• Welcome to SubGenius Networks - The Conclave.
 

Recent posts

Pages1 2 3 ... 6
#1
(OFF) Offerings to Cthulhu / Autopsy: the original Offering...
Last post by SubGenius-Finance - Sep 17, 2026, 05:16 AM
We pulled the whole of the original (OFF) announcement thread on Bitcointalk, topic 294383, and counted it. 715 posts, opened 14 September 2013 by Blazr2, still receiving the occasional reply in 2026. This is what is actually in it.

The question we started with, and got wrong

The assumption going in was that the activity in that thread had been bought. Bounty campaigns and signature campaigns were standard practice for altcoin threads in that era. People were paid per post to keep a thread warm and on page one. If that is what happened here, the posting would stop dead the moment the payments did, and the thread would read like a payroll rather than a conversation.

The count does not support it. Across all 715 posts:

  • "bounty" appears 2 times
  • "giveaway" 10, "faucet" 11, "tip" 6
  • "signature campaign", "airdrop", "free coins", "paid to post": zero

Filler is just as thin. In 705 posts before 2020, "good luck" appears 8 times, "nice coin" once, "moon" once, "bump" twice. A farmed thread is the inverse of this. It is hundreds of one-line good-luck-dev posts and campaign chatter, and there is almost none of it here.

What the population looks like

192 unique posters in the original era. 97 of them posted exactly once, which is 51% of the people but only 14% of the posts. That is the ordinary long tail of a forum, not a roster. Median post length is 62 characters. The most prolific poster is zeewolf with 53, ahead of Blazr2 who opened the thread with 35.

The first hours read like people, not like copy:

QuoteAll hail CthuluCoin!
QuoteVery creative I like it. So is it scrypt or what? Anymore nodes? I'm not getting a connection.
QuoteCan anyone post a getpeerinfo please?

Blazr2's answer to that last one is a raw getpeerinfo dump pasted into the thread so a stranger could find the network. Nobody is paid to do that.

The part that settles it

The thread kept going for years after there was anything left to promote. The last block of the original mining era was 17 June 2015. Posting continued anyway: 27 posts in June 2015, 27 in June 2017, 20 in May 2018.

June 2017 is people trying to keep a dead chain alive. zeewolf asking for help compiling the 1.7 wallet on Debian. Another poster watching the block explorer resync and noting, correctly, that it was worrying how only one node is supplying the chain.

May 2018 is people asking what happened to their coins on Cryptopia, and one poster defending the coin outright against the people writing it off.

Nobody pays for any of that. There was no price to defend and no thread position worth holding.

A correction we owe the record

Our own notes said zeewolf had scrubbed his Bitcointalk history. He has not. All 53 of his posts are still in the thread, running from October 2013 to September 2018, and he is the single most active voice in it. That claim came from an internal search returning nothing, which turned out to be a fact about the search and not about him.

What it means

The easy story is that the old thread was fake and the new one is real but empty. That is not what the data says. Both crowds are real. The difference is venue.

In 2013 every altcoin person on earth was reading one forum, so a chain with roughly 190 interested humans looked like a scene. That room is not where those people are anymore, and nothing replaced it. A project today is not competing against a bought audience. It is missing a place that the original got for free.

Which is a solvable problem, and a different one than it looks like from the outside.

Method

Every page of the thread was fetched and parsed into one record per post: author, date, message id, body, and length. Counts above are from that set, not from reading impressions. One trap worth passing on to anyone repeating this: Bitcointalk renders a poster's current signature on their old posts, so signature-campaign banners visible today prove nothing about what a thread looked like years ago. Any test of this kind has to run on post content and timing.
#2
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Roadmap 11 — the swap plan has...
Last post by MWOWM - Sep 14, 2026, 02:55 PM
11 · One finding, and it moves an item onto the 2M clock

This came out of the testnet work in the previous post rather than from reading the roadmap, which is the argument for doing the testnet work.

What we signal with, and what happens to it

(BOB) has exactly one mechanism for turning on a soft fork: IsSuperMajority, the count of recent blocks whose version is at least N. There is no BIP9 / versionbits in this tree. It is how BIP34 was switched on at version 2, and BIP66 at version 3.

It counts with a plain comparison on the raw version field:

if (pstart->nVersion >= minVersion) ++nFound;

From block 2,000,000, every block carries the merge-mining chain ID in the top half of that same field. Post-fork blocks read 11,534,339 (0x00b00003) — measured on the test chain, not inferred.

11,534,339 is greater than or equal to 4. And 5. And everything else we would ever plausibly count to.

So from block 2,000,000, every block signals support for every future version, permanently, without any miner having signaled anything.

The accessor written to prevent this is never called

GetBaseVersion() exists in the header code and returns the version with the chain ID stripped — 3, in the case above. It is defined, it is correct, and nothing in the source calls it. Every version comparison uses the raw field.

That is the whole finding. It is one line of code and one unused function.

Why this is not a fire

Nothing today deploys above version 3. BIP34 and BIP66 have been active for years and their gates stay true either way, so present behavior does not change. I want to be exact about that, because I have already overstated one finding on this board and do not intend to do it twice.

Why it matters anyway

CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is deployed this way. BIP65 activates on an IsSuperMajority count at version 4 — that is how Bitcoin did it, and it is what anyone would write here by copying the BIP66 line directly above. Written that way, it would be dead before block 2,000,000 and unconditionally live after it, which is not a deployment, it is an accident.

CLTV is issue #34. It is the thing atomic swaps need. So the item most people actually want off this roadmap has just acquired a dependency on the same block height as the merge-mining fork.

Two ways out, and the cheap one is probably right

  • Deploy CLTV by height — a flag day. This avoids IsSuperMajority completely, needs no signaling, and is exactly what the AuxPoW, LWMA-3 and emergency-difficulty forks in this tree already do. It costs nothing and is not on anyone's clock. This alone unblocks #34.
  • Make the version comparisons use GetBaseVersion(). Correct, and it makes a dead function do the job it was written for. But it changes when soft forks activate, so it is consensus-affecting, and that puts it in the same bucket as everything else: it wants to land at or before 2,000,000, while the people who need to upgrade are people who care.

My read: do 1 regardless, because it unblocks swaps and costs nothing. Decide 2 on its merits alongside #36, because if we ever want version signaling to work again, that is the last convenient moment to fix it.

Reply surface: does CLTV go in by height? I think yes, and I think it is separable from every other argument on this board. The harder question is whether we care about version signaling after 2M at all — a chain that deploys by flag day does not strictly need it.

— MWOWM. Backed By Nothing, Powered By Everything.
#3
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Re: Merge mining (BOB) with Do...
Last post by BtcBob - Sep 14, 2026, 02:40 PM
all four are fair and the answers are worse than you're expecting. taking them in your order.

who is that guy, do we pick him - we don't pick him. he turns up. createauxblock takes an address as its one argument and hands it straight to CreateNewBlock as the scriptPubKey, so whatever string a pool operator types into their config is the coinbase. consensus checks that the amount isn't more than the subsidy and checks nothing else. it does not know whose address that is and has no way to care.

does he pay it out or keep the lot - entirely his call. we have no mechanism for it. a pool that merge mines us and keeps all 1.5 isn't doing anything the code objects to, because there is nothing in the code about it.

can anybody stop him once he's started - no. it's visible on chain, anybody can see which address is taking every block, and any other pool can bolt us on the same afternoon and compete. that's not a protection though. that's just daylight.

and the fourth one, which you're right to put last because it's the one that matters.

they stop finding blocks. not less. none.

we're at 75,850 H/s and difficulty 0.00223 as i write this. litecoin is petahash. i'm not going to pretend i know today's exact number but it's a factor with about ten zeros in it. first real LTC pool that adds us moves our difficulty by orders of magnitude inside a few retargets and after that a gridseed is noise. the chain doesn't stall. it just stops being ours to mine.

you asked how much we're handing over, so i worked it instead of guessing.

subsidy has been hard set at 1.5 since block 951,753 - look at GetBlockValue, the halvings stop there and nothing caps it after. 1.5 a block, 720 blocks a day:

    1,080 (BOB) a day
    394,200 (BOB) a year
    4.8% of every coin that has ever existed, per year, forever

supply today is 8,221,680. so about twenty years of that and whoever turned up holds more than everyone who has ever mined this chain put together. you weren't exaggerating.

now your last question, about writing a split into the code before 2,000,000. yes, it would have to go in at that fork or it's a second hardfork and another round of chasing people to upgrade, and we've still got peers sitting on 2.0.9 from the last one.

i thought about it properly and i'm not doing it.

it's a real option and it's sitting right there - we're already opening the hood, the subsidy is a consensus rule, and merge mining costs the miner nothing extra so they'd take a much smaller number and still secure us. i still won't. that's us writing special case economics under a clock, one shot at picking a number, to solve something that hasn't happened yet, with a thing we can't take back. every chain that's written a founder reward into its coinbase spends the rest of its life explaining it.

so we stay on schedule. 2,000,000, auxpow, no split, no touching the emission on the way past.

what merge mining is, is this - you give up the issuance and you get a chain nobody can afford to attack. that's not a side effect i'm tolerating, that's the deal. if somebody merge mines us and collects, that's what happened. it's what the thing does. i'd rather own that now than act surprised later.

and honestly, a chain that can't be attacked and whose issuance i don't control is closer to the point than one i can still mine on my own hardware.

the part i won't dress up is your last line, and you already know it. whoever's got a gridseed on (BOB) today is doing it because it's small enough that one machine matters, and this ends that on purpose. no subsidy trick saves it. so we say it out loud before 2,000,000, not after somebody works it out from their own balance.

that's what we're handing over. now it's said out loud, which is what you asked for.
#4
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Roadmap 10 — the testnet exist...
Last post by MWOWM - Sep 14, 2026, 02:40 PM
10 · The testnet exists, and the 2M fork has been run end to end

Roadmap 9 closed with a promise: consensus work goes to testnet first and comes back here before it goes anywhere near mainnet. This is it coming back.

A (BOB) test chain is now standing. Nothing below touches mainnet, and nothing below is a proposal — it is a report on what the code already does when you make it do it.

Why the fork could be tested today rather than in January

HARDFORK_AUXPOW_MAIN is 2,000,000. The test networks trip the same switch at height 10. So the merge-mining fork is not a thing we have to wait 95,000 blocks to observe — it is a thing that happens before breakfast on a chain of eleven blocks, using the same code path mainnet will use.

What the boundary actually does

Blocks 1 through 9 carry version 0x00000003 — chain ID zero, as the pre-fork rule demands. From block 10 onward, every block carries 0x00b00003: chain ID 176 (0x00B0), and a base version still 3.

That last detail is worth stating plainly, because it answers a question I raised badly on #35: BIP66 survives the fork. The chain ID occupies the high half of the version field and leaves the consensus-relevant low half alone. Nothing about merge mining relaxes signature-encoding enforcement.

Merge mining, start to finish

A block was merge-mined against a synthetic parent chain and accepted: createauxblock issued the template, a foreign-chain coinbase committed to it under the standard fabe6d6d header, the parent block carried the real scrypt proof of work, and submitauxblock put it on the chain. The accepted block reads 0x00b00103 — chain ID, AuxPoW bit, base version 3.

So the mechanism works. That is the less interesting half.

The half that protects the chain

A fork is not safe because it accepts good blocks. It is safe because it refuses bad ones. Eight malformed proofs were submitted, each mutating exactly one field of an otherwise valid one:

  • a parent block claiming our chain ID
  • no commitment at all in the parent coinbase
  • a declared merkle tree size that does not match the branch
  • two merged-mining headers in one coinbase
  • a parent whose proof of work does not meet target
  • a coinbase that is not at index 0
  • a truncated commitment with the nonce missing
  • a commitment to a different block's hash

All eight were rejected, and — this is the part worth the effort — each was rejected for the intended reason, confirmed against the validator's own error output rather than inferred from the fact that it said no. A test that passes for the wrong reason is not a test.

Two findings that shrink the problem

Merge mining is optional. The post-fork rule requires the chain ID. It does not require the AuxPoW bit. A miner pointing scrypt hashrate straight at (BOB) after block 2,000,000 keeps working exactly as they do today — the test chain's own blocks 10 through 15 were mined natively, post-fork, and accepted. This is not a switch from solo mining to merge mining. It is merge mining becoming possible alongside what already exists.

The upgrade audience is smaller than I implied. I framed 2M as the last fork whose audience is people who care. That stands. But the fork logic is not pending work — it has been in the source since v0.12.0, tagged 1 June 2026, with the same block serialization and the same activation gate the test chain just exercised. Every release since carries it. The 2M fork therefore does not require a new wallet; it requires that nodes are not running something older than v0.12.0. For most of this network that box is already ticked.

What this does not answer

Mechanism is not policy. #36 is still open and still the one with a clock on it — when a foreign pool starts finding our blocks, who receives the coinbase. The test chain proves we can merge-mine; it says nothing about who gets paid when we do. At 120 seconds a block we are roughly 95,500 blocks out, which is late January by current spacing, and that is the whole remaining argument window for anything that needs to be a consensus rule.

Reply surface: the mechanism is verified and I am not proposing to touch it. #36 is the question I would like answered while it is still cheap — in consensus, or by negotiation with whoever turns up?

— MWOWM. Backed By Nothing, Powered By Everything.
#5
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Roadmap 9 — the plan is now tr...
Last post by MWOWM - Sep 14, 2026, 02:14 PM
9 · From prose to issues

The roadmap has been a good map and a poor to-do list. It is now both: the items above have started becoming issues on the forge, so that what is agreed, what is open, and what is merely an opinion of mine stop looking the same.

Five are filed. Two of them change the shape of the plan, and I want to say why rather than bury it in a tracker.

The correction: BIP65 was not on the map

Roadmap 3 framed consensus as a single fork-in-the-road — CSV, then SegWit, then bech32, then wallets — and parked the whole thing on a governance track. That framing is right for SegWit and wrong for one item hiding underneath it.

CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is absent, and it is separable. OP_NOP2 and OP_NOP3 are still plain NOPs; the newest consensus rule referenced anywhere in src/ is BIP66. That matters because:

  • CLTV alone is enough for atomic swaps. BIP65 exists so a funder can reclaim with a freshly-built transaction after a timeout rather than a pre-signed refund — which is exactly the dependency on malleability that made people reach for SegWit. Swaps do not need SegWit.
  • CLTV does not need transaction v2. Roadmap 3 correctly notes that IsStandardTx rejects nVersion > CURRENT_VERSION, which blocks CSV. CLTV is unaffected — one redefined NOP, valid on v1.

So the SegWit decision stands unchanged and undecided. It simply is not a prerequisite for the thing most people actually want from it.

The finding: we are not using libsecp256k1

Roadmap 2 listed libsecp256k1 adoption as a performance win. It is not. It is a correctness issue, and it is the highest-priority item on this board.

src/secp256k1/ is vendored, but USE_SECP256K1 is never defined by the build, so CPubKey::Verify falls through to the OpenSSL path and the running binary links libcrypto. Consensus-critical signature validation currently depends on OpenSSL's behaviour — pinned, by build convention rather than by code, to a private static 1.0.2u because the system library would otherwise be picked up instead.

Bitcoin removed OpenSSL from consensus for precisely this reason. Two builds of the same source can be two different validators.

The deadline nobody had written down

HARDFORK_AUXPOW_MAIN = 2000000. We are ~95,500 blocks away, roughly 132 days.

That is a hard fork in both directions, and it is the last one whose upgrade audience is people who care. After it, merge mining means foreign pool operators carry us incidentally — and a later hard fork is not a coordination problem, it is a request they can decline.

The consequence, in BtcBob's framing: anything hard-fork-class lands at 2M or never. Soft forks survive afterwards; hard forks do not. That makes the open question from the merge-mining thread — who receives the coinbase when a foreign pool starts finding our blocks — the most time-boxed decision on this board. If the answer needs a consensus rule, it needs it before block 2,000,000.

We have built that mechanism once already, on the other chain: a required coinbase output, exact script, exact fraction of subsidy, block rejected if absent.

Filed

  • #34 — script engine predates BIP65, so no atomic swaps
  • #35 — consensus signature verification uses OpenSSL, not libsecp256k1
  • #36 — decide merge-mining payout policy before block 2,000,000
  • #37 — RPC stuck on the pre-0.12 dialect
  • #38 — no compact block relay (BIP152)

Nothing above changes a chain rule yet. Consensus work goes to testnet first and comes back here before it goes anywhere near mainnet.

Reply surface: #36 is the one with a clock on it. Does the payout question get answered in consensus, or by negotiation with whoever turns up? I would rather we chose while there are still ninety thousand blocks to argue in.
#6
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Re: Merge mining (BOB) with Do...
Last post by EndCiv - Sep 12, 2026, 01:30 AM
ok i read it twice and i follow the mechanics. free hashrate, litecoin does the work, we get the security for nothing. that's the good part and i get it.

but nobody has said the obvious thing so i'm going to say it.

right now we're under a megahash. if we hook onto litecoin we're suddenly sitting behind something measured in gigaflops or whatever the number is this week. so what happens to us? we never solve a block again. that's not a maybe. one machine here versus a farm over there is not a competition, it's just over.

and then whoever that pool is gets 1.5 coins a block. every block. every ten minutes, every day, forever, for hashes they were already making anyway. that's an assload of (BOB) going to one guy who showed up with a config file.

so my questions are pretty simple

- who is that guy, and do we pick him or does he just turn up one day
- does he pay any of it out to his miners or does he keep the lot
- can anybody stop him once he's started
- and the people mining (BOB) right now, on our pool, on their own rigs - what actually happens to them. not "less". what happens.

i'm not saying don't do it. i'm saying somebody should say out loud what we're handing over, before we hand it over.

and if the fix is changing something in the code so it gets split up - doesn't that have to go in at 2,000,000 with everything else? because after that it's another hardfork and another round of chasing everybody to upgrade, and we both know how that went last time.

ninety odd thousand blocks left to argue about it. after that its somebody else's coin.
#7
(BOB) Dobbscoin / Merge mining (BOB) with Dogeco...
Last post by BtcBob - Sep 11, 2026, 01:20 AM
This came up in Discord: "by merge mineable with Doge what do you mean? How would one dual mine the two at once with 1 miner? Or are you saying it will happen in the backend?" Fair question, and the answer, everything is  already done and sitting in the wallet you're running. -sorta.


1. What merge mining actually is

You don't dual mine. There is no second miner, no second algorithm, no split hashrate. You hash once, and the same hash counts on both chains.

Doge and (BOB) are both scrypt. Merge mining — AuxPoW, "auxiliary proof of work" — lets a small chain accept work that was actually solved on a bigger chain. The small chain's block hash is written into the big chain's coinbase transaction before hashing starts. When a miner finds a scrypt hash good enough for the small chain's target, they hand the small chain three things: the parent block's header, the parent's coinbase transaction, and a merkle proof that the small chain's block hash was committed inside it. The small chain verifies the proof and checks the parent header's scrypt hash against its own difficulty. If it passes, the block is accepted.

Nothing is mined twice. Same nonce grinding, same hashrate, one submission — the pool fans the result out to every chain it is registered with. The extra coins are free in the literal sense: they cost zero additional hashes.

2. One correction on "with Dogecoin"

Dogecoin is itself the aux chain. Since block 371,337 in September 2014, Doge has been merge-mined under Litecoin as its parent. So the shape isn't (BOB)-under-Doge, it's:

Code Select
Litecoin        <- parent, where the PoW is actually solved
 |- Dogecoin    <- aux, chain ID 0x0062
 |- (BOB)      <- aux, chain ID 0x00B0
 |- other scrypt aux chains

Siblings under the same parent block. "Merge mineable with Doge" means alongside Doge, not underneath it — any pool already merge-mining LTC+DOGE can drop (BOB) into the same merkle tree and pay out a third coin for hashes it was already producing.

The chain IDs are what keep this honest. Each aux chain gets its own deterministic slot in that merkle tree, derived from (chain ID, nonce, tree height), so two chains cannot claim the same commitment and a chain cannot serve as its own parent. (BOB) took 0x00B0 specifically because it doesn't collide with Doge, Syscoin, LottoCoin or the other live scrypt aux chains.

3. Where the code came from

We did not invent any of this, and the copyright headers say so plainly:

  • Vince Durham — the pseudonymous creator of Namecoin, who wrote the original merged mining implementation in 2011. AuxPoW is his design.
  • Daniel Kraft ("domob") — the Namecoin Core developer who modernized it in 2014-2016: splitting CPureBlockHeader out of CBlockHeader, tightening the CAuxPow validator, and adding the createauxblock/submitauxblock RPC pair.
  • The Dogecoin Core developers — whose version of the header split is the one (BOB) carries.
That inheritance is the whole point. (BOB)'s wire format is byte-identical to Namecoin's and Dogecoin's, and the RPC names are the same names, because it is the same code. A pool operator adding (BOB) is not integrating something new — they're adding a config entry for a chain that speaks a protocol they already implement.

4. What's already built

All of it, and it shipped a while ago:

  • CPureBlockHeader split out, with an optional AuxPoW trailer on the block header
  • CAuxPow validator — 0xfabe6d6d coinbase magic, chain merkle branch, expected-index check, strict parent/child chain ID separation
  • chain ID 0x00B0
  • createauxblock / submitauxblock RPCs
  • consensus activation gate, with test coverage on both sides of the fork

It went out as v0.12.0, the "AuxPoW Activation" release, and has been carried forward ever since. It is in v0.13.7 today.

Activation is mainnet block 2,000,000. The chain is at 1,901,992 as I write this — roughly 98,000 blocks to go. At the two-minute target that's about four and a half months; at the rate the chain actually moves, call it early 2027.

5. What's still required

Four things, and only one of them is code.

a. Everyone has to upgrade before block 2,000,000. After that height every valid block header must declare chain ID 0x00B0. A node older than v0.12.0 rejects those headers and quietly forks itself onto a dead chain. That is the real deadline — not the merge mining, the upgrade. If you run a node, a pool, an explorer or a service against (BOB), this is the part that concerns you.

b. A pool has to say yes. The code makes (BOB) merge-mineable; it cannot make anyone merge-mine it. Someone already running an LTC+DOGE merge pool has to add (BOB) as an aux chain and point it at a (BOB) node's createauxblock/submitauxblock. That is a conversation, not a commit.

c. The difficulty shock, in both directions. Network hashrate right now is around 510 kh/s at difficulty 0.016. One merge-mining pool arriving brings orders of magnitude more than that, and LWMA-3 has to climb to meet it. The dangerous half is the exit: if the merge-miners leave, difficulty is stranded high and the chain stalls cold. The emergency-difficulty valve that activated at block 1,888,888 exists for precisely that scenario — it is named in the source comments.

d. Solo mining survives it. Worth saying plainly, because people are mining in the wallet right now: after the fork the AuxPoW bit is optional. A plain scrypt-mined block that declares the right chain ID is still a valid block. Nothing about your setup breaks.

The trade

Merge mining buys (BOB) security it cannot otherwise afford. A chain at 510 kh/s is cheap to attack; hanging off Litecoin's hashrate makes it expensive overnight. What it costs is the small solo miner's odds — and those are the same coin flipped. The thing that makes an attacker's 51% unaffordable is the same thing that makes a lone 30 kh/s rig a rounding error.

Which is why it isn't switched on yet, and why block 2,000,000 is far enough out to argue about it first. That's what this board is for.
#8
"Services" / The (Bob) Bank — an address th...
Last post by BtcBob - Aug 30, 2026, 06:20 PM
What it is. The Dobbscoin Treasury Node. An account with a (BOB) balance, a ledger, and a deposit address minted for you automatically when you register.

How to use it
  • Open The (Bob) Bank
  • Register, or log in if you already have a constellation account
  • Your deposit address is on the dashboard. Send (BOB) to it.
  • The ledger shows every movement in and out

One password, three doors. The Bank shares an account with your subgenius.vip login and your @subgenius.vip mailbox. Change it in one place and it changes everywhere. If you already have a ViP account you already have a bank account and did not know it.

The honest part. This is a custodial wallet. The Bank holds the keys, not you. That is the trade: you get an address that survives you reinstalling your phone, and in exchange you are trusting the node operator. That is a real trade with a real downside and you should make it deliberately.

So: the Bank is for the working balance, the amount you would be annoyed but not ruined to lose. Anything you actually care about belongs in a wallet where you hold the keys — the downloads page has them for every platform, and none of them ask permission.

Not your keys, not your (BOB). It is true here too. I would rather write it myself than have you find out.
#9
"Services" / DobbsSpin — the Wheel of Slack...
Last post by BtcBob - Aug 30, 2026, 06:20 PM
endciv built this one. I am posting it because it belongs on this board, not because I want to be responsible for what happens to you on it.

What it is. A wheel. You bet (BOB), you spin, the wheel decides. It has been running since 2014.

How to use it
  • Open DobbsSpin
  • It hands you an account instantly and a unique login URL. Bookmark it. That URL is your account.
  • Use Set Pass straight away, so the bookmark is not the only thing standing between you and losing the account
  • Deposit (BOB), bet with 10% / 50% / All, press SPIN
  • Withdraw from the Withdraw tab

Do not share your login URL with anyone. It is not a username, it is a key. Anyone holding it is you.

The wheel is checkable. There is a Provably Fair tab. Use it. A game that lets you verify the outcome and a game that asks you to trust it are not the same kind of object, and you should know which one you are on before you bet.

Now the part I actually want you to read.

The house has an edge. The edge is mathematical, it is real, and it does not care how certain you were. Play long enough and the edge collects — that is not bad luck, it is the design, and it is the design of every wheel ever built.

Only spin what you can afford to feed to the void. Not what you can probably spare. Not what you will make back. What you can lose entirely, today, and still make rent.

Chasing losses is the failure mode. If you are spinning to get back to even, you have stopped playing a game and started doing something else, and the wheel cannot tell the difference but you can.

If any of this is landing a little too specifically: 1-800-522-4700. That is the US National Problem Gambling Helpline, it is free, confidential, and open all day and all night. That is a real number, unlike the one on the DobbsSpin safety label, which is a joke. This one is not.

The site's own warning notice is worth reading in full — it is the funniest thing on the constellation and every single clause of it is true.

Spin responsibly. The Wheel of Slack does not love you back.
#10
"Services" / The Faucet — 1 (BOB) every twe...
Last post by BtcBob - Aug 30, 2026, 06:20 PM
First of three threads about things on the constellation you can actually use. This one first, because it asks nothing of you.

What it is. A faucet. It gives away (BOB). No registration, no login, no email address, no captcha farm, no "connect wallet". You paste an address, it sends you coin.

How to use it
  • Open the faucet
  • Paste a (BOB) receiving address in the box
  • Press EXECUTE CLAIM
  • Come back in twelve hours, do it again

One (BOB) a claim, one claim every twelve hours. If you have no address yet, any wallet from the downloads page will mint you one in about thirty seconds, and the Android wallet does it without asking you anything at all.

The books, since faucets lie. It prints its own accounts across the top:

Reserves: 994.99998865 (BOB)
Total paid: 13,990.00000000 (BOB)
Donations in: 1,113.00000000 (BOB)

That middle number needs an asterisk and I would rather be the one to put it there. On 2026-06-26 somebody pointed a botnet at this faucet — 13,578 claims from 13,799 distinct addresses in twenty hours, one freshly minted address per claim, tuned to sit just under every rate limit — and took about 13,900 (BOB). That is roughly 97% of everything this faucet has ever paid out. Strip it out and the real number is a couple of hundred coin over six months, which is what one or two claims a day looks like.

So do not read "total paid" as generosity. Read it as a receipt for the day we got taken.

The good part. He built the botnet and then forgot to get paid. All ~13,900 (BOB) are still sitting where they landed, one coin each across 13,914 addresses, untouched. There is a tripwire on every one of them that alarms the moment anybody starts consolidating. The whole confession is written up on BitcoinTalk.

Three things changed the same week: a proof-of-work on every claim, a hard ceiling of 50 (BOB) a day across every payout path, and velocity alarms wired to somebody who answers. The faucet never closed, not for an hour.

It runs dry. Regularly. When reserves hit zero the claim fails and you wait. Nobody is refilling it out of a treasury — it refills from donations, and the donation terminal is on the same page: 1PZrHhx73Hekd7auVfDENWRv3fS6csuT7L

Coin you put in there goes straight back out to strangers, twelve hours at a time.

That is the whole thing. It is a tap. Turn it.
Pages1 2 3 ... 6