You are correct, and there are many other ways to exploit the server memory. For example, it has been shown (and I tested it on my own servers) that you can dump the HTTP headers (no trace left!) and extract session IDs. You can then trivially use that session id to masquerade as a logged in user. It's REALLY easy. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know why you would have a space before bitcoind but that is irrelevant because you are getting the error.
My bet is that the privkey is bad, otherwise it would work.
|
|
|
|
|
All bets * (1-.981). That is roughly how much the house is expected to rake.
Think of SatoshiDice as a laundrer, it returns you 98% (roughly) of your money over time. Now some people play wierdly trying to "beat the numbers" and they might actually lose 100% of their money. That sweetens Satoshi's profits. But as Dooglus has shown, pretty much it's just laundering and taking a 1.9% fee.
|
|
|
|
Just wow! Bet $0.60, win $38,400.
I hope he won that $38,400 before he had already bet that much in losses  |
|
|
|
If you are developing several applications for bitcoin I highly recommend you learn the bitcoind API. It does a lot and works really well. Why would you want to avoid having a local server? If you post here you will get help very fast. I will even get you started with this script that sends money in Python: from jsonrpc import ServiceProxy
amount = 0.5050
sendToAddress = "1putanaddressheretosendto"
access = ServiceProxy("http://username:password@127.0.0.1:8332")
balance = access.getinfo()["balance"]
print "BALANCE: " + str(balance)
transaction_id = access.sendtoaddress(sendToAddress, amount)
print "TRANSACTION ID: " + transaction_id
How easy is that? Super easy! |
|
|
|
change the system. Make the Bids 1/10 of the initionbet. So it makes more sens to outbit others  I already offer a 0.01 initial bid. You are saying people want to bid lower than that? |
|
|
|
|
The game has run it's course, thank you to everyone who played, I had a great time writing the scripts to work with bitcoind and the blockchain.
|
|
|
|
Have you changed the starting algoritm? A couple of times the game has started just when I randomly go to the page. Or am I just being lucky?
Hmm.. anyway you woud not need to start the game, if there are no players ;-) You could delay the start until someone refreshes the page.
Exactly correct, I do not send the initial bid until the reveal address is seen by a player. So imagine the database is configured to start a game at 12:00:00 PM. 12:00:00 PM may come but if the address has not been revealed to anyone then the initial bid is not sent and the game therefore can not prematurely end. I put this in place so that games wouldn't be started by the initial bid and then ended without anyone ever seeing the address. |
|
|
|
Looks like you can win, even if you send your bid a lot later than the initial bid; see round #535: http://blockchain.info/address/1Y4nWizG5ebNgUqHyHhbknE1gc2vnReXVinitial bid was made 2012-12-12 17:15:08, the winning bid (me :-) was at 2012-12-12 17:43:42, ie almost an half hour later. Hmm.. however, I would guess you get better chances, if you bid asap after initial bid. But the difference might be smaller than one would think. Correct, you can win ANYTIME you have the highest bid in the first block. Blocks do take a long time, it's not that hard to get 30 minutes or an hour (although it is less common) between blocks. In your case the initial bid was sent immediately and your bid 30 minutes later both made it into block # 211953. That's just exactly the game. The initial bid might be sent and ten seconds later it is in a block or it might drag on and on and on. You never know. If you send immediately then you have the maximum chance of getting included with the initial bid but you also have the maximum chance of being outbid. So, again, that's the game. |
|
|
|
I think players see an opponent as a threat more than an opportunity. So if there is someone already made a bid, people tend not to make a bigger bid because they are afraid of losing money. How would they see it more as an opportunity to earn even more, which it actually is? ;-)
Hmm, I think you are right... Maybe I need to put more time between the pots so that each feel scarcer... I don't know, I think you have a good point. If someone has already bid, what is my incentive to bid, I know that someone with initiative is already betting. If I bet I'm probably just going to get outbid. Going to have to think about that... |
|
|
|
Okay, I think I have some pretty bad luck - sent 0.100001 btc with proper fees, didn't get in the block which came after 5 minutes... And plus the "initial block didn't get in" happened to me too  What do you mean "initial block didn't get in"? You mean initial bid? |
|
|
|
Oh man ... i did send 0.101 BTC to 1Y4wvaZXLNkSfYC4RCL9ZK4gvSYYFZovD ... my Transaction got included in the Block, but not the Startingbet!!! That System is bad  Maybe, last bet in the block afterto the block with the initionalbet should be the winner!?! Same thing happened to me : http://blockchain.info/address/1Y4gqnxNJP5UK27EhKoc24AvJQtpKMEnYThis time, the initial bid *did not* have a fee, and it got included 3 blocks later! Of course, the system tells the rules, so this is a known risk to the player. However, it makes the playing less attractive. I would also prefer a slight change to the rules; the winning bet should be searched from the block where the intial bed is *and* earlier blocks. But of course, this is my opinion (and ThePok's ?), but the host defines the rules... Edit: hmm.. I think I actually won, but I only won back my bet, without the initial bed. And minus fees, of course :-D Edit2: Here is the transaction where the win came to my wallet, if you are interested: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/36240968/2487f45d1b3c369b1f493dbe35f00ab0224887f52fe6595ee409cda7a1ed997eArgh, I just updated my bitcoind and I lost the paytxfee value, so indeed I was not attaching a fee to the initial bids. This is fixed. I have sent you the missing .10 that you should have had for the bid and I sent you an additional .25 for reporting the bug. Thanks. I am not an advocate of ensuring the initial bid is included for three reasons: 1) It is rare. Excluding this issue where I wasn't sending a fee, the initial bid almost always get the first block. 2) The player is only losing a potential win, they get their initial bid back. So yes, you don't get the initial bid but "no harm done". 3) This game is not about winning the initial bid, it's about winning the pot. If there were more than 1 player on the pot then 99% of the payout will come from the bidding. |
|
|
|
... to discuss ciphers with 16 year old teenagers that play Minecraft.
It is clear how much competition and dirty promoting exist on these forums since I was met with sticks and stones.
You are lost my friend. You might see other operators as competitors but that's really not how we see ourselves when speaking to you about issues. We all want to see Bitcoin succeed and crap websites don't help the community image. So we just try to help, no one told you to go away. If we wanted you to go away we wouldn't have said anything and your site would have taken the inevitable plunge to obscurity because your site really is garbage design and won't appeal to people. Remember most people owning bitcoins are fairly technical and can smell crap from a country mile away. We don't engage you to have a buddy to talk ciphers to. |
|
|
|
Maybe initial bets 0.01, 0.02,0.04, 0.08 etc so people can try martingale ;-)
This is different in that you can win many multiples of your bet (not just 1x like black/red on roulette) if you get in late enough to get the whole pot. You can only martingale if nobody else is playing against you. |
|
|
|
Maybe you could have a less frequent, bigger stakes game? 0.5 BTC every 4 hours or so.
For sure, I like the idea of bigger stakes. So far I am keeping larger stakes for events... like I am going to have a big stakes for New Years Day. That reminds me, I should add the New Years stake. |
|
|
|
You placed your bid 12 minutes after the address was revealed and you are not happy? That's pretty risky, people who win just place their bid immediately and then pay close attention to whether anyone is trying to outbid them. In form of an update I added a small amount 0.001 for those who don't want to commit a lot of BTC and I staggered the start time. So 0.001 starts 1 minute between, 0.01 is 2 minutes, 0.05 is 5 minutes and 0.1 is ten minutes. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Sounds like the miner didn't have your tx... or he discriminates against high fees  My tx had a lot of small inputs - which is why the default client decided to include 3 times the usual fee I guess. The miner may have decided it's better to include 3 small transactions rather than my 1 big one. It just happened again by the way. This time both transactions had the same minimum fee, but only the initial bet got into the block: http://blockchain.info/address/1Y4jkMHYjG8M9GeTgCZvkmsQLdwP9Q9meIn this case my transaction was smaller than the first bet, since it only had one input. How many nodes are you connected to with your sending client? Blockchain.info is very easy to get broadcast to because they have 2500+ connections with their custom implementation. You need more connections to increase your chances to get to miners maybe? |
|
|
|
You get better chances, if you pay the transaction fee :-D. I just played all 0.01 0.05 and 0.1 .. and of course, the biggest one did not have the fee included -> lost that one.
In the case I'm thinking of I paid 0.0015 in fees, the initial bet only paid 0.0005, but still the initial bet got into a block before I did. Both transactions hit blockchain.info long before the block was found. The miner just decided to include the tx with the smaller fee rather than mine for some reason. Sounds like the miner didn't have your tx... or he discriminates against high fees |
|
|
|
You should change the System! Wating for one Conformation for Initialbet is not bad.
I've had the opposite situation, where I was the only one playing, and got my bid in in plenty of time, but then only the initial bet made it into the block that was eventually found. It was one of those times when there was almost an hour between blocks, and so thousands of transactions were waiting to get into blocks. I just got unlucky and didn't make it into the same block as the initial bet. Maybe it would be a reasonable change to make it so that the winner is the biggest payment confirmed in the same block as the initial bet or before, and gets all the confirmed bets so far. Only payments which get confirmed later than the initial payment go to the house. I don't know how that would affect the house though. Obviously it would reduce the house take, but I don't know whether it would turn the game into a losing proposition for the house or not. The initial bet is intended to just be a sweetener to get people bidding. The point of the game is not so that a single player can scoop up the initial bet while playing against themselves . We are worrying about the small case where the game is designed to fit a large case where there are 2 or more people on a pot. For the past week the game has been essentially free BTC because no two players have been on it. I don't mind at all, I have paid every game, I just don't think there is cause to make a more complicated ruleset because people want to win the initial pot. And for the record we are even discussing a rare case, the initial bet (over 99% of the time) almost always goes to the top bidder. |
|
|
|
And I don't agree with the 3rd statement, we put more effort than 95% of casinos currently (if not all).
You may be putting in *effort* but you are not producing quality outcomes. TradeFortress is correct, if you are even using mysql instead of mysqli you are behind the php curve by a few years. Languages evolve for important reasons, developers don't just deprecate the interface to the single most popular amateur database for no reason. For example, you must not be using Prepared Statements... that's a structural issue, not a "beta" issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
