the system registers they are owed 1.19 of their original deposit and will pay them out 0.015 of this amount in proportion to what is the bankroll
I was with you up to this line. What does "0.015 of this amount in proportion to what is the bankroll" mean? Suppose I deposit 1 BTC. The system registers I am owed 1.19 BTC. Then someone deposits 0.5 BTC. How does the 0.015 apply? Do I get 0.015 BTC? (0.015 * 1)? Or half that (0.015 * 0.5)? Or something else? I guess what you mean is that every hour 1.5% of the bankroll gets paid out to creditors, in proportion to the amount they are still owed. That seems like a reasonable scheme. It could keep paying out for a long time after deposits dry up, giving a chance for new deposits to arrive. There was a "rain bot" on Just-Dice which would collect donations and randomly pay out 1% of its balance to random players. That meant that it took a long time to dry up. The payouts slowly got smaller, but someone would inevitably top it up before it ran dry. |
|
|
|
I was wondering whether it's possible to find out whether a particular Bitcoin address has any CLAMS associated with it without having to have access to the private key. The helpful folks on the #clams IRC channel told me it is - you can convert from Bitcoin address to CLAMS address without needing the private key. Here's one way of doing it, using the "python-bitcoinlib" library: $ git clone https://github.com/jgarzik/python-bitcoinlib.gitCloning into 'python-bitcoinlib'... remote: Reusing existing pack: 913, done. remote: Total 913 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) Receiving objects: 100% (913/913), 300.69 KiB | 145.00 KiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (487/487), done. Checking connectivity... done. $ cd python-bitcoinlib/ $ python Python 2.7.6 (default, Mar 22 2014, 22:59:56) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import bitcoin.base58 >>> def btc2clam(addr): return bitcoin.base58.CBase58Data(bitcoin.base58.decode(addr)[1:-4], 0x89).__str__() ... >>> print btc2clam('14o7zMMUJkG6De24r3JkJ6USgChq7iWF86') xC6ktEBwaTk8G27wCWwQjGmDuK14SZPvJa >>> |
|
|
|
Am i understanding this correctly? If i paid in 1 BTC and that is say 10% of the bankroll, every hour i get 10% of what is in the bankroll until i have made 1.5 BTC?
No, I don't think so. Every time anyone deposits anything, the whole deposit is paid out to previous deposits in proportion to how much they are still owed. There's no "every hour", because each payout completely drains the scheme's funds until the next deposit arrives. At least that's how I understood it. |
|
|
|
Just Do It Doogie!
I just did it. It just didn't work: ERROR: CheckBlock() : bad proof-of-stake block signature ERROR: ProcessBlock() : CheckBlock FAILED ERROR: CheckStake() : ProcessBlock, block not accepted I think CBlock::CheckBlockSignature() in main.cpp didn't like it. |
|
|
|
I stupidly moved all wonderfully aged 27 clams over the exchange initially, so now I'm playing catchup
I've been thinking about this. If I move coins from one wallet to another, I have to wait 510 blocks until they will start staking again. I also have to wait 510 blocks after they last staked before I can move them, so there will be a minimum of 1020 blocks between staking in one wallet and staking in the next. It looks to me like I could hard-code the staking routine so that the output(s) of the staking transaction are different than the inputs - then my coins would move at the same time as they stake, saving me 510 blocks of waiting time. Questions: 1) would that work from a technical point of view? 2) if so, would such behaviour be frowned upon from a human point of view? |
|
|
|
don't keep them on the exchange unless you want to sell.... they won't stake over there...
Well, they will stake over there, but the exchange will probably take the profit for themselves... You could imagine an exchange which shared its profits from staking customer coins with the customers to give them a competitive advantage - "sell your clams on our exchange and we'll share their staking profits with you until they sell". |
|
|
|
Maybe I misinterpreted; I assumed you were saying investing in your sites was somehow safer despite PRC having the same max profit (as a %) and house edge. I think you are mistaken with the 12.5 BTC figure though. I don't believe dogecoin was worth much over 55 satoshis around the time of close, which at 12.5m profit was ~7 BTC.
My point was only that investing in Doge-Dice was about as "risky" as investing in PRCdice. But yes, risk is definitely subjective.
I was just saying that a site which regularly gets bets exercising its max profit is going to give a better return than sites that don't. JD was easier for me to trust than other sites because I knew the site operator wasn't going to abscond. That's all. |
|
|
|
Agreed reserve is money that isn't invested. Maybe "reserv" means something else?
"reserv" means you're professional. |
|
|
|
Good idea. After you get a list though you should put more useful information on there like the terms, when you can withdraw, how much it costs, etc. Probably want to add how long the invest feature has been around too. Some people might want to get in early where you could make more (having a higher percentage of bankroll) while others are looking for stability and a good history.
It would be worth including info about how trusted the operator is I guess - OTC or BCT rating, or both. |
|
|
|
No different than investing in Doge-Dice.com then dooglus. Max profit was what, <7 BTC at the end? Didn't seem like a high risk high reward investment at all, imo.
I think the bankroll was around 2.5 billion, so max profit was 12.5 million, or around 12.5 BTC I guess. Return was much higher at DD than JD. Risk is subjective. Not sure I understand your point. |
|
|
|
When you say you have enough reserve for covering ... why dont you invest that capital lolz
Reserve means we invest money in few places. So if we lose on one, we got money from another one. That's not what reserve means. If you are risking all your money at once, whether in one or several places, you have no reserve. You have no guarantee that the amount you gain from your profitable investments will be greater than the amount you lose on your bad investments. |
|
|
|
We do not promise profit in bitcoins.
Then the thread title is misleading: ( Re: ~~ Invest your bitcoins ~~ One and only safe way ~~ ) If I'm "investing my bitcoins" and it is "safe", how can I make a loss? |
|
|
|
Investing in Just-Dice was great but really there were so many super rich investors that the rewards were barely worth it. Investing in a smaller house is nicer but the profits swing a lot more too.
JD had a huge max profit per bet which was very rarely used. PRC has a pretty small max profit per bet, and it's used pretty often. That's what makes PRC's returns better. From my point of view it's currently a high return high risk investment compared to JD (but that's mainly because I know and trust the JD operator much more than the PRC operator  ) |
|
|
|
I have ~.13 CLAM in an address with 8 inputs. The most recent input has ~1000 confirmations.
Can anyone explain to me why these aren't staking? Mainly curious. Are the TXOUTs too small to stake for some reason?
There is a minimum balance for staking on some coins, I don't know about Clams. But is your wallet encrypted? Staking won't occur if it has a password. Not encrypted. Anyone have a clue what's up here? Is there a minimun balance required to stake? There's no minimum balance, I don't think. There's a minimum time of 4 hours. After that, you work out the "clam days" of your outputs. If you have 0.13 CLAM that hasn't moved for 3 days, you have 0.39 "clam days" (multiply value by age). I think that 0.39 is then rounded down to an integer, which might be your problem, since it will go to 0 for you. But suppose you had 13 CLAM that hadn't moved for 3 days. That's 39 clam days. That gets multiplied by about 4000 (depending on the current difficulty). So you get 39*4000 = 156,000. Then every second your client hashes a bunch of stuff and gets an effectively random number between 0 and 4.3 billion. If the number is less than your 156,000 then you get to stake. 156,000 is about 27,500 times smaller than 4.3 billion, so you get to stake about once per 27,500 seconds (458 minutes, 7.5 hours). So 13 CLAM that's 3 days old stakes every 7.5 hours or so. As it gets older, its chance of staking increases. And I think your 0.13 CLAM needs to be 1/0.13 = 7.7 days old before it gets over 1 "clam day", and so even has a chance of staking, though I might be wrong on that point. |
|
|
|
That was me!   |
|
|
|
I get what you mean, this is a simplified description, just to give the general idea. But yes you are right, there's infinity here if taken literally The most important here is not to overcomplicate the system. Trying to find a way to prevent it getting stuck. I think there's a problem. Dude, you changed my name? I agree with the previous poster that simple is best. It's always going to get stuck - there's no way to stop it. |
|
|
|
This government regulation is really too bad.
Yes, but you can understand why then don't want the competition. Their games have a 50% house edge or so... |
|
|
|
He was saying that dooglus did not give up, he worked hard to keep the site up and keep the investors safe. If anyone wants to contract a native Chinese speaker to translate the article let me know.
Maybe it's a reference to the trouble we had early on with people spamming the chat, DDoS'ing the site, etc. It's hard to fight against the levels of ass-hattery found on the Internet. |
|
|
|
- It pays the whole available balance to all users with outstanding balance, proportional to the system debt to a given user.
- System profit is taken only from complete 150% cycles, and it is 10% of all complete cycles payouts.
Tell us what you think.
I think there's a problem. If you pay each user a fraction of what they're owed, in proportion to what they're owed, nobody ever gets fully paid out until everybody is fully paid out - and that never happens. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise for a related paradox. This means you never complete anyone's 150% cycle, and never get paid yourself. We can work various examples, but suppose every day you get 1 new person depositing 1 new BTC. day 1: A deposits 1 and is owed 1.5 day 2: B deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. We'll assume B doesn't get paid from his own deposit, so only A is owed anything from B's deposit. A gets B's whole deposit. A is owed 0.5 and B is owed 1.5 day 3: C deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. C's 1 is split between A and B in ratio of their credit: 0.5:1.5 or 1:3. So A gets 0.25 and B gets 0.75. A is left being owed 0.25, B is owed 0.75, C is owed 1.5 day 4: D deposits 1 and is owed 1.5. D's 1 gets split 0.25:0.75:1.5 or 1:3:6. A gets 0.1, B gets 0.3, C gets 0.6. A is owed 0.15, B is owed 0.45, C is owed 0.9, D is owed 1.5 and so on. A's balance goes 1.5, 0.5, 0.25, 0.15, ... and gets lower every day but never reaches zero. Get it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
