I'd like to enroll. There's a lack of open spots in higher paying campaigns now, so I guess I'll have to accept a position here as member, even though I'm above that rank.
Sig and PM are changed. # of posts: 209 Payment address: 16pvAqwo9fTrkqCMuPmqKPQA7jzsJswWRy
|
|
|
And if it is accurate, does that seem fair?
Imagine this: you have 1000 BTC and send it to PRCDice.com to invest. You have a bot that monitors your investment, and automatically cashes you out if your investment falls below 990. Ignoring for overshooting, you are only risking 10 BTC but have the upside of investing 1000. Does that seem fair? So what the money pot investor scheme would allow you to do is achieve the same effect without ever having to expose yourself to the counter-party risk on that 990. Ok, this makes sense. But is it that all 1000 coins are on the site and you just don't have access to them, or are they not on the site? I'm just trying to reconcile how the BR can be said to be 1000 and you're paying bets out thinking the BR is 1000 if you don't ever have full access to those 1000 coins because of a set limit by the investors. For example and for the sake of simplicity, say you have one investor. He deposits 1000 coins, and so your BR is in theory 1000. But he sets a max loss of .1% or 10 btc. You are thinking you have a BR of 1000, so you've set the max payout per game to be based on a percentage of 1000 coins, when in reality, your BR is going to walk if it falls to 990, or once you lose 10 coins. Allowing max wins to be much higher than the actual BR will tolerate losses for increases the odds of you going bankrupt if you hit variance, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Aren't they being paid based on having 1000 btc invested though?
Sure, but I don't see any contradictions here. If it helps, you can think of it as investing 1000 BTC with a stop loss at 990. The problem is you're paying someone based on how much they say they're investing but aren't actually investing. That means you're doing max bets/max wins based on a BR you don't actually have, which is problematic if the folks who say they're investing 1000 btc decide to walk away after they lose 10. And on the flip side, you're paying out profits based on amounts that aren't actually at risk and therefore not truly "invested." If someone says "I've got 1000 btc invested" but has .1% stop-loss, they've only got 10 btc at risk, so if a whale wipes out the 10 btc, they can walk away with minimal loss, but on the other hand, if the site profits, you're paying them a share of profit as if they had 1000 btc invested. Is that an accurate description, or am I misunderstanding how the system works? And if it is accurate, does that seem fair?
|
|
|
If an investor has 1000, but only 10 of it is onsite, and the site gets hit by a lucky whale -- the investor will have 990 offsite and 0 onsite -- and need to evaluate whether or not the lucky whale was Ryan with a hat on, or a natural whale before transferring more money on site. This is how the investor protects himself against counter-party risk.
If the site recovered before the investor topped up their investment, the investor would still be left with 0 in their onsite investment. That's why it's important that every investor decides carefully how much they wish to keep onsite, offsite and risk per game.
Aren't they being paid based on having 1000 btc invested though?
|
|
|
Will a trusted third party hold the a set of keys? To avoid another running off with the funds.
Here's the problem: Even if the majority of the investor funds are held by a 100% trustworthy and secure third party, there's no waythat I can think of to stop the site's owner from playing his own game and slowly winning all the coins. Especially for a game like moneypot where the crash point has to be known by the server before the players finish acting. So is it really worth insisting that the funds are held by a third party when it really doesn't protect the investors anyway? Edit: one thing that is worth noting: from what I've heard, the plan is to allow investors to only actually deposit a fraction of the amount they want to risk. So you'll be able to say "I have 100 BTC and want to risk 1% of it per game; here's 10 BTC of it for now". So if they do run off, they only get 10 BTC not your full 100, but you'll get profit (or loss) as if you had invested the full 100 BTC. This is a potential solution to hedge your 'investment' from some of the risk of investing, but at this point, god speed to anyone who wants the risk of trusting any of these sites anymore with loads of your coins. Site operator knows the crash point of how many games in advance? He can run a dozen bot accounts that slowly drain investment by winning without making it obvious he's doing that. I'm starting to wonder why anyone- with how many times this community has been burned- would put themselves at risk anymore. How many times will it take?
|
|
|
Today is payday..Payment please
It's still October most places on Earth. Give the guy some time for christ sake. Well to be fair, Candy is likely about to get banned, so it is understandable IMO for coinbuddy to want his payment ASAP Why do you say he's about to get banned? There is a thread in meta complaining about how he was spamming 70+ posts on an account that he had as collateral with useless spam posts just to rank up the account. I don't know for sure that he will get banned but I would personally say there is a very good chance. That's disappointing, although it shouldn't affect his ability to pay the sig campaign, right? (In theory)
|
|
|
Today is payday..Payment please
It's still October most places on Earth. Give the guy some time for christ sake. Well to be fair, Candy is likely about to get banned, so it is understandable IMO for coinbuddy to want his payment ASAP Why do you say he's about to get banned?
|
|
|
There is 5 or 6 of you sitting here watching this like a hawk attacking people with lies and trolling non stop.. WHY ? EVERYONE - Is that not fishy big time ? I should go and collect every comment i made here and show you all crystal clear that their lying their ass off 101% claiming i said all kinds of things i have not.. not even close ! and WHY EDIT:MODERATORS i will not be coming back to this topic i see no new info being posted and the rest just sickens me.. i'm out. I will not sit here and play along with guys lying to get others banned.. that is horrendous, ridiculous and childish behavior ! best of luck to guys that lost coins, i feel for you. / I'm out of this crap topic LOL Quick math tip on how percentages work: the most you can lie is 100%. Lying your ass off 101% is not a thing. As for trolling, it's you and BBgotnukedBB or whatever his name was. I'm not convinced you're not him with how quick you are to defend him, your shared terrible grammar and child-like rants, and your equally idiotic ideas about how big of a conspiracy this thread is. Please stick to your word about not coming back though. Like, 101% stick to it. kthxbye.
|
|
|
Today is payday..Payment please
It's still October most places on Earth. Give the guy some time for christ sake.
|
|
|
It's kinda funny to see what looks like a big dip and recovery in your graph, only to note that it's only a matter of 500 bits out of a profit of 2.8 million. Yes. The y-axis scales automatically based on the range of profits you've had over the last 100 or so bets. I made some bigger bets. What used to look like a dramatic martingale sequence now looks like a flat line: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoRIOnLb.png&t=665&c=0m9cPfqQbdzO7A) It would be nice to see a graph of your entire history in one shot. I don't know how practical it is, but the automatic scaling of your last X bets is obviously more useful. Perhaps just for the novelty of seeing your entire history on one graph it would be interesting.
|
|
|
The long awaited strategy editor now makes it's debut in pre-alpha quality. Lots of people have been wanting to play around with an early release, so now you have it. As one of the few gambling games that make it possible for +EV style game play, allowing bots is quite interesting. If you want to share or request strategies: http://www.reddit.com/r/moneypot is a good place to collect them. I took the martingale strategy and slightly modified it, to make sure it starts at my base bet, and to allow me to bet with my choice of payout multiplier: var baseBet = 1; // in Bits var mult = 2.01;
var satoshis = baseBet * 100; var crash = Math.floor(mult*100 + 1e-6); var currentBet = false;
engine.onGameStarting = function () { if (currentBet && engine.lastGameWasLost()) { currentBet *= 2; console.log('double bet to', currentBet/100); } else { currentBet = satoshis; console.log('reset bet to', currentBet/100); } if (currentBet < engine.getBalance()) { console.log('place bet of', currentBet/100, 'at', crash/100); engine.placeBet(currentBet, crash, false); } else { engine.stop(); console.log('You ran out of bits :('); } };
It seems to be working: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkqRLN38.png&t=665&c=V5l0WvA-fW3VNQ) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcgNDcC4.png&t=665&c=sMTC_mUi7cbQCw) It's kinda funny to see what looks like a big dip and recovery in your graph, only to note that it's only a matter of 500 bits out of a profit of 2.8 million.
|
|
|
pat yourself on the back guys you badgered him until he's banned.. you could have just ignored him instead of egging him on non stop eh
We tried ignoring him but he wouldn't stop posting his stupid libellous rants. It's really much better that he was banned. Take a second to look at what he was saying and you'll see none of it was of any value whatsoever. I meant what i said but i will clarify it.. You guys could have ignored him BEFORE he was banned and then not gone on for three uninterrupted pages bashing him here while he was banned after.i had to come reading yet another off-topic whiny complaint one after another for three pages ! wanna play the i am the mature one routine then maybe act like it ? Bad mouthing him and taunting him for 3 pages is not dropping it LOL i think you guys are playing the bait and harass the Troll game to get what you want and win an argument. it's more about not agreeing with what he said vs he is here trollin' on this topic to get arise out of people.the 'ole accusation of Trolling as an attack on someone game ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) I read *some of what that guy said and it was not gibberish at all but common sense type stuff to me.. If he had a legitimate point, is was buried in walls of pointless text. Posts like 'i'm calling mah buddies at the SEC, we're hot on the trail!' are not productive and can't be construed as anything other than some idiot on the internet running his mouth. The vast majority of his posts are of that quality, not to mention the point where he posts 14 times in a row, and they're all garbage posts. This was not about disagreeing with what he said, it was disagreeing with his existence in this thread.The whole 'Dooglus is AK is Stunna is Joe is every other conspiracy person on the internet' crap he kept posting? That's your idea of him having a good point? Cuz that's what he posted more than anything else. As for any gloating that might have gone on, that's us celebrating for being rid of someone who was determined to be a jackass and we had no choice but to tolerate for several weeks. It was justified.
|
|
|
TBH, I do not think the majority of gamblers even know what a "house edge" is. I have friends that still think slot machines at our Indian Casino are beatable.
The trick is to pull the arm really hard, right? I tap the machine three times, take a drink of a B-52 Bomber and pull hard. I'm pretty sure it lowers the house edge to about .5% ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Good call! House edge for slots is calculated as the inverse of your blood alcohol content. Drinking brings the house edge down.
|
|
|
anything wrong with offering 1.56% house edge? (higher than 1%, but lower than satoshi dice's 1.9%.) and matching kelly.
No, but why would anyone play your 1.56% edge game when there are reputable 1% edge games available? Almost nobody plays satoshidice any more, because they don't want to pay double the house edge of the other games. Why put yourself at a disadvantage? TBH, I do not think the majority of gamblers even know what a "house edge" is. I have friends that still think slot machines at our Indian Casino are beatable. The trick is to pull the arm really hard, right?
|
|
|
no, I think you're an idiot
You're right about that. Nobody wants to have to scroll through pages of this shit: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fsx3AFA6.png&t=665&c=vNwKAf0p7vxGwg) Haha, you should have seen the walls of text that were actually there. Nothing useful of course. I'm starting to think he just quotes the longest posts to make the one line of gibberish he adds take up as much space as possible.
|
|
|
there are ways to structure businesses so that what you own is not a portion of the business itself [...] but only entitle you to a share of the profits or losses of the business. This is certainly how the dice sites are structured. You don't own any part of the site, just the profit/loss.
Your return as a dice site "investor" isn't based on the site's profit. It completely ignores all the site's expenses. The "investor" is just a counterparty to the "players". You can see them as another type of gambler. Any profit the site makes can only be calculated after taking off expenses (hosting costs, advertising, staff, etc.) and isn't at all what the "investors" get a share of. This is true, but this is analogous (but not identical) to a dual-class structure. The "owners" of the site have expenses related to their ownership of the business itself, while the non-voting class interests aren't tied to that portion of the business, just the gambling side where the profits or losses are on betting. In reality, I can't think of a situation where a business would structure things in such a way, as it's disadvantageous for the owners of the business. However, that doesn't change the facts the most important facts of the situation, which revolve around profit-sharing. It's just that you calculate the profits you're paying out differently. In practice, you're paying for part of the business's expenses out of your own pocket (how kind!) and not considering "business profit" and "site profit" to be the same, but it doesn't change the fact that you're offering a portion of profits (a "profit-sharing agreement" as the SEC would call it). It's just you've structured your book-keeping in a way so as to be more advantageous to investors than it needed to be. Although, I might offer that your 10% claim on investor profits pretty-much makes this line of thinking moot. In any event, non-traditional bookkeeping doesn't excuse you from the definition of security (this would be an easy out, wouldn't it?).
|
|
|
wait that site scammed? was just a matter of time, it did not look too inviting for me from the beginning on. How many coins have been stolen? The owner just disappeared? ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) The ninjas took about 2000 coins and disappeared. Like ninjas. I'm going to be samurai. We hunt down ninjas. The way JD, DD, DN, DB, ED and every other site that takes investments and allocates a share of profits based on that investment is structured is as a security. You can call the "unit" whatever you want: shares, interests, percentage... that doesn't matter. The SEC calls it a security.
"Participation in any profit-sharing agreement." You can call it whatever you want, but it's definitely this. That means it's definitely an unregistered security.
How about if we call it, like Baccarat Punto Banco, and it's actually a bet? You bet against other players. That's essentially what you're doing when you contribute to the bankroll of these dice sites. Again, it doesn't matter what you call it. The SEC's definition is in black and white. It only matters what they call it. There have been a lot richer and smarter people (with A LOT more money at stake) trying to massage the definition of "security" since it was written in 1933. Alas, a security is a security.
|
|
|
I think the SEC would see a difference. By investing you are only bankrolling. If investment was offered as shares then maybe. There are no real regulations for this sort of stuff at the moment.
Agreed. In retrospect, "invest" was a bad word for to pick for what people do at crowd-bankrolled dice sites. It suggests to the uninformed that you're buying a share in the site when of course you aren't. I don't know what a better pair of verbs than invest/divest would be though. "bankroll/unbankroll" is clumsy, and has the disadvantage that "bankroll" is a noun as well as a verb, and so is confusing. I guess crowd-funded bankrolls are new enough that we don't yet have a good vocabulary for describing them and so "borrow" words from a related but different activity. The SEC seems mainly concerned with unregistered share offerings, such as in the SatoshiDice case (Edit: this quote is from the SEC): An SEC investigation found that Erik T. Voorhees published prospectuses on the Internet and actively solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds. But he failed to register the offerings with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws. What sites like dice.ninja were offering wasn't anything like a share offering (it's more like a long-standing bet against the regular dice players) and so I doubt the SEC would be interested. My first response was too quick, and I didn't see this response until I continued reading, so I'll go into more detail. It seems what is throwing people off is the term "share offering." Shares are just one type of security, and the SEC's purview is all securities. For example, corporations have "shares." Limited liability companies have "interests." It's just how the businesses are structured, but both shares and interests entitle stakeholders to a portion of profits. Both are securities, and both are under the jurisdiction of the SEC because it regulates all securities. Also, there are ways to structure businesses so that what you own is not a portion of the business itself (that is your shares/interests don't entitle you to vote on business decisions) but only entitle you to a share of the profits or losses of the business. This is certainly how the dice sites are structured. You don't own any part of the site, just the profit/loss. But that ownership you bought into is still a security. The way JD, DD, DN, DB, ED and every other site that takes investments and allocates a share of profits based on that investment is structured is as a security. You can call the "unit" whatever you want: shares, interests, percentage... that doesn't matter. The SEC calls it a security. If you're interested, here is the exact definition of "security" from the 1933 Securities Act, Section 2(a)(1): The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement, collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas, or other mineral rights, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or, in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a “security”, or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing. "Participation in any profit-sharing agreement." You can call it whatever you want, but it's definitely this. That means it's definitely an unregistered security.
|
|
|
I think the SEC would see a difference. By investing you are only bankrolling. If investment was offered as shares then maybe. There are no real regulations for this sort of stuff at the moment.
This is not true. It doesn't matter if it's "shares" or "interests" (which is what the percentage of the bankroll is) or any other name you're calling your stake. The regulations are the same.
|
|
|
guys, only way you might get some coins back is t\o find dmf. no courts, no laywers, no police reports.
you find out where he is and you knock on his door
I think you're dreaming, you're not getting your coins back that way. Even if you find him for sure, are you gonna be the idiot who's going to risk prison over trying to beat your coins out of him, or threatening him? Your only possible recourse is to see him charged criminally, and any shot at getting anything back is going to hinge on a settlement he strikes with authorities to refund money to folks.
|
|
|
|