This is what I wanted to know as well... as others have indicated that even though you can get Electrum to accept the Seed words from Mycelium, because of the whole compressed/uncompressed keys thing... The result being that Electrum ends up "generating" different keys/addresses from the same seed?

However, I decided to just give it a go... downloaded Electrum onto the PC and used my Mycelium seed words (along with BIP39 seed option)...

The result: It has (re)created my wallet succesfully... all address (used and unused) match up... and it has even retrieved all the transactions!  

Wait... so you can confirm that you managed to import a Mycelium HD wallet into Electrum by clicking the Options button, ticking the "BIP39 Seed" option and then using the Mycelium seed words in Electrum? 

So you have the private keys for that address?

If so, surely you can just import the private keys into a wallet that lets you specify fees manually... then you can just create your own transaction (with whatever fee you want) that will consolidate the funds into another address...

WARNING: looking at the history of that account and what the others have calculated... the data size of the transaction to consolidate all those inputs will be HUGE. It seems you have something like 200 inputs to that address all at 0.001 BTC???

Anyway, if you go for the 120 sat/byte "recommended" fee, it is going to get quite costly... you can always choose something smaller and hope for the best... pick a time when the mempool is not flooded with transactions, say less than 10K unconfirmed transactions... and then I would even suggest making sure your transaction has at least a 0.0001BTC/KB fee (that's only about 10 sat/byte) and then using the ViaBTC Transaction Accelerator (https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/) to try and get your transaction pushed through...


Looking to the future, is there anyway you can get these transactions bundled together? I assume it is an automatic payment from some activity... can you set the payment threshold to something higher, so you get say 10x 0.01 BTC payments instead of 100x 0.001 BTC transactions?

So if (when?) a hardfork spooks the hell out of a lot of possibly uninformed people... and they all start dumping BTC (and/or BTU) and the prices plummet to ~$100... and your coins are now worth only 10% of what they are today... then that isn't a loss of value?

Of course, that could not happen and people could just hum along and the value could stay or grow... but history would tend to indicate that is not likely to happen. People generally want stability... not uncertainty and chaos.

You are, however, certainly correct in your assertion that it is a power play... some very egocentric, greedy people who can't/won't admit defeat... and are only interested in their own wealth. Meanwhile, a lot of the "rank and file" users are going to end up getting hammered. 

So you're wanting to hire someone to code for you? Because that I am willing to discuss... If you can give some more details (PM, if you don't want your script details in a public forum) maybe we can come to some sort of agreement... but if it is as complex as you seem to think it is... then it certainly isn't going to be done for free.

Of course it is possible. You just need to create a variable to track your current loss streak, so that when a win happens you can check it to see if it satisfies your requirements, and then sets the lossstartmult to whatever you want...

Hopefully you follow the logic:

- Initialise currLossStreak to 0
- If the roll was a win, check to see if it was after a lossStreak of 6 (or more)... if it was, set lossstartmult. Reset currLossStreak to 0.
- If the roll was a loss, then increment the currLossStreak counter.


EDIT: Just remembered you'd actually posted your script earlier... you already have the lossCount variable... and the "if (!win)" section in your code... use those...

So after a full weekend of fixtures, we ended up with:

West Brom 3 - Arsenal 1
Crystal Palace 1 - Watford 0
Sunderland 0 - Burnley FC 0
Everton 4 - Hull City 0
Stoke City 1 - Chelsea 2
West Ham 2 - Leicester City 3
Bournemouth 2 - Swansea City 0
Middlesbrough 1 - Man United 3
Tottenham 2 - Southampton 1
Man. City 1 - Liverpool 1

Nothing much out of the ordinary here... Only the big "surprise" being Arsenal being so woeful against West Brom... seems like the players want Arsene gone or something, they're just not performing for him at the moment and his job security has to be at an all time low.

Man. City and Liverpool was actually a very exciting game, despite the somewhat disappointing 1-1 scoreline... still, Liverpool remain unbeaten against top of the table teams this year, so if they can fix their performance against lesser teams, they should be able to make UCL next season...

OK... so we have six match ups for today/tonight (depending on your location in the world )

• West Brom v Arsenal: First up with the early kick off... honestly, I think Arsenal should (need to?) win this game. A loss here and even their hopes for European Football next season start looking shaky.
• Crystal Palace v Watford: I'm not even going to bother with this game... Both of these teams are just too inconsistent to attempt to bet on... maybe BTTS if you must bet on the game.
• Sunderland v Burnley FC: Sunderland haven't scored a goal in their last three and their defensive record is atrocious. Burnley aren't much better record wise, but at least they're scoring goals. I would pick Burnley here... but only if you can find some REALLY good odds for it, otherwise, avoid this game.
• Everton v Hull City: Everton at home, Hull fighting to get out of the relegation zone. I'd go with Home, Draw No Bet.
• Stoke City v Chelsea: Should be an easy win for the away team here. If you can get decent odds, Away and Under 4.5 might be a solid choice like BetAdviser's tip above.
• West Ham v Leicester City: Leicester coming a couple of solid wins, West Ham a couple of losses. This could be a very even game. I'd probably pick Both Teams To Score here.

so the values you are looking for in lastBet are "roll" and "id"... as in lastBet.roll and lastBet.id

So, you could do something like:


Basically, you are defining an array of the rolls that you want to check for, then iterating over that array and comparing the last roll to each of the values in the array and printing the roll and BetID if it matches one of them

You might also want to check out the dicebot programmers discussion thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1114503.0

Because the value is very very small (actually so small it is negative... -0.0000005 ) and being stored as a decimal value I believe, so for nice "round" numbers, it defaults to the "E" format for dsiplay. You can always use something like:


if you want to force it to display as 0.0000000X...

The probability for each individual roll is the same (as long as your "chance" is not being modified)... so on a 50% chance, every time you roll, there is a 50% chance you will win.

However, the chance of a streak occurring is a conditional probability, because it needs the previous results to be a specific way for there to a streak in the first place. So your chances of getting say 5 losses in a row on a 50% chance is 0.5^5, whereas 10 losses is 0.5^10.

However, once you are actually IN a streak, the odds that it will end on the next roll are still very much 50%.

probability is fun!

Going to have to disagree with you there... I don't think it is very clear cut at all. Liverpool have a solid record against the top 5 teams this year... they haven't lost to any of them and they also have the most goals of any team this year.

If they could stop losing against the lower teams they'd be so far clear at the top of the table they'd already have next seasons trophy as well!

I think this will probably end in a 1-1 draw... so I think Both Teams To Score is a solid pick.

If you took the time to do some research on how the Bitcoin network works... you might also find that blockchain.info isn't the only blockchain explorer in operation:

https://blockexplorer.com/tx/8360bdb82845df96d92f38d4d4a135ca02c7fee923efb3ca10503167437818ed
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/8360bdb82845df96d92f38d4d4a135ca02c7fee923efb3ca10503167437818ed

Just because blockchain.info has chosen to drop the transaction, it does not mean that it has been removed from the mempool... blockchain.info is not THE blockchain. We can also see from those other explorers, that yes, it does appear that you initially sent your transaction a number (approximately 9) of days ago:


So, there are nodes still broadcasting your transaction, so you never know, there is a possibility your transaction will eventually confirm... if not, it should eventually get dropped altogether and you'll be able to to resend a transaction with a more "attractive" fee.

For the record, I don't consider others more stupid... and I certainly didn't imply you were. What I said was your post was "uninformed"... there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

Whatever your thoughts on Electrum are, the real reason your transaction is stuck in limbo is because of the low fee. It happens all the time to lots of people using lots of different wallets. It isn't a flaw in Electrum, so much as the way people use Electrum (or any other wallet).

Perhaps this will help you be more "informed": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1802212.0

What you need to understand is that this bot is not a "magic money making device"... It is effectively just like playing Dice on the individual sites manually (or using autobet)... The added value comes from the fact that it allows you to set up a whole bunch of different settings that a lot of sites don't provide and allows you to automate a bunch of more complicated things...

like raise bet for 5 losses, then decrease twice, then increase until bet > X then reset to basebet etc... Or it will allow you to run more complex strategies than a simple martingale, like Labouchere etc...

It isn't some sort of "cheat" or "hack" and there is no guarantee you will win using this bot...

I probably shouldn't respond to such an uninformed post but...

1. Did you just rebroadcast this transaction?


That looks like it was received within the last 12 hours to me... not exactly 2 weeks ago...

B. Regardless of when you sent the transaction, your fee is ridiculously low


5 satoshi's per byte??? 

Next time, you might want to try going here: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ and checking what the current average for a quick confirmation is... for the record... it is currently around 40x what you paid

Lastly, Electrum didn't "steal" your money... your transaction is just waiting to be confirmed. While you wait for your ludicrously low fee transaction to confirm, you might like to go and do some reading on how Bitcoin works... Google should be able to assist.

You're selecting "Normal" from the "Low-Prio, Econominc, Normal or Priority" list right? Do you have any idea how many inputs are making up your 0.15 BTC total? Is is just one or two inputs or are we talking 10-20+ inputs?

It is probably because the bitcoin network has been choked up lately, so the fees escalated in response to there being 50K+ unconfirmed transactions for several days. It dropped down yesterday, but, at the time of writing this, it seems to have spiked to over 40K again.

The app calculates fees on a "per (kilo)byte" basis, so if there are more than one or two inputs, the transaction becomes a lot larger and the fees increase as a result.

You could maybe try selecting "low prio" to see if it drops the fee down to an acceptable level for yourself, but be aware that this could mean your transaction could sit as unconfirmed for several days (based on recent history)! 

Seems like the script is already (attempting) to track the lossCount, so that shouldn't, in theory, be a problem...

EDIT:
Huh, apparently the bot DOES support the += syntax

Anyway, once that is fixed, you should be able to just do something like this, underneath where you are incrementing lossCount:
  

DISCLAIMER: I haven't actually bothered to work out all the logic of your script, so I'm not saying that this will magically achieve what it is you're attempting to achieve with your script modifications

you can't possibly run a martingale from a faucet amount... you just don't have the bankroll to cover the inevitable losses.

your best bet (pun not intended) is to just grind faucets with an "all in" on a 99x or 100x payout (or something similarly high)... then, once you hit it and have a good sized bankroll, you can then play a little more conservatively or try your luck with a martingale to build up to your balance as you like.

in terms of profit tracking... why not just check the difference between your current balance and what your balance was at the start of the run? Something like:


by session, do you mean start/stop of the whole application? or for a start()/stop() cycle of the bot?

Yeah, definitely separate funds. Sadly, the only way to get them all merged is to create a transaction(s) and send them to the same address (or addresses in a single account if you are against address reuse )

Luckily the mempool isn't quite so flooded at the moment (less than 10k unconfirmed transactions at the time of writing)... so now might be a good time to consolidate your funds if you want to a. save on fees and/or b. don't want to wait too long for the transactions to confirm.