|
version 42:
- remove extraneous decimal place on millibit prices
- get EUR results directly from BTC-e instead of estimating
|
|
|
|
|
version 41:
- add itbit
- bug fixes
|
|
|
|
1b) An improved idea (and the one Doog was favoring) was to ask users to select one of a few options for maximum bet. For example, you would chose if you want 0.5% maximum wagered per bet or 1%. The site then just has to calculate the percentage of the bank roll owned collectively by those two bins after every roll since the percentage a single investor owns of either bins remains a constant unless there is an invest or divest event. This, for now, seems to be the way it may be implemented.
1b looks OK. If someone wants to go into higher risk bin and take on themselves percentage of all bets above current Max Profit it's fine with me. This has all been hashed over before. Max profit should be returned to the kelly optimum of 1%, and investors should be encouraged to reduce their investment size until they no longer have hernias when a whale wins big. There is no need for an additional risk limit knob -- that's what your investment amount is for. Not quite; there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind: - A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
- A lack of bitcoins
- Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)
Um. Leverage is a Very Bad Idea. If the investors don't have the full amount of bitcoins to back their position, then who's going to pay out if a whale were to win it all? Who would bet on a platform when you know they might not actually be able to pay out? If you want to borrow bitcoins to invest on just-dice, that's fine, so long as you aren't implicitly borrowing them from other just-dice investors who never consented. Upon rereading I think maybe what you are suggesting by "leverage" would be raising your individual kelly percent above 1%. In other words, saying you're willing to bet bigger than the optimal amount (because you like to gamble with a positive edge). I can sorta see some validity to that. |
|
|
|
1b) An improved idea (and the one Doog was favoring) was to ask users to select one of a few options for maximum bet. For example, you would chose if you want 0.5% maximum wagered per bet or 1%. The site then just has to calculate the percentage of the bank roll owned collectively by those two bins after every roll since the percentage a single investor owns of either bins remains a constant unless there is an invest or divest event. This, for now, seems to be the way it may be implemented.
1b looks OK. If someone wants to go into higher risk bin and take on themselves percentage of all bets above current Max Profit it's fine with me. This has all been hashed over before. Max profit should be returned to the kelly optimum of 1%, and investors should be encouraged to reduce their investment size until they no longer have hernias when a whale wins big. There is no need for an additional risk limit knob -- that's what your investment amount is for. Not quite; there are a couple scenarios in which a higher "leverage" on Just-Dice is advantageous over a higher investment amount. There are more, but three spring to mind: - A lack of perfect trust in dooglus, dooglus' computer skills, etc
- A lack of bitcoins
- Having taken out a loan to invest in Just-Dice (not that I condone this one)
Um. Leverage is a Very Bad Idea. If the investors don't have the full amount of bitcoins to back their position, then who's going to pay out if a whale were to win it all? Who would bet on a platform when you know they might not actually be able to pay out? If you want to borrow bitcoins to invest on just-dice, that's fine, so long as you aren't implicitly borrowing them from other just-dice investors who never consented. |
|
|
|
1b) An improved idea (and the one Doog was favoring) was to ask users to select one of a few options for maximum bet. For example, you would chose if you want 0.5% maximum wagered per bet or 1%. The site then just has to calculate the percentage of the bank roll owned collectively by those two bins after every roll since the percentage a single investor owns of either bins remains a constant unless there is an invest or divest event. This, for now, seems to be the way it may be implemented.
1b looks OK. If someone wants to go into higher risk bin and take on themselves percentage of all bets above current Max Profit it's fine with me. This has all been hashed over before. Max profit should be returned to the kelly optimum of 1%, and investors should be encouraged to reduce their investment size until they no longer have hernias when a whale wins big. There is no need for an additional risk limit knob -- that's what your investment amount is for. |
|
|
|
As for the domain thing and your poor service I see them as linked. If they show such a lack of judgment for the domain names then they will most likely have a lack of judgment in other areas. The poor service is because everybody accepts it and if people complain there are always a large number of people who justify it by saying Bitcoin is new and it is this or nothing. That is correct up to a point. At some juncture you have to start providing reasonable customer service and you can't just keep putting your head in the sand. I was looking over the blogs/tweets, etc. of the VC of many of these exchanges. You never see customer service/experience mentioned, you only see discussions of how much seed money they got. Maybe they will sell out at some point because most of these exchanges know how to start the exchange but they don't know how to maintain it day-to-day.
It's not obviously an unethical thing to do, but it also doesn't sit well with some people. However, as Dargo says it's "polarizing", and *some* people see it as unethical, so it almost certainly hurts business for Kraken. That said, if you're getting a lot of referrals through those domains it may make sense. It's a tricky one to weigh because you don't know how many customers are turned off by it. If it were my company, I would not do it, because in the long run bad PR sucks. |
|
|
|
|
version 40:
- add old-world-currency estimates for LTC and XPM-based pairs on cryptsy
|
|
|
|
At some point JD may want to set a cap on investor amounts. Especially if BTCs start trading north of $1,000. Who knows what that limit is? But I think around 50,000 to 100,000 coins will do the trick as the largest pools out there are less than that amount. Therefore, JD will have the largest bank roll and will be sustained over time.
Because why? |
|
|
|
|
Someone suggested that the LitecoinWidget logo could use an overhaul, as it's not really about Litecoin so much anymore. The name too. I agree, and am entertaining suggestions in this thread. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
|
|
|
|
I want to borrow up to 10 million doge for up to 60 days. I will pay 10% interest on your dogecoins, meaning you will get back N*1.1 doges within 60 days (that's actually more like 60% annualized). 10% is my bid, if you want a higher rate please post your offer.
Lest you think I am being a ponzi, I will be perfectly transparent about what I'm doing with the coins. I'm going to sell them on the open market in a bet that I'll be able to buy them back for less.
I will hold at least 15 BTC in a reserve address which I'll share with the lender so s/he knows I have enough coins to cover the position should doge continue to go up.
Interested lenders please post here.
Now that doge indeed is down to earth (and there is still some road to its actual value) Did you get your short sell option ? Never found a lender  |
|
|
|
2. Customers should be treated with much more respect. Stop calling them "whales" and that kind of things. You are doing exactly the opposite of what "serious" casinos do, specially brick and mortar ones. Customers must feel comfortable betting at Just Dice. We have to try to make them feel good even when they lose, so it's more likely that they come back. People don't like feeling stupid.
this could be addressed somewhat with separate chats. one for investors only, one for big gamblers, one for anyone, who knows what else. Exactly. Look at a normal casino. The owners discussing with the players about the investments? An owner asking a sheikh not to play anymore because he fears he could win too much? Thats so completely stupid. Investors and players has to be divided. It has to be a player experience for players and an investors experience for investors. That really shouldnt be discussed in one thread or chat. The more when some scary investors are able to crush the investment for all investors because they are, sorry, stupid enough to tell players to stop playing and even can convince the site owner to set the website to mathematically suboptimal settings. Such things REALLY shouldnt happen. That has to change. I think it's a mistake to compare just-dice to a normal casino. Just-dice is more transparent than any normal casino, and that is an attractive feature. The fact that investors and players intermingle is really cool IMO, and makes for some great camraderie and interesting chats. Not to mention the fact that many of the biggest players are investors and vice versa. |
|
|
|
|
version 39:
- fix bug whereby clicking two different widgets would result in double click behavior.
- fix null pointer exception that happens in rare cases
|
|
|
|
|
version 38:
- NEW FEATURE: double click to edit an existing widget's configuration!
- fun with doges
|
|
|
|
|
version 37:
- add support for altcoins which trade versus XPM or LTC on cryptsy. For example, FLO (Florincoin).
- add images for more coins (notably DOGE)
|
|
|
|
I love this business model. I have invested a bit and will probably invest more. I'd like to make some suggestions:
1. Maximum bet should be whatever gives the highest return to Just-Dice (following the Kelly Criterion). Not only it increases our expected profit, but it attracts more people looking to hit the jackpot. And people hitting a gigantic jackpot is also great for marketing. If some risk adverse investors prefer to have lower returns and volatility, they can simple divest a portion of their actual share.
I agree with this (though to be technical, the proper term is "maximum profit", not "maximum bet"). The reason it was reduced was because of massive house losses in the early Nakowa days. Investors were panicking, hollering at dooglus to make this change or that change. As steward of investor funds, I would have felt a lot of pressure to do *something*, so I'm not surprised Doog decided to lower the max. In reality the underlying problem was that too many investors were overinvested for their own comfort levels. Or at least the vocal, panicky ones were. They didn't understand the volatility risk they were assuming. Kudos to Rampion for owning up to this. The problem with the solution of lowering the max profit is that it reduces the expectancy for everyone, particularly those investors who didn't or wouldn't lose their lunch after a 20% loss. Also, like you say, it potentially turns away some customers who would otherwise patronize. Another option, if it's cheap enough to implement, would be letting investors choose how much they are willing to risk in a single bet.
I don't particularly like this idea, because it adds complexity and it's basically unnecessary. 2. Customers should be treated with much more respect. Stop calling them "whales" and that kind of things. You are doing exactly the opposite of what "serious" casinos do, specially brick and mortar ones. Customers must feel comfortable betting at Just Dice. We have to try to make them feel good even when they lose, so it's more likely that they come back. People don't like feeling stupid.
3. I don't get why some of you complain so much when some customers make a lot of money. Don't you understand that they are losing in the long run? I wish we had thousands of high rollers gambling all day. They win sometimes, it's inevitable, they wouldn't be willing to participate if they couldn't win. Every time they bet, we win 0.01 of that amount, that's the only thing that matters. There's no winning strategy, each bet has the same negative expected value. The only thing that we must care about is people being able to bet profitably, by knowing what the dice result will be.
I don't think the term "whale" is particularly derogatory. There's a bit of status associated with earning that title. It's an uphill battle to influence what random people are going to write on this thread or in the just dice chatbox. |
|
|
|
I wanted to build a platform for short selling with a forced reserve in BTC and interest offer but I am too lazy to enter this kind of project you start and never terminate . Waiting for someone to build it.
bitfinex already has the platform, though it may not be worth their while to add every little coin |
|
|
|
|
I want to borrow up to 10 million doge for up to 60 days. I will pay 10% interest on your dogecoins, meaning you will get back N*1.1 doges within 60 days (that's actually more like 60% annualized). 10% is my bid, if you want a higher rate please post your offer.
Lest you think I am being a ponzi, I will be perfectly transparent about what I'm doing with the coins. I'm going to sell them on the open market in a bet that I'll be able to buy them back for less.
I will hold at least 15 BTC in a reserve address which I'll share with the lender so s/he knows I have enough coins to cover the position should doge continue to go up.
Interested lenders please post here.
|
|
|
|
I still have a hard time understanding it. I see that random values have no past. Its random. But random doesnt look random anymore the more values you have. So even when you throw a perfect dice 10,000 times and you get these results:
1-2000
2-2000
3-3000
4-2000
5-2000
6-1000
Yeah the more values you add, the 3's and 6's are going to tend to come into line. However, that's not because 6's are somehow more likely, or 3's any less. It's just because as you add more values, the discrepancies become relatively smaller. Try this: what happens if you add 5000 to all the results? E.g. the fair die is just doing it's job being perfectly fair now. Your new totals are: 1-7000 2-7000 3-8000 4-7000 5-7000 6-6000 Now the 3s and 6s are still 1000 away from where they should be, but as a percentage they're only about 15% out of line instead of 50%. It is only in this sense that things eventually "come into line". |
|
|
|
|
version 36:
- fix crash when cryptsy is down
|
|
|
|
|
version 35:
- millibits and microbits on bitcoin prices where appropriate
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
