|
Good luck everyone!
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
Project updates (ETH and more)1. Finally, one can play ETH on YOLOdice. I've been working on adding ETH for quite some time and I pushed the final lines of code earlier today. The bankroll will be increased soon. Right now ETH investments are private, although this will change later. 2. We now support bech32 addressed for Bitcoin withdrawals. Deposits from bech32 addresses are processed too. 3. Withdrawal fees now are more in-line with network fees. We never wanted to earn on withdrawals, so here you go. Right now BTC withdrawal fee is 0.00004800 BTC, LTC is 0.00080800 LTC. Cheapest among dice sites! 4. For ETH you can set your own gas price in Gwei More good things are coming, stay with us!
|
|
|
|
Hell yeah finally ethereum is here can't believe it's just a year since you started this and today with all prime dice issue yolodice is finally the best dice gambling site congrats ethan and team
Also as ethereum is implemented tomorrow does that mean finally we can invest in litecoin bankroll
Thanks for the warm words! Once ETH is done, we'll concentrate on 2 things: 1. adding in-site exchange 2. opening LTC, and later ETH investments I this it's going to be an exciting year :-) |
|
|
|
|
If everything goes OK (and it seems so), we'll add ETH tomorrow (Tuesday).
There will also be a couple of other changes: support for Bitcoin bech32 addresses, withdrawal fees proportional to the current network rates and a few other small improvements.
If you are going to play tomorrow, just note that there will be interruptions. We are not taking YD offline, but there will be restarts and "Operation suspended" issues. The Chat will be open all the time, so you'll not be lost in the dark.
Cheers,
Ethan
BTW: I am pretty excited too :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
unfortunately we had to limit the faucet for low-level users due to abuse. Someone has been spanning and orchestrating hundreds of connections just to claim satoshis and play with them, hoping to hit the withdrawal threshold.
If you are level 4 or higher, the faucet amounts are unchanged.
The other news is that I finished ETH implementation. It's working find on my own server and passes most of the tests already. Stay tuned for more news regarding ETH, I am pretty certain we'll be able to play ETH within a week.
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
|
The competition was really awesome, I am glad so many people joined us and had fun. Stay tuned, we'll try to bring more competitions soon.
The total prize pool we ended with was almost 204 LTC. Definitely our biggest competition so far!
Congratulations to the winners, kudos to all participants!
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
I just checked the results and site profit has been making huuuuuge swings. It seems that JohnLocke lost ~140 LTC at some point, but recovered to +4.5 LTC. Wow. It seems like top-players are really well-funded. @dooglus, congrats on your result so far! It looks like this competition is getting really crazy :-) |
|
|
|
I guess the competition has been pretty successful, YD jumped on top of the "Weekly Top 10" dice sites by https://dicesites.com/If you haven't joined (yet), take a look here: https://yolodice.com/#bonusThe prize pool seems to stay well over 100 LTC. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
Small UI suggestion,
Change "Withdraw now" to "Withdraw later" or some other variation of "later" when the batch withdraw method is selected instead of instant. "Now" gives the impression that the withdraw will be sent immediately, like the instant method but the batch method does not work that way.
I don't think this is some sort of breakout feature , it's pretty obvious i see what you are pointing towards but currently it isn't a break out feature Thus " Small UI suggestion" Thanks, noted and changed! The button has no "now" added to it. I don't want to add any extra logic to button names, so a simple "Withdraw" should do the trick. Thanks and cheers! Ethan |
|
|
|
Is this a bug? In the 'largest bets' list a lot of the bets are by a "hidden" player, but in the "last 7 days" list I see the same bets with "Sadie" next to them. If Sadie wants to hide you should hide her name in both lists!
If a player changes his privacy settings, some tables don't reflect this change immediately. We don't generate 7-day summary every few minutes and I guess this is what happened: someone changed the privacy setting, the tables that are refreshed more often got the change, while it took longer on other tables. But I'll keep my eye on it! It sounds like a reasonable explanation, but I don't think it's the correct one. Looking at the all-time largest bets for LTC, I see Sadie's 47, 48, and 49 bets showing up as "hidden" (check my previous screenshot to see that they belong to Sadie), but in the biggest LTC bets of the last 7 days I see a bunch of 36.65 LTC bets by "Sadie(149603)" - ie. not hidden. So even though days have passed since my previous screenshot, some of Sadie's big bets are "hidden" and some are not. You are right. In this particular table (top bets by value, all-time) I was using a wrong privacy setting. That's why there was inconsistency. I'll push the fix at the soonest opportunity! Thanks. Ethan |
|
|
|
Is this a bug? In the 'largest bets' list a lot of the bets are by a "hidden" player, but in the "last 7 days" list I see the same bets with "Sadie" next to them. If Sadie wants to hide you should hide her name in both lists!
If a player changes his privacy settings, some tables don't reflect this change immediately. We don't generate 7-day summary every few minutes and I guess this is what happened: someone changed the privacy setting, the tables that are refreshed more often got the change, while it took longer on other tables. But I'll keep my eye on it! Any update on adding LTC for investors in the bankroll  Hey any eta on ethereum being added as it's beem a while since it was announced
And also would like to know will it also have a private bankroll in starting like litecoin ?
We are mentally preparing for opening LTC investments. ETH takes longer than expected and it will start with a private bankroll too. We'll open investments to everyone later on. I have no ETA on this, but we are spending most of our time to bringing ETH to YD now. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
Now that Bitcoin Core, Electrum, and Samourai Wallet (and possibly others) support bech32, could you please again consider adding support to withdraw to bech32 addresses? I do not believe that this would be a cause of concern because the deposit addresses would remain nested P2SH segwit addresses, so the bankroll and user funds couldn't be identified from blockchain analysis.
Nested P2SH addresses (3......) are also one byte per output more expensive than creating bech32 outputs, and 23 bytes more expensive per consumed UTXO when used as input.
These features are best added while fees are low, so that when fees inevitably rise again, YOLOdice would already be prepared.
Yes, Bitcoin Core 0.16 supports bech32 natively, so we're one step closer. It also solves a few other issues that we need, so I guess we'll upgrade soon. Some testing is required though. Right now I have ETH integration being worked on, but I say definite "yes" to all the Bitcoin goodies. :-)
I think it makes the most sense to just switch to taking commission per bet. It's cleaner that way. Let the investors handle the variance so you don't have to. That's what you pay them for.
It would be clean indeed. All these confusing FAQ questions about investments could go away. I am not sure though how to handle rounding. Commission from a 100 satoshi bet would be less than 1 sat and we don't use floats anywere. For some purposes I am using "probabilistic rounding" (for the float in range [n,n+1], the closer it is to n+1, the higher probability of rounding to n+1, and not n). Maybe this would work. I'd have to check if using just floor() would make a significant difference. Thanks for the input! Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
I wonder if John is willing to share...
What happens if John and I end up both wagering the same at the top of the table? 1st and 2nd are supposed to get 40% and 20% of the prize pool - so would we both get 30%? Or how would it work? Hi, we need to quickly find a solution to this: if more than one person has the same amount wagered, their prizes will be added up and then split equally between them. So if 1st and 2nd place has the same amount wagered, each of the prizes would be e.g. (8 LTC + 4 LTC) / 2. Plus the prize pool bonus. Anyway, it does not seem to be justifiable to try to have exactly the same amount wagered as someone else, because you are just a single satoshi away from getting the higher prize. However, your opponent could react too and outbid you. Maybe it could be a nice problem for game theory - it's not a prisoner dilemma, but still :-) |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
we have moved everyone "up" in the spreadsheet, so that everyone got paid according to their current BT rank!
I am also thinking about re-opening the campaign to new members, just stay tuned.
Cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
I have another question:
It seems that some people get 30% of the house edge of the people they refer, and the people themselves can get 10% of the house edge if they place a few big bets. In combination, that's 40% of the house edge of those bets immediately going out. Since the site only takes 35% commission, and only on actual profits, not expected profits, isn't the house at some risk of insolvency? If the player gets lucky and wins a lot, the house makes nothing in commission but still has to pay out maybe 40% of the expected profit in rackback and referral fees. Even if the player runs true to form and loses exactly 1% of the amount they wager, the house still takes a loss on their play.
Seems to me it would be better for the house to charge commission per bet, not on net profit. That way the house isn't risking insolvency.
That's something we've been thinking about for a long time now. Our current commission rate (based on net profit) is a bit low compared to our spendings (rakeback, referral bonus based on house edge). Sure we do have an extra stake in bankroll (from our private investments) and have a "site buffer fund" from our profit so far, but still, what we have now is not perfect. It's also one of the reasone we are not opening investments in Litecoin - we might actually restructure the whole investment/commission/bankroll thing before. What I am saying here is not binding, but we had a few ideas: 1. Just increase the commission rate. Right now it's 35%. However increasing it still keeps us depending on site profit, and could leave us for months without any income, but with costs. Supporting multiple coins mitigates the issue a bit since our income sources could be diversified. But again, it's not perfect. I'd rather have something that is more stable and predictable. 2. Pay Referral bonus and Rakeback directly from bankroll. It would protect us from costs based on "expected profit" for sure. But honestly I find it messy from investors' point of view. It's not transparent at all, you cannot verify site profit any more. Bankroll just leaks coins without any transparency. 3. Something you mentioned and I was thinking before: move to "per bet commission" only or "per bet" & "net profit" combo. So, for every bet we'd take a small commission, n0% of house edge, that would cover all referral and rakeback expenses. It's independent of site profit, so the site's internal budget is definitely more stable. Everything is still verifiable (well, rounding on small bets might still be an issue). Easy to code (much easier than the whole "commission" thing). 3a. We could move to the "per bet" commission model only This would remove the need for weekly commission. Maybe 40%-45% commission would be totally sufficient. It's simpler, it's clean and obvious. The only issue is that the risk is moved towards the investors - if site profit goes down, thay are hit by both the players AND commission. But on the other hand, if site profit goes up beyond expected, they profit more. 3b. Or, we could have both "per bet" and "net profit" at the same time, this would leave weekly commission in place, be we would split the percentage a bit. Keep the "per bet" only as high to cover the expenses. This could be e.g. 30/15 split. People, tell me what you think. @dooglus, I am glad you brought this issue, this was something I wanted to discuss too! The topic is even hotter because I am getting huge number of questions about LTC investments which I'd like to open at some point, better sooner than later. Cheers and thanks, Ethan |
|
|
|
|
Good luck everyone! And cheers,
Ethan
|
|
|
|
Wow, bet #1,000,000,000 (one billionth bet) was placed just yesterday! Congratulations and good luck, @jeanluc! I think we'll start a competition on Mon to celebrate this YOLOdice milestone too. Take care and cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
I'm not talking here what is "enough" or what is not "enough" for somebody, here is not talk about how much is worth that "one bet" profit after 8 decimals compare it to real money, here is talk about mathematically right made up dice game structure for everyone(for people who has a lot of money to play dice 1+BTC, and for people who has not such big money to play dice)
We are not going to change the precision. Period. Too much work, no real benefit, terrible consequences for the consistency of the game IMO. Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
Hey, Ethan.
I want you to suggest why don't to make that YOLOdice calculate more than "8 decimals" after dot in dice?! (if you don't understand what I mean, please write me private msg)
I think it don't pay nothing to you, and YOLOdice income will be the same in the end.
How would that benefit anyone? The whole reason it is 8 decimals is because that's how Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general work. You can't send someone half a satoshi. If anything then the servers would just get flooded with miniscule dust bets and it'd slow down the site. I'm not trying to be rude to you, I just don't understand why you're suggesting this. Who does it help? What's the benefit? I've never seen any other dice site or exchange or anything do this. old bit-exo has count/give profit from more than 8 decimals. now I know that cryptogames dice game does that.dont play anywhere else to know about other sites. who does it help? whats the benefit? then you can play on high winning percentage/low multiplier with low basebets and get out all mathematically from this bet, like it was with bigger basebets.like sample -> on 90%(1.1x) with 1% HE, minimum bet is 0.00000010 to win 0.00000001, if you bet 0.00000009 you will get 0. but if site count more than 8 decimals, then you can bet even with 0.00000001 and get 1/10 from 1 satoshi, and after 10 wins you will credited with 1satoshi.and with 98.9011%(1.001x) you need to bet atleast 0.00001001 to gain profit 1 satoshi, if you bet 1000satoshi or lower you will get nothing if site doest not count more than 8 decimals.I agree with Kiritsugu, I cannot see point in including anything less than 1 satoshi. Other than that, YD is really precise about tracking coins and it's been designed to resolution up to 1 satoshi. Changing that would require A LOT of work, which IMO could be spent on something that would bring some real value to the table. Other than that, I think 1 satoshi (which right now is ~ 0.0001 USD) "should be enough for anybody". Cheers, Ethan |
|
|
|
We have also lowered the BTC withdrawal fee by 50%, I hope the network fees will stay low. I am thinking about introducing dynamic fees that would reflect the current mempool status.
Cheers,
Ethan
Dynamic fees would be fantastic. Maybe you could talk to RHavar about that, I know he's done some amazing things with busta's withdraw system. But in the meantime, lowering fees is still good I think I might actually include dynamic fees in the next bigger release... It would be great indeed to offer withdrawals at actual network prices and not having to update the fees manually! I am re-working the fees anyway because of upcoming ETH support. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
