Suddenly, without warning:
You're the Japan to his whale!
lol thats funny but whoa thats alot of clams
Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 23. (Read 454769 times)
You're the Japan to his whale!
lol thats funny but whoa thats alot of clams
Suddenly, without warning:
You're the Japan to his whale!
I think his point is that in that scenario he would be better of just staking the coins himself since the 10% he pays in staking fees is not covered by the additional revenue source of just-dice.
Oh, of course!
And he's right in that case. Even if the bankroll rewards did cover the staking fee it might still be better to stake the coins yourself to avoid the risk of losing coins to a lucky player, site hack, or doog-running-off-with-the-coins scam.
I set the staking commission high in an attempt not to monopolize CLAM staking. It hasn't worked, but at least the incentives to solo-stake are in place.
Yes, that was my point. Thanks superbit for better explanation :-)
I decided to stake myself now, just to help decentralisation of clams (as I would make more or JD with offsite 10x)
Yikes, that 49.31 was so close to the 49.99 cut of point.
Ouch, that 49 one was brutal.
Suddenly, without warning:
I think his point is that in that scenario he would be better of just staking the coins himself since the 10% he pays in staking fees is not covered by the additional revenue source of just-dice.
Oh, of course!
And he's right in that case. Even if the bankroll rewards did cover the staking fee it might still be better to stake the coins yourself to avoid the risk of losing coins to a lucky player, site hack, or doog-running-off-with-the-coins scam.
I set the staking commission high in an attempt not to monopolize CLAM staking. It hasn't worked, but at least the incentives to solo-stake are in place.
Hi, I did some math on my commision history and I figured out, that if you have offsite less than 6 you are paying more on the staking fees, that you make on the bankroll.
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I don't know if you understand how it works or not, so I'll explain:
1) Bankroll profits are charged 10% commission on new net profits at the end of each week.
2) Staking profits are charged 10% commission at source.
So if in a week you earn 10 CLAMs from staking and 10 CLAMs from bankrolling, you will pay 1 CLAM commission twice and end up with 18 CLAMs profit.
You seem to be saying that if you are at offsite 6x then the staking profit is 10 times the bankroll profit, and so the commission on staking is equal to the profit from bankrolling. That may be the case, but I don't understand your point. What of it? If your bankroll profit didn't cover your staking commission you're still making a profit on both.
Currently, CLAM inflation is pretty high, and so staking rewards tend to swamp bankroll profits. The rate of inflation drops constantly, and so over time we can expect bankroll profits to become increasingly significant.
I think his point is that in that scenario he would be better of just staking the coins himself since the 10% he pays in staking fees is not covered by the additional revenue source of just-dice.
Hi, I did some math on my commision history and I figured out, that if you have offsite less than 6 you are paying more on the staking fees, that you make on the bankroll.
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I don't know if you understand how it works or not, so I'll explain:
1) Bankroll profits are charged 10% commission on new net profits at the end of each week.
2) Staking profits are charged 10% commission at source.
So if in a week you earn 10 CLAMs from staking and 10 CLAMs from bankrolling, you will pay 1 CLAM commission twice and end up with 18 CLAMs profit.
You seem to be saying that if you are at offsite 6x then the staking profit is 10 times the bankroll profit, and so the commission on staking is equal to the profit from bankrolling. That may be the case, but I don't understand your point. What of it? If your bankroll profit didn't cover your staking commission you're still making a profit on both.
Currently, CLAM inflation is pretty high, and so staking rewards tend to swamp bankroll profits. The rate of inflation drops constantly, and so over time we can expect bankroll profits to become increasingly significant.
Hi, I did some math on my commision history and I figured out, that if you have offsite less than 6 you are paying more on the staking fees, that you make on the bankroll.
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I believe what said is irrelevant, staking and bankrolling are separated profits with separated commissions. I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
And yes, since most of the investors want to be bankroll too and they use offsite they take more risk hence more profits, if there was no offsite at all your win/loss per bet would be the same as if everyone was full offsited, atleast i think, someone correct me if im wrong.
Hi, I did some math on my commision history and I figured out, that if you have offsite less than 6 you are paying more on the staking fees, that you make on the bankroll.
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
I am investing on JD since January last year. Without offsite my bankroll profit would be 5 CLAMs while my staking profit is 300. It means I "paid" 30 CLAMs on staking fees while get only 5 on bankroll.
With offsite 10x its still ok, but if you are using offsite 1x is investing on JD pointless (in case you are investing only because of bankroll profit).
Just-Dice is down for a few minutes for maintenance. Back ASAP.
Edit: we're back.
Edit2: I was rebooting after updating the servers to fix this exploit. If you run a Linux server you should probably do the same.
Edit: we're back.
Edit2: I was rebooting after updating the servers to fix this exploit. If you run a Linux server you should probably do the same.
it may minify it, but it won't minimize it
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM...
But everything else in that paragraph is just fine?
I just kind of figured it was a rant about Hearn (in relation to the thread, considering he quoted me specifically) and he made up a little story.
it may minify it, but it won't minimize it
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM...
But everything else in that paragraph is just fine?
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.
On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.
It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:
5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098
and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.
it may minify it, but it won't minimize it
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM... I've never heard of him being heavily invested in it.
Pretty sure it's some sort of sarcasm which the author just needed to get off his chest. Seems the CLAM thread just happened to be the one open when TDFB needed to express himself.
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.
On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.
It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:
5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098
and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.
it may minify it, but it won't minimize it
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
I'm not seeing how Hearn is in any way related to CLAM... I've never heard of him being heavily invested in it.
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.
On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.
It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:
5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098
and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.
it may minify it, but it won't minimize it
Minify is the Ministry of Wi-Fi in Orwell's sequel to 1984, tentatively titled, "Fast and Furious Google - or Mike Hearn's Revenge". Plot summary - Mike Hearn drives down the A1 from London to Cornwall on the wrong side of the road. Stops to pick up lead singer from Spice Girls cover band. Catches STD, fired by R3, goes to work for Blockstream as Greg Maxwell's pool boy - arrested in Halted for trying to shoplift Raspberry Pi - bailed out by cypherdoc using Hashfast preferred stock.
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.
On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.
It's not hard. You just stagger the sales. With CLAM it's ridiculously easy due to volume. Basically, let's say you want to exit asap and the price is 0.001 BTC. You would list:
5% 0.001
5% 0.0099
5% 0.0098
and keep going down. Which does two things: 1) it creates a bit of a wall which usually pushes the price UP instead of down, and 2) minifies the damage done by a dump.
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
The thing that happened with the digger was even worse. He pushed the price constantly, lowering his profits on the way even further by pushing others to go out.
On the other side, maybe selling such a huge amount of clams would have been too hard? Don't know if so big buyers are out there.
Though i think for a seller it would be smarter to do a public auction or something. There are enough people who would buy and most probably this person would receive way more than he would by dumping a big amount of clams on an exchange.
This is something I've never understood. Someone always does that -- dumping and losing 80-90% of their value in the process. You can exit most coins over a period of just a week or so by doing smaller sales.
Jump to: