|
And another week of post counting done. Payments rolling out in a few moments.
|
|
|
|
Supporting BIP91 still doesn't mean you support SegWit2x.
You don't have to support both BIP91 and SegWit2X, but you can support both (and every supporter of sw2x currently also supports bip91). I have read BIP91 and I did not see any reference to a block size increase there.
BIP91 is a mean to an end. It was coded after it became evident that SegWit2x (NYA / bit 4) won't be compatible with BIP141 SegWit ( bit 1). Activating BIP91 isn't a guarantee (not even a promise or a compromise) for a block size increase.
That's not the point of BIP91 and nobody said it would be. In the end, although these do not oppose each other, both work towards different goals.
The goal of BIP91 is to activate SegWit, the goal of SegWit2x is to activate SegWit (and fork to 2MB later). I do not see where both have different goals looking on a short scale.
97% of those "lying" miners are currently mining blocks that signal for BIP141 SegWit. |
|
|
|
Also the rate of exchanging coins is too big.
Nobody forces you to use the in-built exchange system. However, there are several advantages, as it's instant, you avoid both waiting and transaction fees from and to an exchange. It should be obvious that a gambling site can't compete with rates on dedicated exchange platforms. The whole system is built in-house without any 3rd party being involved. Withdraw fees for btc are the same.
"withdraw fees" are bitcoin network fees. The site uses the 21.co API to determine suggestions, and you can adjust your fees based on your preferences. If you dislike the fact that bitcoin transactions became more expensive over the last year, the site offers 8 other coins, including doge with fees as low as 1 doge (72 sat). |
|
|
|
Since the lottery is actually +EV, it makes sense not to invest in a paid API package from randompicker.
With the links included, I guess it's honest, unless you'd run the numbers multiple times (literally the only way I see how you could cheat this).
RandomPicker provides a list of all drawings made using the CryptoGames account during the last 30 days: https://www.randompicker.com/Project/Public/ProjectsRecent.aspx?Key=438810x59523Any multiple drawings / drawings outside of the scheduled lottery rounds would turn up there. |
|
|
|
We never had a problem like this before and this one is a weak accusation which is supported by people like you who wanted to bring the site down because you know that duckdice.io will become the number one gambling site sooner.,
That's a really outlandish assumption. Cognitive dissonance. But he's right. This is a coordinated attack (using you, Avirunes and me) from Bitsler, Bitdice and...ehrm, Gunbot? Also, the NSA/CIA created Bitcoin, Vitalik Buterin is an alien and JP Morgan caused Gox. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, the obvious /sarcasm for those too blind to see it. Back to topic. Fix your shit. |
|
|
|
Without any proofs, your words are useless.
I've only seen innovations from DuckDice on one very boring market.
Read a few pages back, check the scam accusation or their feedback. |
|
|
|
A bonus with dice is different then a different then other casino games. You have to prevent that users can make a loop. As said before, I don't know if this is the best way but this is how it works now. If an user don't read all the pop-ups on cancelling, it isn't the site who is scamming.
I disagree. You clearly scammed them. Displaying a notice and making the user agree to this doesn't make it right. Once they accepted the bonus, there was no other way. The cancel feature is a joke and I'm surprised this didn't cause issues earlier. Reason it however you like, the way things are right now is wrong. |
|
|
|
If they simply made the bonus conditions such that one wagered their own balance before the bonus, then all would be well and this situation would be over.
But I don't think the one who 'lost' his balance would agree without getting anything But they didn't lose, they won. The only mistake the user made was trying to cancel their bonus. Now I understand taking away the bonus when it's canceled, I also understand taking away profit made from the bonus. But taking away the initial deposit as well? Now that's a bit harsh. |
|
|
|
Indeed, duckdice deserves his red-trust (and more red-trust). They are shady, arrogant and they scammed me at least for 2 bitcoins.
Voiding the whole balance was indeed the wrong way to go. 2. Refund:
DuckDice will not "negotiate with terrorists". We see this case as a pure blackmail and therefore DuckDice will not make any refund. There is nothing shady or scammy, it is user's responsibility to read confirmation messages.
Seriously? Terrorists? 3. Solution:
The initial deposit of user Ozafejyw782 was 2 BTC and we will give this 2 BTC for charity. Transaction id will be added shortly
Doesnt sound like a solution to me. Neither for the user, nor for anyone else playing with your bonus terms in the future. We have a negative trust because of this case now, but this doesn't frighten us, we believe that our position is correct and we will just regain user trust.[/size]
Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
People don't like chain splits. BTC1 merged the BIP into their client. SegWit will be activated through it. Pick one. They're all true. What's next? Do we deal with the hard fork in November or is that pretty much unlikely at this point? Sorry if this seems like a silly question, I am still very new to cryptocurrency.
The 2 MB hard fork in SegWit2X is contingent on a majority of miners running the btc1 client. Right now there are only about a hundred btc1 nodes. And how much hash power is behind those 100 nodes? |
|
|
|
If we go BIP91, we won't go SegWit2x... It's strange because many nodes are signaling support for both. Some are most likely lying.
BTC1 (the SegWit2X client) [1] merged BIP91. Those two don't oppose each other. The New York Agreement, also referred to as the “Silbert Accord” or “SegWit2x,” plans to activate SegWit through BIP91. Like BIP148, all BIP91 nodes would reject any blocks that do not signal readiness for BIP141. But unlike BIP148, BIP91 nodes would only do this once 80 percent of hash power signals that they support BIP91, within a period about two days. This should also minimize the chance of a split.
Coindesk regarding BIP91: Segwit2x was introduced during CoinDesk's Consensus 2017 conference in May. Based on a fork of the Bitcoin Core software client called BTC1, Segwit2x seeks to both implement SegWit and raise the block size limit.
About a month later, in response to that, Bitmain Warranty engineer James Hilliard introduced BIP 91 as a way to implement SegWit quickly and safely, without the risk of splitting the network.
[1] https://github.com/btc1/bitcoinMy big question here is why do some people think that BIP91 (SegWit2x) nodes are lying and aren't really SegWit2x?
They're lying because they're one thing or another... If they choose both, they must still favor one of them. They're not. A miner running BTC1 is supporting SegWit2X and BIP91. |
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been asked before but I'd like to know (pretty sure lot of players would have this question too) how crypto-games.net have planned to handle the transactions incase we suffer a hard fork?
I assume you're asking about BIP148, an UASF and the connected chance of a chain split, rather than a hard fork (eg connected to BCC / ViaBTC and AntPools UAHF proposal). This indeed has been asked many times before, and there've been several statements regarding the situation, the latest of which can be found here: Read about our BIP148/UASF contingency plan on our blog. Although the risk of hard fork is quite low but since we have investor funds and bitcoin transactions all day long, we must have a plan right?
CryptoGames is preparred to handle all possible outcomes. That being said, we're currently a few blocks away from BIP91 locking in and by the looks of it, BIP148 won't activate given the current situation. It's a rapidly changing situation, but we keep everyone updated of the current status and resulting actions. Having said that,I know it would be handled the most efficient way possible.
For now, this means increasing the required amount of confirmations on deposits to 3 and 6 (3 for playing, 6 for withdrawing). Hopefully not neccessary, and a minor inconvenience for players, but better to be secure than risking to be vulnerable. |
|
|
|
I guess the site is not working properly?
Because you didn't enter a last nonce?! You can see the blank field in your screenshot. Unless you want to create an unlimited set of results (which would crash the site, hence it doesn't work), you will have to set an ending point. |
|
|
|
Yes, I just want to see how other are doing. Not their games but their backing-flow.
A lot of it comes down to trust, unless you are going with some sort of trustless setup. Having a standing reputation either as a person or from previous projects helps a lot there. |
|
|
|
Payments sent ( 9f0973a97265ccd2f1a5aca40ba7da5e48b756538644cd92a74f959b2153bf36).
User: bubblebit
Set up your things, if you want to enroll. Does anyone know if this campaign is still open for new members? I can't seem to find how many places are filled right now and how many are open.
There's no firm number, only a total limit/budget. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
