My deposit of around $10,000 worth of CLAMs from 8 days ago still hasn't been credited to my account. I am unable to get anyone to even reply to my support ticket.

The chat mods all tell me it will be processed "soon", but they've been saying that for a week while the site continues to fund withdrawals to others with the coins I sent them.

I hope it's just some kind of fuck up on their end, but be careful out there.

Your account is locked because someone tried to log in 3 times and got the 2FA wrong each time.

I have replied to your ticket.

Last Friday, 7 days ago, I deposited 10,000 CLAMs to poloniex. My account was only credited for 200 CLAMs. I made a ticket but my account still wasn't credited.

I have been asking in the on-site chat for help and have been promised that it will be sorted out "as soon as possible", but still nothing happens.

I have tried talking to OldManKidd on IRC. He told me that busoni would "resolve that for you and get back to you as soon as possible", but that was days ago now.

At the time of my deposit the 10,000 CLAMs were worth 21 BTC. Now they are worth 12 BTC. This delay has cost me 9 BTC already. I deposited because the price was peaking and wanted to take advantage of it. I didn't expect the deposit to take a week to happen!

The ticket number is #67593.

Is there any way I can get in touch with someone at Poloniex who can help me?

--

Edit:


Oops, I only just noticed that part. I hope this post didn't slow things down further.


I would recommend focusing on the basics. Get deposits and withdrawals working well rather than adding fluff like margin trading, lending, etc. It's not unusual to see people complaining about "stuck withdrawals" or late deposits. It makes the site feel unprofessional when users are kept waiting for what should be simple operations to happen.

I think these days he's more interested in Steem.

How would you mint a steamcoin? Sounds potentially dangerous.

The old moneypot game was renamed to bustabit.com and then the moneypot.com domain was sold to new owners.

bustabit.com now is what moneypot.com used to be.

What is a "sending address"? You can only send coins from addresses that previously received coins, so I would think the "sending address" is the same as the previous "receiving address". Or do you mean that there are some CLAMs on an address you once sent some coins to, but don't control? In that case the CLAMs belong to the owner of that address.

Sorry I can't give you a better answer, but I don't think I really understand the question.


Every 16 seconds, the wallet client will hash together a bunch of information for each of your mature unspent outputs in turn and check whether the hash is lower than some target. If so, that output gets to stake. The target is based on the size of the output and the current network difficulty. The smaller the output, the lower the target, and so the lower the chance that the hash will be lower than the target.

Any non-zero valued unspent output has a chance of staking, but the chance is proportional to the value of the output.

A 1000 CLAM output will stake about once per day.
A 1 CLAM output will stake about once per 3 years.
A 0.1 CLAM output will stake about oonce per 30 years.
Etc.

So a single 'clamtoshi' output (0.00000001 CLAMs) can still stake, but it is very unlikely that it ever will. The expected time to stake for a single clamtoshi is around 300 million years.

So I'm telling you there's a chance, yeah!

No. Did you see that the post you quoted was also three years old?

It would look very similar, just with different calculations for the crash point.

I just logged in to moneypot for the first time in months.

It showed me a "Two-Factor Reminder":



There are a few errors in it:

* It claims that only I can use my phone to generate 2FA codes. That's not true. Anyone with access to my phone can do it.

* "Only" has a capital "O" in the middle of a sentence.

* "Enable" is spelled wrongly.

* I think you mean "stress", not "stress out".

* "dont" is missing an apostrophe, as is "its".

It's also quite annoying not to allow people to disable the warning. Some people just don't want to use 2FA. You should allow them to disable the warning.

I click 'Enable 2fa', it shows me the QR code to scan, but before I can scan it, it pops up the "Two-Factor Reminder" on top of it. I click 'Enable 2fa' again, and the same thing happens. Could you stop nagging me about enabling it long enough for me to enable it? Thanks.

Dogedigital already apologized and said they're working on fixing it. So I think we can assume it's MP's fault - especially since the first guy said his deposit had 3 confirmations and still wasn't credited.

Will this work for you?


You shouldn't need a list of nodes because recent versions of the CLAM client should look them up automatically using DNS.

Sorry about that. I have responded now. But I don't think there's anything I can do.

Someone logged in to your account using your username and password and withdrew your balance. I don't know how they got your password, but they got it righton the first attempt so it wasn't brute-forced.

I would recommend contacting Poloniex and seeing if they can work with you, since I think that's where your coins were withdrawn to.

Where have you been looking?

And no.

Yeah, I see. It's the wording you're objecting to.

JD says "0.001 CLAM will be deducted from the amount you type for use as a transaction fee" which also isn't strictly true. It will be used as a transaction fee, but not necessarily for *your* transaction.

It is of course possible to create a transaction with any amount of fee that you want it to have. The raw transaction RPC interface of Bitcoin Core will let you do it, for example.

The point that you are missing is that you (the person requesting a withdrawal) don't know how big (in bytes) the transaction is going to be, since you don't know what UTXOs are in the sending wallet or how the coin selection is done. So you don't know what an appropriate fee would be.

All you know is how urgently you want the withdrawal to confirm.

So you specify the urgency, and the site sets the fee accordingly, based on how congested the blockchain currently is, based on the size of the transaction, based on the size of the mempool, and so on. Sometimes the fee included will be more than you pay and sometimes is will be less. On average it should balance out. The experience for the user is better that way - he pays 300 bits and gets a quick confirmation whether the blockchain is busy or not, and whether the site's wallet is mostly composed of dust outputs or not.

Yup.

I disagree with most of the things you wrote there. I could go through and reply line by line but I've seen others attempt to do that and it doesn't work out well.

I'll dip my toe in the water with your most obvious incorrect statement:

> "free" and "maximum" are antonyms

The antonym of "maximum" is "minimum". You really cannot believe that those two words are antonyms. Can you?


I don't think Twitchy ever claimed that the rules for one game were the rules for another game. If he did, perhaps you could quote the post where he did so. Making all these accusations with nothing to back them up adds nothing to the argument. You say he multi-accounts, he says "only to chat and post", you let the thread drop, but go back to accusing him of multi-accounting. It's the same with each of your accusations. You accuse, he defends, you ignore his defense and go back to step 1. Try harder.

I've had good experiences with betcoin. I'm something like 10 BTC up there and didn't have any trouble withdrawing my winnings.

I've also had bad experiences with betcoin. Their customer support is among the worst I have ever experienced. Tickets go ignored for months at a time.

Try to keep up.

I think he is doing whatever he can to "get his coins back",  even if it means spreading lies about Twitchy and others. We saw a similar thing recently with JasonOrt (the big jackpot winner) - it was pretty clear that he was pressured into saying nice things about betcoin in order to get some small part of what he was owed.

What a crappy forgery.

protip: when faking a chat log in an attempt to make someone look bad remember to always spell their name correctly