So I read https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/06/30/advanced-contract-programming-example-schellingcoin/ and found what I think are a few issues with the contract script, but comments are disabled. So there's a wiki that I can't edit and a blog I can't comment on. It kind of looks like my feedback isn't wanted. What's the deal here? In case feedback is accepted, I was wondering about this: N = contract.storage[1]
o = array(N)
i = 0
j = 0
while i < N:
if contract.storage[VALUES + i]:
o[j] = contract.storage[VALUES + i]
o[j + 1] = i
j += 2
i += 1 j potentially goes up by 2 for each increment of i, and I goes up to N-1, so j could go up to 2N-2. j is used to index array o, which only has N slots. This looks like a potential array bounds overflow error. Edit: I was also wondering about "low = call(contract.address, low, lsz, lsz)". I've read https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/%5BEnglish%5D-Serpent-programming-language-operations but it has no mention of "call". What are the 3rd and 4th parameters for? Where is call() documented? I had assumed I was looking at Serpent code, but maybe this is something different. |
|
|
|
Nah, they don't believe in that, but they only want you to believe it is a legitimate business with insane return but insanely low risk lol.  It's worse than that even. They don't care what you believe. They just want the $1 per post that they get for promoting this scam. |
|
|
|
payouts for 22.6.2014 processed
Do you publish details of your economic activity anywhere? It would be interesting to see blockchain evidence if possible. |
|
|
|
You're right, sorry. Kind of confusing having two exchanges with the same name... I don't blame you remember keeping track of this thread as well to see and keep track of what the other virtex was up too and was wondering who would make that mistake eventually  Turns out this thread was in my 'watchlist' from when I posted in the past complaining about them taking the name of an established exchange and how that would confuse people. Then it confused me. It's like ra-ay-ain on your wedding day. |
|
|
|
I accidentally posted this in the wrong virtex thread: I've seen weird 'spikes' in your chart at BitcoinWisdom a couple of times recently. For example:  I had a sell order at $698.00 when the spike up to $719 happened, but none of it was matched. Is this a bug in BitcoinWisdom? Or in CaVirtex? Edit: your website claims the daily and weekly high was $692:  BitcoinWisdom say it's a bug in your API. Please fix it. I think bitcoinwisdom is using the old api. Could that be the problem here? |
|
|
|
I've seen weird 'spikes' in your chart at BitcoinWisdom a couple of times recently. For example: I had a sell order at $698.00 when the spike up to $719 happened, but none of it was matched. Is this a bug in BitcoinWisdom? Or in CaVirtex? Edit: your website claims the daily and weekly high was $692: BitcoinWisdom say it's a bug in your API. Please fix it. @ Doog Virtex is not Cavirtex I know its weird but you need to go to the other thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=218435.0You're right, sorry. Kind of confusing having two exchanges with the same name... |
|
|
|
Both have the same EV
How do you figure? |
|
|
|
just go to the first post go edit
and then go top and edit your subject!
Thanks. I did that. no problem so there isnt any change that jD will come online back again ?! There's a chance, but for now I don't want to be "dealing in Bitcoin". |
|
|
|
I think you need to define what you mean by "better".
If two things are identical except that one has a higher chance of winning than the other, I think it's pretty clear that the one with the higher chance of winning is "better". It's hard to conceive of a definition whereby it isn't. Unless you think winning is bad, I guess. Edit: are you thinking that for something to be better than something else it has to be good? It is better to only lose the tip of a finger to an industrial accident than to lose a whole arm. Neither is good, but the less serious accident is "better" than the more serious accident. Edit2: and so while I wouldn't recommend industrial accidents, I can say that if you're going to have one, try to have a minor one. Because they are "better" than major ones. Edit3: lol |
|
|
|
just go to the first post go edit
and then go top and edit your subject!
Thanks. I did that. |
|
|
|
Cryptory is paying not ticking like a bomb.Because it is not a bomb.It is a hyip.
How does a hyip get the money they use to pay out their investors? When preparing your answer, bear in mind that the payouts are exponentially increasing, and so the source of the payouts will need to be something which itself can increase exponentially for the next 5 years. None that "mining" doesn't fit into this category, since returns from mining will halve in about 3 years. Mining difficulty does increase.But they can add new equipments along from new investors money.They must be doing it to keep everything leveled and smooth. I'll try again without the extra text. See if you can answer: How does a hyip get the money they use to pay out their investors? |
|
|
|
Hmm doesn't that mean that #2 is actually better? 1 in every 7.65 bets is a loss, yet your risk is only 7.21 btc?
No, you win 6.65 times to every 1 loss. So you win 6.65 units and lose 7.21. |
|
|
|
I suspect your numbers are wrong. According to your math you can simply use the formula in #3 and bankrun any of these dice games.
That seems a bit rude. Why don't you work it out and see for yourself? #3 127 risk reward 1 & 99.1% outcome (111 spins to recoup one loss, positive expectancy)
That's your mistake. You lose one every 111 spins, so you recoup 111 BTC and lose 127 BTC. That's a negative expectation. According to your change of success numbers looks like #3 is a good option. Are you sure its 99.1% chance of success?
I was rounding to a single decimal place. It's actually a little better: >>> (1 - 0.505**7) * 100 99.1623942561664 >>> 1/0.505**7 119.38791100251332 So that's a 99.1624% chance of success, and a 1-in-119 chance of losing. A 1-in-119 chance of losing 127 units is a negative expectation, not positive. To break even, you need a 99.21875% chance of turning 127 into 128: >>> 127/1.28 99.21875 |
|
|
|
Cryptory is paying not ticking like a bomb.Because it is not a bomb.It is a hyip.
How does a hyip get the money they use to pay out their investors? When preparing your answer, bear in mind that the payouts are exponentially increasing, and so the source of the payouts will need to be something which itself can increase exponentially for the next 5 years. None that "mining" doesn't fit into this category, since returns from mining will halve in about 3 years. |
|
|
|
Can you prove they are scamming people like you claim.When Cryptory isn't scamming people at all.
I can't prove that they don't have billions of dollars that they plan to give away to fund the greedy people who fall for their scam. It is possible that they're really nice people who have a lot of money they don't need and want to give it away. But rather than find good deserving causes they have decided to give it to the kind of stupid people who fall for Ponzi schemes. On balance I think that probably isn't what is going on there, and that this is much more likely to be a traditional Ponzi scheme with a relatively low payout and so a corresponding relatively long life. But no, I don't have proof of that. I was asking the guy who said he was trying to prove they were for real what his proof was. Because if it exists, I'm in. |
|
|
|
This is a gamble in the same way leaving your wallet on the bus and hoping to come back, find it and also have another $100 stuffed in it.
This is not a gamble in the form of a casino game, a wager or a bet.
This is a scam, a grift and most of all a tax on the gullible.
I don't think that's fair. If someone runs a Ponzi and claims they are making profits by mining, day-trading, robbing old ladies of their pension, or whatever else then that's a scam. Investors think they're making money in one way and it turns out they're being paid only from new deposits. One day it all stops and investors are surprised to find that they are out of pocket. One the other hand, if a Ponzi is advertised as a Ponzi where the operator is up front about how it runs, and warns that payments will pause if new deposits dry up then everyone knows what they are getting into. "scam" is defined as "a dishonest scheme; a fraud". This doesn't fit that definition. There's nothing dishonest about it. "grift" is defined as "a petty swindle"; "swindle" as "a fraudulent scheme or action", and "fraudulent" as "obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception". Again, there's no deception here. Everything is out in the open. Deception; deceit, deceitfulness, duplicity, double-dealing, fraud, cheating, trickery, chicanery, deviousness, slyness, wiliness, guile, bluff, lying, pretense, treachery. There's none of that stuff.  Leaving negative trust feedback for someone running such a scheme doesn't seem appropriate to me. Edit: Your trust feedback says: Gambling that a ponzi operator will not run off with your funds IS NOT a gambling game. That isn't the game. Every gambling site you play has a risk that the operator will run off with the funds, the same with every other service you entrust with your coins such as exchanges. The game is whether you think the Ponzi will survive long enough for you to get paid back in full. Edit2: also, you wrote that you risked "21,000.00000000" BTC with this guy. That's clearly not true, and is an abuse of the trust system. You are on the DefaultTrust list and so have a duty to use that power responsibly. |
|
|
|
Fixed, thank you. As for future fixes and revisions, github wikis can't be PR'ed, so the best way would be to contact me in any of our forums (forum.ethereum.org, reddit, this thread, etc). Cheers! I'm having more serious problem now: 1) I checked out the cpp-ethereum repo and tried following the wiki page to built the serpent client: https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum/wiki/Serpent-LLL-only-buildIt failed to mention that I needed to build Cryptopp 5.6.2 from source first, and so the instructions fail completely. I wonder if there's even a need for that whole page - it's out of date, and is just a subset of the instructions on the main build page. 2) Then, on: https://github.com/ethereum/cpp-ethereum/wiki/Building-on-Ubuntuit says that building cryptopp from source is "NOT NEEDED IF YOU JUST WANT SERPENT/LLL TOOLS" - but that seems to be untrue. I wonder if it's worth getting someone who knows what they're doing to take a look at all the build instruction pages and fixing them so they're right. 3) Next, I saw: If later, you change your mind and you want to build the full version with the GUI, use: cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release && make I tried that after building the serpent/lll stuff only, and it didn't do anything. I have to delete and remake the build directory before it would build the full version. 4) And finally, once I had the full 'alethzero' thing built, I ran it, connected to a peer, and it reliably segfaults after downloading around 227 blocks. I'm now building a debug version so I can submit a more proper issue. |
|
|
|
I've seen weird 'spikes' in your chart at BitcoinWisdom a couple of times recently. For example: I had a sell order at $698.00 when the spike up to $719 happened, but none of it was matched. Is this a bug in BitcoinWisdom? Or in CaVirtex? Edit: your website claims the daily and weekly high was $692: BitcoinWisdom say it's a bug in your API. Please fix it. |
|
|
|
Why don't you rename the thread to "shutting down soon"?
Good point. How do you rename a thread? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
