68. Ukraine ($19.8 bill)
|
|
|
|
There is no mention of the price of these shares. I can see two possibilities:
1. Everything above 2000 BTC is returned proportionately to the investors, so for example an investor putting up 20 BTC and there is 4000 BTC invested in total, he will get 20/2000=1% of the shares and 10BTC is refunded.
2. The price for each share is determined purely by demand, our investor with 20 BTC will get 20/4000=0.5% of the shares and no refund of BTC.
Which is it?
As mentioned the price is determined by demand. I can't see that mentioned but thanks for the clarification. I guess I'm out then. For now at least. |
|
|
|
|
There is no mention of the price of these shares. I can see two possibilities:
1. Everything above 2000 BTC is returned proportionately to the investors, so for example an investor putting up 20 BTC and there is 4000 BTC invested in total, he will get 20/2000=1% of the shares and 10BTC is refunded.
2. The price for each share is determined purely by demand, our investor with 20 BTC will get 20/4000=0.5% of the shares and no refund of BTC.
Which is it?
|
|
|
|
There will be no public block chain with Turing complete scripts ever, because that would mean that absolutely any algorithm would be accepted in a script, including non-terminating ones. A smart contract with an infinite loop would be a very bad thing. But, but Etherium is Turing complete, isn't it??? No it is not, it can't be. It would be killed by DOS in no time. The language may be Turing complete in theory, but since the system must guarantee that all scripts terminate in finite time (I think they do it by requiring that each instruction has a cost) it is not Turing complete in practice. They could have used a total language in the first place, where you have a guarantee that every program terminates. I know this isn't really an answer to the OP question but I wanted to point it out  If I understand it correctly, I think thats exactly the point, they wish to include loops (and by including loops in general, also infinite loops), the infinite loops are then solved practically by the gas mechanism. The problem isn't with the halting problem, but that the system produces the first shared computer, that has the most slow and expensive computation, and so won't be used for computation but only computationally enhanced verification, and thats just not as cool. All I was saying is that it isn't Turing complete. There is no halting problem when you have a "gas mechanism". |
|
|
|
There will be no public block chain with Turing complete scripts ever, because that would mean that absolutely any algorithm would be accepted in a script, including non-terminating ones. A smart contract with an infinite loop would be a very bad thing. But, but Etherium is Turing complete, isn't it??? No it is not, it can't be. It would be killed by DOS in no time. The language may be Turing complete in theory, but since the system must guarantee that all scripts terminate in finite time (I think they do it by requiring that each instruction has a cost) it is not Turing complete in practice. They could have used a total language in the first place, where you have a guarantee that every program terminates. I know this isn't really an answer to the OP question but I wanted to point it out |
|
|
|
|
Looks good to me.
The only thing I found to complain about is the red/green banner that is flashing when auto betting. I think it would be better to turn it off unless you are betting manually. Maybe only show it when amount limit is reached and betting stops.
Also, when the bot stops after reaching a limit the "stop betting" button doesn't change into "start betting".
Looking forward to the new investor chart!
|
|
|
|
There are two types of rounding bugs. Maybe this has been discussed before. In that case I apologize but I couldn't find it. First the winnings are often not correct [Hint: 0.005 x 1.75 = 0.00375] [Edit: Well, the error is tiny and maybe it's more of an aesthetic thing ]  Second, low rolls (below 1?) are often rounded down as in roll #5213496. This should mean that rolling low (<1%) is slightly more likely to win than it should be.  |
|
|
|
|
I suggest
- reducing the number of strikes.
- increasing the time to maturity
- introduce more than binary options
For me this doesn't seem very useful, but I'm not a day trader. The focus is very short term.
|
|
|
|
|
I tried signing up to check it out but I don't get past the registering page :/
Edit: after a long time it actually said it sent an email. The dialog box was distorted though.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a bug, though.
The "you are supplying" percentage doesn't take the kelly factor into account. It should I think. The graph too.
|
|
|
|
|
As I have said elsewhere, I like it. It is a dangerous but rather necessary feature as we have seen. Be careful people.
BitDice.me will have the biggest bankroll soon.
|
|
|
|
Very quick response with the list, there. Very nice  |
|
|
|
This is actually an awesome feature! Why don't you advertise it more?
I will soon, I just implemented it ( week ago ), it's still under review. I need to know from what amount I will allow to change it, as users who don't have much will lose everything pretty quickly, so at the moment I think about proof of funds for at least 100BTC to allow this change. That is more or less the way I have imagined implementing something like this myself. You could also keep kelly at 1% for all but base it on a proof of ownership instead of an actual deposit. This is a bit more complicated though. Let's say you demand 10% to be deposited, or 5% or even 1%. The investor would only need to deposit more if his actual deposit reaches zero, or otherwise be auto divested. Anyway it's great to see some actual innovation for a change. Good luck! |
|
|
|
From what i know the max profit is 1% of the bankroll by default. BUT! The site also has a x Kelly option. Im assuming you know what it means and how it changes the max profit. Investors who invest a large enough sum can request a custom x Kelly from the admin from what i have heard. (P.S When you click on the investment you see the x Kelly there) Im pretty sure quite a few investors are trying the x Kelly I had no idea you could change that. Thank you. That means the average investor "kelly number" is 4.7 %! Either some investors are really stupid or the number is wrong. We have no way of knowing. Well im sure admin will tell the % of some investors, as long as they allow it. But i think some of them have kelly x10 but no other way of asking (you can do it by emailing the admin) As for the "stupid part" it is not more stupid than investing in general. Higher risk higher reward, it is exactly the same as investing more on 1% bankroll with the only difference that you do not need to deposit as many coins . Making it safer to a degree. Yes, I take the stupid part back It's actually not stupid at all! It let's you deposit way less than you otherwise had to, and lower your couterparty risk. This is actually an awesome feature! Why don't you advertise it more? |
|
|
|
|
So, as a follow up. I suggest bitdice.me publish a weekly (anonymized) list of investors together with the invested amounts and their risk (kelly). That's what just-dice did.
Since the total amounts should add up to the invested amount on the website, and the amounts multiplied with the kelly percentages should add up to the bankroll edit: well, max payout to be exact.
That way each investor can check that their amount is in the list and the community can be reasonable sure that the accounting is done correctly.
|
|
|
|
From what i know the max profit is 1% of the bankroll by default. BUT! The site also has a x Kelly option. Im assuming you know what it means and how it changes the max profit. Investors who invest a large enough sum can request a custom x Kelly from the admin from what i have heard. (P.S When you click on the investment you see the x Kelly there) Im pretty sure quite a few investors are trying the x Kelly I had no idea you could change that. Thank you. That means the average investor "kelly number" is 4.7 %! Either some investors are really stupid or the number is wrong. We have no way of knowing. |
|
|
|
I'm putting more shit out there for others to confirm, I think some focus must be put on this: Transaction before that on Oct 8 goes from 1JvBcFjmgPJNRJYP6osMGysjGv7tvSvozD to 19V6cRgL3jHBAppRFKosrTHvZjU3mYg8Dk which goes to 1Ninja afterwards, so 19V6cRgL3jHBAppRFKosrTHvZjU3mYg8Dk is also D.N controlled, which means 188oB1TR6gNXxzyxJCyck9BHkU4dBMVmVg is the return address, but why is the same amount of 30 BTC being sent in this transaction with his own 1JvBc address as the return address? Anyway this tells us that 1JvBc owns 188oB and sends together with 1DMz3S in this transaction to BITDICE.ME COLDWALLET DIRECTLY, 1 day before the heist. Smiley
Also on 9 sept, the day of dicebitco.in fraud accusations(<-not sure if relevant), 1CQLpLQmaqi7PHSTFRqhLDPK2Ebw9CW9sg which is dicebitco.in hotwallet, sends 307 btc to 1JvBcFjmgPJNRJYP6osMGysjGv7tvSvozD <- again 1JvBc on the day of a fraud. On june 26, 1GsGDnBQ335gNJXNbnWdHS5rkXTuYmoKbP received btc from 14dXN2c4R1neEdBAMpbdQSTdrwfCM91cAv 1ACFvf7UdMEc2vCoNYq7qQUYjZsqPojs5w also received btc in this transaction On august 25, 19V6cRgL3jHBAppRFKosrTHvZjU3mYg8Dk (D.N) sends 2.99 btc to 17U1LyjKzm2tr8LjpYkFGtvburfyG1rd9q (AK PD deposit address) On august 25, 1GsGDnBQ335gNJXNbnWdHS5rkXTuYmoKbP sends 13.8 btc to 19V6cRgL3jHBAppRFKosrTHvZjU3mYg8Dk (D.N) on sept 15, 1ACFvf7UdMEc2vCoNYq7qQUYjZsqPojs5w received 100.001 btc from JvBc, the btc is still there. https://blockchain.info/nl/tx/44239a0515e7a792c74ddaedb4cac94170cf24b9499b9504befbc024ccf3c278shows 1JvBcFjmgPJNRJYP6osMGysjGv7tvSvozD sending money to 19V6c with 188oB as the return address. So either 1JvB owns the N.D hotwallet or the bitdice.me coldwallet, or both.. I shortened it to diceditco.in -> 1JvBc
1GsGD -> 14dXN & 1ACFv
dice.ninja -> AK PD
1GsGD -> dice.ninja
1JvBc -> 1ACFv
1JvBc -> 19V6c & 188oB
What exactly are you saying here? Please don't just throw out addresses and transactions like that. Usually they don't prove anything. Give us the reasons for why you think this proves something. |
|
|
|
I invested a little to check this site out, and I while it seems well designed and also work alright, there is a question about the bankroll. The site doesn't say explicitly what exact amount it is, but you can get it from the max profit - which is 37.618012 at this moment. This implies a bankroll of 3761 BTC. Calculating backwards from my own investment percentage gives me roughly the same answer. The problem is that the proof of reserves you have here only contain the money from outside investors 808.84321993. (95% of it) I'd like too see proof that you actually possess the missing 2900 BTC. If you don't actually own that money, your investors take a lot higher risk than they realize. |
|
|
|
Ok back to Akcoindiggers explananation of the mathing IP addresses. DMF and AKCOINDIGGER accounts were registered on moneypot.com by ip address 206.174.121.150, Eric knows DMF account is the real DMF, but AK denies the akcoindigger as being his. They used the same ip address on both just-dice.com and moneypot.com for both accounts. AKcoindigger says he runs a tor exit node and that when he signed up on dice.ninja DMF saw his IP-> used his tor exit node. I consulted with the Tor developers, they say the historical exit node data on torproject.org is believed to be complete. However, the 206.174.121.150 was NEVER used as a Tor exit node, specifically not on July 1st 2014, when DMF logged in using that IP on just-dice.com. AK later changed his story and gave another IP that he was currently using and that he was running tor on in this thread, the atlasproject page shows that the Tor exit node was started a day after the IP accusations... It makes no sense that DMF would use AKs IP, and even if he did why would AK come up with 2 different explanations that both turned out to be false. He didnt know the Tor project keeps a log of all the active and inactive Tor exit nodes, then he put up a Tor node after he was called out on it not realizing the time it went on would be visible as well. Thank you. I didn't know that the TOR project kept this info either. AK has been caught in a lie and I highly doubt he'll be back with an explanation... |
|
|
|
|
Please tell me this is a joke thread. You are all just trolling each other, right? Playing bullshit bingo maybe.
Solar powered cloud mining setup. Good one =D
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
