Bitcoin Forum
May 04, 2024, 05:03:43 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
121  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: MtGox withdrawal is back, as they claim on: July 09, 2013, 03:46:10 AM
There is 1 implausible scenario (Mt. Gox official explanation) : Mt. Gox sends so many wires it overwhelmed the 2nd largest bank in Japan's ability to send wires.

There are 2 plausible scenarios, one bad, one worse.

Scenario 1) There is major regulatory pressure that has come down and we are only seeing a bit of it from our vantage point. Dwolla seizure is just the tip. Many banks are refusing to accept wires from Mt.Gox account.  I heard from OneFixit on IRC that his wire from Gox to Citibank never showed up, he called Citibank and they said they refused the wire and will refuse all future wires from Gox.

Gox is frantically trying to open accounts in other banks or in other names to disguise the origin of the transfers so it can resume sending wires out.  How long before they get caught?   This is the bad scenario.

Scenario 2) Gox does not properly segment customer funds, and without regulatory oversight the recent secular shift in market sentiment to more bearish tone has caused a major imbalance in wires in vs. wires out.  They don't send wires out because they don't have a segregated pile of customer money.  They spent all the money on hiring new people, or expanding, or speculating, who knows.  All that matters is they don't wire out till people wire in.  Gox is not a bank that has many loans out, where fractional reserve banking works, it is an exchange or brokerage where customer accounts should be segmented.  Gox has been in seg fault for weeks and would be instantly shut down if there was any sort of regulatory oversight on their operations.  This is the worse scenario.

Take your pick, they both suck.  Or take plausible scenario 3, which is 1 + 2 simultaneously.


122  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: MtGox withdrawal is back, as they claim on: July 09, 2013, 03:34:12 AM
For the record Gox worked consistently well for me, done 3 withdrawals of non-negligible amounts and I got the money in my bank in 2/3 days. SEPA transfers, Europe customer.


wrong verb tense to be relevant.

works?
123  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: July 09, 2013, 03:33:27 AM
Would escrow work? There are a few people on these forums who hold large sums of coins. And there is at least one who is offering to hold > 10k to > 100k. The problem again, is trust or incentive to not disappear, or whatever, and then there is the possible drama from all the accusations of fraud, false or not.

I mean, it is dooglus own site, the investors decided to put their money there. That is their decision. If they want to make dooglus have someone else hold their coins, they merely remove financial responsibility from one person to another.

I prefer a single counterparty.  I trust dooglus as least as much as any other escrow provider.
124  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: July 09, 2013, 03:30:09 AM
probably meant "a little over 1%."
The optimal for SD to risk on each bet is 1.9% - their house edge.
Probably they know about it and do exactly that.

You would think so wouldn't you?

But they offer a 64000x payout with a max bet of 0.1 BTC.  That's a 6400 BTC payout.  Erik claims that the SDICE betting pool is made up entirely of a loan of "about 6100 BTC" from himself.  That means they're risking over 100% of the pool.

I doubt there is a specific bet pool. This is simply evidence that Erik is a scammer and wanted to claim 100% of the dividends for a month so he could turn the whale bots back on and sell some more shares without costing him anything.  He just pulled that number out of his ass because it was just a bit more than the total profit for the month.


125  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: July 09, 2013, 03:25:48 AM
What about splitting the cold wallet up into smaller amounts and giving them to other established members of the bitcoin community? I trust that dooglus is up to his eyes in backups, but this would also remove some of the incentive to take the money and run. The passwords for those accounts could use samir secret sharing so dooglus wouldnt have to trust these other people as well.

There are extreme risks in this.

I hasten to remind everyone that this is precisely what destroyed CPA. We split up our funds and gave them to five established members of the community. Ultimately we got less than 40% of our money back. Remember, these were the best people in the community at the time. What happened later only proved the original assumption to be a mistake.

The other lesson learned was about chaining counterparty risk. Like Hashking -- many people invested with HashKing simply because he swore up and down he wasn't in pirate. How can dooglus stop people from investing back into just-dice? Counterparty risk magnifies your risk. If dooglus gave me 5,000 BTC to hold on to, and I invested it into just-dice, a situation where he needs his money back is precisely the situation where I cannot repay it.

I was thinking about this days ago, approaching Dooglus with such an offer. But given the choice I think I might prefer not to take his money and retain the ability to invest into just-dice.

Usagi makes some very good points here.  Particularly recycling of the coins. OH jeeze that would be bad.
126  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: July 09, 2013, 03:23:42 AM
it would add some risk but remove other risk at the same time.

there is an incentive for dooglus to take the money and run, everyone knows this. but if he uses shamir secret sharing, then several people across the community would all have to be in on it in order to do that. and even then, they would then likely split the money, reducing the incentive to run even further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir%27s_Secret_Sharing

the names/aliases of the secret sharers could be made public so the investors would know who has a portion of the bankroll at any given time, and the addresses would be made public so they could be monitored at all times as well.

yes, if all the people died at the same time, or all the people lost the passwords at the same time, then you lose the money. but that is very unlikely, and there would be several accounts, so you wouldnt lose all the money at the same time even if it did.

additionally, since there would be several accounts, then it is more likely that in the event that a cold wallet needs to be accessed, at least one of the wallets would have enough people available at any time to access it.

There's problems with that sort of approach.

Assume there's X keys and Y are needed to unlock.

As Y gets closer to X it becomes increasingly difficult to get enough people to gain access when funds need moving.
As Y becomes further away from X the likelihood of theft increases.

It's additionally made risky because, depending on implementation, it could be impossible to determine who had conducted a theft - i.e. you'd know at least Y of the X holders were involved but not which ones (as any Y of X could unlock).  Any solution which involves the possibility of anonymous theft MUST be discounted - as it removes one of the (maybe THE) prime disincentives to stealing in the first place.

Where you run into a problem with that is that in order to remove anonymity, all signings/signatures have to be public - which then begins to add an entirely different set of problems/risks.  For a one-time use scenario it could be fine - it doesn't work so well when withdrawals could occur frequently.

Now imagine that somehow it's all set up and working.  Then someone posts a message saying "I'm a key-holder - please contact XXX@YYY.COM if you're also one so we can cooperate."

What do you do?  Is it real?  Is it a hoax?  Is it a prank?  Has that increased your perception of risk?  What if they then post saying "we only need 1 more keyholder to get rich?"  Would you feel more comfortable?  Or would you feel as though you were in far more danger than if dooglus had just looked after it all in the first place?  I mean you'd know that logically it was probably a hoax - but would you not be tempted to withdraw funds just in case?  Theoretically it could be a keyholder who was NOT intending to steal - but was either (stupidly) trying to place a trap for dishonest ones OR was also an investor and was trying to drive other investors out to increase their profits.  There's a whole raft of reason why people would WANT to spread FUD - and the nature of things is that they'd be likely to succeed because of the way in which such a scheme HAS to work.

Honestly it's a nightmare - both in terms of logistics and in terms of actually delivering improved security and confidence.

I think Mark Twain had some insight on this very topic...

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/CorrHadl.shtml
127  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: July 08, 2013, 05:38:01 PM
  We currently can't match SDICE's 500 BTC max bet on 2x, so I'd say we're not too big yet.  Mind you, they apparently risk a little over 100% of their bankroll per dice roll, so it's easier for them to offer big bets.  It seems to be the "let's hope nobody gets lucky" technique of bankroll manangement.

probably meant "a little over 1%."
The optimal for SD to risk on each bet is 1.9% - their house edge.
Probably they know about it and do exactly that.

Doubly wrong. RTFF.

128  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Play or Invest : 1% House Edge : Banter++ on: July 08, 2013, 03:31:12 PM
Back up.

And with a bigger investment pool  Shocked Sad
site   30,131.83240351   
129  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Satoshi Dice -- Statistical Analysis on: July 07, 2013, 01:32:48 PM
does just-dice has any impact on S.DICE betting volume yet? Looks like JD volume and frequency rises much quicker, at least at this time, when there are just a few bets per minute in S.DICE and it looks pretty dead.

I didn't compare the activity on the two sites.  They're quite different things, what with SatoshiDice being blockchain only, and Just-Dice being real-time, off the blockchain.  This month's SatoshiDice chart does look rather flat so far though doesn't it?

Erik turned the bots off, after that last 2.6M share dump.

Smiley
130  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: MtGox withdrawal is back, as they claim on: July 07, 2013, 03:23:39 AM

Yesterday they cancelled my wires that were supposedly processed 6/14 (at my request).  I still see no evidence they aren't just jawboning to try to get people to deposit fiat so they can wire it right back out.  Probably insolvent fractional reserve.


Wasn't it just last month that you were accusing me of spreading FUD (when I said my transfers were delayed) and that everything at Mt.Gox was great and you were receiving transfers in less than 5 minutes?

Now Mt. Gox are jawboning and insolvent?

That's quite a U-Turn...lol

Admittedly a U-Turn. My comments were and are based on my experiences, which includes multiple frozen wire from 6/14 onwards.  Prior to that it was all roses with many transactions. 

I just try to construct the most plausible scenario based on the evidence I know to be true, your perspective will lead you to a different one.  Then we all get on this forum, post our thoughts and apply a Bayesian inference filter to extract the most probable one and act on it.  Personally, I will not hold any coin or cash on Mt. Gox till its clear the issues are resolved from multiple forum reports and my own 'canary' wire that is still frozen from 6/18.
131  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: MtGox withdrawal is back, as they claim on: July 05, 2013, 06:49:01 PM
OK here's what I don't get:

Quote from: Mt Gox
New Banking Partners Mt. Gox has now formed relationships with several new banking partners both in Japan and around the world, and we are still in the process of finalizing even more. This means that we will have increased stability and ability to transmit withdrawals going forward.

But:

Quote from: Mt Gox
Current Back-log The new system is just now getting under way, so there is still a back-log of withdrawals that we need to process. Our team is working hard to increase transaction speeds, but there is approximately a two-week back-log we need to overcome. It will take a few weeks to get back to normal, and we thank you for your patience during this time.

They have this new great system in place, but the 2 week backlog of withdrawals is going to take "a few weeks" to get through?

You'd think that if they had implemented a new, better system, they'd be able to get through the 2 week backlog (minus the million dollars in transactions they claim they have already processed while "testing") in less than 2 weeks, not more than 2 weeks.

Something still smells fishy here.

Yesterday they cancelled my wires that were supposedly processed 6/14 (at my request).  I still see no evidence they aren't just jawboning to try to get people to deposit fiat so they can wire it right back out.  Probably insolvent fractional reserve.
132  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: MtGox withdrawal is back, as they claim on: July 04, 2013, 06:33:15 PM
   
2013/06/13
15:16:48
   withdraw   Status: confirmed   $10,000.00000   $4,408.06989
Withdraw to account BENDIGO BANK LIMITED

Still not processed, so the $1M must have all been withdrawals requested before 13 June.

Please report here when you receive the wire

My wire from 6/14 was just cancelled at my request.  They have a cash crunch for shizzle.
133  Economy / Securities / NYT Dealbook : Bitcoin ETF coming on: July 02, 2013, 02:11:26 PM
I like the veiled sarcasm at this part :

Quote
Before Mt.Gox registered with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, some of its accounts in the United States were frozen. The company temporarily stopped its American customers from cashing out while it said it was “making improvements.”


http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/first-name-in-the-first-fund-for-bitcoins-winklevoss/?nl=business&emc=edit_dlbkam_20130702

Winklevoss Twins Plan First Fund for Bitcoins
BY NATHANIEL POPPER AND PETER LATTMAN

Agaton Strom for The New York Times
Tyler, left, and Cameron Winklevoss in April, when they said they had $10 million in bitcoins.
Bitcoin has been promoted as an alternative crypto-currency that exists outside the realms of governments and central banks. Now, two backers of the digital money are seeking to bring bitcoin into the investing mainstream — if they win the approval of the United States government.

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the twins best known for their part in the history of Facebook, filed a proposal with securities regulators on Monday that would allow any investor to trade bitcoins, just as if they were stocks. The plan involves an exchange-traded fund, which usually tracks a basket of stocks or a commodity, but in this case would hold only bitcoins.

For Starters, It’s Not a Coin
It is part of a broader effort to remove the stigma hovering over bitcoin and other online money endeavors, which have faced a barrage of regulatory questions and enforcement actions. Recently the world’s largest trading exchange for bitcoins, Mt.Gox, filed with the Treasury Department to register itself as a money services business and comply with money-laundering laws.

The proposal from the twins, who already have sizable bitcoin holdings, is an audacious one: the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust could send digital money from the realm of computer programmers, Internet entrepreneurs and a small circle of professional investors like themselves into the hands of retail investors — virtually anyone with a brokerage account.


The New York Times
“The trust brings bitcoin to Main Street and mainstream investors to bitcoin,” said Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Math-Based Asset Services, which would operate the proposed fund. “It eliminates the friction of buying and reduces the risks associated with storing bitcoin while offering similar investment attributes to direct ownership.”

Their proposal has the advantage of coming from the desk of Kathleen Moriarty, a lawyer at Katten Muchin, who played a leading role in the creation of the first exchange-traded fund and popular gold- and silver-backed E.T.F.’s.

But it is far from certain that securities regulators will approve. Even if they do, such a fund would face major challenges, including the current bottlenecks that stop bitcoins from being easily bought and sold.

“There are so many ways it could go wrong,” said Ugo Egbunike, a senior specialist in exchange-traded funds at the data company Index Universe.

On Monday, several market participants suggested that the proposal was a long shot that was merely an attempt to legitimize the digital currency. But Cameron Winklevoss expressed confidence that regulators would bless the new investment.

“We have assembled a team that has successfully launched novel products before, and we firmly believe in the chances of success for this product,” he said.

The filing is the latest eye-catching development in bitcoin’s history since it was founded by an anonymous hacker, or hackers, in 2009.

Unlike traditional money, bitcoins exist in no physical form and are not backed by a central bank. Instead, the coins are created by a network of users who solve complex mathematical problems — a method known as “mining” — to generate bitcoins. Only a finite number of bitcoins can be created — 21 million — with the current count at about 11 million. A limited number of stores and Web sites are accepting bitcoin as payment, but for now it is primarily a vehicle for speculators.

“The value of bitcoins is determined by the value that various market participants place on bitcoins through their transactions,” the brothers’ filing says.

The currency grabbed the attention of global markets in April when the value of a single bitcoin spiked to more than $250 from $110, before plummeting. While there were questions about the survival of the currency, the value of a bitcoin has recently hovered around $100, making the total market worth about $1 billion.

During the April swoon, the Winklevosses went public with their own bitcoin hoard, amounting to about 1 percent of all outstanding coins, or about $10 million.

Bitcoins can currently only be bought and sold on informal computer networks and on online marketplaces that require substantial technological savvy and are far more complicated than traditional exchanges. The inaccessibility, and the limited quantity of bitcoins, appeal to users who are skeptical of governments and central banks. But it has made the system vulnerable at times to hackers and technology flaws.

An exchange-traded fund would make it significantly easier to gain exposure to bitcoins, just as commodities-based funds have made investing in gold, silver and other precious metals more accessible.

The Winklevoss fund would buy one bitcoin for every five shares, making the value of a single share worth about a fifth of a single bitcoin. Regulated trading desks would have to handle the daily buying and selling of the shares. The company operated by the Winklevosses would have a proprietary method for storing the fund’s bitcoin holdings and would charge an annual management fee, which is not specified in the filing.

Monday’s submission comes at a precarious time for digital money. In May, the operators of another online currency, Liberty Reserve, were indicted on charges that they facilitated billions of dollars of money laundering. Both before and after that, state and federal regulators were scrutinizing many players in the growing bitcoin economy, including the largest place to buy and sell the coins, the Tokyo-based Mt.Gox.

Before Mt.Gox registered with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, some of its accounts in the United States were frozen. The company temporarily stopped its American customers from cashing out while it said it was “making improvements.”

Mt.Gox’s difficulties highlight the risks that could confront the owner of shares in a bitcoin fund. The securities filing made Monday has 18 pages of “risk factors,” noting, among other concerns, the heavy presence of speculators and “an uncertain regulatory landscape.”

Mr. Egbunike said regulators may hesitate to approve the proposal because of the questions surrounding bitcoins and recent scrutiny of exchange-traded funds more broadly. While such funds have made the buying and selling of commodities and other complicated financial assets easier for retail investors, they have given these investors access to products that they may not understand. For current bitcoin aficionados, an E.T.F. could diminish the currency’s free-spirited appeal.

But even if the Winklevosses’ proposal fails, some industry experts said that it marks a significant signpost in the push to give virtual currencies at least a veneer of respectability.

“Digital currencies are not going away,” said Carol Van Cleef, the head of law firm Patton Boggs’s emerging-payments practice. “And as bitcoin rises in popularity, you’re going to see traditional financial products and services being adapted to it.”
134  Economy / Gambling / Re: Just-Dice.com : Ten Millionth Bet Promotion on: July 01, 2013, 04:26:08 AM
What if we bet zero? Could we get 1,000BTC then?

If the 10 millionth roll bets zero then the prize is twice zero.

That would make it quite a cheap promotion for me, but it would make you kind of a dick.  Wink

On the two-million promotion I made the same offer and Bugpowder won 2 BTC by betting the full 1 BTC on bet 2000000.  Apparently he lost 3 BTC trying to win the 2 BTC too, but made it back later.

CONFIRMED.
135  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: June 29, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
I'm fine with 5%, but the reasoning for this increase is interesting. Is just-dice now 'tainted' in the eyes of those who deemed it too shady because dooglus was willing to go with just 1% fee? If so, increasing to 5% shouldn't convince them now. Maybe it'll convince those who hear about just-dice later and don't know it started at 1% (which they would have deemed shady). Of course, someone could take it as their personal quest to make everyone aware that the fee was 1% in the beginning, and was only increased to make people less likely to think it's a scam.



I would be thrilled if people that think its too shady do not invest.
136  Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx on: June 29, 2013, 06:43:36 PM
Did someone just bought over 1 million shares that were on offer on mpex at 0.0027 ?

Day volume on mpex is over 2 million sdice shares, last price is 0.0020, but the bid @ 1 million shares for 0.0020 is still untouched.  

Is there a way to know past transactions on mpex?

No, some lunatic bought the 2.6M that were on offer at .0028.

Bitcoin assets never lose their ability to surprise.

Thanks for the info. Wauw, impressive! Could also not be crazy if it was the same person that has been getting a few million bids filled @ 0.0020 and has one open now but needs a lot more...

Otherwise I agree it was insane to buy at 0.0028 while you could as well put up bids at 0.0020 that are being filled by the millions! However since this transaction was for a staggering 800,000 USD, of which 300,000 USD went to the premium he payed!, it is hard to imagine this was just 'an impulsive buy'. More likely someone just needs a lot of those sdice shares and thinks the prices will go up.

I've seen 2M buys go off at .006
137  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game on: June 29, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
The real question is why didn't he go for 501 BTC? Thus outstripping SDice

There's a good reason for that:

Quote
18:01:57 (35) <gladoscc> And I did something I never should have done: I took my investment uot and bet it all on 93 Tongue

He bet everything he had invested!

Edit: of course, now he has an extra 32 BTC and so does have enough to set the record.  Smiley

In other news, I made a list of bet sizes.  People seemed interested in how the bet sizes break down.  Each line is a count and a bet size:

    http://just-dice.com/bet-sizes.txt

Made it pretty.

Pretty cool that you can see the common martingales as diagonal lines in the site betting patterns!

Looks like the lines are someone doing 8.91x payout bets, increasing 1.1111x each time they lose.

138  Economy / Securities / Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx on: June 29, 2013, 03:32:09 PM
Did someone just bought over 1 million shares that were on offer on mpex at 0.0027 ?

Day volume on mpex is over 2 million sdice shares, last price is 0.0020, but the bid @ 1 million shares for 0.0020 is still untouched. 

Is there a way to know past transactions on mpex?

No, some lunatic bought the 2.6M that were on offer at .0028.

Bitcoin assets never lose their ability to surprise.
139  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Play or Invest : 1% House Edge : Banter++ on: June 29, 2013, 02:16:54 PM
Over 1500 BTC bet with three clicks of the mouse:




More money than some people make in 4 months, in 3 clicks. Tongue

More money than the average american makes in 3 years.
140  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: Just-Dice.com : Play or Invest : 1% House Edge : Banter++ on: June 29, 2013, 12:34:35 AM
was pretty laggy today

We're back.

I think what you're seeing may be the forced bet delays I put in place to slow down dust bets:

Quote
< 0.00000001 0.50s
< 0.00000010 0.40s
< 0.00000100 0.30s
< 0.00001000 0.20s
< 0.00010000 0.15s
< 0.00100000 0.10s
< 0.01000000 0.05s
  else       0.00s

ie. if you bet 0, your bet takes half a second.  If you bet single-digit satoshis, it takes 0.4 seconds, etc.

If you bet 0.01 BTC ($1) or more, there's no delay, and if you bet 0.0001 BTC ($0.01) or more, the delay is only 0.15 seconds, so you can place more than 6 $0.01 bets per second.  That seems fast enough to me.  The huge number of tiny bets is becoming a problem (since I made a kinda dumb decision originally to store the bets in the fast datastore, and keep the datastore in RAM, we're running out of RAM!)

I will implement a solution that writes old bets to disk, and then I won't have to worry about running out of RAM, but for the time being I've had to limit the rate at which the 'dust bets' are made.

On the plus side, this should help alleviate the "lag" people have reported where the server stops responding for a few seconds at a time, since it will be less loaded now.

Why not just implement martingaling as an option, and run the entire thing on the server as indicated by the player rather than getting called on each bet?

You could do one million bets in less than a second and just report the result.

SPOILER ALERT :
Total bets : 1,000,000
Total BTC wagered : .01483050
BTC remaining : 0
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!