Topic: Input Requested from Ponzi Users - page 2. (Read 1655 times)

That's what scammers do dont they, deny.. We all know who it is. So enough is enough. Refund then start talking, else just get back to your corner

No. It was not me.
Look at the IP logs of all moreias alts
The IP logs accessing the blockchain wallet
Moreias alt actually ADMITTED that it was him and not me (thegambler)

What? Dude stop rolling the ball to others. It was you. Coming clean wont get you a noble prize. Voice your opinions else where .. perhaps the scam accusation section or something.

Wasn't me who did that... Please look at the proof before falsely accusing me.

You have no rights to give your opinions scammer. At least this OP had the courtesy to use a reputable member to hold the funds unlike you stating that you needed 3 confirmations and then poof . Like david copperfield.

Basically what your saying is a trusted user runs the escrow. Any escrow wouldn't manually run a ponzi for free, and if he was taking a fee, why not him run his own. A solution to this thought would be to provide your script and he would put the blockchain API on it so that the payouts would still come out automatically but on the start of the round, the large amount of payments would be in the hands of the escrow.

With an escrow managing the funds and payouts,

1. OP has zero access to the funds
2. payout process has no gaps

Obviously if all things are working well, you would maintain the escrow, but let's say I am a scumbag and want to run off with the funds.  How does you acting as an escrow benefit the people I have defrauded?

(Please understand I am not questioning you, I am truly interested in your response)

In case you did not know, http://flukybet.com/ just started a lotto based game and I am the escrow for the funds. See sig for the discussion thread.

How would you see this working?

Given these transactions:

#	Coin In	Subtotal In	Coin Out	Subtotal Out
1	1.00000000	1.00000000	1.3000000	1.3000000
2	1.00000000	2.00000000	1.3000000	2.6000000
3	1.00000000	3.00000000	1.3000000	3.9000000
4	0.68460152	3.68460152	0.8899820	4.7899820
5	1.00000000	4.68460152	1.3000000	6.0899820
6	1.00000000	5.68460152	1.3000000	7.3899820
7	1.00000000	6.68460152	1.3000000	8.6899820
8	0.02000000	6.70460152	0.0260000	8.7159820
9	1.00000000	7.70460152	1.3000000	10.0159820
10	0.80000000	8.50460152	1.0400000	11.0559820
11	0.64000000	9.14460152	0.8320000	11.8879820
12	0.32000000	9.46460152	0.4160000	12.3039820
13	0.01000000	9.47460152	0.0130000	12.3169820
14	0.36000000	9.83460152	0.4680000	12.7849820
15	0.80000000	10.63460152	1.0400000	13.8249820
16	1.00000000	11.63460152	1.3000000	15.1249820

Lets say there is a 30% payout and 5% fees.  These are random transactions in order from another site, just looking at them for an example.

So after deposit 15 takes place, the game would freeze (Coin In: 10.63460152), I deduct the 5% in fees (0.531730076) leaving a "pot" of (10.102871444 coins) and the payouts for 1-9 would be paid out (Coin Out: 10.0159820) leaving 0.08688944 coins unused.

Do I keep that?  Do I refund it to player 15? Do I split proportionally over players 10-15 (does the player take that an insult - or just happy they didn't lose all around)?

Mind you - I am not arguing your point.  I actually kinda dig it.  Just trying to think through the logistics, and how I would program it.

What difference does the escrow really make?  Does it make you feel better?  How?  You as a player would not be able to get that money?  Or would you? and if so, how? Or would it say, be donated to charity?  I don't have the answer, just spit-balling.

Oh... And does anyone have 10BTC they want to lend me   ?  Maybe of the owner of WeeklyPonzi will have mercy on me.

Here's the problem... You are lumping every "ponzi" site owner into the same basket.  Maybe it is fair to do that because the player has no real way to KNOW that there is no hanky panky going on.


I am mulling the escrow concept around in my head. One of the arguments against a Ponzi, in concept, is that you would have no way to know if I was inserting my deposits ahead of time meaning my payout would always be paid first and risk those after me.  If I have 10BTC in escrow, whats to stop a jerk game owner from doing the exact same thing?  What the escrow concept would do though is prevent the owner from running away with the money.

This is standard operating procedure, bringing dice and poker into a ponzi argument.

I gamble for a living, as it happens.
Gamble, as in risk my capital using my judgement to make money, in an environment which has specific rules and parameters to make it as transparent and 'fair' as possible. Completely unlike "fleece the newbies" Ponziland.


I understand your point, but that deal's not on offer with ponzi games, because of the "everyone knows whats going on" bit, because they can't.
Operators keep falsely stressing this, despite the boring truth that they can't prove their own non involvement in the 'game'.

I like the idea of running a ponzi like quoted above, what do you think ?

If I want to gamble I'll do it at a sportsbook or games that are provably fair, not risk my money on a ponzi where the chance of manipulation or scamming are high. Its not a gamble when your risk exceeds a certain point. Its just stupidity to play.

True.  And nobody needs to gamble either.  But then again, if you weren't a "gambler" you would have no reason to even be participating in this subforum, but here you are.  If you think that dice sites and poker sites are "games of chance" I have some swap-land for sale just for you.

Look. The bottom line is that a card player or dice player will play a game because it brings them excitement, helps them pass the time, or quite frankly some get off on it.  The same thing applies to those who participate in Ponzis.  If everyone knows whats going on and everyone knows what the rules of the game are, and everyone still plays the game, who is really being hurt?

Yeah, all that newbie coin and you can't get your hands on it....

The truth is nobody needs ponzis, only the ponzi operators.
"Ponzi games" can never be shown to be honest games of chance anyway and never will, if the operator doesn't just run off, no one can ever be sure that he's not the first in line for the payout anyway.

What you say is likely true.  That's why I thought incorporating something new like rolling over the last 10 people to play, having the game not "end" until there was no more interest in playing (i.e. risk to high), etc. would help.  Perhaps I was naive about how much damage had been done by those who came before me.  Perhaps the sour grapes out there that do nothing but tear the game/owner down before the game even gathers any steam.  There are newcomers to bitcoin all the time.  These older type of games could flourish off of those newcomers, were it not for the people that did LOSE in a previous GAMBLE (shutter at the thought) crying about how everyone involved is just a crook.

It's sad really.

Ponzis are dying off. Those who have lost would most likely not invest again. Those who have won won't take the risk again. So all in all, not the best idea to run a ponzi now. Look at the declined volume of weeklyponzi for an instance. Volumes will drop each round.

As I consider the changes I want to make to ThePonziGames.com, I would like to take input from the potential players of the game.  I look around and see several games out there.  Most have several successful rounds even when they stumble coming out of the gate, and even when they are obviously falsifying their numbers.  The ones that are honest about how the site works are usually successful longer because they don't get greedy and run away with the money.  I have absolutely ZERO interest in a short term game where I just take everyone's money and disappear.  I know that this could be successful long-term just accepting donations and the fees.  Make no mistake, when you look at weeklyponzi.com (whom I salute by the way for running what appears to be an up front game) who has had over 972BTC deposited in three weeks and has a 5% fee structure - that is over 48BTC.

For this reason, it surprises me that when I launched ThePonziGames.com that I only had a single player in each of the coins I was offering.  I can only assume that there was something that turned potential players away.  At this point, I have two alternatives.  I can either close up shop and look for another idea or I can try to determine how my site can be made more appealing to its users.  In my case, I choose to seek input from you and to see if the suggestions can be implemented.

• Have you ever wanted a Ponzi to do something that would make it more fun to take part in?

• Do you prefer short duration (game resets daily), long term (game resets weekly), timed (game resets every 100 hours)?

• Do you prefer lower limits (below 0.001) and/or higher limits (above 1.000)?

• Do social networking components scare you away (Facebook like links, Twitter follow links)?

• Would you prefer live help, email support, a contact form, or none of the above?

• What's your preferred payout percentage (110%, 130%, 150%, etc)?

• What do you consider "fair" fees (2%, 5%)?

• Do you prefer a page with dynamic content (i.e. the player list which uses javascript) or do you prefer a page that is straight HTML and CSS with no JS at all?

• Do you play through TOR or VPN or the clear Internet?

If you have a truly unique idea, and would rather PM me with your suggestion I would certainly consider a bounty on the suggestion, and will discuss that one on one with you via PM.