Okay, September is over! The stats are now updated on the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiec3-Eo_yO5dG5SQklHZG4wRm1GMW9DRWpMMW5UQkESummary:Earnings 2115.30020995 Hosting/Tech Expenses 50 Net Profit 2065.30020995 10% MPEX Dividend 206.530020995Volume over past 30 Days 228,279.18 Actual Profit over past 30 Days 2,115.30 Expected Profit over past 30 Days 4,337.30 From the numbers, you can see that players did statistically better than they should have this month (good for them!). Based on volume of SatoshiDICE bets, the site was expected to earn 4,337 BTC, but only earned 2,115 BTC. The dividend would have been roughly double the size if we had statistically matched expectations. September was the second-strongest month ever in terms of bet volume, after last month's record-breaking performance. Moving into October, the new site is extremely close (day or two) to being live, and a special announcement still remains that is 1-2 weeks away. Thank you to all the asset holders, both on MPEX and the GLBSE passthrough. I will be paying the dividend tomorrow (Tuesday)... if you buy shares before I pay it you get an immediate return of about 7.5% APY Cheers, -Erik
|
|
|
Okay, September is over! The stats are now updated on the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aiec3-Eo_yO5dG5SQklHZG4wRm1GMW9DRWpMMW5UQkESummary:Earnings 2115.30020995 Hosting/Tech Expenses 50 Net Profit 2065.30020995 10% MPEX Dividend 206.530020995Volume over past 30 Days 228,279.18 Actual Profit over past 30 Days 2,115.30 Expected Profit over past 30 Days 4,337.30 From the numbers, you can see that players did statistically better than they should have this month (good for them!). Based on volume of SatoshiDICE bets, the site was expected to earn 4,337 BTC, but only earned 2,115 BTC. The dividend would have been roughly double the size if we had statistically matched expectations. September was the second-strongest month ever in terms of bet volume, after last month's record-breaking performance. Moving into October, the new site is extremely close (day or two) to being live, and a special announcement still remains that is 1-2 weeks away. Thank you to all the asset holders, both on MPEX and the GLBSE passthrough. I will be paying the dividend tomorrow (Tuesday)... if you buy shares before I pay it you get an immediate return of about 7.5% APY Cheers, -Erik
|
|
|
No - it's not a free bump - it's you trying to steal his customers and using his popularity without paying for it and then making up excuses for it.
... hopefully you lose business for doing this, not gain from it ...
No, it is just us letting people know these games are currently available. We hope to see SatoshiDice.com expand their select soon ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Please let people know about your games without spamming other games' threads. It's in bad taste. I won't be posting on your thread that SatoshiDice's new website is about to launch... for example.
|
|
|
Hey Erik, why the change of heart?: Gavin - seems like a reasonable idea.
Bitcoin would still have all the advantages of being decentralized (no central server, no office to raid and shut down. etc), but gets the added advantages of a core organization to guide it. Perhaps the core organization will get destroyed by the evil powers, but I'm not sure that'd be incredibly damaging to Bitcoin as a protocol. The community would just grow a new command center when the old was destroyed.
The main danger is if the community trusts such an organization too much. For example- if everyone assumed the client version put out by the organization was trustworthy, then there is serious danger. A group as you propose should probably exist, but the community should remain skeptical of it, and always constructively critical.
After a few mins of more thinking...
Perhaps the idea of an "official" group is not wise. Instead, the core dev team could create an organization, with special logo and name. This organization would be the de facto official group, but only so long as it held up its reputation. At all times, other groups can form and compete for "de facto officialness."
In essence then, this would just be a Non-profit, spontaneously organized by individuals. If multiple such organizations sprout up, then each community member can support whomever they wish.
Think of it like a market for competing representatives. No group official by law, but any group official by market sentiment. We would see one group come to dominate the sentiment, but Bitcoin would not be irrevocably tied to it.
No group should be granted an explicit monopoly... but an implicit market-derived monopoly would not bother me.
And today: "Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
I don't see a change of heart in my above statements. Anyone can make another Foundation or group to develop, make standards, raise money, represent itself, etc. I would prefer for this Bitcoin Foundation to not label themselves verbatim as "The Official Organization In Charge Of Bitcoin" etc., and I don't think they're doing that. The language used will be important, but the Foundation should earn it's "official" reputation through its actions and relationships with people, not through "claiming" it explicitly, if that makes sense. Again, a market-based, central organization is something I have no problem with. So long as others can organize their own organizations with their own agendas, all is well. I will say, however, if the Bitcoin Foundation ever seeks Government legislation which curtails the decentralized, market-based nature of Bitcoin, I will be vociferously opposed. I do not believe anyone on the board desires such legislation.
|
|
|
If bitcoin wants to succeed, it cannot be anti-government at this point.
Governments are a force to be reckoned with, and if you don't understand that, or see how it relates to bitcoin, then I have nothing else to say.
For bitcoin to succeed, it can't be some seedy currency for the underbelly of the internet or a tax haven for criminals. For serious companies to seriously consider bitcoin, bitcoin cannot be a legal liability, and it is construed as one right now. This is why the Foundation is a step forward in my opinion.
+1 Bitcoin, as a technology, should not be connected to the stigma of "anti-government" for very good, strategic reasons. We know what it is, and what it will do, and we should leave it at that.
|
|
|
I will be watching this foundation and I hope many of you are right but your executive director and some board members are, indeed, making calls for power.
Also, and I'm not sure how to put this perfectly... but remember that statements made by the board members might be targeted to the outside world and not to the Bitcoin community. Read between the lines there and ponder on that strategically for a bit ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
I agree with the sentiment that at this point the bitcoin experiment cannot be inherently anti-government if it is to succeed in the end. Bitcoin is inherently anti-government since it takes away power from those who would live at the expense of others. Exactly and this board could easily one day neuter Bitcoin from being a free currency to a fiat, government-controlled one by making standards for the protocol that everyone would be forced to abide by through corporate and social influence. Corporate and social influence != force. That is the mistake you're making. There is absolutely no problem with "influence" and every problem with "force." The Foundation will have lots of influence (and I think the current board has earned it), but no force, and thus I welcome it.
|
|
|
I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.
Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced. And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former. Hegemony can be voluntary but it is still a social force with a sphere of influence. This can become a central cult of personality. Some of us do not want a central sphere of influence around Bitcoin regardless if its opt-in or opt-out. Social power can change everything. We do not want Bitcoin becoming a neutered project at the hands of big business. Feel free to say its your right to try to be a leader. It's my right to try to stop this leadership as well. Atlas, You are also a social force with a sphere of influence, as am I. Everyone involved influences everyone else, and some more than others. And how would "big business" (I hate this term by the way, as if there is something wrong with a business so successful that it becomes larger than others...) "neuter" Bitcoin? It's open source software - do whatever the hell you want with it. And just as you have the right to do whatever you want with it, so does a large business, and if people want to make a group and call themselves the Foundation, they also have the right to do so and can proceed with any Bitcoin endeavors they wish. These influences all create struggle, but that's called a marketplace, and indeed the entire point of fostering a truly free market is to create an environment in which such struggles can occur. Rather than violating this principle, the Foundation is emblematic of it. And of course, you have every right to work/speak/act against them if you so wish.
|
|
|
"Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
I must wonder if you'd be saying the same if Charlie wasn't a board member. Not that I think you're trying to be manipulative, it's just hard to believe you are looking at this objectively and aren't highly biased. Please, don't be absurd. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) If Charlie was doing something I disagreed with, he would know, and I'd have no problem discussing it on the forum. It happens that Charlie and I tend to agree on almost everything, especially after some discussion... though he's still slightly too statist for my taste, though this is changing fairly quickly, because Charlie is a smart guy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I've long been in favor of a more formal, more structured Foundation type organization to foster Bitcoin growth. I worry that people do not understand the difference between voluntary, market-based order and coercive order. They think the Foundation is the latter, when it's not. A decentralized system can (and indeed, ought to) have certain "nodes" of organization and structure. It is the same dynamic which occurs with the bitcoin exchanges. The system is decentralized, yes, but it needs points of centralization (again, this is market-based centralization) to carry out specific functions such as bringing many buyers and sellers together to trade in the case of exchanges. Those who think exchanges shouldn't exist, and Bitcoin should only be traded among P2P systems, are not thinking clearly, and don't understand how markets operate. And just as one exchange may hold "influence" on the market, it cannot control it. The same is true with the Foundation. Do not fear private, voluntary organization among intelligent, productive people. Avoiding, or condemning, such organization is antithetical to Bitcoin progress. All the best Bitcoin successes will be brought about not by perfectly decentralized, independent action of individuals, but by the voluntary cooperation and structure each individual builds with others. The Foundation is just another example of this, and I'm excited to see the progress this structure will bring.
|
|
|
I know a few retailers/merchants who were considering using Bitcoin. They've backed out since the "foundation" was announced. Sad.
Anecdotal. I know others, who are big, who like to see some form of structure and are more enthusiastic about getting involved with Bitcoin now that the Foundation was announced. And to say that the Bitcoin Foundation wants to be an "authorian hegemony" is absurd. People need to stop confusing voluntary order and voluntary structure with coercive, mandated structure. Don't let your legitimate fear of the latter cloud your ability to see the virtue in the former.
|
|
|
Hey all,
Bug was discovered today that had caused some stuck txs.
After some digging...
Some transactions were missed by the main processing watcher (which happens). One of the backup watchers should have caught them but didn't because that address (1diceDCd27Cc22HV3qPNZKwGnZ8QwhLTc) was one of the new ones added a while back and we had forgotten to update the watch list.
We're reimporting a few days of blocks now which will get them in and then the transaction will be processed normally.
Thanks for fixing this! You got it, boss ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
yawn Man... if you're going to rip off my site, at least make a better looking one. Yours is an uglier version with a chat window and no ability to bet over 1btc ![Cry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cry.gif) Gee it would be nice to see some friendly competition instead of this kind of negativity You're right, mem. I apologize for my tone. Hadn't had coffee yet. Let the games commence.
|
|
|
"Warning - while you were reading 193 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post."
LOL
For the record, I LOVE that the Foundation exists now. I think this is a huge positive step for Bitcoin. Few negatives, plenty of positives. I also understand the concern many people feel - we should always be diligent and skeptical of anyone trying to be "the face" of Bitcoin. But in this case specifically, and to the extent this Foundation can act in certain manners for certain goals, I think it's a very legitimate development and I'll be joining as a paying member here soon.
|
|
|
yawn Man... if you're going to rip off my site, at least make a better looking one. Yours is an uglier version with a chat window and no ability to bet over 1btc ![Cry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cry.gif)
|
|
|
Hey all,
Bug was discovered today that had caused some stuck txs.
After some digging...
Some transactions were missed by the main processing watcher (which happens). One of the backup watchers should have caught them but didn't because that address (1diceDCd27Cc22HV3qPNZKwGnZ8QwhLTc) was one of the new ones added a while back and we had forgotten to update the watch list.
We're reimporting a few days of blocks now which will get them in and then the transaction will be processed normally.
|
|
|
Very good. Would you give me permission to translate it to Swedish and publish it on bitcoin.se? Obviously with proper attribution and a link back to your original blog post.
Absolutely! Again, no permissions needed on this, but thanks for asking. Use as you see fit.
|
|
|
Posted this on our blog so that others can refer people to it - it's another "overview" of what Bitcoin is, but formatted as "The First Five Questions" everyone is bound to have. This is particularly useful for any journalists who are starting to research Bitcoin. Not super useful to pros on this forum, but please feel free to use any of it for any purpose. Copy, paste, edit, and redistribute at will. http://blog.bitinstant.com/blog/2012/9/26/bitcoin-the-first-five-questions.html
|
|
|
Congrats on the defending from the attack, well done!
|
|
|
It would be foolish for them to release that info, and I haven't heard of any such list.
|
|
|
Note sure who wrote this... but it's wonderful!
Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.
Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.
Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.
Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid..
Put these words Upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.
-----
And these are hard to rhyme...
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax Sales Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
|
|
|
|