New and Unique BTC game | Pachinko - Come and get addicted |Start Rollin'

[ndnh]

1MEpj..: is admin here?
1MEpj..: any admin online?
1MEpj..: i sent more than maximum bet, will the btc be returned back to me? Sorry for the trouble
Nick: Its returned as soon as its sent

Can you post your txid? Are you sure all the funds went to the site's address?

[ndnh]

Tracked down address to 1MEpjpd284w7ityNEpwKNi817FsdZKBrGQ (from your chat username)

TXID: https://blockchain.info/tx/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff

26 confirmations.

Double spend? No.

Funds were refunded? Not yet.


Requesting OP to refund the amount to 1MEpjpd284w7ityNEpwKNi817FsdZKBrGQ .


Edit: Make sure you don't send it twice. I don't know how the system works or whether the system would automatically send it once blockchain.info removes the double spend flag it has at the moment.

[yahoo62278]

Warning! this transaction is a double spend. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this sender. 101084994

when i open that transaction link this is what i read

[ndnh]

Warning! this transaction is a double spend. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this sender. 101084994

when i open that transaction link this is what i read

lol, use any reliable block explorers.

The transaction has 20+ confirmations in blockchain.

You are probably checking blockchain.info, which has a lot of issues and very unreliable.


Edit: I hope the site wasn't using blockchain API while the hack happened.
That and accepting unconfirmed transactions are a deadly combination, imo.

[maarx]

Warning! this transaction is a double spend. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this sender. 101084994

when i open that transaction link this is what i read

lol, use any reliable block explorers.

The transaction has 20+ confirmations in blockchain.

You are probably checking blockchain.info, which has a lot of issues and very unreliable.

Edit: I hope the site wasn't using blockchain API while the hack happened.
That and accepting unconfirmed transactions are a deadly combination, imo.

Hm, after digging into the blockchain, I believe that this was quite clearly an attempted double spend. One that did not succeed, however. Here are the two comparison transactions with the same inputs:

TX1: https://blockchain.info/tx/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff
TX2: https://blockchain.info/tx/ce623131867c6b3ea8fbdc4925f8cd7164608a3986753c2e58746b69816a0a0d

TX1 (to Pachinko) has a very LOW FEE / dust ( 0.000005 BTC ) and was received in the mempool at: 2015-09-07 02:09:17
TX2 (not to Pachinko) has a very HIGH FEE ( 0.001 BTC ) and was received in the mempool at: 2015-09-07 02:09:55

However, TX1 was accepted by the miners / found in a block before TX2 was received in the mempool. Therefore, TX2 was seen as invalid as TX1 was valid.

Under normal circumstances, TX1 was never supposed to make it into the blockchain, whilst TX2 was supposed to make it.

[Hexcoin]

Warning! this transaction is a double spend. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this sender. 101084994

when i open that transaction link this is what i read

lol, use any reliable block explorers.

The transaction has 20+ confirmations in blockchain.

You are probably checking blockchain.info, which has a lot of issues and very unreliable.

Edit: I hope the site wasn't using blockchain API while the hack happened.
That and accepting unconfirmed transactions are a deadly combination, imo.

Hm, after digging into the blockchain, I believe that this was quite clearly an attempted double spend. One that did not succeed, however. Here are the two comparison transactions with the same inputs:

TX1: https://blockchain.info/tx/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff
TX2: https://blockchain.info/tx/ce623131867c6b3ea8fbdc4925f8cd7164608a3986753c2e58746b69816a0a0d

TX1 (to Pachinko) has a very LOW FEE / dust ( 0.000005 BTC ) and was received in the mempool at: 2015-09-07 02:09:17
TX2 (not to Pachinko) has a very HIGH FEE ( 0.001 BTC ) and was received in the mempool at: 2015-09-07 02:09:55

However, TX1 was accepted by the miners / found in a block before TX2 was received in the mempool. Therefore, TX2 was seen as invalid as TX1 was valid.

Under normal circumstances, TX1 was never supposed to make it into the blockchain, whilst TX2 was supposed to make it.

IMO the sender is trying to cheat the cheat as that double spend isnt an accident and only trying to get some coins back

[sbankerdemon]

Its really nice to see pachinko back again however I  didn't expected it will be back again. I was in touch with admin for a few days after the attack and he sounded broke.

Anyways its badto see people again trying to double spend again and trying to cheat. To update you all after the attack I discussed regarding how they detect double spends with admin and i can assure you they dont use blockchain.info to detect those and their method was very reliable but failed as the attacks that time were very advanced and specially crafted for their casino.

regarding the transaction in question above i would like to ask the op that was there any specific reason that he sent this transaction to pachinko address

https://blockchain.info/tx/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff

with  0.000005 BTC fee and

https://blockchain.info/tx/ce623131867c6b3ea8fbdc4925f8cd7164608a3986753c2e58746b69816a0a0d

with 0.001 BTC.

the second transaction was supposed to get confirmed but it was the attacker's bad luck that the other one got confirmed and I am really happy for that. and for such attackers i wont advice you to refund btc at all. but in the end its your choice.

you decide if you want to send coins back to him and again allow him to again use those to attack your site.

And ndnhc the way you are defending the attacker seems suspicious. for your happiness and satisfaction check this

https://api.blockcypher.com/v1/btc/main/txs/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff

"double_spend": true,

or can you recommend your so called reliable blockexplorer?

[creativefinger]

Like i said, i admitted that i tried to respend the transaction due to panic. First transaction was sent using mobile, where fee is dynamically changed based on w.e the wallet thinks is good. While the second transaction was sent using electrum, and i did changed the fee hoping that i will get my coins back.  The reason why the first transaction with lower fee gets confirmed is because, the fee was already enough for the miners to accept it, therefor it has higher propagation than the second one even tho the second tx has a higher fee.

But then again, it was not my intention to double-spend knowing the history of the site being attacked by this.

I know people might think otherwise, but with my sincerest and honest apology, the act was not done intentionally.

Thanks

[ndnh]

@maarx you didn't read it properly.


@sbankerdemon you lack technical knowledge AND didn't read properly.
Please use any explorer that is NOT blockchain.info and that weird one.

The correct blockchain only identifies the real transaction which is:
http://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff

The other transaction does not exist.

In case you don't believe me and still trust blockchain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=910134.msg12053554#msg12053554




If pachiko was hacked it could be because:
1. They use blockchian API
2. They does not follow the industry practice of payout after 1 confirmation or does not have proper stuff in place like LB does.

I am quite tired of advising sites to follow that 1 confirmation thing.  


No offence meant to admin. Admin can try linking or find any proof whether he is the hacker, lol. If the hacker wanted to try again he would try a smaller amount that is less than the max bet, and I thought this 1 confirmation thing was implemented?

Cheers
ndnhc

P.S. Nice to see my promo board still online.

[maarx]

After some more investigation (going back in the blockchain), I see that previous transactions also included a double spend.

https://blockchain.info/address/1MEpjpd284w7ityNEpwKNi817FsdZKBrGQ

Accepted input transaction to this address was:
https://blockchain.info/tx/781bd256d46179bd4a19b691bcfaca5788fdf9431db81c9dfd4ee6e18bc0109f
(mempool: 2015-09-07 01:57:04, txfee: 0.00001 BTC)
with an attempted (not accepted) double spend:
https://blockchain.info/tx/29f79a0d3580113bd51a9e6155cd20fe614518b7d1f85e69cfabd3837999294a
(mempool: 2015-09-07 01:57:09, txfee: 0.001 BTC)

That came from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1BYec6iLc2m4iVaV3RiJ1QgcyFs2dJcKiK

Which has accepted input transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/2ca2380f3aede75aa62f1e6c6515a83eed31ca158c999b6a22ad8c7839afaa04
(mempool: 2015-09-07 00:28:28, txfee: 0.001 BTC)
and attempted (not accepted) double spend:
https://blockchain.info/tx/e7b3c27dd30eac037d8f7e0f23e7b74e2c0c28d04fe91749d26b6eab00bb8169
(mempool: 2015-09-07 00:28:15, txfee: 0.00001 BTC)

Which came from: https://blockchain.info/address/1JxBD7bXCUjLgDMbFoMVv7KmKgaxtAr9jy

Which has an accepted input transaction without attempted double spends.

Why did you attempt those two double spends?

[creativefinger]

After some more investigation (going back in the blockchain), I see that previous transactions also included a double spend.

https://blockchain.info/address/1MEpjpd284w7ityNEpwKNi817FsdZKBrGQ

Accepted input transaction to this address was:
https://blockchain.info/tx/781bd256d46179bd4a19b691bcfaca5788fdf9431db81c9dfd4ee6e18bc0109f
(mempool: 2015-09-07 01:57:04, txfee: 0.00001 BTC)
with an attempted (not accepted) double spend:
https://blockchain.info/tx/29f79a0d3580113bd51a9e6155cd20fe614518b7d1f85e69cfabd3837999294a
(mempool: 2015-09-07 01:57:09, txfee: 0.001 BTC)

That came from this address: https://blockchain.info/address/1BYec6iLc2m4iVaV3RiJ1QgcyFs2dJcKiK

Which has accepted input transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/2ca2380f3aede75aa62f1e6c6515a83eed31ca158c999b6a22ad8c7839afaa04
(mempool: 2015-09-07 00:28:28, txfee: 0.001 BTC)
and attempted (not accepted) double spend:
https://blockchain.info/tx/e7b3c27dd30eac037d8f7e0f23e7b74e2c0c28d04fe91749d26b6eab00bb8169
(mempool: 2015-09-07 00:28:15, txfee: 0.00001 BTC)

Which came from: https://blockchain.info/address/1JxBD7bXCUjLgDMbFoMVv7KmKgaxtAr9jy

Which has an accepted input transaction without attempted double spends.

Why did you attempt those two double spends?

The first double spend was a bug i discovered on accident using android mycelium. I have the address 1JxBD7b.. both on my electrum, and on my mobile mycelium. I transferred 0.1 out of 1JxBD7b.. using my electrum. Then i decided to transfer the rest to my trezor. I have my trezor address bookmarked on my mobile like this "bitcoin:1BYec6..." for easy transfer, it will automatically ask you which wallet would i like to complete the action.

So after i opened my bookmark and selected mycelium, i see that my original balance is still there and the 0.1 was not deducted, it seems that mycelium does not update the balance if using it this way. So out of curiosity, i tried to send all coins from the mycelium and setting highpriority on the mycelium, and it did broadcasted it... So looking at the transaction thats where i see that it was a double spend..  So i tried to replicate what happened but this time vice versa, sending first on mycelium, then Electrum, and the txs from the mycelium both get confirmed.  So that explains the two doublespends.  The addresses are my own addresses, so no one else got involved or got cheated, You can see below the signatures of the addresses.

So then as i was browsing bitcointalk and saw that you guys are back up and running, so i went ahead and check, so i scanned the qr code for the bet and did not realize i sent all the coins. I only realized it when i did not see any rolls going on the site for my bet. So out of panic, i tried to respend the tx using what i discovered earlier, with the only intention of getting my bet back, since it did not roll or is an invalid bet. If just incase the maxbet was more than what i accidentally sent and i lost, then it my burden to carry. After a few minutes, i also tried to contact the admin via their chat, but got no response, and i went on ahead posted here.

Signatures:
=====Message======
creativefinger address signed 09/08/15
==================
====Address======
1JxBD7bXCUjLgDMbFoMVv7KmKgaxtAr9jy
====Signature========
HD5taPjBbgQSY7SmNdo4VPSjlnFCM2yl3n0lzh1P6eVrQImtUZktF0WJUzkstOBzJH5dW5AFhwwsovS YOnbLUQY=
==================

=====Message======
creativefinger address signed 09/08/15
==================
====Address======
1BYec6iLc2m4iVaV3RiJ1QgcyFs2dJcKiK
====Signature======
G8ZCp7MJjR2NHLwUski5bN20zXvZ1Orm+tE2yktZLcoQcn9W5VcC6rseta5LclI2uFBuWXkVNBE8KRv0z4HdcnY=

=====Message======
creativefinger address signed 09/08/15
==================
====Address======
1MEpjpd284w7ityNEpwKNi817FsdZKBrGQ
====Signature======
HFNtkCi2ixSHixrudAClEZd2wgIo3Sa6i6OQZv9huhnAN2YMFeSvdLcp1gPH9/N8yw5vgf7jdrsQ3Oaih98JZJo=

=====Message======
creativefinger address signed 09/08/15
==================
====Address======
16dM92szNPkycNV9xEoKPKiLxnTg5qgzsP
====Signature======
GyInz0hYi0B60ZK4JiNW7nf1YMd0XzB805ig/DTvWAurJg/OMMWAFPRfeKWZbwjZVmdrwhR2t4YR7+6kh+wrvZ0=


Again i do apologize for the mess, but i have no bad intentions. And according to previous posts, If i was the attacker, I would not even bother explaining my self this long for losing 1.46BTC if i have stolen about 20BTC..
I just want my bitcoins back. As i have not done anything to cheat nor the bet was rolled.

Thanks

[sbankerdemon]

@maarx you didn't read it properly.


@sbankerdemon you lack technical knowledge AND didn't read properly.
Please use any explorer that is NOT blockchain.info and that weird one.

The correct blockchain only identifies the real transaction which is:
http://btc.blockr.io/tx/info/e951ceae8b4360f141461d4929d6ef428ed287e91f3f3a775f6faa1098f2b0ff

The other transaction does not exist.

In case you don't believe me and still trust blockchain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=910134.msg12053554#msg12053554




If pachiko was hacked it could be because:
1. They use blockchian API
2. They does not follow the industry practice of payout after 1 confirmation or does not have proper stuff in place like LB does.

I am quite tired of advising sites to follow that 1 confirmation thing.  


No offence meant to admin. Admin can try linking or find any proof whether he is the hacker, lol. If the hacker wanted to try again he would try a smaller amount that is less than the max bet, and I thought this 1 confirmation thing was implemented?

Cheers
ndnhc

P.S. Nice to see my promo board still online.

Actually its you who lacks technical knowledge. you are using a block explorer which gives no info on double spends and if you research a bit you will find that blockcypher is very reliable block explorer.

secondly I guess you are the one who cant read properly as op himself is saying that he attempted double spend. seems you are more worried for his funds than himself. OP had done double spends earlier also.

And op instead of double spending you could have contacted here the support.

[pianomasta]

the game is pretty cool i cant wait till i try this out and win some money

[Wendigo]

Guys do you know that KONAMI the game publisher makes more money by operating pachinko machines in Japan than actual games? I found that fascinating  

[ndnh]

Actually its you who lacks technical knowledge. you are using a block explorer which gives no info on double spends and if you research a bit you will find that blockcypher is very reliable block explorer.

secondly I guess you are the one who cant read properly as op himself is saying that he attempted double spend. seems you are more worried for his funds than himself. OP had done double spends earlier also.

And op instead of double spending you could have contacted here the support.

No point arguing with you. I have better use of my time.

I hope site admin will handle things appropriately.

Cheers
ndnhc

[games.bit]

Id like to speak with the admin of the site. I visited the site to play some bits, i used my mobile to send the bet, only to find out that i sent all my balance. Good thing it was over the max limit, so it did not roll. But the BTC was not returned on my address.. So out of panic, i imported my wallet to my desktop and tried to re-spend it back to my address, but failed to do so. Now my btc is stuck on your site. I just want it back, you can send it back to the same address it came from.

Due to the incident that happened we hate double spenders. But as its the first time after we had relaunched and probably is was done just by accident we will refund the BTC.

But for future if there is no payout/refund it will be better to contact us here or on our chat and wait instead of double spending as we will not refund anything to people who will try to double spend on out website.

Before that @creativefinger I would like to know have you rolled with us before also and if yes with which address?

[games.bit]

txid: b88fb6f42969e21eb4295def25f854b795173216388f37294228fc27bdd62b4f
amount: 1.46512590

Refunded.

[creativefinger]

txid: b88fb6f42969e21eb4295def25f854b795173216388f37294228fc27bdd62b4f
amount: 1.46512590

Refunded.

Thank you very very much. and again im very sorry for the mess.

[adaseb]

Guys do you know that KONAMI the game publisher makes more money by operating pachinko machines in Japan than actual games? I found that fascinating  

That's not hard to believe. There are only less than half a dozen profitable game publishers. The rest are all struggling. Maybe its due to piracy of games.

[subSTRATA]

took a short break from the forum but glad to see you guys are back online right when i return, been looking forward to this
also looking forward to seeing my board up on there sometime too

Guys do you know that KONAMI the game publisher makes more money by operating pachinko machines in Japan than actual games? I found that fascinating 

That's not hard to believe. There are only less than half a dozen profitable game publishers. The rest are all struggling. Maybe its due to piracy of games.

its impossible to really tell how bad game piracy is, but i also remember reading up somewhere that it didnt affect the companies profits as much as initially thought. could be wrong, but i cant really find the sources for this either.