Thanks for reply Dexon.
I really wonder how do I solve it. My token is correct and new, there is no problem at other endpoints. And I've checked typeof access_token is string...
Also this is not working with Postman.
What if you manually go on the url ? api.moneypot.com/v1/user-stats?uname=Dexon&access_token=123 Edit: Also, what I meant by the url encode, was that if you're using like JS with jquery, doing something like $.get("the site.com/?the=datâ") you could do: $.get(encodeURI("the site.com/?the=datâ")) just to be sure. It is still not working... I am tried: $.get("https://api.moneypot.com/v1/user-stats?access_token=688d8b03-b7ce-4b37-be4e-ba566f9c0e3b&uname=ozer", function (data) {
console.log(data)
}) But only it gives 403 error. When I go to the link in browser, it gives {"error":"INVALID_ACCESS_TOKEN"} All endpoints working, but only "user-stats" not working. I think there is problem in the API. We will take a look into this. |
|
|
|
i do not belive that these games are fair played but then also i like to play them . i play mostly with free cains but i must admit for those who need their casino this is just a waste of time
The games are provably fair. You can read up on it here: https://www.moneypot.com/provably-fair |
|
|
|
Is there a way we can see how much we've made or lost investing in the bankroll?
Only way is count all deposits and withdraws togheter and what u have in account.  It would be nice if they could implement a way to see this. Almost every site has the feature enabled. Will add to list of developments  |
|
|
|
Sorry Im not really a tech guy but doesnt moneypot send 10k satoshis previous everytime we use the default options and 20k everytime we use the top priority options? what about adding this feature back as this seems to be the best possible thing for both sides and moneypot wont have to deal with this extra charges anymore Also it seems this guy won another 11 btc https://www.moneypot.com/users/copypastaPlease read the replies above, this has already been answered. |
|
|
|
I like the fact that the odds are equal between all the players, and also the design is good, I can not wait to test it.
The odds are always equal between all players, no matter what site you are on. I agree, the design is good. The cut (5%) is ridiculous. P2P sites, since they don't take on any risk of variance, should have lower house edges/cuts than traditional player vs house. |
|
|
|
Yeah, it is kind of stealing. Imagine if there are hundreds withdrawal request per day, 15k satoshi x 100 = 0.015btc/day stolen from players. It should be not a hard thing to do for a proffesional site like moneypot but seems they do not consider it as an important thing.
What MP is doing is correct, it's just a bit confusing. As a user you only care about the absolute fee you need to pay, but the bitcoin network only cares about how much fees were paid *for the amount of bytes in the transaction*. But as a user of moneypot, you can't control the size of the transaction (which will vary depending on the deposit:withdraw ratio). So what MP (and most sites) do is quote you a flat fee, and you pay that regardless of the transaction size or block pressure. As long as you get your money in a timely fashion, it's pretty irrelevant how much MP itself paid. (On a side note, one withdraw at bustabit once used 0.018 BTC ( 11 USD at the time) when it caused the majority of the wallet to get sweeped up but the user only paid the flat fee. It wouldn't be fair to charge the user 0.018 BTC for the withdrawal, as it wasn't his decision to sweep up the wallet. And likewise, users really shouldn't complain when they pay more than what the site pays for that individual transaction) Thank you Ryan. A few months when the blockchain was extremely bloated MoneyPot was spending an exorbitant amount to process withdrawals (while still charging 100 bits). MoneyPot is net negative from transaction fees, and we are not profiting from them. As far as the question regarding volume: Our volume has certainly taken a hit since the downtime. Its not unusual however, for spurts of larger than normal volume. Prior to the downtime we were averaging over 200 BTC and ~3.5MM bets a day in volume, over the past 24 hours we have done over 140 BTC and 2.6MM in bets. |
|
|
|
winner can have the option of NOT funding this coin with 1 BTC.
Btw, 1 ETH has already been funded into this coin.
I was under the impression the coin came preloaded with both 1 BTC and 1 ETH "The winning bid is inclusive of the denominated cash value of 1BTC +1ETH, exclusive of shipping charges." |
|
|
|
Added to the MoneyPot.com site BtcDragon , classic Plinko, the game you all know and love !!
We will be adding comp's , faucet is up and running , come chat and play , win up to x999!!
4 games and even edit your own game !!
do you have an app address cause I could not find it good luck or https://www.moneypot.com/apps/1406-btcdragonEdited to show the correct URL  Glad to have you on board! |
|
|
|
|
1BTC
OGNasty or Monbux for escrow, I will pay any fees/tips for escrow.
|
|
|
|
If there are anymore questions about this, please send me a PM instead of posting here, the past 2 pages of this thread have now been spent on addressing this. Cheers No questions, promise! But I started this discussion and I think an important point has been missed, namely this: MP's policy of offering apps flexibility in directing only a portion of their bets to the MP bankroll is very positive in my view. Keep in mind MP's primary objective is to grow bet volume. They can do this in one of two ways: A. Help attract traffic to the existing portfolio of MP apps, or B. Bring in more, ideally distinctive or innovative apps. Now think about that. There are surely established 'casino' type sites out there who are bankrolling their own small pikers, but who are missing out on the whales who are simply too big for them. That is MP's pitch: link up with us, keep bankrolling your small bets, and let us enable your larger action. Pretty compelling I would think. We all want MP to be offering this, and we all hope it works, to help grow the platform. That said, bankroll investors should be made aware when app owners begin utilizing this option in a meaningful way. MP said they will tell us, and I believe them. We are fine with apps doing this at the moment (even though they are choosing not to): The key is if it ever became an issue (i.e. MoneyPot ever started losing big volume). |
|
|
|
users were coming from his site i am telling you the truth that i promote this site on jd chat room on its first day we got 4000 users below
Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App
You do not have 4000 users. Why do you keep saying this? The volume your site has done is something you would expect out of 1-5 total players. |
|
|
|
Those votes are not an accurate representation of the most popular sites, people forget that most gamblers do not use Bitcointalk, and that a very large portion of Bitcointalk users are either paid to sponsor certain sites or are sockpuppets (lots of multi-accounts / account buying). |
|
|
|
if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...
Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ... I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets. I don't think that this is the question if BB would do it or not. if MP does not like that any app will do this why not shut down this option and not offer it at all? How can mp stops it if the app won't send them the bets? The app owner can choose if they want to send bets to mp or not, its just the matter of coding It would be pretty simple, if we cut off an app's access to our API, our users won't be able to log into the site. Again, if a lot of apps ever started to decide doing this we would change our T&C, and give app owners a heads up. As it stands, MoneyPot's volume is not being affected in anyway and it is extremely unlikely that it will ever become an issue in the slightest. If there are anymore questions about this, please send me a PM instead of posting here, the past 2 pages of this thread have now been spent on addressing this. Cheers |
|
|
|
if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C ...
Ok thank you. I'm a little surprised that Betterbets at least has not done this yet. I think if MP and certain app/casinos really grow and profits accumulate, some of the larger apps/casinos will take a look at bankrolling some of their own action. First world problems I guess ... I speak with Bjorn pretty frequently.. I can say with 99.99% confidence that BetterBets will never self bankroll for BTC bets. |
|
|
|
A player martingaling starting at 1mbtc and getting to 1btc ...
There seems to be some confusion, so I will simplify: As a bankroll investor I've been under the impression that I get a piece of EVERY BET. If in fact app owners have an opportunity to cherry pick bet flow, in any way, that should be disclosed clearly. Irregardless of whether you believe that benefits, disadvantages, or is otherwise neutral for bankroll investors. *I'm a happy investor, fully get that app owners need certain accommodations, and know that nobody has been short-changed or misled. Still as MP grows and evolves, things will not always be so simple. I'm suggesting that if bankroll investors are not underwriting every bet, that should be disclosed. I am not confused at all, I think you are misunderstanding the situation. This is not an issue whatsoever, if apps ever start deciding to do this and it affects MoneyPot's volume we will simply change our T&C. We make money when volume flows through MoneyPot, just like bankroll investors And you are receiving a piece of every bet that flows through MoneyPot, even if apps did only kick back certain bets to MoneyPot, MoneyPot would not be handling the rest of their bets. |
|
|
|
my withdrawal is still unconfirmed after 10hours because of low transaction fee. Can you please fix this so that all future withdrawal willl not only add 100bits fee but only pays 2k-6k satoshi network fee
You can choose the priority option which charges 200 bits instead of 100.
The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets.
Well, it would definitely affect the Volatility of pool returns if apps are taking all the small bets and the pool only underwrites the largest bets. Of course as you say, that is not happening now. And volatility does affect the pool value in and of itself, so I'd like to suggest that yes, it does affect the investment pool. (A pool +EV with higher volatility is less valuable than the same EV with lower volatility.) A primary concern of all investors is the prospect of a 'Hufflepuff' type event - you may recall the guy who hacked/broke primedice for an egregious stack of coins. Hufflepuff didn't do that with small bets - he was a 'whale.' So when an app owner takes on the small bets themselves but leaves the largest bets to the investment pool they are in effect hedging their 'hack risk' given the hack will manifest with very large bets. TL;DR : Apparently an investment in the MP bankroll is not necessarily positioned to underwrite all bets. In fact at any given moment it is not clear which, or what percentage of bets, are being underwritten by the public bankroll, and how much is underwritten by the apps themselves. Again, I totally believe you that the app owners are not underwriting their own bets with any consistency, and thus it is 'not an issue' ... now. But I think as MP grows, it could be. Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult. As an 'investor' I just like to understand what I'm invested in ... Hufflepuff abused a flaw in PrimeDice's system, that is not relevant to legitimate players. We want players to bet big, small bets make up a very, very small percentage of casino revenue. Again, this is not occurring at the moment and if apps decide to start doing this MoneyPot is able to change our T&C accordingly. No where does MoneyPot promise low volatility to people who play as the house, nor will we. If you are unable to handle swings in the bankroll you should probably divest. Compared to our competitors such as Bet King and BitDice, and SafeDice, we have extremely low volatility (mainly because we have a large "bread and butter" base). As an investor you should want the larger bets: small bets do not make the bankroll anything. The bottom line is as long as bets are kelly compliant, MoneyPot is happy to take them. |
|
|
|
Apps can be set up to run on their own BR and kick back bets larger than what they can handle to MoneyPot ...
For investors I think this is a relevant disclosure, and should be disclosed somewhere other than in random forum posts. I'm sure you look at the data and can see that essentially no apps (volume) are using this feature (?) so it is not relevant, but they could choose to use it, and it could become relevant at any time. Does MP have some type of basic 'investment disclosure' that it provides bankroll investors? I've been using MP for a while, but don't recall seeing one. Then again, I don't recall looking for one either ... :-) Terms are here: https://www.moneypot.com/faq#what-is-the-investment-option-The fact that it is possible for apps to take on smaller bets themselves (which again, is not happening at the moment) does not affect the investment pool whatsoever.. We tell people that their investment will only take on EV+ bets, and we only allow EV+ bets. |
|
|
|
App owners do bet on their own sites, however they make up a very minor portion of the site volume.
Let me help in crunching down some simple number to help understand this. Assuming that an app owner wager 100 bitcoin of volume in his 1 % house edge site, that gives him half of the house edge back to him as app owner So 50 % of 1 % house edge * 100 bitcoins = 0.5 bitcoin Assuming that there is no variance or anything at all, he will lose 1 bitcoin for every 100 bitcoins volume Which means he lose approx 0.5 bitcoin every 100 bitcoin volume In the end it will be the same as normal player betting on a 0.5 % house edge? P.S : Is the share of app profit still 50 % of the house edge? Your calculation is right. So basically, it is like losing 1 btc but you still are able to get back 50% of it which is 0.5btc back. However, i remember that it is not 50%. I remember there is one time i hear that it also factor in on the fee for campaign signatures and some other misc stuffs. Yeah it seems my calculation is wrong, it cant be 50 % at all because the current system actually has a commission structure to moneypot for every wagered amount so it cant be that however assuming that it is then the numbers are actually correct , in the end it will be mostly the same 50%(last time i checked) of the Housed Edge goes to App owner, no deductions,fees(except when withdrawing,miner fees).. The other 50% is then split 20-30(last time i checked) between Moneypot & Investor. You mean that if the app owner want to advertise about his games, he actually need to fork out from his 50%? And i dont know the investor only get this low percentage of the profit. I always think it is much higher. With the crazy amount of bankroll, no wonder that the profit is increasing at a very slow rate right now. We have had this fee structure in place for the past half year (and it was announced when we did it), the vast majority of investments is made up by a few investors and they are satisfied with the way the business is operated. The only reason profit has been moving slow recently is because we had 4 days of downtime just a week ago, and over the past few days we have had a player win over 40 BTC ( https://www.moneypot.com/users/copypasta). Also a bit curious as to who you think should be paying for apps advertising if not the app owners |
|
|
|
The site just launched.No one has ever heard of it.How come you managed to have 8000 bets in 2 weeks without a post about your site on this forum ?Afterall,the majority of gambling population comes off this forum.Quite surprising.40+ Altcoins supported,that is rad.Why insisting people to invest in bitcoins ? Any specific reasons ?
The majority of gamblers do not come from this forum, and they do have a thread. 8,000 bets isn't much, you can have a single player do thousands of bets in a day. MoneyPot for example did 3.5MM bets over the past day. As to the offering: Why would people want to buy equity when they can just put it in the bankroll (and get a higher return)? Why aren't you risking much of your own capital (site bankroll isn't even 5 BTC)? If you are going to try and raise $200K from investors you should be willing to put at least a few grand into your own product. Then for your expected volume: Completely unreasonable. The only Bitcoin sites that break the 10k monthly wagered mark are PrimeDice, BustaBit, MoneyPot and Bet King. SatoshiDice usually doesn't even hit 4k, and SafeDice even less than that. A site like SafeDice/Crypto-Games is probably the ceiling for your project and that is still unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
Been a long time since I have seen someone reference Tribal Wars! Played that way back in 08 or 09 I believe.
Don't make it overtly pay to win, having elements of P2W is OK but it shouldn't be significant edges. You will lose a lot of players (meaning ad money and less P2W players want to play due to less overall players) if you make it so that in order to be competitive you need to pay.
Also keep the element of tribal wars where you can completely eliminate people from the game (nobling them), that was the part that made that game great, where you could actually win/lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
