It was, I guess he took it down.


It doesn't really need the extra bankroll, as we restrict bets pretty heavily right now (max bet size is 1 BTC). But the next release (due in a month or three) is adding a "join the bankroll" feature and going to (hopefully) support much bigger and exciting bets =)

It's absurd to think that there is not a single miner who will continue operating under the old network rules -- and that's all that it takes to create a persistent split.

It's seemingly this very lack of critical thought that leads to BU not being able to make even minor changes to the client without introducing bugs and vulnerabilities.

Loaded is offering much better terms for a BU supporter. He says:


while the terms on bitfinex mean you lose your money if there's no split. Since it's highly unlikely there's going to be a split, the bitfinex trade is pretty insanely risky even for a BU believer

Seems like a rather safe bet, I doubt anyone will have the balls to take it up.

For BTU to exist, it needs to have more proof-of-work than BTC (as if BTC's work exceeds it, it will be considered valid and the BTU will reorg away). But the only way hash power will stay mining it is if it's more economical, which would require that BTU price to be strictly greater than BTC's.

So really, a BTU/BTC split has very little to do with miners but rather the economic participants. In fact, all BTC supporters need to do is sell their BTU holdings making sure to keep the BTU price <= 1 BTC. If that is done for long enough, all BTU coins will literally vanish.

Meanwhile, BTC holders never face the same risk that their coins will disappear -- making the trade a lot safer. For this reason, BTU is pretty much doomed. If the split ever happens (which I strongly doubt), I'm more than happy to trade ~1000 BTU for 0.99 BTC each.

I think the important thing to note is that the hash power is going to follow the price. If we assume that 10% of the hash power is on BTC and 90% on BTU.  But if BTC price is worth 20% as much as BTU then miners will find it 2x more profitable to mine on BTC and will switch.

So if you look at it, it's actually not that relevant what miners think. It's what the economic participants that matters. If after the fork the BTC price is greater than BTU price (which I strongly suspect it will be, and plan on right away selling all my BTU) then it *guarantees* that BTC is more profitable to mine than BTU. (Because BTU can only exist while there are less miners than BTC). If enough miners switch back to BTC to mine the most economical chain, then the BTU will literally cease to exist (because BTC is valid to bitcoin unlimited, but not vice versa). In fact that existential risk is going to work against BU making people less likely to want to risk selling BTC for something that can disappear.

Here's bustabit's position: https://www.bustabit.com/statement-on-forks

Interesting. I wonder if Kim Dotcom is somehow involved in this?  Satoshi Dice was a pretty legendary brand name, seems strange to drop it for "mega"

This is satoshidice.com rebranded?

Big thanks to @HERPES for his (rather inappropriate) song:  https://clyp.it/lfqpsn2p

which has been met with a great reception:

There has been in the past, some withdrawals that had 0.05 - 0.1 BTC of mining fee on them, as it needed to source a lot of inputs. As you can imagine, it would obviously be extremely unfair to pass this cost onto customers (as this is something users have no control of). So if the mining fee is less than the flat fee we charge, than I don't think that's too unreasonable either. The 400 bits you pay is the fee to withdraw, rather than the exact amount we put on a transaction itself (who's byte-size can widely vary).

On a side note: the mining fees you see on the block-explorer don't actually reflect our true costs (which are actually higher than 400 bits per withdrawal). For instance, you'll probably notice that your withdrawal only sourced a single input -- and has 1 change output.

One of the big reasons we do that is to help with your privacy in withdrawals, but as we get a lot more deposits than withdrawals (2-3x) it also means that over-time we accumulate a lot of unspent transactions outputs (to the tune of ~500 a day) which we need to clean up during off peak times.



It's a good idea. Actually the new version of bustabit which should be ready in a couple of months (you can try an early preview: dev.bustabit.com) has a great withdrawal system that accurately models our costs exactly, and makes some heavy optimizations (patched bitcoind coin selection, batching withdrawals) that allows us to give the best rates for customers. There will be a significant discount offered to customers who don't need their withdrawals immediately (as we'll batch it inside the transaction of the next person who needs it immediately).

For reference: based on current market conditions, a non-instant withdrawal in bustabit v2 will only cost about ~100 bits right now. I expect this will make a lot of users happy, I just need to hurry up and finish it off =)

Sorry to jump in, but I don't like to be misrepresented. AFAICT there was never a mistake on moneypot's part. It was a silly mistake by some of their apps, which rendered them non-provably-fair. When it was pointed out, it was fixed.  

Whether or not an app (properly) randomize their client seeds doesn't directly affect moneypot or it's investors. If it did, it would be trivial to cheat moneypot. Instead the client seed is to make the game provably fair for players.

Also FWIW investing is already not provably fair (as I assume, and hope all investors are aware). If there was a scheme to cheat them, it would be trivial and undetectable (and only manifest as players getting lucky). There would be no screwing around with the client seeds at all.


Edit:

Also don't confuse  "not provably fair" with "not fair". A game is very capable of being fair, but not provably so. Obviously provably fair is better than just fair. And "nonrepudiably fair" is better than provably fair. And trustless is even better than that.

Actually no it's not. That's one of the reasons BU or "emergent consensus" is so silly. There's literally no consensus threshold or specific time or block height the hard fork happens.

The difficulty might not end up being that big of a deal. Let's say 75% of mining power did decide to fork bitcoin, there's going to be mass confusion and chaos. No matter which side of the fork you support, you're going to want to be extremely careful about sending money to avoid replay issues. (i.e. even if you support BU, you wouldn't want to lose your BTC because they'd still be worth *something*. And vice versa).

For instance, I would likely temporarily halt all withdrawals on bustabit for a day or two if the network forked (to avoid leaking BUC coins).


So with a massive drop off in day-to-day bitcoin transactions, there is probably going to be enough capacity in BTC to continue operating while the big economic players duke it out on the exchanges to see who's coin is worth more.

Personally I would be very happy if such a fork happens. As soon as it does, I will transfer a couple thousands BUC (Bitcoin Unlimited Coins) to the first exchange that supports BUC:BTC  trading, and put an order in to sell my BUC for >= 1 BTC each.

For BUC to survive, it would require the price to be higher than BTC. Even if the price was equal, BUC would die (because for BUC to exist, it requires it having more mining power than BTC. But if it has more mining power and the same price, it'd be more economical to mine on BTC). And as soon as BTC regains more mining work, the BU chain would seize to exist.


It seems like an easy way for me to double my bitcoin holdings. Worst case is I'm wrong, and there's more market demand for BUC than BTC, and the price of BTC is worth very little. But without a doubt the BTC chain will still live on, and still retain some value.

In your live stream, you're running "bustabreaker"? I'm pretty sure that was the name of some bustabit bot that actually functioned, but was bundled with some malware and then in a big session mass hacked everyone who used it

FWIW all wallet transactions are eligible for abandonment, abandonment is not something that spreads on the network or anything -- it's purely a local thing to stop it continually broadcasting it. In your case, as you've credited his account you'll want to abandon it to make it less likely to confirm (and easier to conflict).

The only reason I can think you'd have trouble abandoning it, is if you've got child transactions from it (which you need to abandon first) or if you haven't cleared your mempool

The "first seen" is self-descriptive, it's the time that blocktrail first saw the transaction. This was went it was first made. The "relay" time is the *last* time it saw it. Wallets like bitcoin core will continually rebroadcast transactions (every 24h?) so that the network doesn't forget about it (most nodes expire mempool transactions after 48-72h). In your case, this is the opposite of what you want (I guess they forgot to `abandontransaction` on it).

The simplest solution would be to use CPFP to push the transaction through. Either you could do that (using the output they sent to) or moneypot could do it (using the change address) and it would confirm with ~30 minutes or so

Oh, that's totally normal. The current version of bustabit has had a huge amount of optimization, so it's no surprise it works smoothly =)  bustabit.com/play is the version that we recommend people use

By the "new version" do you mean "dev.bustabit.com"?

That one will *never* skip, because I haven't yet implemented client-side lag detection Even if you pull the internet connection, it'll still animate it going up smoothly. While when it's more mature the client will pause because after X ms of not receive any messages from the server it'll know something is wrong

Both /play and /play-old has the same skipping problem?  If so, I'm going to guess its internet related. If you have high-packet loss, I'd expect to see something like that (even if your raw internet speed is great).

The good news is, you can still play exclusively using the "auto cash out" and as that happens server-side, you'll be unaffected by any connection/lag problems