No, I don't think so. In Dean's first example:


There was 300 profit, 25 expenses, so 275 net profit.

The investors get 82.5 whereas 30% of the gross profit would be 90, so they are paying 7.5 BTC towards the expenses.
Dean gets 192.5 whereas 70% of the gross profit would be 210, so he is paying 17.5 BTC towards the expenses.

In other words the investors pay 30% of the expenses and Dean pays 70% of the expenses.

Yes, but there have been 3.45 million games, so you're looking at an even 200 days.

I wonder if Ryan would be prepared to make a torrent of old .json files to reduce load on his server.

Sorry Dean, but I still don't think this is clear. Originally you said that profits from the dice game would be paid as dividends to shareholders:


but now you're saying that profits from the dice game will be added to the bankroll (ie. your 2k BTC):


Are you saying that the public's 30% share of the profits are paid out and your 70% share of the profits stay in the bankroll? Or how can I understand both statements at the same time?

It's hard to decide whether to invest with such confusing and apparently conflicting statements from you.

This is answered in the OP:

Another update:



http://khashier.com/tx/78674b941f812f72e19d68b9f56330cdd80b00d8c94162526dac9c73044aa3ed is the 42 CLAM output, the most successful staker so far.

Can you say anything about the price you would be willing to sell the remaining shares at?

Can you promise never to offer them for less than 0.00006666 BTC each (your current asking price)? Or might you consider selling them cheaper if you can't shift them at that price?

That was a happy coincidence. I almost surely wasn't thinking of that definition when I used the term.

So rather than addressing my concerns he calls me a retard behind my back?

Sigh.

Depressing, isn't it!

---

I think part of the confusion is that previously you said the expenses would be taken out of the profits before paying dividends. Now you're saying the expenses are coming out of your 2000 BTC.

In the OP you wrote this, which seems to contradict what you wrote above that your 2k BTC will be used for expenses:

---

That doesn't seem very professional.

Not really. It seems like a silly idea to me.

There's a 1% house edge. There's no winning strategy. The attraction of the site is that it's fun to take a gamble, to see if you win or lose. Why would you want to have a bot play for you, when it's almost guaranteed to lose in the long run?

Do you have any evidence at all for that claim?

If he had partners, why would they let him speak for the site?

You're not making any sense.

He had 6000 BTC in his hands. He has given it back, and is now asking for 2000 BTC, and quite possibly won't get that much.

If he's a scammer, he's a very bad one. Why would a scammer give back 6000 BTC to his victims in the hope of stealing 2000 BTC? The obvious "best move" is just to keep the 6000 BTC. Previously people had trusted him with ~6k for 50% of the profits with the option of divesting at any time. No way are they now going to trust him with the same ~6k for just 30% of the profits and no option to divest. He'll end up holding less than 6k, and so will be able to "run off" with less.

You seem to be suggesting that his plan is to show that he can be trusted with 6000 BTC so that he can steal 2000 BTC. That is clearly nonsense.


I wouldn't either, but not because it's a scam. He's selling 30% of the profits for 2000 BTC or more. That seems like too much. It looks like the site saw around 120k BTC wagered in the last year. The expected profit from that volume would be 1200 BTC. 30% of that would be 360 BTC. At that rate it would take a little over 5.5 years to break even on your investment. I'm ignoring lots of factors here, but that's a very rough estimate.

I think you may have it wrong. BetKing was allowing each investor to set their own 'Kelly multiplier". If a player won 10% of the bankroll that loss would have been borne by those investors with the highest Kelly multipliers. Any investor with a regular 1x multiplier would have lost no more than 1% of their investment on any roll. It's not unreasonable to allow investors to use high leverage so they don't have to expose themselves to so much counterparty risk so long as you don't force it on everyone.

Also, the commission was 25% of the profits plus 25% of the house edge. In the case of a winning player there's no profit, so the commission is just 25% of the house edge, or 25% of 1% of the stake, or 0.25% of the stake.

Since it's the max profit per bet that is fixed and not the max stake, the commission depends on the payout multiplier. If the winning player bet at 98% (a roughly 1.010204x payout multiplier) to win 450 BTC profit, their stake would need to be 44100 BTC, and the commission on that bet would be 0.25% of that, or 110.25 BTC, in which case the investor at 1x Kelly would be losing 1.245% of their investment at most.

At the other extreme, if the winning play bet at 0.0001% (a 990,000x payout multiplier) to win 450 BTC profit, their stake would need to be just 0.00045454 BTC, and so the commission on that bet would be pretty much zero, and the investor ends up losing at most 1.00000101% of their investment.

All this is moot now of course since betking is moving from a model where investors get to keep 50% of the expected profit (before expenses) and can divest whenever they like to a new exciting model where they keep 30% of the profit (after expenses) and cannot divest.

Oh, well to do that he doesn't need to even know his private keys, or share them with anyone.

The first 10k blocks in the CLAM blockchain list all the CLAM addresses which are eligible to claim, and it is possible to convert those CLAM addresses to BTC, LTC, and DOGE addresses by changing the version byte accordingly.

There were about 3.2 million CLAM addresses funded. Those correspond to 3.2 million BTC addresses. If you have a list of your BTC addresses you could make a list of funded BTC addresses, and check for matches with the list of funded BTC addresses.

Nearly, but not quite. You need to provide a signature, but of a transaction, not a message. This is the same that Bitcoin uses - when you want to spend your Bitcoins your wallet makes a transaction and signs it using your Bitcoin private key.

The point you may be missing is that the private key for your free CLAMs *is* your BTC private key. The private keys are the same, and the addresses only look different because of the 'version byte' (the thing which makes BTC addresses start with a '1' while CLAM addresses start with an 'x').

So the easiest way to sign a transaction using your private key is to import your old BTC/DOGE private keys into a CLAM wallet, let it rescan, and then send a transaction from the CLAM wallet as you would from any other wallet.


"clamd sendtoaddress <address> <amount>" - or use the QT version and use the send tab.

I can confirm it's the expected time to stake, in seconds.

The problem with this claim is that the site gives around 50% of its profit to its investors.

So if the high rollers are fake, so are the losses. In which case is Dean paying the investors out of his own pocket? Or is he not paying them at all?

Neither possibility seems very plausible.

I think the most likely explanation is that your assertion that "97% of socalled high rollers there are fake" is false, and that you are just a troll.

The link is in the post you quoted. It's the blue bit.

That's all well and good, but it's possible that only 1 in a million addresses generated by a tool will have problems, and so you could test 10 different addresses with tiny amounts and then be unlucky and get a broken address that you use with the rest of your coins.

The bug I linked to used to affect bitaddress. It doesn't any more, but we can't be sure that there aren't other such bugs, so be careful!

I don't think that's right either is it?

That would mean moneypot is effectively taking a 99% commission and I doubt that's accurate.