BitPonzi.Net - Offline

[ama]

The bot has never been a part of any planned strategy.  Also, you know, my strategy for avoiding fees pays me a small amount most of the time, but on two occasions has almost cost me 4-7btc each, because people got in before my second.

That was the reason why you asked the person who runs the site to prevent bots from making the second deposit, but let them join latter.  You are not even capable to take the smallest risk.  It was just too much in such a short time.  Please, stop all this shit and let the Bitponzi site recover.

It's really a calculated gamble more than a firm strategy.

A ridiculous tiny risk that you were not prepared to take.  So you asked the owner of the site to help you eliminate it by preventing the bots from getting in before you.  Come on, pay the fees or assume a tiny risk.

I really would like the second and following deposits (when made by the same person as the first and/or seconds after it) to pay the same fee.  Your strategy is despicable and I really hope to see it all together gone for good.

As for the pre-agreed issue, I won't be doing that with my lower-initial rounds, and even for the larger ones I can't really see how giving myself 0 risk while other people have the same outcome as they would have had originally is "bad."  Happy?

Of course not.  I'd be happy only if I saw your round style gone once and for all.  People don't have the same outcome or chances when you pre-agree with some people, because appart from you, they also have to get paid before the rest have any chances.  Come on, don't try to justify it any longer.  You don't want a game, you want an eassy 100% risk free profit.

For pledging:
Let's say I get 5btc in pledges.  I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  Total: 15btc.  You say this is a daunting hurdle for everyone to cross.
The concept of a pledge is such that people would have bet that much anyways.
Without pledges:
I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  People come in and invest 5btc.  Total: STILL 15btc!

The reason is making 100% sure you get your profit by agreeing with others to give it to you in echage for increasing their chances over the rest of the participants to get paid.

Please, there is no way to justify all that.  It's very nasty and despicable.  Keep doing it if you want, but don't try to make it look decent or honest, it is not.

[1714038336]

1714038336

[1714038336]

1714038336

[ama]

The bot has never been a part of any planned strategy.  Also, you know, my strategy for avoiding fees pays me a small amount most of the time, but on two occasions has almost cost me 4-7btc each, because people got in before my second.

That was the reason why you asked the person who runs the site to prevent bots from making the second deposit, but let them join latter.  You are not even capable of taking the smallest tiny risk.  It was just too much in such a short time.  Please, stop all this shit and let the Bitponzi site recover.

It's really a calculated gamble more than a firm strategy.

A ridiculous tiny risk that you were not prepared to take.  So you asked the owner of the site to help you eliminate it by preventing the bots from getting in before you.  Come on, pay the fees or assume a tiny risk.

I really would like the second and following deposits (when made by the same person as the first and/or seconds after it) to pay the same fee.  Your strategy is despicable and I really hope to see it all together gone for good.

As for the pre-agreed issue, I won't be doing that with my lower-initial rounds, and even for the larger ones I can't really see how giving myself 0 risk while other people have the same outcome as they would have had originally is "bad."  Happy?

Of course not.  I'd be happy only if I saw your round style gone once and for all.  People don't have the same outcome or chances when you pre-agree with some people, because appart from you, they also have to get paid before the rest have any chances.  Come on, don't try to justify it any longer.  You don't want a game, you want an eassy 100% risk free profit.

For pledging:
Let's say I get 5btc in pledges.  I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  Total: 15btc.  You say this is a daunting hurdle for everyone to cross.
The concept of a pledge is such that people would have bet that much anyways.
Without pledges:
I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  People come in and invest 5btc.  Total: STILL 15btc!

The reason is making 100% sure you get your profit by agreeing with others to give it to you in echage for increasing their chances over the rest of the participants to get paid.

Please, there is no way to justify all that.  It's very nasty and despicable.  Keep doing it if you want, but don't try to make it look decent or honest, it is not.

[ineededausername]

The bot has never been a part of any planned strategy.  Also, you know, my strategy for avoiding fees pays me a small amount most of the time, but on two occasions has almost cost me 4-7btc each, because people got in before my second.

That was the reason why you asked the person who runs the site to prevent bots from making the second deposit, but let them join latter.  You are not even capable to take the smallest risk.  It was just too much in such a short time.  Please, stop all this shit and let the Bitponzi site recover.

It's really a calculated gamble more than a firm strategy.

A ridiculous tiny risk that you were not prepared to take.  So you asked the owner of the site to help you eliminate it by preventing the bots from getting in before you.  Come on, pay the fees or assume a tiny risk.

I really would like the second and following deposits (when made by the same person as the first and/or seconds after it) to pay the same fee.  Your strategy is despicable and I really hope to see it all together gone for good.

As for the pre-agreed issue, I won't be doing that with my lower-initial rounds, and even for the larger ones I can't really see how giving myself 0 risk while other people have the same outcome as they would have had originally is "bad."  Happy?

Of course not.  I'd be happy only if I saw your round style gone once and for all.  People don't have the same outcome or chances when you pre-agree with some people, because appart from you, they also have to get paid before the rest have any chances.  Come on, don't try to justify it any longer.  You don't want a game, you want an eassy 100% risk free profit.

For pledging:
Let's say I get 5btc in pledges.  I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  Total: 15btc.  You say this is a daunting hurdle for everyone to cross.
The concept of a pledge is such that people would have bet that much anyways.
Without pledges:
I go ahead and make my 10btc round.  People come in and invest 5btc.  Total: STILL 15btc!

The reason is making 100% sure you get your profit by agreeing with others to give it to you in echage for increasing their chances over the rest of the participants to get paid.

Please, there is no way to justify all that.  It's very nasty and despicable.  Keep doing it if you want, but don't try to make it look decent or honest, it is not.

Everything you say is true except for the despicable part.  I think that's really subjective.  It is true that some people get higher chances of getting paid.  However, I make this public.  You can choose whether or not to bet in my rounds... I don't force you to.  If you don't, and nobody does, then I lose my pledgers and I lose my risk-free status.  If you do, and a lot of people do, then I get money and some people get paid out.  Is that so wrong?  No, that's the market at work.

In any case, I'm not going to try to justify the previous rounds anymore.  If you think it's despicable, feel free to do so.  If I were to remove all pledges, ask mb300sd to ban bots, and also deposit much less, then you would be happy, right?
Because if site traffic proves that that strategy is sustainable and low-risk, I will be doing so.  The feeder sites are almost up, and I'm going to start looking at advertising tomorrow, so we're going to have a lot more traffic which is going to allow me to remove all the "despicable" stuff that you have listed.  I wouldn't have implemented the pledge system, or the 1+big depositing, or the other "shit" on bitcoinduit.
The truth is, the attention that the site is getting right now necessitates risk-cutting measures.

[ama]

Everything you say is true except for the despicable part.  I think that's really subjective.  It is true that some people get higher chances of getting paid.  However, I make this public.  You can choose whether or not to bet in my rounds... I don't force you to.  If you don't, and nobody does, then I lose my pledgers and I lose my risk-free status.  If you do, and a lot of people do, then I get money and some people get paid out.  Is that so wrong?  No, that's the market at work.

Thank you for agreeing with me in all my points.  I also agree with you in that the adjective I used is an opinion and, as such, is subjective.  But it's my opinion, and I state it as such.

It is true that nobody forces me to join in.  The only time I did, I freely decided to do it, believing there was an honest round like the rest, only that people were playin hard (larger minimun and maximun, larger pots, etc.).  Obviously it wasn't.

If nobody plays (as it is happening, and I reallly hope is definitive), you loose your pledgers and your risk-free status, indeed, but your risk and your lose still have been zero.  You only need to find other pledgers to keep going.  Still 0 risk.  You ask what's wrong?  I think everything.  And yes, it's subjective.  And yes, it's my opinion.  Your strategy, disguise as a game, is despicable.

[mb300sd]

apparently runlinux isnt the only one with a bot. there are 3 deposit with timestamps the same down to the 100 nanoseconds which is causing an exception in the round expiration code. this will be fixed as soon as i have access to my laptop.

[ineededausername]

Yeah, runlinux publicly released the source code of his bot.  It's been downloaded at least once.

[mb300sd]

remote accessing laptop with phone. fixed.

[ama]

Yeah, runlinux publicly released the source code of his bot.  It's been downloaded at least once.

I have downloaded it.  Of course I didn't plan to use it, since I think the bot is the second worse thing that is happening to the Bitponzi site.  But I was curious about the code (I'm looking for PHP code handling BTC to learn from it).  After downloading it I learnt it's written in visual basic, and so it has no interest for me.

[ineededausername]

Yeah, runlinux publicly released the source code of his bot.  It's been downloaded at least once.

I have downloaded it.  Of course I didn't plan to use it, since I think the bot is the second worse thing that is happening to the Bitponzi site.  But I was curious about the code (I'm looking for PHP code handling BTC to learn from it).  After downloading it I learnt it's written in visual basic, and so it has no interest for me.

lol visual basic...

[mb300sd]

I've decided to just disable the api for now to at lease somewhat get the site back to normal. I'm still hundreds of miles from home and working off a 800x480 phone screen, so no serious changes are going to happen until i have direct access to my laptop.

What do yall want to see done here? permanently remove access from bots? is a decaying expiration time still a desired feature?

[NothinG]

I've decided to just disable the api for now to at lease somewhat get the site back to normal. I'm still hundreds of miles from home and working off a 800x480 phone screen, so no serious changes are going to happen until i have direct access to my laptop.

What do yall want to see done here? permanently remove access from bots? is a decaying expiration time still a desired feature?

Would be nice to have captcha optional per game host.
That would allow the game host to setup games specifically for bots.

[ama]

What do yall want to see done here? permanently remove access from bots?

That'd be excellent, yes.

is a decaying expiration time still a desired feature?

Of course not.  It was yet another idea to make the massive rounds end as soon as possible after making profit from the the second deposit to start a new round very soon.  The rounds should last what the hosts decided, in my opinion.

[ama]

Would be nice to have captcha optional per game host.
That would allow the game host to setup games specifically for bots.

Despite the fact that I hate captchas, I was the first who sugessted it'd be a good idea to fight against the bots.  But if they won't be allowed by other means (if technically possible), maybe they aren't needed?

[Trevor]

Interesting discussion. I can sympathise with a lot of what ama is saying, though I think his perspective is that it should solely be a game, whilst I think that if someone wants to come here to try and make an honest profit they are entitled to do so. Perhaps the way ineededausername went about it at times wasn't the best, but I don't think it was despicable or (entirely) dishonest. The thing I do take issue with is the avoidance of fees, and since mb300sd has now said the site is unprofitable, it would seem only fair and honest that the avoided fees are paid.

But I don't have much of a problem with getting pledges and lowering risk. ineededausername took it to the extreme, but in principle I think it's ok. I made sure I had interest for the Forever Game, not the same as pledges but still, it lowered my risk, (not completely), and made sure I didn't look a complete fool. And I may ask for pledges for a future round idea I have, again not to zero my risk (wheres the fun in that!) but to reduce it a bit, and make sure I don't look too silly.

I like my rounds to profit as many people as possible (hence my promises to pay the unfortunate positions). In some ways this makes me an idiot, because I have actually extended a round before to ensure another depositer gets paid out even though it reduced my profit. Some of this is strategic since if they make a return they will keep playing, but it is partly because I don't like to see people lose out . I'm under no illusion, the nature of this site means most will lose in the long run, but I'm happy to do my bit to lessen it.

Finally, I like the idea of decaying expiration time, it would add some variety and new strategies. As long as the host can choose whether or not to have it and can choose the amount, it is good. If people don't like these rounds they just avoid them, and like ama said as long as the rounds are honest there is no problems.

Peace

[ama]

Perhaps the way ineededausername went about it at times wasn't the best, but I don't think it was despicable or (entirely) dishonest.

Well, my point is that in his rounds absolutely everything (and the more you look at it or think about it the more details you discover) is planed to kill all the game and all the fun, and turn it into a "business" to make the highest possible profit.  He even said he was going to make runs with 100% ROI to make sure nobody got paid and everything went to the jackpot.  That was obviously a lie.  The 100% ROI was thought to make sure he would profit everything he could, and nobody else (appart from the winer of the jackpot) would get absolutely anything.  That's simply yet another detail, together with avoiding the fees, trying to get the bots baned only for his own deposits but not for anybody's else, pre-agreeing with others to secure his profit, etc.  If all this isn't despicable I don't know what is.  

And I may ask for pledges for a future round idea I have, again not to zero my risk (wheres the fun in that!) but to reduce it a bit, and make sure I don't look too silly.

What a pitty.  Up to now I think your rounds were among the best in the site.  They usually last, allow you to play and enjoy, get some payments and, some times, win some in the end (through payments or by getting the jackpot).

Of course some people have to loose.  That's logical.  If some win something, some have to loose it.  Otherways it wouldn't be gambling.  My only problem is when the rounds are made so that the one who wins *absolutely everything* is always the same person, and everyone else is there to simply pay his profit.

Of course the wise thing to do is avoiding such kind of rounds, which I have been doing without saying absolutely nothing.  I started saying what I think when I was invited to join those rounds by ineededausername and, after I declined, he asked me why I didn't like his "game".  Obviously, I have replied by now and have explained in detail (I'm sure there are some more tricks he uses I haven't realized yet) how disgusting I find it.

If the bitponzi is a gambling site, let gamble.  If it's something else, I'm not interested. And I think people need to be aware they are not gambling, but stupidly giving their coins away.  There is no point in participating and wasting your time if you don't get neither fun nore a chance to win anything.  You are better joining one of the lotteries or riffles if the only point is a chance to get a prize (jackpot) in the case that there isn't a bot making sure nobody can win it.  I think. 

[ineededausername]

I think our main point of contention, Trevor, is whether securing profits is such a bad thing.  Months ago, I lost my entire wallet in a massive game, and I reasoned that it could be avoided with pledges.  Our goals are different but not mutually exclusive!
I will stop avoiding fees in the 1, 3, 6 games since you have a problem with it.

[NothinG]

The new version of the site doesn't show any information about the game (aka, when it ends, fees....etc).

[ineededausername]

6 rounds... time to liven it up.  I'm putting up a 5btc game.  (no pledges  )
Anyone? http://old.bitponzi.net/Round_SUNDAYMASSIVE2.aspx

[ineededausername]

Today, I'll be starting the new series...
1btc game -- 2 hours -- 50%/20%
1btc game -- 2 hours -- 30%/30%
3btc game -- 3 hours -- 30%/30%
6btc game -- 4 hours -- 30%/25%
I hope people participate.  No bots this time. 

[ineededausername]

bitponzi down again... decay?