No, you don't lose your data until the website shuts down. The opening line "passphrase.io is back" suggests they have shut down at least once before, so this doesn't seem like a good way of storing anything important.

Joinmarket is not at all about reducing transaction fees.

Take your off-topic big-block propaganda elsewhere please.

If you read the first few pages of this thread it was a pretty common idea at the start. It does look scammy on the surface having to give up your BTC private keys to claim free CLAMs so the confusion is understandable.

I would contact the guy and ask him to remove his accusation but from what I've seen of previous interactions with him he isn't exactly rational.

I hadn't noticed that. That's quite funny. khasier.com is nothing but a block explorer as far as I know. It doesn't ask for your private keys in any way.

badbitcoin.org is run by a guy who continued promoting and defending scrypt.cc and GAW/Paycoin well after they were known to be scams.

See https://bitcoinnewsmagazine.com/badbitcoin-org-gives-bad-bitcoin-advice/ for example.

Not the sharpest tool in the box...

The fees are by default 0.0001 CLAM per 1000 bytes (or part thereof). So a tx of 1000 bytes pays 0.0001 and a tx of 1001 bytes pays 0.0002, because it uses a part of the 2nd 1000 bytes.

It looks like you have your wallet set to pay 0.01 per 1000 bytes. Do you see 'fee' somewhere in your clam.conf?

Your 0.02 fee transaction is 1606 bytes, and the 0.01 fee transaction is less than 1000 bytes, so it's not surprising that one pays twice as much as the other. The only issue is why you're paying 100 times more than the default.

Edit: if you run the Qt version, check in 'Options', in the 'Main' tab. There's a setting "pay transaction fee". Mine's set to zero and I end up paying the default 0.0001 per 1000 bytes I think. What's yours set to?


It should be the same for CLAM, except that pay-to-pubkey transactions are more common in CLAM, which makes inputs take a different number of bytes.


I usually answer this question by looking at how much JD is staking.

JD has 1180k CLAM and stakes about 1150 CLAM per day. So each 1000 CLAMs stakes a little less than 1 per day on average.

I am not involved in Ponzi schemes. Nothing was revealed because nothing was hidden.

Maybe you're just another idiot QuickSeller alt. See how this "maybe" game works?

I expect anyone who knows about CLAM and had access to funded private keys will have dug them up already.

What's that meant to mean?

I don't think anyone ever accused me of pulling a scam with just-dice before.

I was entrusted with 60 million dollars worth of BTC while running just-dice and ended up returning it all to its owners.

I was pretty trusted before running just-dice, but demonstrating that I could be trusted with 60 million dollars worth of BTC certainly didn't damage my reputation.

I see the difficulty got straight back into its old range, no overshoot:

Difficulty is back to normal. I expect it will overshoot and take a while to get back to its usual pattern.

xploited recently brought it to my attention that the CLAM network difficulty was through the floor. I plotted it to confirm, and he's right:



It turns out that the wallet Just-Dice is using to stake recently hit 300MB in size, and is now pausing to write something to disk for 90 seconds after each stake, which prevents it from staking more than once per 90 seconds.

I have made a new staking wallet, and am in the process of moving the coins over to the new address.

The coins won't start trying to stake again until 4 hours after they were moved, so we can expect difficulty to decrease further.

This is good news for people solo-staking. You should see your wallet staking much more than you're used to.

Normal service at Just-Dice will be resumed as soon as possible.

Edit: This is the address I'm moving the coins into. The chart looks funny:



http://www.presstab.pw/phpexplorer/CLAM/address.php?address=xJDCLAMZPRxN7YHfRQmyq7rho8EBSYkDFQ

Edit2: I've got most of the coins moved over to the new staking wallet now. The only ones I can't move yet are the ones which staking within the last 8 hours and so are currently still maturing:

You can check the ancestry of a github repository by looking at the "forked from" links in the top left corner.

dooglus/CryptoPonzi forked from
  ClamBaker/CryptoPonzi forked from
    Crypton33/CryptoPonzi

I don't know if Crypton33's repo is the original code or not.

I know, it makes no sense to remove the code given that it all already exists and existed before I forked it, but if this makes people happy then so be it.

I have no interest in a crappy PHP Ponzi script anyway. I only looked at it because Klye asked for my help debugging the script he was using, and we both ended up concluding that the script is beyond help.

If it was a project I actually cared about then it would be different.


I have no fear of losing my position in the trust system. If theymos wants to remove me from DT I won't miss it. It would be a shame if he takes it away based on QS' trouble making, rather than because I actually did anything wrong, but I doubt that would happen. QS has been making trouble for me for a year or so now. If theymos was going to fall for his lies and manipulations I'm thinking he would have already done so.

Thanks. I've not seen anything like that posted before.

Note that your script will break once we reach file 100, since it assumes the file numbers have 2 digits.

Again, I didn't code a script. I removed some code from a pre-existing script.

Any Ponzi actually using the script would have quicky realised they were paying the wrong people. It takes very little effort by anyone with familiarity of coding and Bitcoin to locate and remove the error in the script. To say that without my help no Ponzi using the script would have been able to use it to steal money is simply wrong.


Maybe you should clear this up. The way write it appears to imply that the people being scammed was somehow related to me profiting. I suspect that what you are referring to is when I played and invested at a couple of dice sites run by scammers. I was lucky not to be scammed myself by those scammers, yet you twist the reality to try to make it look as if I was somehow to blame.


More weasel words. You know how the word "hacking" has both ethical and blackhat meanings. I have never "hacked" a site in the way you are implying. I have found vulnerabilities in sites and reported them to the site owners.

Maybe you should get to exposing these "transgressions" rather than hinting at them. Let the people see that what you have amounts to a big pile of nothing.


This is the Klye that first showed me the Ponzi script he was using, yes. Are there multiple Klye's in this space?


I have pushed a commit to my fork of the CryptoPonzi repository removing all the code and editing the README to say not to use the code.

    https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi

I'm not. I didn't post much feedback at all recently.

You may be thinking of cryptodevil?


I'm not working for a Ponzi. I was looking at the Ponzi script that Klye was using many months ago and saw an obvious bug in it. There was an exclamation mark where there shouldn't be. So I forked the repository and removed the exclamation mark. I also deleted 5 lines of code that weren't needed. That is the sum total of my "contribution" to the script - I deleted 5 lines and an exclamation mark.

Here's the first line I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472

Here's the next 4 lines and the exclamation mark I deleted: https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd

Pretty far fetched to call that "working for a Ponzi"!


My list members? What list? I don't harass anyone or force anyone to do or not to do anything. If you're referring again to cryptodevil, I think he is only tagging people who are promoting Ponzi schemes. It seems he and I disagree about the scaminess of "honest Ponzis" but overall I think he's doing a good thing in tagging Ponzi promoters.



I think you might be offtopic. This thread is for QS to make weird allegations about how I support Ponzis.


Again, you're mixing me up with someone else.


So don't. Stand up against abuse whenever you see it. I personally don't find it abuse when people who advertize Ponzi scams get negative feedback saying that they advertize Ponzi scams, but if you disagree you are welcome to stand up for the rights of the Ponzi scammers.


Klye was running an honest Ponzi, but using a crappy script to do so. He couldn't figure out what was going wrong with it, so I took a look. I fixed the first bug I found with it, then realised how crappy the script was and recommended that he should stop using it.


I agree completely.


What is being said here is that I am untrustworthy for fixing a bug in some open source code that I saw.

For me, fixing bugs in open source software is like picking up trash you see on the sidewalk. If everyone did it, we'd have better code and cleaner sidewalks for all. If I see some trash on the sidewalk outside of a known gangster's house I don't refuse to pick it up because someone might accuse me of "supporting" the gangster. I pick it up because it shouldn't be there no matter what. Dumb analogy. Whatever. Check my github account - I've forked lots of projects to make a one-off fix. That's how you make changes to github projects. Fork, edit, merge.


It isn't hard to delete the repo. The only reason I didn't delete it already is that QS would spin that into proof that I have something to hide.

Note that deleting the repo wouldn't "end this all together". No matter what I do QS will continue making a big deal out of this and other assorted imagined wrongdoings forever.

My only two changes:

https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/e71472 - Remove unused variable.


https://github.com/dooglus/CryptoPonzi/commit/6b26cd - Fix getAddress() so it correctly finds the address to which the first input was sent.


Hardly worth 'preserving'. Note how every line but one starts with a '-'? That means I deleted lines. The only line without a '-' at the start is where I removed a '!' character.

Then your claim is false. I didn't make the tool. I made a trivial bug fix to an existing tool. Also, the site I made the change for didn't steal from anyone or attempt to steal from anyone.

As usual you have your facts wrong. But you know that. For some reason you seem to want to discredit me when I've done nothing wrong. Is this still because I disagreed with you about timespacepilot? Really you need to get over it. Sometimes people are going to disagree with you.

I've never commented on the legality of Ponzi schemes. I believe that if a Ponzi scheme is honest in its presentation and action then it cannot accurately be called a scam. It may still be illegal, but lots of things are illegal without being wrong. Some places have laws against growing some plants for your own use. That doesn't make it wrong to do so, it makes it illegal. The law changes all the time; morality doesn't.

Yes, I wrote that. I'm not saying that anyone not agreeing with me is a sockpuppet at all. I am saying that either quite a few people, or at least quite a few sockpuppets think CD is "out of control". Maybe you don't have good reading comprehension, but what I wrote is quite different than what you claim I wrote.


QS keeps saying that same things over and over while adding further misunderstandings and lies. It's tiring to keep replying to his bullshit.

I skimmed one of his recent posts where he appears unable to grasp the basics of what I am saying then makes some kind of weird point about fixing bombs for ISIS. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the energy to try to make sense of it.

That doesn't sound like something I would say.


You're entitled to your opinion. It might carry more weight if you could back it up though.