|
Title: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 28, 2013, 06:10:18 PM Max 2 votes in poll and allowed to change.
http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/non-make/fe/fe_1131323_600.jpg What if maxmint's idea was expanded to include the following?:
Basically, all else remains the same, regarding how the site's currently structured, albeit minor changes if, or when, warranted. A physical product is provided at the end. Purchase is made with bitcoins residing in escrow. If the total cost is less than the pool, then the remaining bitcoins will be returned to last purchaser. All early purchasers will have their desired linked paged readily available. Example, BFL, as the first purchaser, would have a linked image on a page for only BTC1.1 initial cost, with coins returned once the next spot is purchased. Prominently displayed on the main page would be BitPay, a Z51, the name and image of the dealership, the escrow service, and possibly some other viable Bitcoin entity, of which the latter would pay for placement at a nominal cost, basically to only cover actual domain name and hosting cost for one year (~$100 USD, I'm thinkin'). Bottom line, there would be minimum lost for most, if not all, involved during each transaction, for all will be getting value during the entire process. At the end of the day, some lucky person will own a 2014 Z51 Corvette, and the dealership will forever be known as the entity who sold the first automobile accepting Bitcoin as payment. During the course of the campaign, the dealership could use social media as a marketing tool at zero cost, to coincide with this virtually zero risk campaign. More insight as discussion ensues. If the model proves viable, imagine the possibilities: BTCMansion; BTCF350; BTC40Acres. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 28, 2013, 07:08:53 PM Bumped, to state that I just voted yes to see the current tally.
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: ingrownpocket on January 28, 2013, 07:14:29 PM I'm having a hard time to understand your logic.
Site owner profit < Last player bid The last bidder would be paying more than the prize is worth, since the money used to fund the prize is less than the amount paid by the last bidder. Unless the guy running the campaign is willing to lose money, it's not viable. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 28, 2013, 08:58:17 PM I'm having a hard time to understand your logic. Site owner profit < Last player bid The last bidder would be paying more than the prize is worth, since the money used to fund the prize is less than the amount paid by the last bidder. Unless the guy running the campaign is willing to lose money, it's not viable. Keeping asking questions, all, for I'm sure I'm able to come up with a unique answer. For sake of argument, suppose the last person to purchase was planning on buying this Vette anyway. Further suppose that the dealership is offering some undisclosed discount. Even if the last person to purchase doesn't get the above, the premium paid may be worth it for the right to be known as the guy who received the Vette via this route. The domain and hosting would be paid for five years to guarantee the maximum mileage on this particular campaign, of which would be linked via the subsequent campaigns. What I'm trying to relay is a completely new form of advertising/marketing. No Ponzi. No pyramid. No scam. Period! To be clear, this is also not an auction, hence refraining from using the word bid. I'm surprised to see maxmint has the original up for sale. I'm toying with the idea of obtaining it. The one aspect I would not allow is something like the following: Butterfly Labs sucks balls. It's not that I condemn or condone said practice, but it simply won't work for a viable entity, one of which would bring further awareness to Bitcoin, for the use of Bitcoin is the only way this model would work. All other means of transferring money would simply take too long, coupled with the other known negativities. Toss me some more questions, for I'm on a roll here. And don't be afraid to express any drawbacks as well. ~Bruno K~ Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: ingrownpocket on January 28, 2013, 09:45:12 PM It would still involve in giving away the 'prize' almost for free.
The only advantage for the sponsor would be advertising/marketing. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Vod on January 28, 2013, 09:59:02 PM I'm surprised to see maxmint has the original up for sale. I'm toying with the idea of obtaining it. You're surprised? It's over and done - the profit has been made already. The site would take a couple hours to code - you are going to see copy-cat sites in a few days. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 29, 2013, 12:14:29 AM I'm surprised to see maxmint has the original up for sale. I'm toying with the idea of obtaining it. You're surprised? It's over and done - the profit has been made already. The site would take a couple hours to code - you are going to see copy-cat sites in a few days. An exact copy-cat sites won't cut the mustard. They would have the potential to bring negititivity to Bitcoin, whereupon my idea, implemented corrected, would bring positive awareness. Now, I'm seeing funds are being returned. Not sure why, but can surmise. I'll have to get up to speed and read the latest on the other thread, plus take a look at what's going on at Reddit. I'll do that after I address concerns over at the Bitcoin 100 thread. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: hackjealousy on January 29, 2013, 03:25:44 AM I'm having a hard time to understand your logic. Site owner profit < Last player bid The last bidder would be paying more than the prize is worth, since the money used to fund the prize is less than the amount paid by the last bidder. Unless the guy running the campaign is willing to lose money, it's not viable. Keeping asking questions, all, for I'm sure I'm able to come up with a unique answer. For sake of argument, suppose the last person to purchase was planning on buying this Vette anyway. Further suppose that the dealership is offering some undisclosed discount. Even if the last person to purchase doesn't get the above, the premium paid may be worth it for the right to be known as the guy who received the Vette via this route. The domain and hosting would be paid for five years to guarantee the maximum mileage on this particular campaign, of which would be linked via the subsequent campaigns. What I'm trying to relay is a completely new form of advertising/marketing. No Ponzi. No pyramid. No scam. Period! To be clear, this is also not an auction, hence refraining from using the word bid. [...] It only works if you are willing to sell the final object for half its worth. Or, equivalently, if the purchaser is willing to purchase the object for twice its worth. Consider the following. In round 0, the current option is 1 BTC. When sold, the house gets 1 BTC profit. In round 1, the option will be a BTC, where a is the ratio that we are using. (For example, if the price increases by %10 each time, then a = 1.1 .) When sold, the house receives (a - 1) / 2 profit and the option owner receives (a - 1) / 2 profit. (In our example, the profit is (1.1 - 1) / 2 = 0.05. That is, the house gets 5% of the profit of each sale and the option owner gets %5 of the profit of that sale.) In round 2, the option will be a^2 BTC and the house (and option owner) profit for this round is ((a - 1) / 2) * a. Continuing in this fashion, we have in round n, the option is a^n and the profit is ((a - 1) / 2) * a^(n - 1). The total profit for the house is the sum of the house profits for each round: H = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) + ((a - 1) / 2) * a + ((a - 1) / 2) * a^2 + ... + ((a - 1) / 2) * a^(n - 1) = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) * (1 + a + a^2 + ... + a^(n - 1)) = 1 + ((a - 1) / 2) * ((a^n - 1) / (a - 1)) = 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2 To summarize, the option will cost a^n to purchase and, when it is sold the total house profit will be 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2. If the value of the final object is V, then it does not make sense to purchase that object for more than V. That is, we would expect a person to participate in round n if a^n <= V. At this point though, we have 1 + (a^n - 1) / 2 < a^n <= V. Or, roughly, the house profit is about half what is needed to actually purchase the object at that point. I guess it is possible that people would play beyond the time when a^n > V. (Actually, of course they would given the magnificent gem as an example.) However there is little difference between the gem and this example. The last person to hold the gem just gets ripped off and feels like an idiot. The person to get the Vette just spent twice as much as he should of to get it and feels like an idiot. *shrug* Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 29, 2013, 05:40:21 AM @hackjealousy
Maybe I'm tired, but I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. You clearly know that the price increases only 10%, and you're using an example of it doubling, but to what end? Look forward to your reply, bud. ~Bruno K~ Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: hackjealousy on January 29, 2013, 06:20:39 AM Maybe I'm tired, but I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. You clearly know that the price increases only 10%, and you're using an example of it doubling, but to what end? No, not doubling, just going up by 10% each time. We start with 1 BTC. The next price would be 110% of 1 or (1.1) * 1 = 1.1. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * 1, or (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.21. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 or (1.1) * (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.331, etc. ... That is, the Nth price is (1.1)^N. Make sense? Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 29, 2013, 11:20:14 PM Maybe I'm tired, but I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. You clearly know that the price increases only 10%, and you're using an example of it doubling, but to what end? No, not doubling, just going up by 10% each time. We start with 1 BTC. The next price would be 110% of 1 or (1.1) * 1 = 1.1. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * 1, or (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.21. The next price is 110% of (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 or (1.1) * (1.1) * (1.1) * 1 = 1.331, etc. ... That is, the Nth price is (1.1)^N. Make sense? At one time, I would have seen the light without it even being brought to my attention, as you so kindly done, hackj. And to think I got a perfect 800 on my SAT in math. After careful thought, this project is still viable, albeit needs tweaking. I'll come back to this at a later date. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Third Way on January 30, 2013, 12:57:46 AM Original idea do not steal ::)
How much are you willing to bet to take everyone elses money? The pot starts at 0+1(or X)BTC the next person can put in 2 or 3 BTC to take whatever the initial X is then someone may 'steal' the first bidders BTC by tacking on a larger ammount like Maxmint's BTC when the pyramid is unsustainable either of 2 things happens, the initiator of the pyuramid runs with the money or the last person to bid takes all the pot minus 10% which goes to whomever started the pyramid, as a 'fee' of sorts? In my head it made much better sense. But at least the prize is actual BTC not some 'gem'. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 02:22:55 AM Original idea do not steal ::) How much are you willing to bet to take everyone elses money? The pot starts at 0+1(or X)BTC the next person can put in 2 or 3 BTC to take whatever the initial X is then someone may 'steal' the first bidders BTC by tacking on a larger ammount like Maxmint's BTC when the pyramid is unsustainable either of 2 things happens, the initiator of the pyuramid runs with the money or the last person to bid takes all the pot minus 10% which goes to whomever started the pyramid, as a 'fee' of sorts? In my head it made much better sense. But at least the prize is actual BTC not some 'gem'. I still say this is a viable endeavor, provided a physical item is the end result. Don't you think so? Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Third Way on January 30, 2013, 03:37:37 AM Well I can't really think of anything besides my Magic the Gathering manabase collection, or the BTC themselves as a price, or ASICs ;)
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 03:59:54 AM Well I can't really think of anything besides my Magic the Gathering manabase collection, or the BTC themselves as a price, or ASICs ;) I can think of a myriad of products that would make this endeavor viable and, at the end, nobody can lose. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Third Way on January 30, 2013, 04:07:19 AM I can't think of anything because I'd be lying. I have nothing to offer and no capability to build a website, much less set it up to work by receiving bitcoins and halting transfers until 6 confirmations.
But by all means, go ahead and try my idea. If it works out for you please send BTC -> 1BYJKxpntNn6TZbM5M5CWkEb8vr8vDcBrr Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 04:19:46 AM I can't think of anything because I'd be lying. I have nothing to offer and no capability to build a website, much less set it up to work by receiving bitcoins and halting transfers until 6 confirmations. But by all means, go ahead and try my idea. If it works out for you please send BTC -> 1BYJKxpntNn6TZbM5M5CWkEb8vr8vDcBrr Actually, my comments were all in reference to the Bitcoin Gem site. Is there somebody here who can program a similar site? Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Third Way on January 30, 2013, 04:28:39 AM Sent BTC anyway? :-[
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: ingrownpocket on January 30, 2013, 08:57:50 AM I can't think of anything because I'd be lying. I have nothing to offer and no capability to build a website, much less set it up to work by receiving bitcoins and halting transfers until 6 confirmations. But by all means, go ahead and try my idea. If it works out for you please send BTC -> 1BYJKxpntNn6TZbM5M5CWkEb8vr8vDcBrr Actually, my comments were all in reference to the Bitcoin Gem site. Is there somebody here who can program a similar site? Yes. The site is actually very simple. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: arklan on January 30, 2013, 12:39:00 PM i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv?
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: ingrownpocket on January 30, 2013, 03:19:28 PM i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Who's going to offer the prize? Not me ;D And it has to be quite big, at least $3,000 (155 BTC). Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 05:15:01 PM i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Exactly what I had in mind--smaller ticket items of value. The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value. Upon writing that last sentence, I now need to clarify. I'm not advocating fencing hot items, though it would work. Seriously, I want part of this action, with all profits going to administering the new Bitcoin 100. i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Who's going to offer the prize? Not me ;D And it has to be quite big, at least $3,000 (155 BTC). I have both aspects covered, and it's prizes (plural). I'm leaning toward ~$100 minimum prizes, but a little lower would work just a well. And yes, offering a house is not outside the realm of possibility, but a new car would be more challenging to procure, though a quality used car, or a classic, is not out of the question. If I can't partner up with maxmint on this, then I would most definitely seek out edd, or go it alone, but prefer a partner to split the tasks, couple with having more cred for the project. The name of the enterprise will exclude the word Bitcoin, but Bitcoin, of course, is the only payment option available that'll allows the endeavor to function. All other payment options on the planet fall short for a myriad of reasons. ~Bruno K~ Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: hackjealousy on January 30, 2013, 05:37:53 PM [...] The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value. [...] Keep in mind my analysis wasn't completely generic and assumed that the profits on the sale of each option were split equally between the house and the option owner. If you re-run the numbers using different ratios you will come up with different final values. Roughly, if you split the profit on the sale of each option with P percent going to the house and 100 - P percent going to the option owner, the house will have made P percent of the final value of the object when the option price reaches the value of the object. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 06:02:27 PM [...] The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value. [...] Keep in mind my analysis wasn't completely generic and assumed that the profits on the sale of each option were split equally between the house and the option owner. If you re-run the numbers using different ratios you will come up with different final values. Roughly, if you split the profit on the sale of each option with P percent going to the house and 100 - P percent going to the option owner, the house will have made P percent of the final value of the object when the option price reaches the value of the object. I did consider adjusting the percentage payout, but at 10% with the 5% split seems, and has proven, to be a nice benchmark. But what if a random percentage payout was introduced, still guaranteeing a minimum 5% ROI? It'll be between 5% and 10%, cutting into the houses percentage. You may get 5.2%, 7.43%, 9.61%, etc. Granted, if all items were moved this way, now we're looking at only 25%, oppose to 50%, mathematically, available for the item at its closing--24 hours after final sale without a buyer. To make it more interesting, only some items would include the random % payout, not disclosed at the beginning, only being revealed after the first purchase, or at some point early in the process being evident by the rounded up profit when sold. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: arklan on January 30, 2013, 06:20:09 PM i love the sound of this more and more. i'd love to help out if i can.
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: John (John K.) on January 30, 2013, 06:31:08 PM Sounds great. Will post more input after some sleep.
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 07:23:08 PM Everything I penned to date on this thread was done soon prior to reading the following, but has no bearing on what I envision.
Bitcoin gem, version 1: the aftermath Some of you might have seen the price of the bitcoin gem skyrocketing to 126 bitcoins (http://bitcoingem.com/v1.php) 2 days ago. This first version of the bitcoin gem had a vicious flaw: there was no exit point. The price just went up and up and I did not want to produce a really big loser at the the end of the chain. That's why I stepped in, refunded the last 2 buyers and took down the website. Some say that was the dumbest move ever since I could have made a really big cut here. But it just did not feel right for me. Of course, I would have loved to see how far the gem would go, especially since there was so much traffic coming in. Would it reach 500? 1,000? 10,000? Some of you suspected that 126 btc was the end of the line and that people wouldn't want to buy any more. I'd say it was just the other way round. Traffic to the site was about to explode and I guess the price would have exploded too. But I'm really happy that I could stop the gem at this point. Bitcoin gem, version 2 I then thought about how I could eliminate the problem of runaway prices. Some suggested a upper limit, but I guess a hard limit just would not work because the closer the limit gets, the less people would still buy. So I implemented a random reset of the gem, the odds for a reset are 6.25%. Basically, any purchase can trigger a reset and can put the gems price back to the start. I also raised the profit for buyers (10%) and lowered the house edge (2%). This means you can make a 10% profit with winning odds of 93.75%. So unless version 1 of the gem (where there was only one biiiiig loser), the new gem on average makes 15 winners and 1 loser. That feels much better for me. In the end, I'd like this to be a fun game. I just reopened the bitcoin gem at http://www.bitcoingem.com (http://www.bitcoingem.com). Your comments and suggestions are, as always, welcome. This maxmint is a class-act. I like him. If structured, then marketed correctly, a modified version of his idea has the potential of furthering Bitcoin awareness in a positive light. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: arklan on January 30, 2013, 08:10:11 PM agreed, mr gage.
Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: rickylford on January 30, 2013, 08:25:18 PM I'm quite versed in PHP and MySQL and have been designing/programming websites for about 10 years now. I'm slowly getting used to the bitcoint API, etc. used by blockchain.info. I'd like to be the first to pony up an offer to help out with the project. I have web hosting the site can go on, but at the moment, can't lay down any money towards any of the upfront costs of the project. Here's what I can offer:
- PHP/MySQL development - Bitcoin API integration (it'll take me a little while to get it all down, but nonetheless, it'll get done) - Website Hosting for the duration of the project, however long that turns out to be I'm not interested in being paid up front for any work I do, as I want in on this for the long haul just as you do. If you'd like to discuss this in any further detail in private, please send me a PM or add me to Skype. My Skype username is the same as my username here on the forums. Take care! Ricky Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 30, 2013, 09:43:06 PM I'm quite versed in PHP and MySQL and have been designing/programming websites for about 10 years now. I'm slowly getting used to the bitcoint API, etc. used by blockchain.info. I'd like to be the first to pony up an offer to help out with the project. I have web hosting the site can go on, but at the moment, can't lay down any money towards any of the upfront costs of the project. Here's what I can offer: - PHP/MySQL development - Bitcoin API integration (it'll take me a little while to get it all down, but nonetheless, it'll get done) - Website Hosting for the duration of the project, however long that turns out to be I'm not interested in being paid up front for any work I do, as I want in on this for the long haul just as you do. If you'd like to discuss this in any further detail in private, please send me a PM or add me to Skype. My Skype username is the same as my username here on the forums. Take care! Ricky For being a Newbie, you either have cred, or an excellent con. I'm leaning toward the former, disregarding the latter. PM sent. Did I mention that the end buyer could recognize a better ROI than all previous buyers or, for that matter, the vig the site collects? Matter-in-fact, it can be programmed it to somewhat guarantee it. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: John (John K.) on January 31, 2013, 06:17:45 AM .... Did I mention that the end buyer could recognize a better ROI than all previous buyers or, for that matter, the vig the site collects? Matter-in-fact, it can be programmed it to somewhat guarantee it. Is it due to the fact that tier based physical rewards exist? E.G: if the pot gets above 60 BTC the holder is guaranteed an ASIC, if 1000 BTC a good car etc? Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on January 31, 2013, 05:53:21 PM .... Did I mention that the end buyer could recognize a better ROI than all previous buyers or, for that matter, the vig the site collects? Matter-in-fact, it can be programmed it to somewhat guarantee it. Is it due to the fact that tier based physical rewards exist? E.G: if the pot gets above 60 BTC the holder is guaranteed an ASIC, if 1000 BTC a good car etc? I guess you'll have to wait till it's available to find out, John, for it's currently in development. We will not be accepting any pre-orders until Batch #1 has been tested. (humor at Avalon's expense) Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: edd on February 03, 2013, 03:43:20 PM i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Exactly what I had in mind--smaller ticket items of value. The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value. Upon writing that last sentence, I now need to clarify. I'm not advocating fencing hot items, though it would work. Seriously, I want part of this action, with all profits going to administering the new Bitcoin 100. i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Who's going to offer the prize? Not me ;D And it has to be quite big, at least $3,000 (155 BTC). I have both aspects covered, and it's prizes (plural). I'm leaning toward ~$100 minimum prizes, but a little lower would work just a well. And yes, offering a house is not outside the realm of possibility, but a new car would be more challenging to procure, though a quality used car, or a classic, is not out of the question. If I can't partner up with maxmint on this, then I would most definitely seek out edd, or go it alone, but prefer a partner to split the tasks, couple with having more cred for the project. The name of the enterprise will exclude the word Bitcoin, but Bitcoin, of course, is the only payment option available that'll allows the endeavor to function. All other payment options on the planet fall short for a myriad of reasons. ~Bruno K~ Bruno, I would be honored to help out with this project if maxmint isn't interested. I'll be PMing you shortly after penning this reply. As John pointed out, I think tiered prizes are the way to go. Start with something relatively inexpensive, like a t-shirt. Once the price exceeds a certain level, the prize would change accordingly. Personally, I'd love to see this car (http://www.wikispeed.com/Affordable) eventually awarded to some lucky player! In addition, I don't believe it's necessary to guarantee the last player receives a prize equal to or greater than the investment. If the game should end while between tiers (e.g., before the second tier prize might be awarded but after the investment exceeds the value of a t-shirt), the final player would still receive the less valuable prize, have their website of choice permanently advertised/linked to on the site, and have the knowledge that their bitcoins are going to a good cause - Bitcoin100. As Bitcoinduit, bitciongem.com, SatoshiDoshi, and other ponzi based games have demonstrated, bitcoiners are more than willing to play even knowing there might not be any payoff whatsoever. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on February 03, 2013, 05:31:56 PM i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Exactly what I had in mind--smaller ticket items of value. The only way a bigger ticket item would work is if it was being unloaded at a cost below 50% its value. Upon writing that last sentence, I now need to clarify. I'm not advocating fencing hot items, though it would work. Seriously, I want part of this action, with all profits going to administering the new Bitcoin 100. i think it'd be wise to start smaller - a lower priced physical item, that is. i mean that car is what, 50k usd or something? why not an item for a few hundred first, or a couple grand? maybe a big tv? Who's going to offer the prize? Not me ;D And it has to be quite big, at least $3,000 (155 BTC). I have both aspects covered, and it's prizes (plural). I'm leaning toward ~$100 minimum prizes, but a little lower would work just a well. And yes, offering a house is not outside the realm of possibility, but a new car would be more challenging to procure, though a quality used car, or a classic, is not out of the question. If I can't partner up with maxmint on this, then I would most definitely seek out edd, or go it alone, but prefer a partner to split the tasks, couple with having more cred for the project. The name of the enterprise will exclude the word Bitcoin, but Bitcoin, of course, is the only payment option available that'll allows the endeavor to function. All other payment options on the planet fall short for a myriad of reasons. ~Bruno K~ Bruno, I would be honored to help out with this project if maxmint isn't interested. I'll be PMing you shortly after penning this reply. As John pointed out, I think tiered prizes are the way to go. Start with something relatively inexpensive, like a t-shirt. Once the price exceeds a certain level, the prize would change accordingly. Personally, I'd love to see this car (http://www.wikispeed.com/Affordable) eventually awarded to some lucky player! In addition, I don't believe it's necessary to guarantee the last player receives a prize equal to or greater than the investment. If the game should end while between tiers (e.g., before the second tier prize might be awarded but after the investment exceeds the value of a t-shirt), the final player would still receive the less valuable prize, have their website of choice permanently advertised/linked to on the site, and have the knowledge that their bitcoins are going to a good cause - Bitcoin100. As Bitcoinduit, bitciongem.com, SatoshiDoshi, and other ponzi based games have demonstrated, bitcoiners are more than willing to play even knowing there might not be any payoff whatsoever. Awaiting your PM, albeit my reply may be of a disappointment to you. The key element I'm hoping to introduce is that the last person doesn't feel victimized. They may not feel bad if paying BTC1 for a BTC0.5 tee shirt, but doling out BTC10 for a BTC5 chainsaw would bother most. Granted, with the current model offered up by maxmint, the last guy gets nothing, whereas all those that came before him reaped, including the house. With the model I'm proposing, all concerns receive value. A randomized stop-point will be coded in so not to supercede between 10%-20% (inclusive) of any one item's value. Add an NPO to the mix, and you'll have a winner. Title: Re: (w/POLL) BTCZ51 (expanding upon maxmint's idea) Post by: Oldsport on February 17, 2013, 08:43:52 AM I'm producing a revamped version of this game. I've eliminated a lot of the issues that were a part of the original. It's going to be good, real good.
The picture will make sense, later. |
