In the very first post, it is said that the house, can restart the game at any time. The house takes the profit in that case. If it's just reset, everyone else is paying for it. For what game, this one? Cause none of the others say that. 95% winners at a 1.1% payout? How about Satoshi dice. The house edge is 1.9% and you pick your odds and keep playing. That's a real game of chance like a casino, not a pyramid scam.
Don't worry, you'll hit odds and statistics once you hit high school. It will make sense.
Let's see, SD's odds for 1.1x payout are between 85% and 91%. At 91%, it is 1.07x payout. Did you study basic math in high school? 91% is less than 95%  So, I'll say it again, find a game with better odds vs payouts. 95% at 1.1x payout is excellent.I can't believe you think that you have a 1.1 payout at 95% odds. The house edge is what matters. If you play less than 8 statistically you'll only lose 98% of your money. If you play your game, you'll lose only 5% of your money. It's also a pyramid scam, not a game of chance based on mathematics. |
|
|
|
That being said, here is how we need to proceed:
...
2) We wait and see what happens when the current hard limit is pushed. We let the fees go up a bit. We study the reaction from Bitcoin users and see what kind of incentives and solutions higher fees encourage. This is when we start deciding which of the alternative models is actually best.
3) We decide a timetable for the change, if we decide to make a change, and put it in motion.
Huh? Let's see how bad it is first, how bad it destroys what bitcoin is.... then let's see what we should do about it?  |
|
|
|
In the worst imaginable case, the ability to validate the currency becomes more expensive, not impossible. As long as it is not impossible, Bitcoin does not become a centralized payment system and you still have sovereign control over your money. Its still peer to peer, at worse its peer group to peer group. Of course this won't happen, because the devs are well aware of the dangers and are reasonable people who continue to put the technology and its users first. Reasonable people can come to compromises that provide for the greatest benefit for all parties.
What makes you so sure that this is the case? Everyone can be corrupted. And given the personality pattern I've observed from part of the TBF members, I'd suppose they're even more prone to corruption than the average Joe. But I don't expect the majority to agree with that. I feel at some not so distant point in future I'll be forced to evaluate alternatives to Bitcoin, because Bitcoin's features I've enthusiastically embraced in the beginning will have been changed beyond recognition. Because if the core devs become corrupter, the users of the community will not accept a fork to centralization. The 50 threads about block size limit changes are stupid. You've got a dozen people crying don't destroy bitcoin and they don't know WTF they are talking about. |
|
|
|
You still don't get it do you. The reason 95% of them won anything, was because the 5% lost it. The 25 btc didn't appear out of thin air. The 5% paid it to the "winners" It's a ponzi scheme. The last one holding the gem, loses. It's not a way for people to make money with btc, it's a thinly veiled pyramid scam.
you still don't get it, for there to be a winner at ANY gambling game, someone has to lose. What you just described could be said for every casino and gambling game on the planet. You think casinos are handing out winnings out of their own pockets? No, they are giving winners a portion of the proceeds from the losers. Show me a game where there are less than 5% losers. 95% winners is a good rate for 1.1x payout. In the very first post, it is said that the house, can restart the game at any time. The house takes the profit in that case. If it's just reset, everyone else is paying for it. 95% winners at a 1.1% payout? How about Satoshi dice. The house edge is 1.9% and you pick your odds and keep playing. That's a real game of chance like a casino, not a pyramid scam. Don't worry, you'll hit odds and statistics once you hit high school. It will make sense. |
|
|
|
You really don't get it do you? You know what, I've got a bridge to sell you. PM me... I'll make it cheap.
No, the confused one here is you. I own one of these games, I know exactly what it makes and what the players make. The players make double what I make. Typically, we have 1 loser for every round and several winners. Even on BitCoin Gem, they have 5% of the players lose, 95% win. The Gem calls it's players owners, as in, "Current Owner of the Gem". So, when they say "owners made 25 btc", that means that the players made 25 btc from playing. The owner of the site has made considerably less, as he is only getting 5% of the purchase price. Regardless, people like it and have fun playing it. Every gamble has to have losers. These games have less losers and more winners than almost every other gambling site out there. And the odds vs payouts are far better than just about anything else, too. So, stop hating, and let people do what they want. You still don't get it do you. The reason 95% of them won anything, was because the 5% lost it. The 25 btc didn't appear out of thin air. The 5% paid it to the "winners" It's a ponzi scheme. The last one holding the gem, loses. It's not a way for people to make money with btc, it's a thinly veiled pyramid scam. |
|
|
|
|
I've been taken care of. Whatever happened last week, hope it wasn't entirely bad for them. I'm sure they had a mad dash of people trying to get on the train before it was too late and if there were complications outside of that, my heart goes out to them.
However, bitinstant and co are not scammers and if you get a hold of them they will make things right. There are no threats needed.
|
|
|
|
Theymos is awesome!
Thysome, for short? I always have a hard time remembering exactly wtf his name is and how he types it and now I'm going to think theysome from now on... thanks a lot Phinnaeus! |
|
|
|
People trying to capitalize on other people's coat tails LMAO is this like domain squatting but like bitcoin addresses. LMAO
You got it. Been squatting for a couple of years and my legs are getting tired. Unfortunately, 1stbits squatting wasn't profitable and never made sense haha |
|
|
|
People playing it didn't make 25 BTC, the people running it did. At the expensive of the ones playing the game. Do you understand how a pyrmid scheme works? No new money is created? Suckers at the end make the profit for those at the bottom and the owner of the scam.
no, the owners of the Gem, ie the players made that money. Maybe you don't know how that game is played, but each time it is purchased, the previous owner gets their money plus 10%. The guy at the end only pays the person before him, the owners are only taking 5%. So, anyway, people want to play it, and people are making money with it and having fun. What is wrong with that? You really don't get it do you? You know what, I've got a bridge to sell you. PM me... I'll make it cheap. |
|
|
|
Woah, That was a Really smooth server swap, Nice new host  It happened just over 12 hours ago. If you're east coast USA you might have slept through it. Theymos is awesome! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Gem (I have no affiliation with them) has posted stats on their operation: So far, the gem changed hands 282 times and reset 14 times (4.96%).
Owners made a total profit of 25.268 bitcoins. So, people playing that game have profited 25+ BTC. I think it has been around for maybe 3 weeks. Hardly stupid and insignificant. People playing it didn't make 25 BTC, the people running it did. At the expensive of the ones playing the game. Do you understand how a pyrmid scheme works? No new money is created? Suckers at the end make the profit for those at the bottom and the owner of the scam. |
|
|
|
And when you say provided by, are they paying for the server or are we using forum funds to pay them for the server?
They're paying for it in exchange for some advertising. That's what I wanted to know. I saw the advertising at the bottom and was curious if that was somehow part of the arrangement. Does Privateinternet manage the server or did they hand over the reigns to the dedicated server? Before: - Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.4GHz - 4 GB memory - Slow hard drive After: - Xeon E31240 @ 3.30GHz - 16 GB memory - 2 SSDs in RAID 1 I think this'll be enough for a while.   I bet whatever you want that the bottleneck was the hard disk  Absolutely. 4 GB of ram is plenty to host a forum. The reads and writes are what kill it. The only thing better than SSDs in Raid 1 would be SSDs in Raid 1+0 |
|
|
|
Aaaaaand, anotherdelay  GREAT SCOTT! but we haven't even seen more than two Avalon's...what's up with that? Three and maybe four. they just haven't posted any info or pics on the forum? The chinese one is the one in question. They posted pics, but there is speculation they are pictures from avalon themselves. There are more pictures from the potential #4, it was received in a to assemble state. They are on here somewhere. |
|
|
|
Aaaaaand, anotherdelay GREAT SCOTT! but we haven't even seen more than two Avalon's...what's up with that? Three and maybe four. |
|
|
|
Someone please check my math though, I'll update it on just the 10 meg block.
At 0.0005 minimum transaction fee, on blockchain.info I'm seeing about 0.5 BTC per 250 KB of block size. That would be an additional 20 BTC per block with a fully loaded 10 meg block.
And that would be at the current minimum transaction fees and based on what current blocks look like. |
|
|
|
Several larger pools are running 0.8 or almost-0.8. Largely stock software (with maybe a patch to filter out SatoshiDICE transactions here and there).
Hmmm, not really the answer to my question. When a block is found, don't you have to download the whole block to see which transactions they included so that you can build the merkle tree? The removal of redundancy that Jutarul mentioned, is that how 0.8 works? |
|
|
|
The full block download and verification isn't needed to start hashing the next block?
The idea is to only submit the transaction hashes which go into the merkel tree, instead of the transaction data. Because it is likely that you already received and validated the transaction, before you receive a block containing it. This technique removes redundancy from the communication between the node and the network and significantly reduces the time to propagate a valid block. But is not currently how the Satoshi client operates, right? I know we don't have too many people running stock software and huge pools. |
|
|
|
Have you considered that maybe SatoshiDice is a government sponsored attack on Bitcoin ? And they suckered thousands of people into buying shares in the company, thus attacking themselves! |
|
|
|
Ten times the block size seems like scarcity is banished far into the future in one huge jump.
Even just doubling it is a massive increase, especially while blocks are typically still far from full.
Thus to me it seems better never to more than double it in any one jump.
If relating those doublings to the halvings of block-subsidy it too slow a rate of increase then maybe use Moore's Law or thereabouts, increasing by 50% yearly or by 100% every eighteen months.
It is hard to feel like there is anywhere close to being a "need" for more space when I have never yet ever had to pay a fee to transfer bitcoins. The rationale for the 10MB cap is that it would allow us to scale to PayPal tx level right away, and it's arguable that Bitcoin might not actually need more than that. The second rationale is that it would still allow running full nodes by regular people, thus retaining decentralization. Third rationale is that the issue of scarcity can actually be postponed because it won't be an issue for a long time. We're still in the era of large fixed block reward and we are very slowly moving into the "small fixed reward" era. I have sort of started liking the idea that we would double the block size on each block halving though. The only problem with that is the fact that if the amount of Bitcoin transactions stop growing for some reason not related to this, but there is still very high value (even growing value) in the blockchain, it would lead to the blocksize rising without an increase in transactions. Thus it would lead to lessened protection for the network even though the value in the blockchain might still be very large or even growing. This is a potential issue with a 10MB limit as well, but I have a hard time believing that. Bitcoin only needs to grow like 20 fold to start pushing the 10MB limit. Pushing it wouldn't be bad either, 70 tx/s should be enough for a lot of things. We could just let free transactions and super low fee transactions not get (fast) confirmations at that point. That is okay I think. The 7 tx/s cap that we have now is simply not going to be enough, that is pretty clear. It's too limiting. However, I do agree that this whole issue is not something that we need to do now. The blocks do not currently have scarcity to speak of. This is all about creating a plan for what we're going to do in the future. The actual hard fork will happen earliest one year from now. I'm not saying that 10x is the magical number. I'm saying that both mining and running a full client are still easily done at 10 meg blocks. If we want to cap the time of downloading overhead the latest block to say 1%, we need to be able to download the MAX_BLOCKSIZE within 6 seconds on average so that we can spend 99% time hashing. At 1MB, you would need a ~1.7Mbps connection to keep downloading time to 6s. At 10MB, 17Mbps At 100MB, 170Mbps and you start to see why even 100MB block size would render 90% of the world population unable to participate in mining. Even at 10MB, it requires investing in a relatively high speed connection. Also of importance is the fact that local bandwidth and international bandwidths can wary by large amounts. A 1Gbps connection in Singapore( http://www.starhub.com/broadband/plan/maxinfinitysupreme.html) only gives you 100Mbps international bandwidth meaning you only have 100Mbps available for receiving mining blocks. Since a couple people have thanked the author for posting this, I thought I should mention that only transaction hashes need to be sent in bursts. So a block of 1000 transactions (roughly 1MB) only requires 30KB of data to be sent in a burst, requiring a ~43Kbps connection to keep downloading time to 6s. 100MB blocks require ~4.3Mbps. The continuous downloading of transaction data is below these limits. The full block download and verification isn't needed to start hashing the next block? |
|
|
|
Cool. Is it hosted in the Netherlands? Traceroute and IP go to nforce.com in NL. Pings in NL are under 3. Pings in the USA are around 100. It seems very reactive here. Pings across EU are in the teens. And when you say provided by, are they paying for the server or are we using forum funds to pay them for the server? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
