The staked CLAM stake again, but the money supply grows each time they do, so the percentage increase goes down each time. That means you need to use a simple interest calculation, not compound interest.

A simpler example:

Suppose the money supply was 100k, and 1k was staked per day for 10 days. That's 1% growth in the first day, 0.99% the 2nd day, 0.98% the 3rd day, and the rate keeps dropping each day. But after 10 days the total supply has risen 10k to 110k, which means it has grown by exactly 10%.

Does that make sense?

There are two things that inflate the active money supply:

1) staking

2) digging

Staking: every time a new block is found, 1 new CLAM is created. The network stakes 1 block per minute on average. That's 1440 new CLAMs per day. There are currently a little less than 1.6 million CLAMs in the active money supply, so the 1440 new CLAMs created daily correspond to 0.09% inflation per day, or around 33% over the next year.

  >>> 1440.0 * 100 / 1.6e6
  0.09

  >>> 365 * 1440.0 * 100 / 1.6e6
  32.85

Digging: CLAM was initially given out free to all BTC, LTC, and DOGE holders. Most of those holders didn't claim their CLAMs, but they still can if they want to. So far only 832,961 CLAM were claimed out of around 15 million. It's possible that someone will start claiming thousands of old BTC addresses which will cause sudden massive inflation. And it's possible they won't. We just can't tell.

So how often does the inflation rate drop?

Staking: inflation is 1 CLAM per minute, but the total supply is constantly increasing, so as a percentage that 1 CLAM per minute is less each time.

Digging: it depends entirely on when people dig, and how much.

Note that whatever percentage you play at you expect to lose 1% of the total you wager. When you win at 98.99% you profit almost nothing, and you'll hit a loss sooner or later and be almost bust.

I withdraw a similar amount about a week ago. It took maybe 12 hours (I'm not sure how long exactly) and didn't decrease my balance while it was pending. I guess you could still play and lose your coins while waiting, and then they would decline your withdrawal.

I've read threads on the peercoin forum where they talk about this. I don't think it's possible as things currently stand, but it could be added if there's support for it.

Yeah. The previous biggest was 24k...


I said I wouldn't reduce it below 25x until after offering a 'staking only' option.

The maximum offsite multiplier is currently at 25x.

I just sent a transaction from my Bitcoin Core wallet and tried to use a blockchain.info link to the transaction to show the recipient that I had sent it, but blockchain.info shows an error message:

 

I checked on other block explorers, and they all show it just fine:

blockr.io:

 

blockcypher.com:

 

blockchain.com:

 

blocktrail.com:

 

bitpay.com:

 

So why won't blockchain.info show it correctly?

Suddenly, without warning:

If you have 2FA set up, you are asked to enter your 6 digit code each time you log in.

If your current code starts with zero, Poloniex will tell you it is invalid.

In that case don't panic, your account wasn't hacked; just wait until your code changes to one that doesn't start with a zero.

I've reported the bug to Poloniex so I guess they'll fix it soon enough.

Oh, of course!

And he's right in that case. Even if the bankroll rewards did cover the staking fee it might still be better to stake the coins yourself to avoid the risk of losing coins to a lucky player, site hack, or doog-running-off-with-the-coins scam.

I set the staking commission high in an attempt not to monopolize CLAM staking. It hasn't worked, but at least the incentives to solo-stake are in place.

I don't know if you understand how it works or not, so I'll explain:

 1) Bankroll profits are charged 10% commission on new net profits at the end of each week.

 2) Staking profits are charged 10% commission at source.

So if in a week you earn 10 CLAMs from staking and 10 CLAMs from bankrolling, you will pay 1 CLAM commission twice and end up with 18 CLAMs profit.

You seem to be saying that if you are at offsite 6x then the staking profit is 10 times the bankroll profit, and so the commission on staking is equal to the profit from bankrolling. That may be the case, but I don't understand your point. What of it? If your bankroll profit didn't cover your staking commission you're still making a profit on both.

Currently, CLAM inflation is pretty high, and so staking rewards tend to swamp bankroll profits. The rate of inflation drops constantly, and so over time we can expect bankroll profits to become increasingly significant.

Just-Dice is down for a few minutes for maintenance. Back ASAP.

Edit: we're back.

Edit2: I was rebooting after updating the servers to fix this exploit. If you run a Linux server you should probably do the same.

I would be surprised if you already had 10 million wagered CLAMs' worth of claims yet. Did you? There's only 25 million wagered so far in total.

Edit: my point is that if you didn't then all claims so far will get rewarded 1:1 and so timestamps don't matter.

But everything else in that paragraph is just fine?

I think it would make the most sense to have the distribution be ongoing, in a similar way to Bitcoin distribution, with regularly halvenings.

 * The first 10 million wagered CLAMs claimed get 1 DC each.
 * The 2nd 10 million wagered CLAMs claimed get 0.5 DC each.
 * The 3rd 10 million wagered CLAMs claimed get 0.25 DC each.
 * And so on.

That way you have a known fixed money supply of 20 million DC, you incentivize people to claim earlier rather than later, and you have an ongoing supply to keep people interested. You just pre-mine 20 million DC, keep most of them in a well-known "unclaimed" address, then everyone can see how many are still to be claimed.

I think it's the wrong lesson. How it seems at the start is entirely unrelated to how it seems later on. For example, check out the highlighted line in this chart - it has a horrible start, but ends up doing pretty well:

  

The only thing lesson to take away from these charts is that the variance with a 1% edge is huge.

I just tried playing a sit-n-go on your site.

I paid the 1 + 0.1 for a 6-seat NLHE sit-n-go and waited for it to fill up. After a while I was told I had been "logged out due to inactivity". When I came back, I was no longer registered.

I'm not sure whether you kept my money or refunded it, but either way I was inactive because I was waiting for the game to start. Surely I shouldn't be logged out for that!

It's not even like I could have joined an active ring game while I waited. There were (and still are) no active games in progress, other than a single heads-up sit-n-go.

I was doing some speed testing by running a bot against the Just-Dice server. I made 1000 bets of 0.001 CLAM at 49.5% and ended up with a profit of 0.088 - 88 units profit over 1000 bets. That seemed pretty unlikely to me, so I ran a simulation of 100 players each making 1000 bets at 49.5% with a 1% house edge.

Only 2 of the 100 runs ended up with over 80 units of profit after 1000 bets (click charts to enlarge; the green line is the expected profit):

  

I extended the simulation to run for 100k bets for 100 users. Note how it takes almost 60k bets until all 100 players are running at a loss:

  

Oh, I see. So *we* can't rewrite history but *they* can. Why even bother using a blockchain if a single entity has complete control of it? Why use proof of work if the difficulty is fixed at zero? It all sounds incredibly dodgy.

I especially liked the part where they claim the wallet is open source, but then don't make the source available "because security". Like it's secure to download and run random binaries from the Internets?

Doesn't that mean it's trivial to rewrite the blockchain and double-spend successfully?