Topic: Nine9.ninja - [PonziGame] ★ 400+ BTC Input ★ Altcoins ► Automated ► 125% Return - page 50. (Read 57069 times)
March 03, 2015, 07:49:46 PM
Oh nice adding test funds!
March 03, 2015, 07:40:11 PM
Shouldn't it instead say time_wait or something? Borrowed that from TCP.
http://superuser.com/questions/173535/what-are-close-wait-and-time-wait-states
http://superuser.com/questions/173535/what-are-close-wait-and-time-wait-states
Well I could set it to say that, but would still have the same effect, the script will still need it's pause time.
I personally don't see it as a problem, granted it does look odd when it occurs but for the sake of 20 seconds, it's fine.
March 03, 2015, 07:32:08 PM
Things aren't correct.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
There is a 20 second parse time, so the expiring transaction can last up to 20 seconds more, but no more.
As for the balance, this is because of my test funds I was sending funds to another address within the wallet for a test of address grabbing, it has
used the funds from that address instead of the main address.
Shouldn't it instead say time_wait or something? Borrowed that from TCP.
http://superuser.com/questions/173535/what-are-close-wait-and-time-wait-states
March 03, 2015, 07:30:33 PM
I added the test funds manually as to be fair to the expiring transaction.
Thanks for playing!
Thanks for playing!
I saw that, awesome of you. I wonder if that confirmation would have made it... it was very close.
March 03, 2015, 07:28:15 PM
I added the test funds manually as to be fair to the expiring transaction.
Thanks for playing!
Thanks for playing!
March 03, 2015, 07:24:27 PM
Another very long block creation time causes me anxiety.
March 03, 2015, 07:21:09 PM
In fact, to avoid any further confusion around this I will add the test funds
to the main pool as a sort of gift to the users for continued play.
to the main pool as a sort of gift to the users for continued play.
March 03, 2015, 07:18:24 PM
Things aren't correct.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
There is a 20 second parse time, so the expiring transaction can last up to 20 seconds more, but no more.
As for the balance, this is because of my test funds I was sending funds to another address within the wallet for a test of address grabbing, it has
used the funds from that address instead of the main address.
March 03, 2015, 06:59:02 PM
Things aren't correct.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
Instead if expiring the status started counting up.
There should be at least 0.02721 + 0.01036734 BTC progress, but site lists only 0.00177810 BTC.
The balance on 1Nine9waAcCQtDsAqM9XwqLnLSsgg1ij2o is 0.1303339 - 0.0223839(over 0.107) confirmed, but it is not paying out a 0.10490200.
March 03, 2015, 05:27:39 PM
Nice stream of BTC and DOGE at the moment! 
March 03, 2015, 03:34:59 PM
I was doing some learning and discovered that a softfork can cause a single or even double confirmation to be orphaned from the main chain.
If relying on single confirmations one will need to ensure that they always track software updates.
If relying on single confirmations one will need to ensure that they always track software updates.
Yeah this is true, I am following the coins feeds for any updates or not.
March 03, 2015, 03:19:48 PM
I was doing some learning and discovered that a softfork can cause a single or even double confirmation to be orphaned from the main chain.
If relying on single confirmations one will need to ensure that they always track software updates.
If relying on single confirmations one will need to ensure that they always track software updates.
March 03, 2015, 09:50:25 AM
March 03, 2015, 09:23:52 AM
No, just misunderstood
March 03, 2015, 09:21:13 AM
March 03, 2015, 12:37:05 AM
Sniff, sniff, sniff... That smell is of a 0.7BTC deposit. You can either be ahead of it or behind it in the pay queue.
March 02, 2015, 11:51:37 PM
more DOGE players!! )) my love for shibe
March 02, 2015, 09:42:16 PM
The majority of the alt coins have reset, albeit except 1 current deposit in the Litecoin game.
It's the best possible time to start up on any of the altcoins, that's for sure.
It's the best possible time to start up on any of the altcoins, that's for sure.
I thought about that, but it's difficult enough to setup a bitcoin client. With the altcoins it's just impossible.
There isn't a single one that is not doomed to failure, well except namecoin.
March 02, 2015, 04:53:44 PM
The majority of the alt coins have reset, albeit except 1 current deposit in the Litecoin game.
It's the best possible time to start up on any of the altcoins, that's for sure.
It's the best possible time to start up on any of the altcoins, that's for sure.
Jump to: