing my recent interactions with PD and with DB, and how my feeling towards each site has changed as a result, but I'm tired and am not sure it would help. Basically, I feel positive ly towards both sites, but find that when I point out issues with PD, I am either ignored, or told that I'm wrong, whereas when I point out issues with DB they thank me, and either fix them or add them to the list of things that need fixing. I recently discovered that PD (1 and 2, not 3) was (presumably accidentally) rounding every bet in the favour of the house, resulting in the actual chance of winning being 0.005% worse than advertised. This will have meant that roughly 35 thousand bets were settled as losses when they should have been settled as wins. When I pointed this out, you told me I was wrong, and when I insisted that I was right, you failed to respond further. This issue with the jackpot payouts is another one, and the whale yesterday (?) who was reported to have bet 600 BTC in a day, while the amount wagered on the whole site only went up a fraction of that. It's not that I'm anti-PD - it's just that PD seems to be getting a lot of stuff wrong. You'll notice I'm critical of every other site too when I see them doing things that seem wrong. The difference with DB is that they are happy to respond to such criticism and take steps to address it - and that leaves me feeling better about my experience with them than I do about my experience with PD. I'm also sad to have had to shut down JD, and that's probably causing me to be more negative in my outlook than normal, and for that I apologise. |
|
|
|
Notice anything similar? On all of these you can choose to either roll high OR low.
Wow, you caught me! I never thought anyone would notice. I was a little worried that people would notice I used the exact same shade of green on the padlocks on all my sites:     (well, nearly all - one of them is a little unresponsive again at the moment) |
|
|
|
I agree with Dooglus giving you the negative trust. If you were deleting his posts, he has a right to open a scam accusation and leave negative trust.
The first two times he ran his scam, he used a regular style thread for it, and of course they were both overrun with sensible people pulling his scam to pieces, pointing out all the ways it was obviously a scam. So the third time he tried running it, he made the thread "self moderated", so that potential marks wouldn't have to be scared off by all the annoying people pointing out that his scam was a scam. I expect the threads are still on the forum if anyone wants to dig them up. Personally I've wasted more than enough time on this troll. |
|
|
|
I ended up posting negative feedback about you four times: 1) I tried discussing your scam with you on your scam thread. You deleted my posts, so I left negative feedback saying you were running a scam, and gave details. That was 2014-03-24. That is what the trust feedback system is for. I hope you don't dispute that feedback. If you do, let's hear it. 2) After I posted saying that you were running a scam, you PMed me, threatening to post groundless retaliatory negative feedback about myself if I didn't remove my feedback. You then went on to actually do so. That's an abuse of the system, so I posted feedback saying that you were abusing the system. 3) You started bombarding me with increasingly unpleasant PMs. You suggested that the PMs wouldn't stop until I removed the valid feedback I had already posted about you. I responded by posting screenshots of some of your PMs to warn others about how you behave. 4) You kept on PMing me, and I posted pretty much the same as my 3rd post again, only shorter, in the hope that you would be able to understand it that time. I see now you have been posting feedback about me, but in the form of messages to me. I don't read my own trust feedback - it's not mean for me, it's meant for people who are considering dealing with me. Things like: What the hell is your problem?
You said to me that if I remained a legitimate user that you would remove the negative trust. suggest to me that you don't understand what the system is for. I never said I would remove negative trust. I said I left it because you ran a scam. I said that if I saw you doing something trustworthy, I would leave positive feedback, but that's not the same thing. You know what, I don't even care about your trust anymore and yet you've brought it up yet again? I don't believe you. I haven't done anything related to scamming at all You were asking people for coins to gamble with, because you had a winning system. For fuck sake. Dooglus CONDONES PONZI SCHEMES Almost every ponzi scheme on the forum tries to hide the fact that it is a ponzi scheme. They claim to have a legitimate source of income that makes them their riches. Usually day trading or mining. One time a guy appeared saying he was running a ponzi scheme, and that he had no way of paying interest other than from new players joining. There is nothing wrong with such a scheme. The thing that is wrong with most ponzi schemes is that the operator disguises the fact that it is a ponzi scheme. If someone wants to run a ponzi, tell you it's a ponzi, and you still willingly get involved then I see nothing wrong with that at all. Do you? As for your suggestion that I was running that one scheme, you're wrong. I've no idea who it was. I just thought it was great to see someone being honest about things for a chance. I've never used "sockpuppet" accounts here, with the possible exception of an account called "Just-Dice" which I made shortly before launching JD, but ended up decided not to use. If it isn't posted under the name "dooglus" here, then I didn't write it. I doubt you could say the same thing. I seen posts from other accounts with writing ticks that very closely resemble yours. Now everytime I send ONE message to him, he adds another neg trust
That's not true. You have sent me lots and lots of PMs. I have left you 4 feedbacks, 3 of which were relative to quite different things. Have you tried NOT PMing him? Obviously, he doesn't want you to. He should just add you to his blocked list and forget about it if it bothers him that badly.
I've never had to ignore anyone. If someone is going to behave in such an anti-social manner, don't you think they deserve to get called out over it? If they also run a gambling scam, don't they deserve to get called out over that too? And misuse of the trust system also seems worth pointing out, in case others were thinking he might be worth dealing with. |
|
|
|
Man, I can't believe you deleted that post. That's one of the funniest things I've seen for a long time. From the initial evidence that the colours are the same (huh? they're not!) to the closing "wouldn't invest a shit" the whole post was comedy gold. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
