What the heck is even going on in here?! First off, we have been running a 2 week round due to the escrow not being refilled in time (which it has been since then, I've received an escrow refill yesterday). Since most of you are already familiar with the process of two week rounds, I didn't make a post about that (I apologize if someone was confused by that). As for applications, the first reply clearly states I will review application with every payround, and I will only make new enrollments with the payround, and not before. Thus no review of applications/new enrollments so far. That being said, this campaign has been running for 1.5 years now, and everyone has been paid, for every round. Nobody was scammed, and nobody will be scammed. If you dislike the way I handle and manage campaigns, do not apply for one, and dont enroll into one. Thanks.
that wallet you talking about has 0.1 btc and it has to be escrow for many compaign like this and 777
The escrow is only used for this campaign. |
|
|
|
2. Create or designate some sections as "serious discussion" sections, with no signatures.
This is actually something I was going to suggest. I'd support this idea. The section can also be used to test the impact of globally removing signatures. How about we trial a sub board of bitcoin discussion where posts in there don't count towards activity or post count and signatures aren't displayed at all?
Removing certain sections from contributing to activity/post counts has been discussed in the past, but never was integrated. Was there a reason this discussion vanished/idea was dropped? |
|
|
|
Support was nice and helpful. Will use the service in the future.
Sorry for all the drama and thanks for verifying PGP!
Glad we could help and your issue got sorted out.
Page offline? Is this just a short downtime or exit scam?
Working fine over here. |
|
|
|
When I last posted about this there was 6000 ETH, now there is 5400 ETH.
Wasnt the jackpot amount supposed to grow, not decrease? Players of the lottery are getting a worse deal with every passing day. Btw 5400 ETH is cca. $3.7M, which is a long way off from a "multi-billion-dollar" lottery jackpot. |
|
|
|
That is a common misconception, but not the case. ~snip~
You're right there. SegWit only provides it full advantage when sending from and to other SW addresses, but transactions to/from P2PKH addresses also get a small boost. E.g. a difference in transacion sizes from 258 bytes to 224 bytes (comparing 1 input/2 output transacions from a P2PKH address first to another P2PKH address, then to a P2SH address). 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.
I'm pretty sure bech32 will replace p2sh as prefered segwit integration before long. The current delay in services not being able to handle/process transacions involving bech32 addresses comes from Core only having limited support for them so far. Once bech32 replaces p2sh as default segwit address format in Core (which imo is both very likely and close), services can work towards integrating it in their infrastructure. |
|
|
|
|
I'm tracking my personal investments via a publicly available investment option.
|
|
|
|
This is understandable, but what about P2SH addresses for deposits? Right now clicking on "New address" generates a P2PKH address, is it possible to start generating P2SH SegWit addresses instead? This could help to lower withdrawal fees, since it's a hot wallet and those coins are likely to be used for withdrawals later.
This only affects withdrawals to other P2SH segwit addresses, not withdrawals to legacy (both P2SH and P2PKH) addresses. The fees for withdrawals are based on average transacion size and are calculated before you enter an address, they are the same regardless. A switch there would need a complete overhaul of the withdrawal system, which isn't very cost/benefit efficient when bech32 addresses are just around the corner. As said, a switch to segwit based address handling should be discussed, but I don't think it should be rushed and done right now, I however do think the time for it is with a well designed and tested update when the bech32 standard is established. As for bech32, it can be done optionally, for example you could put a checkbox like "generate bech32 addresses for deposits" somewhere in Settings tab, so it won't be too distracting and confusing for less experienced users.
Not with the current version of Core, nope. P2SH is still standard for SegWit addresses and afaik bech32 is currently only partly supported, making it impossible for CG to utilize it right now. Also, would Crypto-games accept my deposit today if it will come from bech32 address?
CG isn't the only service and many users send withdrawals directly to deposit addresses from other services. While it isn't best use practice, we gotta acknowledge that people are doing this, and we gotta account for it when making decisions. |
|
|
|
And the third question - are you planning to use SegWit addresses for both deposits and withdrawals?
You can withdraw to P2SH segwit addresses without any issue. Bech32 isn't standardized enough to be utilized right now. A decision on how to integrate SegWit into the current system at CG wont be made before the bech32 standard is fully rolled out. Right now, using bech32 addresses can cause two big issues, the first one is that some users are unable to deposit, since their wallet/exchange doesnt support sending to bech32 addresses, the second one is that users might not be able to withdraw everywhere, as some exchanges don't credit transacions sent from bech32 addresses. In the interest of avoiding either, a switch to bech32 segwit addresses on a service level doesn't seem smart before both those possible problem sources are addressed. |
|
|
|
we will no longer accept bankroll investments from completely new investors.
As a long time investor, this comes as worrying news. Care to elaborate a bit? It's simply a way to limit the growth of the bankroll, as the currently available amount is fully sufficient to cover all wagering volume. another way would have been to increase the fees on investments, in a hope that the worse offer would keep people from joining the investors pool, which is something we didn't want to do, as it would penalize not only new, but also current investors. |
|
|
|
I had made a small deposit of bitcoins on to my Bitcoin-Blender account (UserID RonCally3), whilst logged in to URL bitcoin-blender.com (so not the phishing site) and the coins have not appeared despite being confirmed on the transaction in block-chain.
There is no clearnet site you can log into. The clearnet site is fully informational, you cannot make deposits or register accounts there. The only vaild URL for BitBlender is http://bitblendervrfkzr.onion/ (TOR). |
|
|
|
I didn't know too much about hardware wallets, so I was surprised to see that these past forks have been supported by Ledger.
Quoting Ledger's CTO on the matter: "We can easily support forks that have a price and are legit. I don't believe [ Super Bitcoin][...] is, but that's just my opinion" Both BTG and BCH run with the same chrome application as the Bitcoin app does, the changes are considerably small for most forks. IIRC syncing the BTG node took them more time after the fork than getting the code and app ready. |
|
|
|
But wagering volume and bankroll share are also past data, and they can change over time for various reasons. So, even without variance it's not so easy to calculate "expected" return and it would probably require some economic modelling.
As nobody can predict the future, expected return can only be calculated for past periods. It's a way to measure actual (past) performance with theoretical values, not one to assess current or future possibilities. |
|
|
|
I find it hilarious that you left important parts of the chat out.
The important part is that the person that was muted didn't think it was a big deal, and both mods involved were friendly and even apologized for the misunderstanding. Only you were trying to make a big issue out of nothing.
you're no longer going to distribute any further forks.
They didn't say anything of the sort. They will keep distributing forked coins, provided they're supported by Ledger, which has always been the case in the past. Correct, the policy itself doesn't change, the site will still distribute all coins it is able to distribute. What however canges is the requirement for a coin to fall under this policy. |
|
|
|
Is there any reason why your mods ban people for stating their opinions and then call them trolls for no reason? Your site sincerely needs to get it together with the ridiculous actions of your mods in the chat room. A user was muted for doing something he asked permission to do.
And they didn't get permission, yet proceeded. Besides, I'll just leave this here... * s0lidus muted Qezqez for 5 minutes (not allowed, sorry).
<[MOD]Accountant> My apologies if I gave you the wrong impressing Qezqez I was responding to Blackhat
<Qezqez> thats fine, i was just trying to share my sadness that i lost .31 ltc last night when it was at 150 :grinning:
<Qezqez> derpstaxxd its fine, the mute was only for 5 minutes anyway
<Qezqez> its fine dude lol just come here for daily faucets anyway
|
|
|
|
Do you guys offer binary options and sports? Thanks for letting me know!
Not at the moment, no. |
|
|
|
As in practice most bets "target" small payouts, it's actually optimal to set a max payout bigger than 1 Kelly.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake in my earlier post. I wrote "the max bet" is set at 0.5%, when it should have been "the max profit per bet". The max bet is fixed at 10x the max profit, allowing eg a 60 BTC bet at x1.1 payout as we had it the last month.
I see you really value stability, but you are being a bit too conservative. Anyway, 1 Kelly would already be something completely safe and could attract more high rollers. So it would mean extra profits with no extra risk.
I didn't set that number (it's not my decision to make), and I personally wouldn't mind taking a little higher risk with my (personal) investment. That being said, we see maybe 1 bet a month that comes close to the maximum limits, higher limits wouldn't net more profit if there are no bets being placed at that size. Something I don't understand is why you look at aged investments to calculate the max payout, instead of the current bankroll (unless it's because you can't constantly update the maximum payout for technical reasons).
It provides a more stable max bet/max profit, which imo leads to a better user experience. |
|
|
|
If the win is higher then the pot you will get the payment in rounds (rates)
until you get the full amount you have won.
Unless you are owner of the site you should be quiet, because what you just wrote is nonsense and can only mean that they don't have money to pay jackpot higher than 6K eth, with that said they shouldn't even offer so high jackpot. Are you owner? You dont need to be the owner to spot their advertising bullshit. It's not that what they wrote is bullshit, but that the estimates are. The site isn't solvent enough to cover full jackpot hits, so only the solvency gets covered. They will be paying that for the rest of their lives - and what if someone hit jackpot again? And again? How will they cover it?
What if someone wins 7,000,000ETH? How will they pay that?
They wont. |
|
|
|
How is the max payout set at Crypto-Games, is it 1 Kelly?
There's no Kelly criterion involved, the effective bankroll is the one available and every BTC in the bankroll is backed by 1 BTC in the cold wallets. (I guess you could see that as 1x Kelly factor) The max bet profit per bet on dice is set based on aged investments (those older than 7 days), and is 0.5% of the stable bankroll (only considering aged investments). Those limits are lower than on most other sites (compared to their bankroll), but due to the amount of bankroll funds available, they still allow to offer very reasonable maxbet limits, currently that's 7.88 BTC profit per single bet ( the max bet is fixed at 10x that number). The variable edge feature there is quite interesting, as it lets players make very big bets (in relation to the bankroll) but by charging a very high edge, which makes it still sustainable for the casino.
In theory, that's true. The practical example currently tells another story though. Variance stays a b*tch. Taking huge risks that might (are expected to) pay off still involves taking huge risks. And nobody can guarantee that they pay off.
Edited to correct small mistakes (noted with strikeout and italic). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
