Bitcoin Pyramid [Beta] - the oldest working pyramid? [OLD THREAD] - page 19.

codler

full member

Activity: 191

Merit: 100

Quote from: arsenische on July 28, 2011, 11:18:57 AM

Quote from: kjj on July 28, 2011, 10:12:39 AM

Is it intentional that under the current rules depositing more money reduces your chances of getting selected randomly?

If you wanted it the other way around, try this:

Code:

SELECT MemberId FROM bpMember ORDER BY (fromWallet+1)*rand() DESC LIMIT 1;

Both algorithms are correct and favor members who deposited more. I tried both of them 1000 times and here are the results.

Which one would you choose?

Not fair, Im not in the list Tongue

hehe

arsenische

legendary

Activity: 1199

Merit: 1012

Quote from: kjj on July 28, 2011, 10:12:39 AM

Is it intentional that under the current rules depositing more money reduces your chances of getting selected randomly?

If you wanted it the other way around, try this:

Code:

SELECT MemberId FROM bpMember ORDER BY (fromWallet+1)*rand() DESC LIMIT 1;

Both algorithms are correct and favor members who deposited more. I tried both of them 100000 times and here are the results.

Which one would you choose?

adalov

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

The algorithm confused me at first, but I'm fairly certain it's correct provided it hasn't changed in the past week or so.

Code:

1. maximumDeposit = SELECT max(fromWallet) FROM bpMember;
2. SELECT MemberId FROM bpMember ORDER BY rand()*maximumDeposit/(1+fromWallet) limit 1;

fromWallet is the total deposit of a member (a column), where bpMember is a table of all members.

ORDER BY by default orders ascending, so in this case the smallest number would be the one picked. I currently have 2.5 deposited, and 5 is the max. So it would be rand() * 5/3.5. So My random number is multiplied times a certain amount and becomes larger. Should I deposit another 2.5, then it would be rand() * 5/6, and my random number becomes smaller. So it is correct.

Edit: And just by a quick glance at your equation, it looks like yours is just the inverse, sorting by descending.

jer

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 10

Quote from: kjj on July 28, 2011, 10:12:39 AM

Is it intentional that under the current rules depositing more money reduces your chances of getting selected randomly?

This explains a few things! I've been depositing little bits quite regularly (have 1.5btc atm) and haven't had a single random yet...

--
Jer
http://bitcoinpyramid.com/r/91

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1026

Is it intentional that under the current rules depositing more money reduces your chances of getting selected randomly?

If you wanted it the other way around, try this:

Code:

SELECT MemberId FROM bpMember ORDER BY (fromWallet+1)*rand() DESC LIMIT 1;

rlh

hero member

Activity: 804

Merit: 1004

Sweet!

I'm in:
http://bitcoinpyramid.com/r/294

myhoho

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1008

More than 50 btc deposited for the moment. Great start. Congratulations!

gw4tt

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

I got back around 2btc from an original deposit of 1btc, so its working well.

riceberry

hero member

Activity: 491

Merit: 500

Quote

I deposited 0.925 BTC on the 18th. Today, a week later, I've made back half of that (0.458 BTC) just from random sponsorships.

That's quite good..

I've deposited ~ 1.1 and gotten back 0.02 so far

But I was thrilled to get 0,02 that day~ ^^

I'm patient

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Yuusha on July 25, 2011, 02:36:19 PM

I deposited 0.925 BTC on the 18th. Today, a week later, I've made back half of that (0.458 BTC) just from random sponsorships.

Looking good so far.

Thank you for un-sanding my vagina... Roll Eyes

LOL

Translation: I'm profiting from the Bitcoin Pyramid.

Yuusha

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

I deposited 0.925 BTC on the 18th. Today, a week later, I've made back half of that (0.458 BTC) just from random sponsorships.

Looking good so far.

arsenische

legendary

Activity: 1199

Merit: 1012

Quote from: anodyne on July 24, 2011, 12:59:12 PM

2. How about uniform distribution for depositing accounts only? If it includes zero accounts, people could spam the pyramid with lots of accounts hoping to get a few bitcents... and if there's a large percentage of those accounts it will be likely that the random payment bounces over a lot of them before it reaches someone who gets more than the minimum.

You are right, it is supposed that zero deposit accounts do not receive random payments (since the size of random payment is limited by sum of recepient's deposits).

anodyne

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 100

1. No.

2. How about uniform distribution for depositing accounts only? If it includes zero accounts, people could spam the pyramid with lots of accounts hoping to get a few bitcents... and if there's a large percentage of those accounts it will be likely that the random payment bounces over a lot of them before it reaches someone who gets more than the minimum.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: arsenische on July 24, 2011, 10:24:39 AM

So I want to know opinion of those who deposited:

1) should we limit the total sum of member's withdrawals by 2x of what s/he deposited?

2) should we use a uniform distribution to select recepients for random payments?

1 - No

2 - Yes

arsenische

legendary

Activity: 1199

Merit: 1012

Quote from: codler on July 24, 2011, 08:43:23 AM

I have a suggestion, how about limit the withdrawn so you max can withdraw 2X of what you deposited? If you maxed the withdraw it will go to some random untill you deposit again. This will result more people getting profits and more money getting deposit.

Thank you for your suggestion, codler. I wish I saw it before I changed the rules. But now, when people started depositing 5 btc, I am afraid to change the rules. More we change them - less trust to the system.

If successful members will always be increasing their deposits, then it might not be interesting for newcomers to compete with them for random payments. I think we could use an uniform distribution to select recepients for random payments to compensate that.

Maybe it is already worth of making the distribution uniform. The size of the random payment is limited by recepient's deposit anyway, hence members with small deposits will get only a small fraction of randomly distributed money, whereas members with greater deposits will receive more.

So I want to know opinion of those who deposited:

1) should we limit the total sum of member's withdrawals by 2x of what s/he deposited?

2) should we use a uniform distribution to select recepients for random payments?

ecurrency.ec

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

Quote from: arsenische on July 24, 2011, 08:47:18 AM

Quote from: ecurrency.ec on July 23, 2011, 11:03:25 PM

Well it makes sense, but in some cases, like mine, when you make small deposit to try how it's all working, and refered someone who deposited much more, you will earn too small amount.

I refered person who is now in hall of fame, but received even less then my inicial deposit. I think it's not fair)))

But you still benefit from being her/his sponsor, since s/he is likely to receive a lot of random payments and when his/her balance hits the threshold, you will receive your cut.

New rules protect the interests of active members who deposited money or advertized Bitcoin Pyramid.

Just imagine that rules didn't change and member #255 spent few minutes to create the chain of 10 zero deposit accounts before depositing 5 btc. In that case s/he would withdraw almost half of the deposited amount immediately and increase his/her future income. And your income would be less than 0.01 btc from his/her deposit and less than 0.1% from his/her future income.

Members with zero or small deposits still can earn if they invite referrals and reinvest withdrawals (I can see that it really happens, and it proves that the scheme works).

PS: thanks for your feedback and for advertizing Bitcion Pyramid

You are welcome.

Right you are, I think more about 50% "sponsor" bonus and now can't disagree with you, new rules are more fair.

arsenische

legendary

Activity: 1199

Merit: 1012

Quote from: ecurrency.ec on July 23, 2011, 11:03:25 PM

Well it makes sense, but in some cases, like mine, when you make small deposit to try how it's all working, and refered someone who deposited much more, you will earn too small amount.

I refered person who is now in hall of fame, but received even less then my inicial deposit. I think it's not fair)))

But you still benefit from being her/his sponsor, since s/he is likely to receive a lot of random payments and when his/her balance hits the threshold, you will receive your cut.

New rules protect the interests of active members who deposited money or advertized Bitcoin Pyramid.

Just imagine that rules didn't change and member #255 spent few minutes to create the chain of 10 zero deposit accounts before depositing 5 btc. In that case s/he would withdraw almost half of the deposited amount immediately and increase his/her future income. And your income would be less than 0.01 btc from his/her deposit and less than 0.1% from his/her future income.

Members with zero or small deposits still can earn if they invite referrals and reinvest withdrawals (I can see that it really happens, and it proves that the scheme works).

PS: thanks for your feedback and for advertizing Bitcion Pyramid

codler

full member

Activity: 191

Merit: 100

I have a suggestion, how about limit the withdrawn so you max can withdraw 2X of what you deposited? If you maxed the withdraw it will go to some random untill you deposit again. This will result more people getting profits and more money getting deposit.

khanning

newbie

Activity: 192

Merit: 0

Seems interesting. I threw .5BTC at it to see what happens

Member #257

ecurrency.ec

newbie

Activity: 31

Merit: 0

It´s not my game) Ok, let OP decide is it ok or not)

Topic: Bitcoin Pyramid [Beta] - the oldest working pyramid? [OLD THREAD] - page 19. (Read 62489 times)