Same thing could have happened to any site. It was a managerial mistake by signing off a piece of work done by two trusted professionals.
It could have happened to any site that relied on an external authority ("trusted professionals") rather than actually doing real testing. There's a world of difference between "I'm going to use this code because the guy who wrote it says it's good" and "I'm going to use this code because I've thoroughly tested it and it works". TradeFortress was a "trusted professional", but I didn't trust him to handle client funds without first securing collateral. I always felt like people were trusting me to look after their coins. I wasn't willing to delegate that trust to random third parties. I feel that doing so would have been an abuse of their trust. It's a little worrying that you don't see it the same way. |
|
|
|
Man this Doog kid is really Bashing PRC unfairly. Ive had friends use this site and used it myself. Dean (The owner of PRC) has always run a fair clean business, all he asks is you do the same. I don't think anything I've said has been unfair. Dean put up a game that was rigged. He didn't mean to, but he did. Any amount of basic testing of the RNG would have shown him it was rigged yet somehow insufficient testing was done. When the rigged game was abused, rather than accepting blame himself, he blames the players and says they are trying to "steal". Are any of those statements "unfair", do you think? so in your opinion Dean should pay 19,68 BTC (= ~12k $) to sjess? Or how should he have handled the incident? Take the 19,68 BTC from the bankroll and reimburse investors over time? (similar happened at satoshicarnival, a rather new gambling site a few days ago) I don't know how he should have handled the situation. But dismissing people's concerns as "arguing about nothing" isn't the right way. Accusing players of being thieves isn't the right way either. |
|
|
|
Thank you so far. This is the type of shit that kills coins imo.
What is? Weird unannounced changes out of nowhere? Or the discussion of such changes? |
|
|
|
CoinAge is no longer relevant to reward. I'm a bit concerned as to why this hasn't been explained better... So far, I really dislike this change.
Me too. Look at the commit that implemented the change: https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/commit/4bd0451c080d572dbd4214910216f2d146835117It has statements without terminating semicolons: + int tierOne = 2
+ int tierTwo = 26
+ int tierThree = 99
and it has weird non-C language: + if(random <= tierOne AND > 0){
I don't understand how code like that gets written. It looks like it was done by someone with no C++ experience at all. To cap it all, the commit log message for the big change is "clam diggity". Not exactly confidence-inspiring... Block Reward: ~1% APR
This doesn't seem very correct anymore? No, not at all. If I have 1000 CLAM in one single address, I get to mine 1 block for 1 random reward every 510 blocks. If I have 100 CLAM in each of 10 different addresses, I get to mine 10 blocks for 10 random rewards every 510 blocks. That messes up the incentives, as I see it. |
|
|
|
Man this Doog kid is really Bashing PRC unfairly. Ive had friends use this site and used it myself. Dean (The owner of PRC) has always run a fair clean business, all he asks is you do the same. I don't think anything I've said has been unfair. Dean put up a game that was rigged. He didn't mean to, but he did. Any amount of basic testing of the RNG would have shown him it was rigged yet somehow insufficient testing was done. When the rigged game was abused, rather than accepting blame himself, he blames the players and says they are trying to "steal". Are any of those statements "unfair", do you think? |
|
|
|
So you think it's OK to come in and make assumptions/accusations when you don't even know the situation?
Arrogant had 0.46 Bitcoin refunded for rolls that lost unfairly.
None of his martingale streak was affected. I have emailed him his results for him to verify.
I think I was pretty clear that I didn't have all the details. I was going by what Arrogant told me. He didn't have the details either, but felt like he hadn't been refunded enough. |
|
|
|
I just posted an "issue" on github: https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/issues/3I'm worried that the coming change to a lottery system pretty much breaks the "proof of stake" system, by making the block reward completely independent of the size of your stake. Under the current system I can chose to run the client once a month if I like, and collect my whole month's "interest" in one lump. Or I can collect it daily. There's no benefit to doing it either way. Under the new system I get the same expected return each time I stake. If I only run the client once a month I get 30 times less interest than if I run it every day. Is that right, or am I mistaken? |
|
|
|
Is the roulette wheel manufacturer analogy fair? Any novice gambler used to playing roulette would most likely spot more reds than blacks, or even the lack of green.
I think it's the other way around. If a roulette wheel is unbalanced, you will tend to see numbers on one quadrant of the wheel coming up more often than the other quadrants. The numbers are pretty randomly spread around the wheel, so a novice gambler won't notice anything is wrong. He could count how many times each number comes up, plot a chart, see spikes at various apparently random numbers, and then maybe notice that all the spikes correspond to numbers in one quadrant of the wheel. On the other hand, the dice game was very obviously unbalanced. Numbers over 27 came up much more often than numbers under 27. A plot would show a simple step function. Even the most basic analysis would show it up. Not doing even very basic testing of your game's randomness seems like gross negligence given how easy it is to do. Testing a roulette wheel requires someone to physically spin the wheel thousands of times and keep a record of where the ball lands each time. It's boring, labour intensive, error prone. Testing a provably fair algorithm requires 5 minutes to write a simple script. |
|
|
|
If you play fair you can be sure to be treated fair! Like all the player who got their money back from the unfair bets they lose during this time.
I don't think that's the case. Player "Arrogant" was playing a Martingale strategy. I don't have the exact details, but it's something like this: -- He lost bets 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6 playing 'lo'. The 0.2 bet should have won. The house refunded the incorrect 0.2 bet only. -- "Arrogant" ends up massively down on the deal, but if the casino wasn't (unintentionally) running a rigged game, he would never have made the bigger bets, since he was resetting on wins. How is that fair? The house argues "you made a losing 1.6 bet; that bet was fair; we won't refund it". He argues "I only made the big bets because all my small bets lost; the small bets shouldn't have lost; refund the big bets". Who is in the right here? |
|
|
|
Oh well I thought it was too good to be true :-/ I got propably 70% of my money out of it though.
Only 70% what happened to the rest ? Lots of people made 50% profit. That profit came entirely from later investors. If you get in early enough, you profit. If you get in at the end, you lose. Of course, the scheme could keep paying out for a while, in which case Eva could well end up making a profit after all (at the expense of the people who join even later). |
|
|
|
Also the low hashrate is good for people with GPU and even CPU's to get a few while it's early...
From what I understand, you only get to make one hash per second per transaction output, so using a GPU won't get you any more coins than using a CPU. Also, even if it did get you more blocks, each block subsidy is proportional to the CLAM-days destroyed, and so doubling the number of blocks you mine would halve the average subsidy per block. I've been tracking block rewards I received, and noting the corresponding "days destroyed" for each. The ones I've seen: 4 0.00010951
5 0.00013689
6 0.00016427
7 0.00019165
8 0.00021903
9 0.00024641
10 0.00027379
11 0.00030116
12 0.00032854
13 0.00035592
14 0.0003833 ie. you get about 2738 CLAMoshis per day destroyed. Sometimes you'll see odd rewards (I saw 0.01052854 a while ago) - but that's just 0.00032854 (the reward for destroying 12 CLAM-days) plus 0.0102 (the sum of the transaction fees offered by people wanting their transactions confirmed) |
|
|
|
PoS interest is 1% per year
amount = 4.60545574
start date may 16 up to PoS mine july 08 = ~53.8 days
4.60545574 times 1% / 365 days times 53.8 days = 0.00679
so the first PoS is right
----
amount 4.61216361
start date July 8 up to july 11 = 3 days
4.61216361 times 1% / 365 days times 3 days = 0.00037908
that should be the amount you get for 3 days PoS mining
Most blocks I find do earn about that much, but check the top line:  Edit: The excess is transaction fees from the transactions I included in the block: http://khashier.com:2750/block/9fd60333d224cd9a4dfa49433488a713ca7e477ff46b9b8ac5007983ddb2f4d5 |
|
|
|
Can someone explain how the "mining" works? I just mined 0.01052854 (txid 4838924d031291d4a21d1cfb956a82376cf8f997b455a601946255fe7907c234) using an address that was part of the initial distribution, and which I've not otherwise touched. A couple of days ago it mined its first 0.00679001, and that was after a couple of months of inactivity, then 2 days later it mined another 0.0105... I was thinking each 4.x output would mine a fixed amount per day, but this one mined more in the last 2 days than the previous 2 months, so now I know I don't understand it... Edit: here's the Abe page for the address I'm talking about: http://khashier.com:2750/address/xVBvXSadyMpcvU2nsDYTZJdctniVXfFBkK |
|
|
|
I am loving this coin/concept....  Am I right in thinking a Block Explorer for CLAM would be sort of useless for getting a true sense of how many CLAM has actually been claimed? Or is there a way to indicate how many have actually been 'dug' up? There's no way of knowing how many have been "dug up", unless "mining" was left enabled. Mining is on by default, and newly dug clams get a high priority for mining. They've not made a block for >60 days. So a block explorer that counted how many of the initial coin distribution have ever been used to mine a block would give interesting information. |
|
|
|
can someone find the error I made in this
Yes. The balance after the first hour is 100, after the 2nd is 190 (2 deposits, one payout) and after the 3rd is 270 (3 deposits, 10 payout the first week and 20 the second. It goes on like this:  |
|
|
|
So it is 李笑来 lixiaolai, who said in this speaking made on Jun 29th that "I knew dooglus a few days ago" which is Jun 26th according to your record.
How is any of this related to your accusation that I cheated investors with some kind of "inside job"? |
|
|
|
You already asked me this in a different thread. I answered you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=680242.msg7760364#msg7760364 but you didn't reply. I am claiming I am not nakowa. I'm willing to disclose *that* personal detail. He's (or she's) one of the other 7 billion humans.
I'm sure you are not. But you know him, don't you? That depends what you mean by "know him". Our first contact was on June 26th 2013 when he approached me via instant messenger. He wanted to contribute a significant amount to the JD bankroll. Having personal contact from potential large contributors wasn't anything surprising or suspicious. He's still on my IM list and still messages me occasionally. Mostly he sends a "hi" while I'm sleeping, and the conversation never goes anywhere, because by the time I wake up he's no longer online. There's quite a language barrier, significant cultural differences, and I'm anti-social at best. These three things together make me hesitate to say I "know him", if you see what I mean. People often say that one of the things that set JD apart from its competition when it launched was its focus on a large chat area, and how Deb and I made ourselves very visible and available in the "troll box" on site. This of course fosters a sense of community, and means that I got to "know" almost all the big players and lots of the big investors. Anyway, feel free to continue with your conspiracy theory. Where are we so far? I spoke to a customer so I must be in league with him? |
|
|
|
yes it's doable, but actually our fees are also very easy to see - this is just 1% of the total deposited amount, can be checked at blockchain.info
Suppose you have collected 100 BTC in deposits, your fee is 1%, and your public address currently holds 1.1 BTC. I can tell that so far you have collected 100 BTC. So I can tell that you've "earned" 1 BTC in fees. But I can't tell whether you've withdrawn your fees or not. So maybe you already withdrew the 1 BTC, and the fund has 1.1 BTC to pay out future payments. But maybe you didn't, so the fund only has 0.1 BTC to pay out future payments. Or maybe you took out some but not all of the 1 BTC fee, so anywhere between 0.1 and 1.1 BTC is available for payouts. This ambiguity makes it impossible for potential investors to make informed decisions. |
|
|
|
I looked at many sites,but dont know wich are scams
I think it's possible to run a Ponzi scheme without it being a scam. If you are honest about it being a Ponzi, then how is it a scam? If everyone knows up front that the last depositors lose out, then it's not a scam, it's more like a game. Exponential growth is baked in to the definition of how Ponzi schemes work: each time anyone deposits, the scheme's assets grow, but their liablilities grow fast, making them less and less solvent with each deposiy. So they can't be stable. In summary: it's possible to find trustworthy Ponzis, but not to find stable ones. |
|
|
|
How you are sure that we are scam?
Look at your website and tell me what other conclusion is possible:  Do we scam you or anyone else ? NO
So far you appear to have been paying, but I would argue that you have either been lucky or are using new deposits to fund profits for old investors. Either way you're not able to guarantee to generate 50% profits every 10 days, so yes, you are scamming everyone who believes that you are able to make such profits. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
