I have placed plinkopot up for sale in the auctions section. Feel free to PM me offers.
We will continue to be open until a sale is made and at that time I will makle an announcement.
Topic: PlinkoPot.com V2.0 BTC Plinko - <1% House Edge - Rewards - 999x Jackpot - page 2. (Read 16873 times)
February 15, 2016, 07:49:23 PM
February 14, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
Bump. Come on down and play everyone.
February 11, 2016, 03:27:23 AM
I must say this game is very fun i,ve hit x165 five times today, i think im getting addicted, also i think the wager to claim lotto should be 500 bits since lotto is most times around 300 bits
Unfortunately it's not possible to change it much more than it is except for special promotions and such. For example, on a bet of 500, I make on average less than 3 bits. So at that point I would be giving away exponentially more than I would be getting back. If I'm online though and see a bunch of people playing, I have a tendency to raise the max lotto a bit.
February 10, 2016, 06:02:01 PM
I must say this game is very fun i,ve hit x165 five times today, i think im getting addicted, also i think the wager to claim lotto should be 500 bits since lotto is most times around 300 bits
February 10, 2016, 03:40:44 PM
How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies
You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted. If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening.
) February 10, 2016, 02:45:18 PM
How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies
You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted. If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening.
) February 10, 2016, 01:21:55 PM
Got my first big win (not the profit but the multiplier) I hit x165 but im aiming for x999
https://www.moneypot.com/bets/25135263
https://www.moneypot.com/bets/25135263
February 10, 2016, 01:07:15 PM
How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies
You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted. If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening.
February 10, 2016, 01:01:35 PM
How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies
You need to wager at least 2000 bits in a 10 minute period and have chatted. If those conditions exist, there is a 75% chance of lotto happening.
February 10, 2016, 12:52:36 PM
How does lotto work, im always chatting and betting but it says no-one qualifies
February 09, 2016, 10:52:14 AM
Bump
February 07, 2016, 11:44:03 AM
I think its better time to invest in moneypot rather than trying to win same amount as lots of people like me being greedy to play plinko in classic version to win big. HAHA 
February 07, 2016, 11:31:26 AM
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.
Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise you had to choose per app_id.
And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
It seems to be OK now.
A couple of days ago the file was twice the size that it is now.
I made a local copy of the site using wget. The app.js file is 230548 bytes, with a timestamp of Jan 7 00:01
I just made another copy now using the exact same command. The app.js file is 115274 bytes, with a timestamp of Feb 7 06:49
I ran the command at Feb 7 07:18, so I guess you last modified the app.js file about half an hour before I re-downloaded the file.
I'm not sure what I can screenshot, but here's some proof that the old app.js was doubled up:
Code:
$ wc -l app.js
7670 app.js
$ grep -n flatuicolors app.js
1:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
3836:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
$ grep -n "'INIT_CHAT', data" app.js
3832: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
7667: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
$ echo $((7670 / 2))
3835
$ head -n 3835 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ head -n 3835 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
I had the wrong app.js on the server. I updated it. Thanks.
February 07, 2016, 11:29:57 AM
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place.
Oh, fair enough. I didn't realise you had to choose per app_id.
And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
It seems to be OK now.
A couple of days ago the file was twice the size that it is now.
I made a local copy of the site using wget. The app.js file is 230548 bytes, with a timestamp of Jan 7 00:01
I just made another copy now using the exact same command. The app.js file is 115274 bytes, with a timestamp of Feb 7 06:49
Edit: I see the date on your post above as "Today at 06:46:14 AM" - so whatever you did 3 minutes after posting that fixed it.
I ran the command at Feb 7 07:18, so I guess you last modified the app.js file about half an hour before I re-downloaded the file.
I'm not sure what I can screenshot, but here's some proof that the old app.js was doubled up:
Code:
$ wc -l app.js
7670 app.js
$ grep -n flatuicolors app.js
1:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
3836:// colors: http://flatuicolors.com/
$ grep -n "'INIT_CHAT', data" app.js
3832: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
7667: Dispatcher.sendAction('INIT_CHAT', data);
$ echo $((7670 / 2))
3835
$ head -n 3835 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | wc
3835 10380 115274
$ head -n 3835 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
$ tail -n +3836 app.js | sha256sum
031394022dca42a4bb558e076552c814be32ada9f846a63aaf8bfb7a97082c94 -
February 07, 2016, 10:46:14 AM
I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.
I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.
I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place. And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
I see it all doubled as well. I just took a random line (// Preload audio) and ctrl+f'd it. You'll see it about halfway down the document and at the very top, both followed by the same code.
Hmmm,thats a bit strange considering it's only once in the app,js being served from my server.
February 07, 2016, 05:40:55 AM
I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.
I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.
I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place. And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
I see it all doubled as well. I just took a random line (// Preload audio) and ctrl+f'd it. You'll see it about halfway down the document and at the very top, both followed by the same code.
February 07, 2016, 03:57:24 AM
I think it will be hard to be implemented since both are two different apps, but it would be nice if they can do it.
I think all they would need to do is change "config.app_id = 864;" in classic's app.js to use the same app_id as the other site, and add the classic URL to the list of allowed URLs for the main app.
I just noticed that classic's app.js is the same 115k of javascript repeated twice, making it twice as long as it needs to be. Is that an oversight?
No, Classic used oauth implicit flow and V2 uses confidential flow. Otherwise I would have done that already as I would REALLY like them to be in the same place. And as far as it being repeated twice, it shouldn't be. I am looking at app.js on my server now and nothing is repeated. Would you mind PMing me a screenshot?
February 07, 2016, 02:25:12 AM
Having everything in there twice means the app can process things 2x as fast 
You know, like a poor man's multi-threading...if one function is busy handling something, just hand it off to its twin.
You know, like a poor man's multi-threading...if one function is busy handling something, just hand it off to its twin.That's genius.
I wonder how well this technology scales up. Could I copy/paste sha256() a few million times to make a massively parallel mining app?
February 05, 2016, 07:58:06 PM
Come play at the luckiest game on Moneypot! We had a user win over 60 BTC a few days ago.
Everyone wins until I start playing...lol.
February 05, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
Come play at the luckiest game on Moneypot! We had a user win over 60 BTC a few days ago.
Jump to: