Wow, the final hours start looking exciting indeed. |
|
|
|
|
"Profit competitions" usually have pretty much unexpected and exciting last minutes, so stay with us! The competition ends today (in 10 hours).
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck everyone!!!
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
today I am about to suspend the Weekly Competitions - we'll do more regular competitions instead. So this week's weekly competition is the last one.
Why? Several players shared their feedback that although weekly competitions were fun at the beginning, they are not that exciting anymore. The prize pools were not that high (they were designed to provide small-to-mid value bonuses), the number of prizes are limited to 5 per coin, and they were always "wagering" type. Honestly - I thought the weekly competitions would keep adding bonuses to the game and keep the game exciting and after 40 weeks I think they served their purpose, but it's time for a change.
Instead we'll be launching different competitions with 20-30 prizes every 2 or 3 weeks from now one. Expect the first one later this week!
So, there
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
What was your bi-weekly competition? Sorry i just joined while there is weekly competition on yolodice,so i still have no odea what was your bi-weekly competition.
Adding new contest would be good as you said, and number hunt like "hit 0" which still running until now can attract more people to come rather than weekly wager competition which is only for those who have big bankroll. I know you would still get top 5 place even if you have small bankroll, but it just rarely happened.
We used to run a larger competition every 2 or 3 weeks, for a single single coin with 20-30 prizes. These were mostly "number hunt", "wagering" and "most profit" competition types, and prize pools were mostly dynamic - the record one has 112 ETH in the prize pool. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
|
I've just looked at the markets and I guess I should have chosen a more flexible name for the competition... Right now the markets are in retreat, turning red -- hopefully it's just a correction after quick growth -- but things look a bit less optimistic now :-)
Anyway, the competition is going good, the prize pool is growing and no "0" has been hit yet.
Honestly I am thinking about stopping the weekly competitions. The main rationale for the "weeklies" was to automate competitions and give players constant and periodic gratification system, but after talking to players it looks like these weekly competitions are just kind of boring. The prizes are usually not that high, and only 5 players for each coin win anything.
So, I am thinking, maybe we should just come back to our bi-weekly competitions? Maybe adding a new type to the existing wagering, profit and number hunt? What do you think?
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck everyone and cheers!
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
Now if only BTC/USD was not dropping that fast... :-(
|
|
|
|
DOGE was definitely a good investment in the last couple of weeks. So was BTC. Over 30 BTC in 5 weeks should have given you around 10% ROI. |
|
|
|
|
Our LTC bankroll took a serious hit last week but it's getting up again. It might take a while, but hey - investing is long-time, right?
Anyway, there a 3 things that should make investors' life a bit better:
1. The max bet profit is at 0.5% of each bankroll
As I announced earlier, I feel this is the right move that will make site profit more stable (so that investors can sleep better without worrying about their coins), yet still keep the amounts OK for players.
2. The commission on LTC investments is lowered from 50% to 35% till 31st December 2020
I'd be more than happy to lower the commission to zero, but the site still needs to pay referral bonuses and rakeback. At 35% more coins will go to the actual investors and hopefully help them recover after the recent losses.
3. Dilution fee concept is being abandoned
I've been waiting quite a while to give the dilution fee green light, but something did not feel right to me. I have finally decided to abandon this idea for a simple reason - I don't want to keep invested coins "locked-in" and penalize investors for any operations on their coins. IMO the dilution fee would do more harm than good.
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
BTC investments took a jump over the weekend! Had a previous one in negative but it's over 4% in the black today, almost 5. That's over 10 % this month roughly. I've been looking at the dilution fees again - and honestly, the data from the last few months shows that profit from the dilution fee would be really minimal (even negligible), while on the other hand it might stop some investors from playing, which could hurt long-term investors even more. I've seen many investors closing their investments, playing a bit and re-opening again. This is not rare and in the past it boosted site performance quite a lot - yes, some of them lost.
Yup,,, one such person would be me. I almost always am guaranteed to close and play a bit before reinvesting (something psychological about seeing the red negative numbers!),,, knowing full well if I do that often enough, I might eventually lose it all;) One of the players had lost a big amount of btc last week, due to which it seems that all the investors made good gain from it. But on other hand if they had also been an LTC investors so that made a huge loss as investment were 90 down like 90%. So for both the holders some respite as LTC was down but btc helped them to recover some of their losses. BTC bankroll indeed gained almost 40 BTC recently - it's even more than ~5,000 LTC lost recently, but the LTC bankroll was much smaller and the percentage (ROI) impact on investments was much more painful :-( |
|
|
|
Ethan, you should edit this section of the site to reflect the new changes:  Done already!  Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
This is why dilution fees can be a good idea. Dilution fees would have at least spread some to the existing investors who got crushed and then had their shares reduced by the further investments.
I've been looking at the dilution fees again - and honestly, the data from the last few months shows that profit from the dilution fee would be really minimal (even negligible), while on the other hand it might stop some investors from playing, which could hurt long-term investors even more. I've seen many investors closing their investments, playing a bit and re-opening again. This is not rare and in the past it boosted site performance quite a lot - yes, some of them lost. So in the end I am leaning towards the opinion that the dilution fee would penalize the investors who divest to play, while it would not provide enough profit for long-term investors to justify it. This week Scott and me will discuss the commission model and if it can be improved, especially given the recent profit volatility and loses. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
|
When we announced the lowering of max bet profit a few investors added almost 1,000 LTC (maybe deciding that it's a good moment to invest) and existing investments' share shrank.
From that moment site profit increased a bit, but here's the thing: investors that had certain share in loses when the bankroll was going down had smaller share in profits when the profit was going up. The same happened with my investments, they lost disproportionally to site profit changes.
Investing in crypto games is never a guarantee of profit. There is a risk involved - and I strongly believe that people invest only what they can afford to lose. It's like with being the player - the odds however are in your favor, but it's still a game of chance. Shit happens. I believe credible sites care about investors' coins the best they can (I know I do), but even within the rules of the site big winnings can happen. Thankfully investing is a long-term game, and it usually pays off to those that are patient enough.
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
Well, the recent winner seems to have a lot of luck. I was constantly checking his bets and stats looking for anything unusual that would indicate it was not a fair game, but I found nothing so far. We looking at anything suspicious in our code and in server logs just to make sure nobody has access to server seeds, but we found no leak. However, this clearly shows us that with max bet profit at 1% of site bankroll the volatility can be huge - probably too big for some investors to accept. Therefore, in order protect investors' interests and decrease variance a bit we have decreased max bet profit from 1% to 0.5% of the bankroll
(for all coins) We believe the new rates are still OK for most of the players (especially since the crypto/fiat has grown quite a bit recently), while providing more steady income for investors. What happened to LTC bankroll was at least unfortunate (for us - investors), and it's still hard for me accept it. Statistics however is cruel - when playing close to max site profit, things like that can happen. And they did. Unfortunately for investors, fortunately for players. While as an investor I hope to never see anything like this again, there's also something for players as we all witnessed these winnings - winning huge amounts is not impossible, quite the contrary. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
|
Good luck everyone!
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
SSL Certificate issue [solved]
at api.yolodice.com
(possibly affecting DiceBot and other bots using API) For the last few days some users were having issues connecting to our API endpoint (api.yolodice.com). At the time I've checked if everything is OK on our side and I thought it was. Apparently it Things should work fine now. The issue was that one of the trusted web certificates was not updated on-time, which honestly affected millions of websites all over the internet. You can read about it by googling "Sectigo SSL Certificate Root Expiration". Since our issuer did not approach us to update our certificate chain bundle we honestly did not know about the issue till yesterday. At the same time browser connections were OK - somehow modern browsers have a mechanism that can cope with such rare incidents. We have updated our chain certificates and DiceBot and other bots should be able to connect without issues. If you still have any issues connecting, please let me know! Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
Hey, something a bit more optimistic: Today we've launched a Tor service at This is our small contribution to Internet privacy. In most cases you'll see much worse performance over Tor compared to connecting directly (less bets per second) simply because of number of hops in the Onion network. Increased latency however is a small price to pay for (almost) ultimate privacy. In Tor mode no external code from 3rd party websites is loaded. Check out our Tor endpoint and post any comments you might have! Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
I agree that hacking is not when all funds are stolen, but somehow, it is not just only him was stolen his money  How does someone just hack an amount of only one user? I believe it is a data system error. There are a few casinos that exist in this space now, Yolodice is one of the top choices. With hacking it means it could lose its ability to compete with a few other casinos  But anyway, just speculation, I want to hear the answer from @examplens Yes, I received an answer from Yolo dice. I must say they were very kind but they didn't help me. His point is that is my fault. of course, it is insane to expect an explanation of where their guilt might be. It is bad for business and his reputation. I didn’t answer earlier because I did a scan my computer, searching for anything suspicious (I did not found anything unusual). All my other accounts, on exchanges, on this forum, on social media accounts, some of my hosting and other servers, few altcoin wallets... they are still unchanged without any suspicious activities. Hi, Ethan here from YOLOdice. I find these accusations strange, especially given the fact we exchanged emails and after receiving my analysis you never replied. But since you brought the discussion here, I have to answer publicly. Note, I'm cross-posting the same reply at our YOLOdice topic at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674772.msg54549027#msg54549027 : -------------- If this was a hack, then all my logs indicate that the source is the victim's PC. My server logs show clearly that the request to close the investment comes from user's PC. Before that, the connection was hanging idle for several hours, doing regular browser<->server request. It looks like normal traffic from the browser and most likely was. So after a few hours of idling there comes a request to close an investment, exchange DOGE to BTC and withdraw, and connection closes. There were no unauthorized logins to the server, just regular traffic, all from the same IP and the same browser. It's not possible that this amount of logs was created by hacking into YD servers. Logs are distributed to a few machines, and they are different kind of logs - authorization logs and system logs, access logs and event logs. We use centralized ELK server for logs to make log analysis much easier (and possible) and be able to correlate logs related to a single event. Believe me, I know what I am doing here. I can say with 100% certainty the source of the "hack" is external. I don't want to contradict anyone's story without having the knowledge of what happened, but analyzing the situation on my end there are 2 possibilities: 1. The user leaves the PC on, logged into YD, for a few hours, unprotected. Someone else comes by, uses physical access to the PC and uses the opportunity to quickly wipe the account clean. 2. The PC is infected with malware and remote hacker can take control over PC, manipulate the open browser and act on user's behalf. I cannot see how we could take responsibility in any of these cases. There is literally nothing that would indicate a different scenario. Rest assured, YD is secure. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I don't really get why a single hack of unknown origin is causing so much discussion. It seems the thing is going public, so let me summarize what I've already sent via email, as soon as I learned about the incident:
__If__ this is a hack, then all my logs indicate that the source is the victim's PC. My server logs show clearly that the request to close the investment comes from user's PC. Before that, the connection was hanging idle for several hours, doing regular browser<->server request. It looks like normal traffic from the browser and most likely was. So after a few hours of idling there comes a request to close an investment, exchange DOGE to BTC and withdraw, and connection closes.
There were no unauthorized logins to the server, just regular traffic, all from the same IP and the same browser.
It's not possible that this amount of logs was created by hacking into YD servers. Logs are distributed to a few machines, and they are different kind of logs - authorization logs and system logs, access logs and event logs. We use centralized ELK server for logs to make log analysis much easier (and possible) and be able to correlate logs related to a single event. Believe me, I know what I am doing here.
I can say with 100% certainty the source of the "hack" is external. I don't want to contradict anyone's story without having the knowledge of what happened, but analyzing the situation on my end there are 2 possibilities:
1. The user leaves the PC on, logged into YD, for a few hours, unprotected. Someone else comes by, uses physical access to the PC and uses the opportunity to quickly wipe the account clean.
2. The PC is infected with malware and remote hacker can take control over PC, manipulate the open browser and act on user's behalf.
I cannot see how we could take responsibility in any of these cases. There is literally nothing that would indicate a different scenario.
Rest assured, YD is secure.
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
