Is it available online somewhere? Or can you send me a copy?

No, I mean at the bottom of my screen I have 3 icons: triangle, circle, square. Triangle is a 'back' button, circle is a 'home' icon, and square is the menu button. I don't know what they're called, but the square icon shows me all the apps that are running, and I can swipe across the ones I want to kill.

It's like this:

1) from a fresh boot, tap the mycelium icon
2) it asks for my PIN
3) I enter the PIN and it shows my balance
4) I hit the triangle/back icon
5) I am returned to the home screen
6) I tap the mycelium icon again
7) it shows my balance without asking for a PIN, even though by hitting 'back' in step 4 I figure I have left the app
I hit the square/menu icon
9) I swipe left on the mycelium app in the list
10) I hit the circle/home icon
11) I tap the mycelium icon again
12) it asks for my PIN

ie. using 'triangle/back' to exit doesn't lock the wallet but using 'square/menu' to exit does lock the wallet.

What are 'skins'? Can I buy them with the $5 in my account? Or do I have to buy and play a steam game first, and somehow find the skins in-game?

I'm confused about what it is that site is gambling. What are the "coins"?

I made a steam account and deposited $5 worth of BTC into it. How do I get 'coins' to play with?

I have hit 'back' until it went back to the Android home screen before and not had to enter the PIN to get back into the wallet.

I don't know if that's a bug or not, but as it stands, 'backing out' isn't enough to relock the wallet. I've had to hit the menu button and kill the app before it would re-ask for the PIN.


This also isn't true. I have multiple unrelated HD wallets in my copy of Mycelium.

You can import multiple unrelated xprv... keys by going to the 'accounts' tab, hitting 'add account', then 'advanced', entering your PIN, then 'scan'. Scan a QR code that encodes the appropriate xprv... key and Bob's your Uncle.

For example, my first seed is "wild warfare ready", and account 0 for that seed gives these as the first 3 receiving addresses:


The extended key for that account (BIP32 Derivation Path m/44'/0'/0') is xprv9zDDuXgC9CGbUftVmEuXGhU7AU6fa9yznKhDiBo8JJ76DBJfB9sPn4jdJnWpwoxK1MDKeyFYqof X1JRUNWfrw4gbkAqh1pcq8uiWiiQNqaK, with a QR code like this:



My second seed is "exclude nice jelly", and account 0 for that seed gives these as the first 3 receiving addresses:


The extended key for that account (BIP32 Derivation Path m/44'/0'/0') is xprv9z5bbZdcfzWtBh5LDk9Qv4zcAnrvzbcpwzrmm1J4dmFF5ygcj7oBinXizMoJKaBSfMixAwH6cEp XbZU4gBrroMi322oN1sFFTmSiTxhNBcS, with a QR code like this:



After importing those two QR codes I see two accounts, each showing the appropriate receiving address:





That's two different HD wallets, with two different seeds, in a single instance of the Mycelium app.

What makes you think little development is being done?

I refer you to my previous answer, which you may not have noticed (since you didn't reply to it):


I am happy that the price is going up, of course. But I'm not short sighted enough to believe that it won't go down again too. I've been in this game long enough that the ups and downs don't bother me any more. I'm in it for the long haul.

I think you would have better luck if you did a fgetc() with each of those fputc() calls. That way you are effectively overwriting the old privkey with a new random one rather than inserting new bytes into the file which will corrupt it.

Edit: oh, you are already doing that. So I'm not sure what went wrong. I'll take another look.

Edit2: wallet.dat stores the public keys as well as the private keys and complains if they don't match. That's why you're getting the error you're getting.

From walletdb.cpp:

I am long Bitcoin, not short. I have no bear position. Did you think I said I did?

I think your statement that "it's not possible for halving to be priced in now" is incorrect, and asked whether you have any arguments to back it up.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted that as me saying I have a "bear position", but if you go back and re-read what I said maybe you'll understand my position more clearly.

Thought experiment:

From your point of view what would change if instead of 1 entity staking 85% of the coins we had 100 entities each staking 0.85% of the coins?

Your share of the coins is the same in both cases. So how does it affect you at all?

What if the JD coins were split up into 100 separate wallets? Better? Worse? The same?

85% of the blocks each day are staked by Just-Dice because 85% of the actively staking coins are working at Just-Dice. The 2nd biggest CLAM holder (Poloniex) doesn't stake their coins at all. If you buy up 10% of the CLAMs and start staking them, you will stake more than 10% of the blocks, because your 2nd biggest competitor (Poloniex) isn't even trying. That seems more than fair - you get more than your fair share of stake reward. It's unfair to Poloniex customers who are missing out on potential earnings, but they knew that when they deposited, so they can hardly complain.


That would be unfair to the people trusting Just-Dice to stake for them. If I had to chose between staking my coins at Just-Dice (where they have 1 day off per week) and staking them at home (where they work 24/7) I would stake them at home.


Is "proof-of-activity" actively used on any existing blockchain that you are aware of?

I can imagine a system similar to the way that mining pools check that their members are actively mining, by issuing work that is easier than mining a full block, and counting up how many of these "shares" each miner in the pool solves. By having 'shares' on the CLAM network, which are 10 times easier to solve than actually staking a block, and which are worth nothing in terms of direct block reward, we have proof that a particular output is (or at least has been) "trying" to stake and so can give it increased weight. This weight boost could decay over time, requiring a regular stream of shares to be incoming in order to keep the boost in place.

Even if we figured out such a system, I don't think it would help. Just-Dice has a large pool of old, constantly-working outputs and so would probably benefit the most from having 'age' added back into the equation.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but they're not mine to give away. The coins are owned by hundreds of different people.


I have no intention of using the concentration of staking weight in any way other than simply staking people's coins for them.

If you can think of a way of having the coins more spread out, please let us know.

The only serious suggestion I've heard is that of limiting the number of coins that Just-Dice will accept, but that doesn't seem to make any sense. I would prefer to see some competition open up so that there's demand for CLAM from more than just one source.

You can't know how many CLAMs are really staking, because staking is something people do in private. I have no way of knowing whether your coins are trying to stake or not until they actually stake a block. You could be trying and failing a lot, or you could just not be trying. Both would look the same to everyone who isn't you.

So all we can do is see how quickly blocks are being found, and look at the current difficulty, and make an estimate based on those data points. That's what "getstakinginfo" does.

Currently the just-dice staking wallet has 1190063.46139446 CLAMs actively trying to stake, but 'getstakinginfo' on that wallet says that the total network stake weight is only 1120725.089647847 CLAMs:


ie. its estimated netstakeweight is less than the weight in this wallet alone. So clearly the estimate isn't very accurate.

The expected time is in seconds.

I can't find a definition of that term, but I did find this: time value of money. Is that what you're talking about?

I can see that since it would be possible to gain a small return over the next month or two there's no point in bidding the price of BTC all the way up to the post-halving price now. But since interest rates are so low you would still expect the halving to be mostly priced in already.


You were claiming that the payoff would happen at the halving and that it is impossible for any gain from the halving to already be priced in. I am claiming that the halving is already at least partially priced in. I am yet to see any kind of logical argument for your position.

In January 2011 there was only one faucet that I know of, run by Gavin.

I got my first 0.05 BTC from it:



Edit: I don't remember if there was a daily limit, but Bitcoin was worth so little at the time that it didn't seem worth abusing it. 0.05 BTC was worth around $0.02 at the time.

When the hot wallet needs refilling, I always refill it using the biggest outputs from the staking wallet - so that's probably what will happen to those 70's.

Here's the last refill transaction - you can see it spending a bunch of 70-ish outputs from the staking wallet, and making a bunch of 100's in the hot wallet.

I fill the hot wallet with 100's, because it's common for people to want to withdraw amounts in the 1000's, and so I want to have some decent sized inputs available to fund those withdrawals with.

Edit: forgot link: http://khashier.com/tx/52c06646063196877f6ee1de190a197795dd210a168d79b85b557d5eb94dbe80

An output of size 2N will stake about as often as two outputs each of size N, and so in terms of how often your outputs stake it really doesn't matter what size they are.

The only important consideration is that when the output of size 2N stakes, the whole 2N+1 value sits idle for 500 blocks (8 hours) while it matures. When one of the two separate outputs of size N stakes, the other one continues trying to stake while the first one waits to mature. So splitting the output is more efficient for that reason only.

The more outputs you split your coins into, the less percentage of your coins are sitting idle waiting to mature at any time. So the "most efficient output" size is, I guess, 1 satoshi.

The problem with splitting that small is that it takes a finite amount of time to check each output for staking, and it costs a finite amount of transaction fee per output to spend it. So you need to balance splitting to minimize loss due to the 500 block maturity delay with loss due to transaction fees when you finally come to spend your outputs and CPU time burned to check for staking.

I find that making my outputs somewhere in the 20 to 40 CLAM range works fine.

If 1000 CLAMs stakes about once per day, then 3000 CLAMs stakes about once per 500 blocks, so if my outputs are 30 CLAMs each then about 1% of them are idle waiting to mature at any point in time.

Right now the Just-Dice staking wallet has 1,195,215 CLAMs. 1,179,875 are actively trying to stake and 15,340 are waiting to mature. That's around 1.28% of them that was sitting idle. Probably it's over 1% because on average they are over 30 CLAMs each. Counting the number of immature outputs of each size:


ie. there are 23 immature outputs of size 20 CLAM, etc.

Counting all outputs, whether mature or not we see that I have quite a range of sizes, from 17 CLAMs all the way up to 70 CLAMs:


Those 70 CLAM outputs are probably too big to be efficient, but it's not clear whether it's better to manually split them (wasting 4 hours of staking time per transaction) or leave them staking and let them split themselves when they next stake.

Sure looks that way.

I maintain that he started it with his provocative title.

Maybe consider changing it. Here are some suggestions:

    "Halving guide for noobs:  Why I really really hope the halving is not priced in now"
    "Halving guide for noobs:  The halving is not priced in now. Because I said so"
    "Halving guide for noobs:  The halving is not priced in now. Because billionaires diversify, Soros is bent, and dooglus can't tie his own shoelaces"

Whether it's more profitable to invest with just-dice depends on:

1) how lucky just-dice is - it's possible that the site gets unlucky and loses a lot of CLAMs to a winning player
2) how much you use the "offsite investment" feature at just-dice - it's a way of amplifying your potential gains and losses from players
3) how much betting volume there is on just-dice

I've not done the math to figure out where the optimal balance lies, but all the information you would need to do so is available on the site's stats tab.


Yes, the chance of an output staking per unit time is directly proportional to its size in CLAMs, and inversely proportional to the network difficulty.

If the difficulty doubles and so does the size of your output, the two doublings cancel each other out and you end up with the same chance of staking that you started with.

This is very likely a scam.

They claim to be able to make around 0.8% per day staking CLAM:



That's not possible. The staking rate is around 0.1% per day.

And the FAQ?


What does that even mean, "generate algorithms and select the most profitable ones"? It's meaningless nonsense designed to trick you into giving them your money.