I'm really sorry this took so long. I didn't take it seriously at the time because it's an issue that I get complaints about all the time and there's never been an actual problem with it before. When there are 2 outputs to the same address in a transaction the script that checks each new block credits the first one and then there's a second script that runs to do the next one. Because that runs later people always assume it has been missed. It turns out that at the time this happened to you our node had crashed and wetsuit had to build a new one. In that process, the second script didn't get copied across to the new node.

I have stated many times that if you are unable to use the automated 2fa reset provided you need to message me a Bitcoin signed message either from the Bitcoin address you set as default on the profile page or an address you have previously deposited from. As we're an anonymous to use site we don't know who owns the account so messaging me offering to prove your identity isn't of any use.

Sorry about that everyone.

Thanks for the reminder. It's not something I follow so it's easy for me to miss.

I'm sorry if I missed it. Please send me a PM with the details.

Yes. That's why I said getting into these conversations is pointless.

Try reading our terms and conditions linked to on the signup page and work out which rule(s) you violated.

Violation of rule 5.10 of our terms.


There's not much point in replying to emails about this as it just ends up with the abuser lying and pretending they didn't do it or claiming they didn't even know that multi-accounting a faucet is theft and abuse of the service.

It's actually something a little different. To manage the wallet in a way that reduces the number of inputs (and therefore weight and cost) of each transaction we always spend the change of the previous transaction. That means if the previous transaction hasn't confirmed yet we're spending an unconfirmed input. If fees suddenly spike that can cause a long chain of unconfirmed transactions and very occasionally it hits the limit of the length of that chain so although we have prepared and signed it we can't broadcast it until the queue clears out.

There's nothing that can be done about it other than waiting for the mempool to clear out a bit.

This isn't the thread we gave you a link to and your entry is invalid because that isn't an image of the win on the FREE BTC page at the time the roll happened. The reason we don't accept screenshots of the roll history is to prevent anyone using automation in violation of the rules from claiming the extra $5.

Having just looked at your account I can see that you are also violating another rule of ours.


PS. Choosing Freebitcoin1397 as a username was a bit of a giveaway.

There's no catch but things like that are processed as a batch at the end of the day so you might have to wait up to 24 hours to be credited.

The benefit of locking is the interest paid when the locking period ends. That's between 5% and 25% APY depending on how long you lock them for. There's obviously going to be a reason for us to offer an incentive that large. We encourage people to lock the tokens because that means they can't be sold, it removes them from the market which is good for the price (supply vs. demand). The concept wouldn't work if people could just ask to unlock them. The term "locked" is self explanatory in itself but if anyone doesn't understand what the word means the page explaining what it is doesn't make an offer like a bank would of fixed interest for a period with early redemption penalties listed. It offers a reward for locking them away.

No. The site is working fine. That message means our servers are receiving too many requests from the same IP address. It could be for several reasons like using an address that is shared with many others or even malware on your device. The block times out after a couple of minutes so if you fix the problem it will start working again.

It's the error message the API is giving to our system. It means that the wallet software provider has introduced a new version of the software that we can't get to work with our system. Our pricing plan is still for the old version because obviously, we're not going to pay them for an upgrade that doesn't work.

---

It would have been flagged for manual checking. I apologise for the delay but we do have to take the security of all our users' funds seriously. Congratulations on your win.

Otherwise known as a historical record which others might find useful to refer to in the future.

I don't have any questions. I'm just starting that I find it a bit odd that someone would engage in a discussion on a public forum and then delete their part of the conversation. There are enough archives of this forum around that I could find all the deleted posts if I wanted to, but I'm not curious enough to spend the time required to do that.

I don't use Excel but when I was at school rounding to the nearest whole number always meant 0.5 rounds up.

The currency conversion for Free rolls uses rounding to the nearest whole number. Payouts for winning Multiply BTC bets rounds down. It has to do that to avoid being exploitable. If someone bets to win 0.5 Sats and it is rounded up the 100% extra winnings outweighs the 5% house edge. I'm just putting that there as an example of why you can't always apply how one thing works to how something else works.




I'm not sure what rulebook he's reading but the reason he's doing it wong is that he's applying the rules he's made up in the wrong order. His rule that starting from the top prize each level down is 1/10 of the prize above is correct. But he's applying the currency conversion 1st and then taking 1/10 of that which is wrong. The 1/10 rule needs to be applied 1st in USD and then the currency conversion is applied.


I find that very odd as well. It doesn't exactly encourage me to take them seriously.

---

You say a few times but...... it strikes me that many places just ended daylight savings time today and their devices local clock just put itself back one hour.

---

I did falsely assume that with $100k making 0.2 cents 2 sats and $200k making 0.2 cents 1 sat that the cutoff point would be halfway but after dusting off my calculator I can confirm that hosseinimr93 is spot on.

I think I've worked out where it's gone wrong which is I guess their question.


The rewards are calculated from the $200 level and then each prize down is 1/10 of that. But they have taken 1/10 of the previous prize in the table rather than calculating each individually from the $200 level which does affect rounding.



So here they have taken 0.00000005 /10 = 0.000000005 and rounded up to 0.00000001

Where they should have taken 0.00044450 / 100000 = 0.000000004445 rounds down to 0.00000000

Edit: After thinking about it a better of explaining it than each level is calculated from the $200 level is that each level prize is actually in USD and then converted to BTC and rounded to the nearest whole sat.
So the prize levels are
$0.002
$0.02
$0.20
$2.00
$20.00
$200.00
Converting and rounding each of those values will give the same result as the method I used above of dividing from the $200 conversion but if you just divide the level above by 10 you'll end up rounding a number that's already rounded.

You have to tell me what point you think it's making for me to have any questions.

I might be missing something here but I think $150k will be the point that $0.002 gets rounded down to 1 sat. However what I was really trying to get at is over $200k is the point it negatively affects us by making the minimum payout more than the $0.002 it is costed for.



For clarity, it isn't "users who claim the faucet always" but rather users with a low ratio of wagering to free winnings that get the low wagering reduction. You do bring up another point in that 33.5% of $0.002 will become 1 sat at a lower level of BTC price which will reduce the effectiveness of the low wagering reduction. Whether or not we need to do anything to counteract that effect will be something we have to consider if/when it happens.