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 just noticed the following posted by Cryptory staff on their facebook page in response to all the people complaining that they've been unable to withdraw for over a week:


I guess the endgame is going to be "oops we got hacked and all your coins have been stolen". How original!

I don't disclose personal details about any of the JD or DD customers. That's the main reason I closed down the site; Canada passed a law saying that anyone "dealing in virtual currency" had to start collecting personal information about their customers. I'm not prepared to invade people's privacy like that, so stopped running the sites.

I think that's the post where I replaced some chinese characters with latin ones. Is that what you're referring to?

OK, so you get lots of tiny deposits, and for some of them taking 1% would mean taking less than a transaction fee which is very wasteful.

So how about this:

Each time you make an hourly payout, you pay yourself however much you're owed, based on all the deposits you've received since the last time you paid yourself.

That will usually not add enough to the transaction size to require any extra fee, and makes it clearer to everyone how much is really in the fund. As it is I don't know if you own 0.01 or 0.99 BTC of the fund in unclaimed fees.

You don't get to tell people to shut up.

jsess was playing according to the rules, and in concordance with the terms and conditions. He won but wasn't paid his winnings.

Dean says that people complaining about his refusal to pay jsess his winnings are "arguing over nothing".

I could have sworn someone posted a link to a Clam block explorer in this thread but I can't find it now.

That isn't clear at all from the game's description.

It would be better if you took your 1% from each deposit as soon as it happens. Then people can see how much is really left in the game just by watching the blockchain.

People are assuming the game doesn't stop paying until the balance in the 1ponzi address is zero, but that's not the case. It will stop paying when payouts start cutting into your paid 1% fees.

Two things:

1) this wouldn't affect players at all - this thread is about "don't play on sites with 'investment'" but it doesn't make any sense

2) nakowa wasn't an "inside job"

I'm not seeing it in the list of transactions from 1PoNzi7PGzRyvc9KWYBcaauS3oeJqa5vFg.

You ignored almost everything I said and focussed on my feedback?

You should look again. My feedback is overwhelmingly positive. A few scammers sent retaliatory butthurt feedback after I used the trust system to alert others to their scamming ways, but that's about it.

Thanks.

Can confirm 'issues' shows up on the github now.

Note that if you do add a paper wallet key, and then your computer gets compromised, you lose the balance of your paper wallet. A smart hacker will recognise that all the keys in your clam client correspond to BTC/DOGE/LTC keys, and will try importing them into each of them.

How did I do it wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_percentage_rate#Multiple_definitions_of_effective_APR has an example of effective APR calculation:


Changing that to fit your numbers:

Consider a 100 BTC deposit to your Ponzi, which is repaid after 2 weeks plus 5%. this deposit has an effective APR of approximately (1.05^26 = 3.555672687944358, which is approximately a 255% increase)

Which bit do you disagree with? What do you think your effective APR is?


My website? What does my website have to do with anything? We've never had any Bitcoins dissapear.


So you make even more than 5% every 14 days? What is your true effective APR?

My website sometimes received requests from "investors" for us to provide a guaranteed investment, where they were guaranteed never to lose any of their principal. The people asking for it were prepared to take a lower profit percentage than normal in exchange for a "no risk" deal. We thought about it and decided it didn't make any sense. If you have to promise to return invested money, then you absolutely can't afford to use the invested money for anything, because what if you lose it?

If you have "reserv" with which to bail out those investors in the event that you lose their money, you would be better off just using that reserv and keeping the profits all for yourself.

"risk free" investment makes no sense at all, and anyone offering it is a scammer.

I have done.

"All of them" is the answer.

If they catch you counting, they pay you and tell you you're not welcome to play any more.

First casinobit copied JD's investment model, but somehow let old investors withdraw deposits from new investors.

Then vert-dice pretty much cloned JD, but forgot about putting per-user locking around invest/divest and got emptied out.

Every-dice copied lots from JD but ended up running off with player and investor funds.

PRCdice copied most of JD's ideas, but didn't copy the provably fair algorithm quite right. They left it exploitable by not quite copying it right, and were exploited as a result.

Satoshi Carnivore copied JD's investment model, but didn't copy the provably fair algorithm completely. It's important to separate the fields properly to prevent players being able to get the same roll twice at will.

If any of the sites had made competent copies, they wouldn't have been exploited. That was my point.

I don't think it's fair to attribute forethought, planning, and careful coding to "luck".

Fair point re. the humility fail though.

"steal" is overstating it. He played according to the rules, on a biased wheel. That isn't theft. He worked out how to win your game, and played it to win. It's similar to blackjack players using card counting techniques to win at blackjack. They're not stealing either.


This wasn't a software flaw. The software was performing exactly how it was designed to perform, and exactly followed the provably fair algorithm laid out on the site. The game itself was flawed in design, not the software.


Every casino will pay out players who win by counting cards at blackjack. That is taking advantage of a 'flaw' in the game, and they always pay you out. If you do it too much they ask you to play "a different game", but they don't refuse to pay you.


OK, but this wasn't a flaw in the software. The software was performing as designed. The game itself was messed up.


None of that seems to apply in the sjess case. He didn't cheat. He played the game as described on the website, following the rules. Your game was +EV, and so he made a profit. If anyone was acting "in a fraudulent manner" it was the site, claiming that the 50% lo game had a 50% chance to win. It didn't.

Was one of the developers called "sjess" by any chance? 

This is one of the reasons why I never outsourced any of the JD development to third parties.

If I had, however, I would have been sure to thoroughly examineand test the code supplied by the developers. In this case any minimal amount of testing would have demonstrated that the lowest 20% of numbers came out significantly less often than the top 20%. Even a 50/50 hi/lo test would have shown the problem.

Then again, mistakes happen...

I have the following:

1) Your OP is very unprofessionally made. Huge ugly images with nasty spelling mistakes. Even after I pointed out how you wrote "reserv" right next to "professional" you still didn't correct it. Your web page is ugly, badly made, full of spelling mistakes and coding errors. It just looks like the kind of thing thrown together by somebody trying to make a quick buck by scamming rather than a professional forex trader.

2) http://www.neo-btc.com/our-offer/ says:

"We offer You 5% profit in only 14 days" and "there is no maximum amount".

You are offering a guaranteed (1.05 ** 26 * 100 - 100 =) 255% APR on any amount of money.

This is clearly impossible. Especially in Bitcoin, where the whole market cap is pretty tiny.

3) the same page says "how do I know that you would not lose my money? It is easy! We never invest all the money in one place so we always will have money to do all the payouts!"

This is clearly ridiculous. It's possible to split your money into 5 equal pieces and make 5 different bad trades with the 5 pieces. Just because one deal goes bad doesn't mean the others will go better. Even if they do, they might not make as much as the bad deal lost.

Do you have any evidence that you are NOT scammers?


I could very well say the same thing to you. Only I'd spell check it first.

Dude, you talking to me?

Show me some EVIDANCE!!!