Thank you, but that only links back to this thread, which doesn't tell which file the meat of the exploit is in. It is supposed to do a wget and install that trojan. The listed snippits for init.cpp, util.h and util.cpp are all there, but where that post says "the result" quotes code that is simply not in the source code.

It would be nice to have some kind of time window for when the round will start so I'm not just mashing F5 all day.

I'm curious how the malware actually worked. I'm trying to find the meat of it in the source code, where is the stuff being passed in? There's none of that wget stuff in the actual source code itself, at least on github. I'm not saying its not there, but I want to just see how they did this so I know what to look at for new altcoins. Was it in the binary distributions only? I see the system call that lets you pass things into it, but where is the meat of it?

Random end time would certainly be more like a real ponzi. I don't know what impact it would have on the game though, if it turns people off then its obviously bad.

Yeah you sure got me with the random time, I was completely unprepared. Good job though, I think it will help give more people a chance to win, which is better for everyone.

So right now it says next round in about 23 hours, will the next one start after that, or anytime and I should ignore the countdown timer?

I'm not positive I understand, but if you're pointing at a transaction in the blockchain that won, but appears to be late, then I can answer that one. The time you see on dogechain is when it makes it into the blockchain, ponzidoge works off the time the transaction is seen on the network (0 confirmations). I say that because when the round starts, a few second later and you'll see a whole buch of deposits, there's no way it is checking the blockchain if it sees things that quickly.

Whats with #41-#51 getting paid while #14-#40 don't?

I can't believe I never thought to verify if it was an issue with my pc's local time, I just set my clock back a few months, and sure enough:



I'll just do a windows time sync thing before a round, problem solved for me at least.

I'll post about it, I don't want to keep posting the links, it feels like spam. I hope they don't get mad at me.
http://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/23jyk5/litecoin_ponzi_it_looks_like_a_scam_but_its_just/

doge started 10 seconds early again. It was spot on for 2 rounds after I reported it before, but after that they start up early. sometimes 10 seconds, sometimes 15. I keep reloading at the 1 minute mark so I haven't been screwed because of it, but I'm just reporting it.

It sure served as a good learning experience, so you have ideas ready to go if ponzidoge gets the same problems when that eventually fades. It boosts confidence if you state you will cancel rounds if there's not much activity, then nobody feels like they might be the only "investor" and just automatically lose.

Aw dude whats this, only 2 players? I'm the winning one, but still!
We need that insurance.

edit: Oh I see you cancelled it, GOOD. That was just embarrassing.
Considering how few there were, I'm not sure if even lowering the max deposit would have helped. I'm not sure what could save it, another really long round? That might not even help.

One last thing, if you set a rule like "if less than X deposits", people could just break up their deposits into small amounts to sort of get around it, so maybe it needs to be smarter than that. Or just call it manually like you did instead of posting a rule, and just state somewhere that you might cancel and refund everyone if it looks bad.

It looks like someone beat me to it so I just upvoted and commented.

I despise being anything that resembles a shill, but we're not being dishonest at all so I don't mind helping promote.

Looking at the last rounds, doge was about 2.5BTC, ltcponzi was 2.2BTC, but doge looked healthy, and ltc looked sad.
Maybe if less than 10 deposits, regardless of amounts?
You could lower the max deposit on ltc like you did with doge, I think that helped a lot. Not this round of course, its too close to the time to make any changes.

How nice of the market to drop the price just before a round of ponzi.

Hmm, or have it so if a minimum amount of coin (or number of deposits) is not deposited, the whole thing is cancelled, and everyone just gets their own money back, minus tx fees.

This time and last time there was a whale at the end that dropped in 200k at the tail end of the rush (not counting the tiny deposits from people hoping to win the 2x payout, or hoping to push ), sucks for that 200k person, but that means a lot of other winners!

Also, ltcponzi is doing terrible, only 5 people?

Will the next round start immediately after this one ends?

I believe you are running this honestly, but professional victims might end up being effective in smearing you if this kind of stuff isn't just destroyed on sight. One thing that would help are more stats. What is there now is enough, but more stats could go a long way in easily proving the fairness. For example, a list of the incoming deposits, with a little running total column next to it. Then you can just read it, and see for yourself where the dogecoins are going, and if you know the logic, you can just easily see that it is matching.
Someone could still accuse you of fudging the numbers, but this way they can point at a particular number and say "math error here, where did these coins go?" and its easier to discuss it if there is a report to look at.
If you try to add all of this on the main page, it might confuse people. I like the simple design of the web page, I wouldn't suggest cluttering it.