|
ESCROW:
I am posting here to confirm that I am holding ~1.0 BTC as security for this site
Address:
1QLG62s3BUSHH76EMnVbjSLcDeENA71uAj
Signature:
H6/0XBnp7dW58lEOy29x3NzJ+DxpJOqSqWQ4yxB51LJJLAng4TnadQ/t/4b/Hx3/mz3QOymzOx3b4t2tPKAVJ5E=
Message
7DayPonzi.com
./fasbit
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies... I sent the info in a PM instead of posting here...
7DayPonzi.com
1QLG62s3BUSHH76EMnVbjSLcDeENA71uAj
H6/0XBnp7dW58lEOy29x3NzJ+DxpJOqSqWQ4yxB51LJJLAng4TnadQ/t/4b/Hx3/mz3QOymzOx3b4t2tPKAVJ5E=
|
|
|
|
Please sign this message "7DayPonzi[dot]com" with your address
7DayPonzi - 1QLG62s3BUSHH76EMnVbjSLcDeENA71uAj He meant you should sign with your wallet in bitcoin-qt or electrum. I did sign the message in my wallet. I posted that to indicate that it was complete. |
|
|
|
Please sign this message "7DayPonzi[dot]com" with your address
7DayPonzi - 1QLG62s3BUSHH76EMnVbjSLcDeENA71uAj |
|
|
|
If you took a coin and flipped it 100,000 times and it was heads only 49,000 times instead of the predicted 50,000 times, you could argue that the coin was biased due to some sort of imbalance or what ever your rational was, BUT the bottom line is this: if you don't publish your results, no one will know the bias, and therefore, no one could sabotage the outcome. If you were creating addresses for other people this could be a problem. But for home use... you are rock solid, even with a bias of 49,000 to 51,000. |
|
|
|
Big, issue, you flip same coin 256 times, so you loose entropy
Care to explain that one? If I flip heads 20 times in a row using a fair coin what is the odds that it will come up heads on the next flip? 50% < A true "fair coin" has no idea what you flipped in the past... so its 50%/50% ..period In fact, I would argue, that as you approached 256 flips, you would get bored and would gradually change your enthusiasm and energy, thereby adding entropy. |
|
|
|
lose..invest 0.0014 back 0.0013  Bet 2 or 3 bets until your total % is higher than 100% average payout. You only placed one bet at less than 100% return. Example Bet 1 - 63% Bet 2 - 89% Bet 3 - 209% Average is = 120.33% < 20.33% profit |
|
|
|
where is the relation to bitcoin ?  girls show the bitcoin sign please...  lulupon on github is 1) korean 2) hot and 3) a bitcoin enthusiast ! |
|
|
|
EXTRA SPEED: .....
Punch your keyboard and take SHA256 of the results. It's way much better than using an online third party RNG. I actually tried this... it worked great! Thanks! |
|
|
|
.0014 deposit scam back 0013
scammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
He set it up to pay out random amounts from 1% to 255% I bet several bets that paid less than 100%, but if you keep betting, you can get your total to collectively be more than 100%... this is what I did... it doesnt mean its a scam... it means you didn't read the details |
|
|
|
It is a scam, you steal deposits and do not pay. You are scum and you should leave this forum.
and: 1) the earth is 6000 years old... 2) you burn witches 3) you require no science or evidence in your life 4) you vote republican |
|
|
|
Simple, this ponzi will be a scam if no more investment here, just waiting for it.
Oh..i get it... YOU have a different Ponzi that you run... so you tell tell everyone this one is a scam... without evidence of course, so they will not take away your business... like a good republican... yea.. the earth is flat too... and the dinosuars were on Noahs ark.... |
|
|
|
not all poinzi are scam but i say this poinzi is scam
Please post your transactions that didn't pay. I want to see them before I start betting 1 BTC. I want some facts not bullshit. |
|
|
|
It is a scam, you steal deposits and do not pay. You are scum and you should leave this forum.
You have any facts dude? You have ANY PROOF at all? I want some real facts. You going to post your transactions??? |
|
|
|
1) If you accuse this guy of being a scam, you need some evidence, some facts, otherwise you are a troll. You are talking out of your ass.
2) I actually think he has a novel code in place with the variable payout amount based on sha256 and secret. This is a new concept to the ponzi world as far as I know.
3) Not all Ponzis are a scams. If the guy publishes his rules and he follows them, then its not a scam.
4) This site still needs to be tested under a load and may very well have some issues, but until the issues are vetted out, stop your childish trolling and test the damn thing. He allows .0005 BTC min to test it out.
./fasbit
unless you're the owner thats why you're defending it  just saying mah men 1) i'm not the owner - i couldn't code my way out of a wet paper sack... 2) i'm not even defending the author 3) all Im saying is that unless you have some evidence that its a scam, then piss off...dont play it... I personally like playing ponzi games... and I really want to find one that is tight and works...maybe this guy has good code, maybe he doesn't... I dont know... and neither do you... unless you test it out... so every moron who comes on here and says something with no facts Im gonna call them out on it... so far I have placed 4 small bets and I got paid out on only one of them... but hey ... the 1 year game has a way to go... |
|
|
|
|
1) If you accuse this guy of being a scam, you need some evidence, some facts, otherwise you are a troll. You are talking out of your ass.
2) I actually think he has a novel code in place with the variable payout amount based on sha256 and secret. This is a new concept to the ponzi world as far as I know.
3) Not all Ponzis are a scams. If the guy publishes his rules and he follows them, then its not a scam.
4) This site still needs to be tested under a load and may very well have some issues, but until the issues are vetted out, stop your childish trolling and test the damn thing. He allows .0005 BTC min to test it out.
./fasbit
|
|
|
|
I will argue that 256 coin flips from random.org is the best random number possibility available. And assuming that you push the results through an offline computer using brainwallet offline, you will have a VERY SAFE, VERY RANDOM private key.
LOL. A "VERY SAFE" number which is trivially known to a third party. Is someone at "random.org" paying you to encourage people to have them generate their private keys, or did you come by this cluelessness naturally? I haven't looked recently but last I checked random.org methods were secret and not peer reviewed. So not only may the results be trivially maliciously logged (by the site operators or anyone whos compromised their system; or the operators of the VPSes they use (rackspace cloud)), they're probably more likely to be accidentally flawed because their methods are not reviewed. A. Attacking an idea or postulate is a great thing. Attacking a person and calling them "clueless" is ad hominem and is below your status as a moderator of this board. B. Random.org is peer reviewed here https://www.random.org/media As well as tested by third party orgs like http://www.ecogra.org/ Their methods are not secret but they are not public either. C. So lets examine your logic: Since random.org (peer reviewed, certified and in business since 1998) creates a buffer in advance full of billions of ones and zeroes and since it uses https, someone could log the front end usage of these ones and zeros after they leave the buffer and before they hit the https (side note on magnitude: these ones and zeroes from the buffer are used for ALOT of different applications on the site other than coin flips), track the usage by ip, collect and then echo the data once an ip pulls precisely 256 bits of data, run the bits through a key generator, (also try various combinations of the 256bit sequence like only look at the last 256 bits, since the first x bits could have been a test), create a database to collect all of these new bitcoin address and repeatedly query the entire blockchain to see if any of the addresses are extant. If any one address is extant and holds bitcoins, import the corresponding key into a wallet and steal the bitcoins. OK... I will concede. This may be possible. Its not likely considering the high level access, the subterfuge necessary, and the high number of bitcoin addresses to generate & query; not probable, but maybe possible. So to test your theory I am going to publish a bitcoin address that I created using random.org, leave some BTC there and see if they evaporate. If they magically walk away, then we will know that someone at random.org is malicious. If nothing happens, then Im going to stick with my "SAFE" comment. I will however add a note of caution to the thread warning people that 1) They could get struck by lightning today 2) Earth could get destroyed by a meteor in the next 5 minutes AND 3) Somebody at random.org might guess your intent out of the millions of possible intents by those who use this service, parse through the data looking for precisely 256 bits of interesting target data turn them into a bitcoin key and steal your BTC. Dear Mythical Hacker at Random.Org: I created this address with the coin flip service on 02/07/2015. I flipped 8 coins at once using Polish Zloties. I pulled precisely 256 bits of data from the buffer to make it easy on you. Please steal my bitcoins. Here is the address: 1DcS5pEgjnLGJ43h7znVxdcxMfx6pfaZvA A. He may have been a little harsh, but you need to understand cryptography for some of these things. And you can't simply claim something is secure. I am trying to learn about cryptography, and all I've really learned thus far is that there is a lot out there and one can quickly do a lot of damage. B. Those are random citations that don't any really appear to be peer review of the methods. For random.org to be tested their methods should be fully disclosed. They have a question covering this in their FAQ: https://www.random.org/faq/#Q2.2 It talks about gaming and gambling. Being verified for that is NOT the same as being verified for cryptographic purposes. Also see https://www.random.org/faq/#Q1.2 Standard security practice before using something in cryptography is that it's open to inspection and that a lot of people have looked at it. The code they use is not available so how do you know it's right. C. In theory the whoever can access the machines they use can get to the random numbers generated. These include the hosting company, the site owners, hackers with access etc. gmaxwell did point out that the most likely source of error was a accidentally poor implementation of the random number generator process. The point is you cannot know because it's all closed source and not reviewed. So do you want to use something that is well reviewed random generator or something that may or may not be random? A poor random generator may make it possible to solve private keys for 1 in 1000 or 1 in a 1000 000 generated using the site. The point is even 1 in 1bn is a lot (and I mean a LOT) less secure than other methods used to generate private keys. So your test address is probably safe, but how safe you won't know, because it's all closed up. Now if lots of people start using the service (like when someone start recommending them) the odds start looking a lot better for an attacker. This is my lay understanding of the issues around something like this. GMaxwell writes from a development point of view. Make it provably safe therefore trustless (not requiring unusual trust). I appreciate that view point in a developer, because it makes the code useful for very large values. The "test" is one which uses very small bait: 1DcS5pEgjnLGJ43h7znVxdcxMfx6pfaZvA has 0.05 XBT. It is not a very valid test. It will not entice someone with an exploit to go after those coins. 1. I agree that my measly .05 BTC of bait is not a real enticement. But it would demonstrate if someone had maliciously swiped the code and was using the site to swipe private keys no matter the balance. 2. I appreciate gmaxwell's point and I added warnings based on his point. This thread is however, about creating the private key with a coin flip not a web site. Using a site like random.org is ancillary to the thread and I marked it "educational only." 3. The only thing I claim is safe is: 1) its done offline, 2) its done randomly, and 3) no one can know the method of creation. I will stick by that maxim. < this is the essence of the thread |
|
|
|
It's a nice idea, but if you are doing coin flipping as a way to have "perfect" randomness, then you are rather spoiling the effort by having it touch any online computer system. I would rather just use bitcoin core on a linux livecd which I'd trust way more than any of the sites you linked.
i.e. suggesting mathisisfun.com website. Hey hackers, go compromise mathisfun.com, a fun little side project for you, maybe you'll find yourself some private keys.
Or maybe OP is the hacker who has already done so. Clever!
I would definitely be interested in seeing a tiny little script with no external dependencies that can be run on an offline system.
(Or excel/open office equations that I can copy+paste myself).
- I'm working on the excel. I have the sha256 and base58 working in excel, just hung up on RIPEMD-160...but i'm close
- Also all of the links I suggested have "offline" capability.
|
|
|
|
Hello wallet is not working .
Can you post your .conf file? In windows its in your AppData/Roaming File ./fasbit |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
