PlinkoPot.com V2.0 BTC Plinko - <1% House Edge - Rewards - 999x Jackpot

[madonnino]

so, i won this kind of plinko for 5 times 999x today, that's not bad.
just like whoever just did, won that 55 btc.

this is some real luck, congratulation and enjoy your win! this not happen everyday

[1715237487]

1715237487

[1715237487]

1715237487

[1715237487]

1715237487

[maxhor]

Why both application not sharing the same balance which i had on plinkopot but on old version it doesn't show anything into my account balance, can you make configure this issue and make sharing sharing the same balance on both version?

[Carlsen]

I like your sites!

[panjul07]

Why both application not sharing the same balance which i had on plinkopot but on old version it doesn't show anything into my account balance, can you make configure this issue and make sharing sharing the same balance on both version?

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

[dooglus]

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.

I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?

[EngiNerd]

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.

I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?

Having everything in there twice means the app can process things 2x as fast You know, like a poor man's multi-threading...if one function is busy handling something, just hand it off to its twin.

[Rmcdermott927]

Come play at the luckiest game on Moneypot!   We had a user win over 60 BTC a few days ago.

[Blazed]

Come play at the luckiest game on Moneypot!   We had a user win over 60 BTC a few days ago.

Everyone wins until I start playing...lol.

[dooglus]

Having everything in there twice means the app can process things 2x as fast You know, like a poor man's multi-threading...if one function is busy handling something, just hand it off to its twin.

That's genius.

I wonder how well this technology scales up. Could I copy/paste sha256() a few million times to make a massively parallel mining app?

[Rmcdermott927]

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.

I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?

No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow.   Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.     And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be.   I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated.  Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?

[ranlo]

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.

I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?

No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow.   Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.     And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be.   I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated.  Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?

I see it all doubled as well. I just took a random line (// Preload audio) and ctrl+f'd it. You'll see it about halfway down the document and at the very top, both followed by the same code.

[Rmcdermott927]

I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.

I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.

I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?

No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow.   Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.     And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be.   I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated.  Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?

I see it all doubled as well. I just took a random line (// Preload audio) and ctrl+f'd it. You'll see it about halfway down the document and at the very top, both followed by the same code.

Hmmm,thats a bit strange considering it's only once in the app,js being served from my server.

[dooglus]

No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow.   Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.

Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise you had to choose per app_id.

And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be.   I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated.  Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?

It seems to be OK now.

A couple of days ago the file was twice the size that it is now.

I made a local copy of the site using wget. The app.js file is 230548 bytes, with a timestamp of Jan  7 00:01
I just made another copy now using the exact same command. The app.js file is 115274 bytes, with a timestamp of Feb  7 06:49

Edit: I see the date on your post above as "Today at 06:46:14 AM" - so whatever you did 3 minutes after posting that fixed it.

I ran the command at Feb  7 07:18, so I guess you last modified the app.js file about half an hour before I re-downloaded the file.

I'm not sure what I can screenshot, but here's some proof that the old app.js was doubled up:

Code:

$ wc -l app.js
7670 app.js
$ grep -n flatuicolors app.js
1:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
3836:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
$ grep -n "'INIT_CHAT', data" app.js
3832:      Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
7667:      Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
$ echo $((7670 / 2))
3835
$ head -n 3835 app.js | wc
   3835   10380  115274
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | wc
   3835   10380  115274
$ head -n 3835 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94  -
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94  -

[Rmcdermott927]

No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow.   Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.

Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise you had to choose per app_id.

And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be.   I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated.  Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?

It seems to be OK now.

A couple of days ago the file was twice the size that it is now.

I made a local copy of the site using wget. The app.js file is 230548 bytes, with a timestamp of Jan  7 00:01
I just made another copy now using the exact same command. The app.js file is 115274 bytes, with a timestamp of Feb  7 06:49

I ran the command at Feb  7 07:18, so I guess you last modified the app.js file about half an hour before I re-downloaded the file.

I'm not sure what I can screenshot, but here's some proof that the old app.js was doubled up:

Code:

$ wc -l app.js
7670 app.js
$ grep -n flatuicolors app.js
1:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
3836:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
$ grep -n "'INIT_CHAT', data" app.js
3832:      Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
7667:      Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
$ echo $((7670 / 2))
3835
$ head -n 3835 app.js | wc
   3835   10380  115274
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | wc
   3835   10380  115274
$ head -n 3835 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94  -
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94  -

I had the wrong app.js on the server.  I updated it.   Thanks.

[~Bitcoin~]

I think its better time to invest in moneypot rather than trying to win same amount as lots of people like me being greedy to play plinko in classic version to win big. HAHA 

[Rmcdermott927]

Bump

[Your Point Is Invalid]

How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies

[Rmcdermott927]

How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies

You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted.   If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening. 

[Your Point Is Invalid]

How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies

You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted.   If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening. 

Are there any bots or auto betting scripts for the site?

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Got my first big win (not the profit but the multiplier) I hit x165 but im aiming for x999
https://www.moneypot.com/bets/25135263