No, I honestly doubt they will. Based on their posting, I think they've sold moneypot to MonsterByte (someone who was part of their ICO) , but it sounds like the "old" owners are going to keep the responsibility to pay; and from there I suspect they'll keep promising they "will" until people simply forget about it.

So I'd estimate there's a 5% chance that investors don't get screwed. So my offer would be 0.2 BTC for 4 BTC worth of moneypot debt.

What about at the time you promised the price floor? What about later? What was the highest stake in BetterBets you owned? And likewise how much did BetterBets make from selling premined rubies?


BetterBets gave out rubies when people bet bitcoin, called "bet mining". MoneyPot made a commission when people bet bitcoin. The price of rubies being higher made the benefits for betting on BetterBets better, thus attracted more action and commissions for MoneyPot..

Would you be so kind as to answer the questions I asked? Namely:

a) What % of "pre-mined" rubies did betterbets start with
b) What % of "betterbets" does or did MP own at any time
c) Did MoneyPot make a commission on bets placed on BetterBets
d) Did BetterBets give out rubies for people betting in a way that would generate MoneyPot revenue?

How much are you selling your 4 BTC claim for?

I'd encourage you to try. I have not as of yet seen coherent explanation that would justify your actions.


This isn't remotely true. Rubies were originally created by "betterbets". Try answer these questions:

a) What % of "pre-mined" rubies did betterbets start with
b) What % of "betterbets" does or did MP own at any time
c) Did MoneyPot make a commission on bets placed on BetterBets
d) Did BetterBets give out rubies for people betting in a way that would generate MoneyPot revenue?

If you answer these questions honestly, it is pretty obvious that you/MoneyPot directly profited by the price of rubies being higher.


Again, this is an extremely dishonest mischaracterization. The scheme wasn't abused, it was simply used. You promised a price floor, the price traded below the price floor and people sold it to you. That's not abuse, it's quite literally what the price floor buy back promise was established for.

Also I don't think you get much credit for honoring the promise when the price was trading above the price floor  


Dude. There's no future to the coin, it's literally a scam coin. You might have been able to fool people once, but it's now got such a tainted history that no one sane will touch it, and you know it.


A nice platitude, but obviously bullshit. If you truly believed it you would be buying it  and honoring the price floor you promised.

"doublers" are generally a very a aggressive form of a ponzi scheme:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

There was a "no one gets scammed" scenario, which was you keeping your promise.

I really hope all this is just for show, as it's genuinely scary if you truly believe you did nothing wrong.

This quite possibly the lamest excuse for scamming people I've ever heard. "The system was being attacked".    No, you promised a price floor and people were taking you up on it because it was trading below the price. That's not an attack, that's literally what you promised to do.  Honestly, you should've just gone with a classic like "Sorry, I needed to use the money to pay for my mothers chemotherapy".



Here's my challenge to you: find a single impartial person of some standing in the community to opine what you did was ethical or justifiable or non-scammy. I'll wait.


Look, I have nothing personally against you. The place is full of scammers. You really did the same shit as Josh Garza's paycoin and it's "$20 guaranteed price floor", and I have nothing against him either. You just shouldn't act so indignant when called out.

You promised an unconditional price floor with rubies, and as the CEO of moneypot you were well aware of the implications (especially as they were immediately discussed in this very forums). Based on this, people made investing, buying and arbitrage decisions. When the price fell below your promised buy support, instead of keeping your word you simply reneged without warning.

I don't see in the point in mincing words, this makes you a scammer.

Don't get me wrong, I don't "support" (or even like) JPR. And I have no doubt he scammed you for 0.2 BTC as well. However, none of this justifies what you did and you clearly scammed more people than just JPR.  And on account of him scamming you 0.2 BTC, I think it would be totally fair and reasonable to deduce 0.2 BTC from the amount you owe him (at least, that's what I would do if I were in your shoes).

But it's a bit laughable to say "OMG, JPR scammed me 0.2 BTC. So now I am relieved of all my debts and don't have to pay shit to anyone!"   

I think "verifiable fairness", is the most descriptive. But the term "provably fair" is so well established that I don't think there's much upside in rebranding it.

This is pretty weak. He stole 0.2 bitcoin from you, but you also stole 4 bitcoin (?) from him and still haven't paid the promised investor compensation that you promised in late 2016. So the obvious thing is deduct the 0.2 BTC and pay him the rest.

I'm not trying to take sides, but AFAICT you're both scammers -- just you owe more, and write a bit more coherently.

I've been playing with it and am very optimistic. However, I'm not entirely sure it's stable or safe enough to want to integrate directly yet. However, I was thinking it might make a lot of sense to make lightning support as a 3rd party bot.

e.g. you PM lightning bot, and it gives you an invoice. You pay the invoice, and then lightning bot tips you.

And same thing in reverse for lightning withdrawals. This seems like a really low (and bounded) risk way of testing out lightning for actual production use

I strongly doubt segwit will lead to lower fees, just a little more throughput. It's possible when a big service like coinbase switches, there will a bit of a shock resulting in temporary lower fees. But demand will quickly catch up

Interesting. So Monster Byte is now going to be responsible for MoneyPot's liabilities? Are they going to outright pay the debt to previous investors and ruby holders, or is the plan to use "debt tokens" still in effect?

That's a good question, I should let Daniel reply but I'll give it a shot since I'm online and like technical questions

Let's take an "stable" withdrawal, where I mean it doesn't consolidate or expand the site's unspent set. In a pre-segwit world that's going to be ~226 bytes. In a (wrapped) segwit world, it'll only be ~178 "virtual" bytes (it's in reality actually a bit bigger, but some of it has a 75% discount).

Which means the cost savings work out to ~20% for a withdrawal.


However, in reality casinos process a lot more deposits than withdrawals (say in the order of 2:1) which means casinos need to consolidate their unspent, either implicitly (letting coin selection grab it) or explicitly (doing it when it's cheap). Now lets say in a (wrapped) segwit world, we'll need ~10000 virtual bytes to consolidate 100 inputs, vs ~15000 with wrapped segwit (so a saving of about ~33%).


So basically your costs of sending money goes down ~20%, and consolidating ~33%. Poorly optimized services will consolidate at peak rates, so that 33% saving is going to be huge. More optimized ones (and with more float) will consolidate at more off peak times, making the saving not that significant in absolute terms.

So if I had to estimate, I'd say you can instantly save 25-30% by using wrapped segwit. Not earth-shattering, but pretty nice. Bustadice really goes a step further with queued withdrawals, input and output selection, and stuff like that. So they're going to save a lot more compared to a typical site but there's some pretty hard core stuff that, that would put it out of reach for most places (including large exchanges  ).

It is worth noting, that "licensed by bustabit" is not an endorsement, just a copy of source code was given. I strongly discourage people from investing because of any association with bustabit.

Just so it's clear, the 10% fee goes to the investors (as opposed to the site). So the investors who are at a loss are the ones who benefit from any dilution they are getting.

Imagine on a site without a dilution fee:  a whale starts playing, wins a lot from the bankroll, new investors see the good volume and decide to invest. Then the whale busts, and the site profit is at 0. Well the original investors would actually be a loss.

On one hand I'd am starting to think the 10% fee might be a bit too high, but on the other hand the limiting factor that bustadice has right now is players not investors. Having a bankroll bigger than strictly necessary is a really liability. So if I'm being honest, I think with the current volume and size of the bankroll bustadice has it's not worth investing in. But that's not a problem per se, it's a casino not a ponzi =)

That is a common misconception, but not the case. Segwit "addresses" are cheaper to spend from, because the signature that authorizes the transfer is discounted. It makes no difference if it's segwit->segwit or not not. So basically if you used segwit addresses, all withdrawals would cost you significantly less money (regardless where they are sent to).

It's also marginally cheaper to send to a bech32 and p2shaddress than p2pkh. So a tiny bit cheaper for people to deposit (again, regardless if they use segwit or not).


The problem with bech32 is very few wallets or services currently support sending to it. So you probably won't be able to completely switch to bech32 for years. Meanwhile it's possible to switch to segwit wrapped in p2sh immediately and enjoy complete compatibility and fee savings for all actions.

@peterpanbtcman Is this true?


If you lost your balance gambling, there's really nothing that can be done. I personally think casinos should never allow people to gamble while withholding a payment to prevent this very thing, but if you lose your money you can't really expect them to revert your loss (just as it would be unreasonable for them to revert a win).

Oh wow! That's almost a half a million dollars you're up! Congratulations!