FISHBITFISH.COM

[sukamasoto]

bet 7k satoshi  in green fish

[1714991558]

1714991558

[1714991558]

1714991558

[1714991558]

1714991558

[sukamasoto]

Currently blockchain.info service is down, which is the reason why half of the payments of the last round are displayed as "unconfirmed". Don't worry about your deposits, we postpone evaluating the round until blockchain.info is up and running again. Plus, we are going to rework the game, in few days, to use some other platform - blockchain.info seems to be very unreliable.

give me 100k satoshi order to feed my fish

[kairos]

Hi,

I have a suggestion / reclamation.

My english is not perfect because it's not my mothertongue, so you have to forgive me


The possibility to gamble on both fishes should be forbidden.

Betting on both side looks like a strange idea right ? But look @ yellowVSblue just right now:

Adress "12JPNjfD1QGivFsJZ4S4wdvffYEMjiKAw2"

He just gambled on both side so that almost everybody lose money.


Maybe he's been frustrated to lose and has chosen to suicide the game.. not very funny and very much antigame.. It Shouldn't happen

Or he hasn't understood mathematics.. Maybe..

(Your english is better than mine. ;-))

I don't think it could ruin the game... why? Just imagine him not as one schizophrenic person but as two people sharing one wallet.
And, on the contrary, one player may use two or more wallets, so it would be pointless if we made some restrictions.

[kuverty]

Hi,

I have a suggestion / reclamation.

My english is not perfect because it's not my mothertongue, so you have to forgive me


The possibility to gamble on both fishes should be forbidden.

Betting on both side looks like a strange idea right ? But look @ yellowVSblue just right now:

Adress "12JPNjfD1QGivFsJZ4S4wdvffYEMjiKAw2"

He just gambled on both side so that almost everybody lose money.


Maybe he's been frustrated to lose and has chosen to suicide the game.. not very funny and very much antigame.. It Shouldn't happen

Or he hasn't understood mathematics.. Maybe..

How is that? He is only giving more money to the winning side, whatever side it will be. Losers will be losing money as they would anyway but the winning side gets that much more. I think your claim is pointless unless you can justify it somehow, but you can't. Your English is just fine though.

[kuverty]

Anyway, this is such a nasty little game - I like the idea. If I had bitcoin handy now I would have tried it. I will at some point, though. I think that the people early on in the thread misunderstood the game, thinking it's only about which address get the most bitcoins. That would of course be pretty pointless and kind of a catastrophic game... with the increasing fee it's just really cool.

[kuverty]

No, there is a point when if you gamble "too much" without according importance to the fees and to the total amount of money in game you can make your teammate lose money. According to that, you can imagine that a "stupid" enemy can decide to get revenge of you by making both team "lose" (he will lose money himself for sure, even more than you but whatever..).

For exemple: If you look here, that's what happened to me: http://fishbitfish.com/yellowvsblue/#.U5bS5SgmyJk (Round 143 YELLOWvsBLUE!)

1) I'm in the blue team. And the 15Nc9z58z5CxYEgGbh5HvNmdLnCNnpeVJq 0.007 BTC bet was mine. It was a winning bet because the sharing result was superior to 0.007 just when it was confirmed (but not at the end of the game and I'll explain why).

2) My "enemy" decides to bet against himself (the 12JPNjfD1QGivFsJZ4S4wdvffYEMjiKAw2 0.018 BTC). His bet is huge relative to the total of BTC in the game. That fact leads to two different bad things:

a) Bad for him: His bet is a losing bet. With the high fees and this quantity of money in the game he can't expect to win anything (sharing part = 0.01486089 BTC, for an initial bet of 0.018) and he makes his whole team lose.

b) Bad for the winning team: The "blue" team loses money because the sharing part goes "down" because of his bet. According to that my 00.7 BTC is finally a losing bet with only 0.00589730 BTC sharing result.

3) Here we can make a discount :

Yellow team: Everybody LOSE

Blue team:

1st bet : 0.0007 BTC ==> sharing part:  0.00114364 BTC ==> WIN
2nd bet: 0.005 BTC ==> sharing part: 0.00488779 BTC ==> LOSE
3nd bet: 0.002 BTC ==> sharing part: 0.00192981 BTC ==> LOSE
4nd bet: 0.003 BTC ==> sharing part: 0.00259809 ==> LOSE
5nd bet: 0.002 BTC ==> sharing part: 0.00589730 BTC ==> LOSE
SUICIDE BET : 6nd bet: 0.018 BTC ==> sharing part: 0.01486089 BTC ==> LOSE - AND MAKE EVERYBODY EXCEPT 1st BET LOSE

Obviously this situation can also happen if your teammate just bet "too much" without any consideration for the fees and and the total of money your team can win. But what I don't like is the possibility for an enemy to "suicide" the game by frustration and to make almost everybody lose. Here, as you can see, the only one who won't lose money is the first blue bet with no fees that get back what they had gamble + a little part of the bonus.

I don't know if I'm clear and hope you understand my explanation ^^

Yes I absolutely get it, the explanation was very clear. My apologies, I should have put better thought into it. That is a really strange way to play the game, I can not figure out why. Maybe it is frustration but also someone might find it fun to highlight a flaw in the game mechanics this way.

Dunno though, it's hardly a flaw... it is pretty much cost-prohibitive to do that in the long run or with any bigger bets. Could it work just to add more money to the additional jackpots now? There would be some to share and that would naturally raise the bets and make ruining the games like that pretty costly.

[kuverty]

Hi,

I have a suggestion / reclamation.

My english is not perfect because it's not my mothertongue, so you have to forgive me


The possibility to gamble on both fishes should be forbidden.

Betting on both side looks like a strange idea right ? But look @ yellowVSblue just right now:

Adress "12JPNjfD1QGivFsJZ4S4wdvffYEMjiKAw2"

He just gambled on both side so that almost everybody lose money.


Maybe he's been frustrated to lose and has chosen to suicide the game.. not very funny and very much antigame.. It Shouldn't happen

Or he hasn't understood mathematics.. Maybe..

(Your english is better than mine. ;-))

I don't think it could ruin the game... why? Just imagine him not as one schizophrenic person but as two people sharing one wallet.
And, on the contrary, one player may use two or more wallets, so it would be pointless if we made some restrictions.

To clarify this here, the problem is not actually in playing both sides at once. This is what got me too, at first, and I claimed cmichaud was wrong.

There is a problem as he explained, but the problem isn't just exactly in playing both sides at once, although that was relevant because it was thought to be the malevolent player's motivation to ruin the game for the winning side, too as he had clearly lost his bets. So it kind of could be the problem.

However, he would have ruined the game if he played on just the winning side, if his purpose was just to ruin the game. The problem is the last bet which makes no sense to make. The player is essentially wasting his money to make others lose. He is, by betting more money even though he cannot make it back, making other players' shares smaller to the extent that they can no longer get their bets back even thought they are on the winning side.

So that does effectively ruin the game for all. Now, this is possible for someone to do because it is so cheap; the game is played with a few mBTC. If this happens a lot, people will stop playing. So, if you want to keep running your game I suggest slightly a different game or at the beginning, artificially raising the bets by using additional jackpot money for the winners. That would make it more profitable to play and make harassing other players more costly.

[kairos]

I don't think it could ruin the game... why?

I just showed you it could (read my whole explanation to Kuverty). If everybody lose money in both team you  are the only one who can win money there (with fees)

And in my opinion if you don't do anything it's a problem which makes me hesitate to gamble again on your website..

I think you should consider Kuverty idea of increasing "jackpot" money to avoid this kind of behavior. You won't lose money because everybody would bet more to get it. And it will become very costly to ruin the game.

You are right. And you may also suspect that it is the owner of the game who make those strange payments, right? Because the owner is the only one who "wins" in such case.

Well, I think the solution could be to introduce absolutely transparent rules of how the fees are transformed to future rounds' jackpots. Now we make it manually (simply: what is left after we pay costs like advertising, goes to jackpot), but we should be more transparent. Give us some time please to think about it. There are more alternatives how to transform fees to jackpots: straight to next round, or with some delay (24 hours?) or with some randomization, etc... It may also be combined with some sponsorship (combine game with faucet...).

[kuverty]

I don't think it could ruin the game... why?

I just showed you it could (read my whole explanation to Kuverty). If everybody lose money in both team you  are the only one who can win money there (with fees)

And in my opinion if you don't do anything it's a problem which makes me hesitate to gamble again on your website..

I think you should consider Kuverty idea of increasing "jackpot" money to avoid this kind of behavior. You won't lose money because everybody would bet more to get it. And it will become very costly to ruin the game.

You are right. And you may also suspect that it is the owner of the game who make those strange payments, right? Because the owner is the only one who "wins" in such case.

Well, I think the solution could be to introduce absolutely transparent rules of how the fees are transformed to future rounds' jackpots. Now we make it manually (simply: what is left after we pay costs like advertising, goes to jackpot), but we should be more transparent. Give us some time please to think about it. There are more alternatives how to transform fees to jackpots: straight to next round, or with some delay (24 hours?) or with some randomization, etc... It may also be combined with some sponsorship (combine game with faucet...).

Yeah, think about it. And no, I did not suspect that the owner would do this... it would be benificial only in really short term (like, immediate term), it would just kill the game and why cheat if you are making profit off each game anyway. It just would not make sense for the owner to cheat like that. It would be suspicious for the owner if it wasn't so "obviously suspicious" and dumb...

I am sure you will figure out a good fix! After all, that problem only applies when the bets are small since it is not reasonable to suspect the owner is cheating, just that someone is harassing others. When it costs a few dozen dollars to do that, I doubt anyone would like to do that just to pick on people.

[Bmystic62]

http://fishbitfish.com/

Win bitcoins by investing into the fish you believe will grow bigger by the end of the round. The more BTC the fish receives the bigger it will grow.

This is the official thread for the game.

I like the game ,but I need to WIN,WIN,WIN....so everyone get on the same color fish....People get your heads together.....

[onlinepro]

http://fishbitfish.com/

Win bitcoins by investing into the fish you believe will grow bigger by the end of the round. The more BTC the fish receives the bigger it will grow.

This is the official thread for the game.

I like the game ,but I need to WIN,WIN,WIN....so everyone get on the same color fish....People get your heads together.....

If everyone bets to the same side/fish, there would not be much to win :/
Someone must lose so someone can win, that's how it goes.

[hosumfu]

this game is great

[bajing]

Stupid game..

[pampeblu]

How the game knows to which adress it has to send back the money, in case of winning?   

E: Send some coins, but the adress which shows up is not in my wallet... ? Don't understand that...

E²: Send second time some coins, now another adress shows up, but now this is in my wallet, but was already used by me for withdraw at another service... !?
And that adress was not in my clipboard, so why an old receive adress is used and at first transaction a adress shows up which is not in my wallet?

Thx for your answers!

[onlinepro]

How the game knows to which adress it has to send back the money, in case of winning?   

E: Send some coins, but the adress which shows up is not in my wallet... ? Don't understand that...

E²: Send second time some coins, now another adress shows up, but now this is in my wallet, but was already used by me for withdraw at another service... !?
And that adress was not in my clipboard, so why an old receive adress is used and at first transaction a adress shows up which is not in my wallet?

Thx for your answers!

I'm not sure what you mean but what wallet software did you use?
Shared wallets won't work with this game.

[pampeblu]

Hi, i use Bitcoin Core 0.9.2.1
Should be ok right?   

I am confused about some transactions which i did from my wallet to fishbitfish:

I can see them all on the page, confirmed, displayed under my fish (so everything is ok till here!)
but some transactions (not all) have an adress (from where the payment was sent) which is not in my wallet, so i won't receive the payout right?
Why that? 
Because some transactions have an adress which is in my wallet... in that case i would receive the payout?!


(And again, how fishbitfish.com knows/choose the adress for my payback when i sent coins only without any payout adress?  )

Thx

[onlinepro]

Hi, i use Bitcoin Core 0.9.2.1
Should be ok right?   

I am confused about some transactions which i did from my wallet to fishbitfish:

I can see them all on the page, confirmed, displayed under my fish (so everything is ok till here!)
but some transactions (not all) have an adress (from where the payment was sent) which is not in my wallet, so i won't receive the payout right?
Why that? 
Because some transactions have an adress which is in my wallet... in that case i would receive the payout?!


(And again, how fishbitfish.com knows/choose the adress for my payback when i sent coins only without any payout adress?  )

Thx

Payout will be sent back to address where bet came from.

[pampeblu]

Good answer!! 

But i still dont know how fishbitfish knows my adress and why some of my transactions have an adress which is not my own, not in my wallet?
I mean, when i sent coins to fishbitfish, which or how can i choose my adress for that?
Do you understand what i don't understand?
The question is easy...

E:

Example from actual game/red-green: (let's say this is my transaction)

0.00025 BTC from *1MyuTJRZUEjLo1RZoZx2XQhuVCMffRjAC7 <-- *should be my adress, but it is not! cause not in my wallet?!? Or where i am wrong...
= 0.00022903 + fee 0.00002097 (8.389 %)
= 0.7 % share | status: 0.00037772 BTC payout

*those adress should be visible in my wallet right?

[onlinepro]

Good answer!! 

But i still dont know how fishbitfish knows my adress and why some of my transactions have an adress which is not my own, not in my wallet?
I mean, when i sent coins to fishbitfish, which or how can i choose my adress for that?
Do you understand what i don't understand?
The question is easy...

E:

Example from actual game/red-green: (let's say this is my transaction)

0.00025 BTC from *1MyuTJRZUEjLo1RZoZx2XQhuVCMffRjAC7 <-- *should be my adress, but it is not! cause not in my wallet?!? Or where i am wrong...
= 0.00022903 + fee 0.00002097 (8.389 %)
= 0.7 % share | status: 0.00037772 BTC payout

*those adress should be visible in my wallet right?

What is the problem?
Website shows "0.00025 BTC from 1MyuTJRZUEjLo1RZoZx2XQhuVCMffRjAC7" and blockchain shows same thing, right?
https://blockchain.info/tx/2c5ba5649ae59308966e6890aff3ccb6a849b9667c7070cf413076da4cb49b95

[pampeblu]

Ah i don't speak clearly enough i guess, maybe it's my english...

1MyuTJRZUEjLo1RZoZx2XQhuVCMffRjAC7

Blockhain is right... but again:

IF this would be my transaction, i should have the adress:

1MyuTJRZUEjLo1RZoZx2XQhuVCMffRjAC7

in my wallet right? 

Sorry, i just don't get the point... xD

But, game is over... received 3 payouts, so everything is ok.
But still confused about that adress which is not in my wallet... maybe i should get deeper into blockchain wisdom!?

Thx and sorry onlinepro!