I agree with you that they aren't a scam if they operate how they claim they will operate. But I disagree that the majority of Ponzis do what they have stated to do. Most Ponzis claim to be able to double your money indefinitely (usually accompanied by some kind of lie about how they make the money from trading or whatever) and end up NOT doubling everyone's money.

Promising mathematically impossible things is what makes them scams in my opinion.

If they are clear up-front that some people will make a loss then I don't see how that can be called a scam. Alternatively, if they promise to double everyone's money, then realize after the fact that it's not sustainable and make up the shortfall out of their own pocket, then that too can't be called a scam. The vast majority of Ponzis of course do neither of these. They promise crazy returns and end up defaulting. That's what makes them scams.

BIP39 is what Mycelium uses to generate the 12 words. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki


It uses BIP44 to generate the private keys from the 12 words. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki

You can play about here with BIP39 and BIP44 to see how the words correspond to public and private keys:

    https://dcpos.github.io/bip39/

If you put your Mycelium backup words into the first field, you'll see all your Mycelium addresses and private keys in the BIP44 tab when you scroll down. There are risks involved with entering your backup on an online machine, of course. Depending on how safe you want to be you might prefer to make a copy of that web page on a memory stick and play about with it on an offline machine. Or use a different set of words completely.

I put in these 12 words: "ketchup meat mesh gift youth dentist early chef luggage delay old enhance". That is all the information you need to generate addresses:

    1LnBZHUP3qBoBCsUBnAxPpHMunqWtA18kD, 1KoDCzwjk6YrosZefW9rh75iGZYLgYmyPT, 1FrJWybjo8epKhvCFbXhAkmUx4WsUNqm4Q, ...

and the corresponding private keys. The sequence of addresses goes on forever and all you need to store are the 12 seed words.

I fixed bugs in Ponzi code. It's true. Whether the code is used to steal money or not is up to the person running the script and how they market it. The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.


I wasn't referring to this thread in particular, but since you asked, the very first sentence you wrote is a lie:


That is a link to my profile not a scammer's profile. I am not a scammer. I have never scammed anyone or attempted to scam anyone.


I don't want your money. We've been over your weak "extortion" claim before too. When someone tells you "we will pay you for finding bugs" and then you find a bug and they admit it's a bug but won't pay you what they promised to pay you, and you leave them feedback saying that they broke their word, that isn't extortion. That's them showing that they are not trustworthy, and me leaving feedback so others can see that they are not trustworthy. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe we're saving rehashing that for a separate episode of "dooglus is bad". I can hardly wait.


Absolutely not. I'm not asking for a free pass. But this "fixing bugs makes doog bad" line of argument only makes you look weak.


I do. I owe lots of people a lot of CLAMs. If they want repayment they need to log in to Just-Dice and click the 'withdraw' button.


Thanks for taking the time to find that.

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.


For instance?


I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.


The code is open source. I made the fix in public. That's how open source works. The development is distributed and open. You think I could delete my change from the Internet now even if I wanted to?


This is a misrepresentation. I forked an existing project, which itself was a fork of an existing project. If there's a tutorial in the fork I made it's because there was a tutorial in the project I forked. All I did was fix a trivial bug in existing code.


That should be "Let's not act", you missed an apostrophe. Does that mean I am supporting you? Or am I only fixing an error in what you said?

That's because there's nothing other than "straws" for him to grasp at.

He's trying to make it look like I support Ponzis because I saw a bug and fixed it. That's what I do - I see stuff that's wrong (like idiots telling lies on the forum) and try to put it right (by correcting them). Sometimes they get butthurt and "grasp at straws" for years afterwards. But nobody pays them any attention.

There's no evidence of me "supporting" your Ponzi, because I never did. It was always a bad idea.

As I told you at the time, that script is crap, and the concept of attempting to pay the required exponentially increasing returns from staking rewards is fundamentally broken. But you figured that out for yourself eventually.


I heard he has a history of pretending to be multiple different people so he can escrow his own deals.

And we're meant to take him seriously? 

OMG. Dooglus fixes bugs. Such a surprise. The script was already available to everyone, in use in the wild, and malfunctioning badly. I fixed a couple of bugs in it so it would malfunction less badly. It still sucks.

What do you do other than attempt to stir up trouble and lie to people?

Check the 'account' tab on Just-Dice, near the end:

    "Enable 'e' shortcut key to bet with a 'random' chance"

You need to enable the feature before it will work.

That's incredible. Not only are you doubling everyone's deposits, you're also returning almost all the deposits in the form of jackpots - so in effect you're tripling deposits. How are you able to afford to give away so much free money? And why are you doing it? It is unusual to find such kindness and generosity online.

Oh, wait a second - is this a scam? I bet that's what's going on here isn't it. You say you're going to double everyone's money but in fact are going to keep it! That's horrible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

My stance on this is that if a Ponzi scheme is presented in an honest fashion then it's not fraudulent.

Most Ponzi scams promise to double your money in a certain amount of time. They obviously aren't able to do this indefinitely, and so inevitably end up breaking their promise to at least some of the players.

This Ponzi tells you up front that at least some players will be making a loss.

I don't think it's fair to require that 100% of customers fully understand the terms up front. You can't expect 100% of people to understand anything at all, since there exist some incredibly unintelligent people. So long as the claims made are true, that seems to me to be enough. If people fail to understand those claims that's their own responsibility.

The quote about it being illegal to run a business where the income is only from new recruits doesn't apply I think. Ponzi schemes aren't generally funded by referrals, and many players player repeatedly. Obviously if nobody was ever "recruited" into playing a Ponzi then there would be no business, but the same could be said about any business. If a store never "recruited" any customers they wouldn't make any sales. That's not what the law is talking about. It's talking about schemes where you have to buy a membership to get involved.

One problem I see is that even though OP is being upfront about the way his Ponzi operates in this thread, he (or his friends) could well be promoting the same scheme elsewhere using dishonest ("double your money, every time!") claims, and we wouldn't know. But I guess in that case we negrate him there, and not here.

I don't think you could have used the latest bootstrap.dat file if it ended up getting renamed yet you're stuck at 899544.

Concatenating https://s3.amazonaws.com/dooglus/bootstrap-089.dat and https://s3.amazonaws.com/dooglus/bootstrap-090.dat into bootstrap.dat in your data folder and restarting will get you past the point you're stuck at.

What happened? Did you download the bootstrap.dat file? Did you put it in the same folder as your CLAM wallet.dat? Did you restart the CLAM client? Did the bootstrap.dat file end up getting renamed? Is there anything unusual in your debug.log file? What block are you stuck at?

You are missing the point. When you bet on dice, roulette, or Cryptodevil's future actions, the terms are clear in advance:

  "if you roll less than 49.5 you win"
  "if the ball lands on red you win"
  "if cryptodevil inexplicably removes red trust you win"

With a Ponzi scam the terms are dishonest:

  "double your money in 48 hours"

The terms don't mention any possibility of a loss and in fact explain why such a loss is impossible:

  "we make sure we have backup funds in order to cover any losses (if ever)."

The loss isn't the result of the terms, it's explicitly outside of the terms, and that is what makes it dishonest.


By claiming they are just another kind of gambling you are defending them. Gamblers know they are gambling. Some Ponzi victims don't. They believe the "double your money" lies.

You made 4 positive statements about a scheme that was clearly designed from the outset to scam:


Did you really think it "may be sustainable"? They were paying 10% profit every 12 hours. That's 21% per day, 747% per week, and 3590% per month.

If you thought that "may be sustainable" you're as naive as the innocent victims. And if you didn't, you were lying.

Yes, blockchain.info won't display unconfirmed transactions from the current Bitcoin Core release. It's a known issue, caused by the new fee-sniping protection.

See Peter Todd's comment where he says:


I reported the same issue back in February when testing the 0.12 release candidate:


but I got no response.

I would recommend using a different blockchain explorer. I mentioned 5 working alternatives in the post I partially quoted above.

Edit: see this reddit thread where I asked for and received an explanation of the new anti-fee sniping code.

I won't. You are offering to double people's deposits for free. That is clearly a scam. What's in it for you?


Are you aware that it is impossible to have a negative Bitcoin balance at an address?

You will end up with your liabilities being greater than your assets, and will be unable to pay out the last participants.


All Ponzi scams make regular payments until they stop making regular payments. Yours is no different.

Remember that bustabit is a game of skill to some extent. I am willing to believe that there are +EV strategies, and that it is possible to implement a bot that recognises how people are playing and knows how to take advantage of it. I don't think it's possible to make a bot that wins against arbitrarily sophisticated opponents, but I am willing to believe that it is possible to make a bot that wins against the kinds of players you actually end up playing against right now.

I would recommend doing something (anything) other than this lame Ponzi scam. That would improve your work.

As I suspected. Zeke's misrepresenting the facts to try to make cryptodevil look bad.

It's usually a waste of time following up on reports from people who are butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam. Because in almost all cases they are just butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam.


Yes, there's no reason to post "receeved third paymunt" on a Ponzi thread other than to try to trick new people into thinking that it's not a scam. Otherwise why not just play the game quietly and not try to rope others into playing?

If anyone does have any valid concerns about cryptodevil's behaviour please PM me about them and I'll re-evaluate having him in my network. But I'm not going to remove him for highlighting people who promote scams.

I haven't seen the post. Can you link me to it and any neg rep left as a result?


If I had known it was QS I would have simply ignored the message. The guy seems to enjoy trolling me and so I try to ignore him. The PM says that if I don't do what he wants he will try to get me removed from default trust. Isn't that a threat? If you threaten me via PM then I will post your threat in public so show others how you behave in private.


If it's QS then it is about me. He has been using whatever he can find to dig at me for months if not years now.

I just received the following threat in a private message:



I hadn't seen this thread before, and have only read the first 3 posts.

The premise that there is a conflict of interest because if people don't give their money to scammers then they might be more inclined to give it to me is just crazy, and applies just as well to *any other business*.

Does a purveyor of alpaca socks benefit by attempting to warn people about scams, because any money not lost to scams could instead by spent on socks?


My stance on Ponzis is that they're fine if they're honest. Very few are honest and promise unrealistic guaranteed payouts. If they're upfront about the risk "players" are taking then I don't see a problem with them, but very few do that. As I understand it, cryptodevil sees things the same way. If you don't want him leaving you negative feedback, stop making posts supporting obvious scams. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: having now read this thread it seems quite a few people (or quite a few sockpuppets) think cryptodevil is "out of control".

If anyone has any concrete examples of him leaving unreasonable trust feedback please PM me to let me know and I'll look into it. I don't think it's unreasonable to negative-rate people who are supporting obvious scams by making positive posts about them.

Assuming the market cap stays constant, any increase in the total supply of CLAM should result in a corresponding decrease in the price per unit.

1 million CLAM worth $1 each gives a market cap of $1 million.
2 million CLAM worth $0.50 each also gives a market cap of $1 million.

In the absence of any reason for the market cap to change each doubling in supply should see a corresponding halving in price per unit.

And that's not a bad thing, since each doubling in supply also corresponds to a doubling in each staker's holdings.

SuperClam's point is key here. CLAM inflation is different from USD inflation. In CLAM the inflation is shared between the stakers. With USD the inflation isn't shared out, it goes to the people who are lending new dollars into existence.

Edit: with the exception of digging, of course. But digging is limited.

I forgot the reason I came back to this thread... I wanted to post an updated digging chart, so here it is:

It's not an approximation, it's actually how much per 100 CLAMs each "/offsite 0" investor made over the last several weeks. And yes, that's after commission.

Here's a list of the investment size of account 976231 after commission each week:


It should match the previous numbers I showed. You should also be able to find each week's total in the corrresponding weekly investor report.