FWIW, the bitcoin wiki has that line about it being a "quirk"


Also the reddit page you linked to is interesting, but it doesn't really have anything about the motivation (from what I saw).  It seems to me that it may have indeed been a "quirk".  What did I miss?

I have some from an old project that I forgot to send back to the faucet I got them from.  Let me see if I can dig them up and send them to you.

Removing default trust doesn't (necessarily) mean that all feedback is weighed equally.  That's an assumption that I didn't see above.Being discussed here doesn't mean that it's been shown or proven.  You can claim that it's not plausible, but that's not a proof.

Sorry, CITM, it's not clear what the antecedent is for "it".  My post?  The fact that Bicks and Dogie are flaming for pages and pages with no moderation?  The fact that the mods don't allow/understand sarcasm?  Of those choices, I think some of them do suck.


FunFunnyFan, wtf dude?  You don't get sarcasm either? You can's understand what I wrote above that the thread was an insanse mess of flamewar and already literally "derailed"?What are you talking about?I literally, cannot figure out what you're on about here.  Try adding some detail. You seem to have me consued with someone else, at bestWow, I wonder how many times you might need to go back and do some reading in order to come to an understanding of what's being commented on here.  Good luck!

Ok, thanks for straightening me out, guys.  For the record, I was thinking of the connection via bitcoinj, which is by Mike Hearn.  At least I'm right about Hearn being a proponent of the block-size increase, right?

Indeed, I'm not a mathematician, but I think it's pretty doable---lets say you put an array of the number of players weighted by probability mass for each player to win (so if there are two players at 25%, 75% odds, you'd have (1,2,2,2) for player 1 and player 2, respectively). Then you need to pick an array element based on a provably fair random number.  And that part should just be a matter of seeds from each player and a seed from the server (hashed and distributed, of course).  The thing is that each player needs access to all the player seeds to verify the game, so you'd have to make that part transparent.

Looking forward to OPs reply here.

I will do that, I'm glad you suggested it---I wouldn't have thought to do so otherwise.

If he can find a clever way to prove it, that would certainly change the scene around here--a new type of provable fair game.  If he can't prove it, I'd be skeptical because the house could be playing with the odds.  Since we don't know who owns what bitcoin address, we don't know that the house doesn't own the winning address either.  Not saying they are cheating, just that it's pretty crucial to prove they aren't in this setup (IMO).

Looks fun, looks simple and transparent.  I was surprised to see that it seems like you've already got quite a good handful of users.  One question which isn't clear at first glance: how do you prove that the chance to win really was equal to the percentage of a person's bet to the pot.  That is, I can see all the relevant bets, but how can we know you distributed the odds fairly when you picked a winner?

It would be nice for a future version of bitcoincore to include a text versions of the error codes so that users can interpret things like -8 means "missing path argument" or something like that without having to post here or grep through source code for the interpretations.  Don't get me wrong, error codes are useful and awesome, but eventually it's nice to provide a text based version of the error code along with the numerical one.  Really, the numerical one is more useful for API usage.

Bicksnellski and Dogie are flaming each other like champs in a thread in meta: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1072385.120

I replied to lighten the mood, griping a bit at Dogie for grping at Bicknellski for a misspelling.


So, here's my question for you, Meta,  how is it that these two guys can go on for pages of flaming with no moderation, but a lighthearted response intending to put some brakes on the hate gets deleted by a mod?  

Seems clear to me that Dogie didn't like his flamer on Bicknellski getting taken to taks and the mods agreed.  But if the mods are going to clean up the off-topic flames in that thread, please go ahead and delete the last two pages.

Maybe the sarcasm of my point was too subtle?  The mods didn't get it that I was making a comment on the pointlessness of cointinuing the personal attacks which had degraded to issues of spelling?

What am I missing?

It may be that if he is indeed in the hospital, that once he's recovered he'll look into clearing this up.  I hate to say it but if I was in the hospital with something life-threatening, a 400$ bill, while certainly a serious matter, wouldn't be the first thing on my mind.

Lol, you might say that I had forgotten about them.  I haven't been on your site in over a week and I'm curious how it's going.  Will stop back in tonight or tomorrow to check out the scene.

It's not clear that removing defaul trust results in a system based on a popularity contest.  From what I can see, there's no reason why, in principle, my trust network has to have *any* overlap with yours.It's not clear that increasing the number of people who can do some moderating is equal to "willy nilly".I think this gets to the heart of the matter, Bicknellski has made it more than clear about how he feels about you, you seem to be bowing to pressure to respond---but bickering at him doesn't make you look any better and, if anything, you're validating his gripes whereas if you ignored them (his post here was something like a week old already) they'd probably be less noticed.Seems the same might be said for replying to said post (and so, recursively, I'm guilty too, I guess---hehe).

Most likely, you'd get better performance out of your old hardware running GNU/Linux, I wonder why dual-booting isn't an option (if you only play your game from time-to-time, you could have more fun the rest of the time by booting into a better OS).

Only profits and maniacs claim to have 100% knowledge of the future---which one are you?  On the other hand, worry never a good thing (IMO).

Nevertheless, I agree that most-likely there will be nothing to be done from the perspective of a multibit-user.  MB is developed by Mike Hearn (IIRC) and he's one of the proponents of the increased block size (again, IIRC).

If I had any money on blockchain.info I'd definitely take newIndia's advice---make sure you have your own copy of the private keys---what if next time they're down they don't come back up?  It's better to be safe than sorry.

Yup, people are going to be surprised by the transaction fee their wallet asks them to pay in order to get a confirmation on a spend of all that dust.

Here's a philosophical puzzler for ya:  what's the difference between "betting red" and just thinking about what you would have bet red on, then flipping the up/down and betting green?

Have they actually said that the browser client is being developed?  I recall Micon saying it would eventually be but that it was on the bottom of the list.  About a month ago, I think they said the android client was finally being developed.  Anyway, I can't seem to get the to reply about even just setting up a login system on the website, I'd be surprised if they were actually developing the browser client at the moment.