[CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx

[usagi]

The block size issue has the possibility of crippling satoshidice.

Unless they start doing things more efficiently the network will act to defend itself one way or the other against the SD "attack" whether through increased fees or blocking SD transactions altogether. SD may have to invest in its own mining equipment if it wants to continue its wasteful ways.

Are you serious?

Bitcoin won't block S.DICE transactions. They are already paying twice the needed fee.

There's no such entity as a "Bitcoin" that can choose whether or not to block or not S.DICE transactions.

Any blocking would be done by individual pools.  It would only take one large pool to actively be hostile to S.DICE to make them unable to allow zero-confirmation bets at all.  If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets.  You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

It has become very clear that satoshidice is exacerbating problems in bitcoin. I think it has less to do with what satoshidice represents (gambling) than how they do things. It's the transaction spam. The problem is, they don't seem to care. I find this both ironic and sad, because it's costing them money and there are several easy ways around the problem. For one, not sending confirmations for losing bids would cut their traffic by over 30%, right? Right. But they insist on sending out confirmations on losing bids. Secondly, they could let people use accounts if they want to. This would speed things up from the user's standpoint (so there is a demand) and it would also save money in transaction fees. It would also enable them to add more games and expand their business beyond just the public address game. Also, there is absolutely no difference from a privacy standpoint. So not only would that save them money but it would cut the transaction spam by over 50%. But they haven't done that either.

Yes, "they have to fix it one day anyway". It's true, the blockchain is bitcoin's greatest weakness; people simply do not need 3+ years of cryptographic strength to prove they spent a dollar on an ice cream cone. But satoshidice transaction spam is the kind of thing that will hurt bitcoin before a solution can be found and adopted. Then again, it's only accelerating the obvious. When, not if, the blockchain gets too big (how big is too big?) too many people will be forced into web wallets or other centralized blockchain services, and they will not be able to play satoshidice. So satoshidice will then be forced to allow accounts or it will start losing money.

One wonders why they don't just do it now and save themselves (and us) the trouble.

[totaleclipseofthebank]

The block size issue has the possibility of crippling satoshidice.

Unless they start doing things more efficiently the network will act to defend itself one way or the other against the SD "attack" whether through increased fees or blocking SD transactions altogether. SD may have to invest in its own mining equipment if it wants to continue its wasteful ways.

Are you serious?

Bitcoin won't block S.DICE transactions. They are already paying twice the needed fee.

There's no such entity as a "Bitcoin" that can choose whether or not to block or not S.DICE transactions.

Any blocking would be done by individual pools.  It would only take one large pool to actively be hostile to S.DICE to make them unable to allow zero-confirmation bets at all.  If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets.  You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

the thing is, as more and more transactions compete for space in the limited block size, it will become increasingly uneconomical to spam transactions, since the necessary transaction fee will go up.

the market will be created to determine the ideal transaction fees-- and they won't be zero.

It has become very clear that satoshidice is exacerbating problems in bitcoin. I think it has less to do with what satoshidice represents (gambling) than how they do things. It's the transaction spam. The problem is, they don't seem to care. I find this both ironic and sad, because it's costing them money and there are several easy ways around the problem. For one, not sending confirmations for losing bids would cut their traffic by over 30%, right? Right. But they insist on sending out confirmations on losing bids. Secondly, they could let people use accounts if they want to. This would speed things up from the user's standpoint (so there is a demand) and it would also save money in transaction fees. It would also enable them to add more games and expand their business beyond just the public address game. Also, there is absolutely no difference from a privacy standpoint. So not only would that save them money but it would cut the transaction spam by over 50%. But they haven't done that either.

Yes, "they have to fix it one day anyway". It's true, the blockchain is bitcoin's greatest weakness; people simply do not need 3+ years of cryptographic strength to prove they spent a dollar on an ice cream cone. But satoshidice transaction spam is the kind of thing that will hurt bitcoin before a solution can be found and adopted. Then again, it's only accelerating the obvious. When, not if, the blockchain gets too big (how big is too big?) too many people will be forced into web wallets or other centralized blockchain services, and they will not be able to play satoshidice. So satoshidice will then be forced to allow accounts or it will start losing money.

One wonders why they don't just do it now and save themselves (and us) the trouble.

[MPOE-PR]

so dollar wise this is another record month right?

By my calculations the profit went up from 53343.121178 to 66676.3674579 this month, a gain of 13333.2462799 BTC.

At $33.50/BTC that's $446663 for the month.

That's a lot of 333's and 666's.

Oh, and to answer your question, last month was something like 20021.263926 BTC * 20.6 $/BTC = $412438.

So yes.

Lol I wonder if there's a message embedded?

[MPOE-PR]

So about 13333 worth of dividends... :-( Less than the last month.. Who cares about $$$.

I think just about every single person that is invested in SDICE cares about the $$$... There was a net increase in profitability. BTC doubled in value, so actual BTC went down and that makes you sad?

He does have a point tho, most people involved in Bitcoin care about Bitcoin not some random fiat value. Who accounts in fiat anymore, what's this, the 1990s?!

But on the other hand: the interests rates will be tightening across the board for the indefinite future. In a rapidly de-inflating currency like Bitcoin even 0.1% a year is a great result. My guess is we'll be seeing really tiny fractional yields before too long.

That's pretty impressive considering February only has 28 days vs 31 days in January

This is also a good point. If we do the normalization to 30 days:

20021.263926 / 31 * 30 = 19375.41

13333.2462799 / 28 * 30 = 14285.62

Roughly 3/4. Perhaps the whales weren't quite such a big part of S.DICE profitability as everyone thought?

[dooglus]

If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets.  You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

I don't know if you're aware, but there's already a bot that routinely double-spends lots of losing SatoshiDice bets.  Its transactions almost never get picked up by the miners though.  All it would need would be for an anti-SD pool to start deliberately mining the double-spent transactions to make SD unprofitable.  Can you think of anyone with a mining pool who's vocally against SD and has used the pool for morally questionable things in the past? 

Roughly 3/4. Perhaps the whales weren't quite such a big part of S.DICE profitability as everyone thought?

Or the whale lost so big in the first 5 days of February that he decided to stop playing, but gave the site enough profits from his run of bad luck to almost make up for his absence the rest of the month.

[Deprived]

If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets.  You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

I don't know if you're aware, but there's already a bot that routinely double-spends lots of losing SatoshiDice bets.  Its transactions almost never get picked up by the miners though.  All it would need would be for an anti-SD pool to start deliberately mining the double-spent transactions to make SD unprofitable.  Can you think of anyone with a mining pool who's vocally against SD and has used the pool for morally questionable things in the past? 

I'm sure the person you're thinking of is the one I had in mind when making my comments.

[wtfvanity]

If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets.  You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

I don't know if you're aware, but there's already a bot that routinely double-spends lots of losing SatoshiDice bets.  Its transactions almost never get picked up by the miners though.  All it would need would be for an anti-SD pool to start deliberately mining the double-spent transactions to make SD unprofitable.  Can you think of anyone with a mining pool who's vocally against SD and has used the pool for morally questionable things in the past? 

I'm sure the person you're thinking of is the one I had in mind when making my comments.

No way. We have someone like that who runs a mining pool? I pray it isn't so.

[wachtwoord]

I don't like people being secretive about something like this. They're talking about Luke-jr. Look him up and make up your own mind.

[zkay]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

[Deprived]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

It's absolutely tiny volume.  One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares.  There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing.

If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them.

There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006.  The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking.

When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities:

1.  One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows.
2.  One person needs some cash quickly.

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

[thoughtfan]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

I had been wondering when the ownership of the shares is taken for the calculations.  If for instance it is midnight UCT then regardless of when the actual payment is shares could change hands without affecting the payout.  On the other hand if the calcs are done on the basis of share ownership at the time of payout then selling up prior is not the best idea. Maybe MPOE-PR can clarify?

[Bugpowder]

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

The bot broke again!

[Bugpowder]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

I had been wondering when the ownership of the shares is taken for the calculations.  If for instance it is midnight UCT then regardless of when the actual payment is shares could change hands without affecting the payout.  On the other hand if the calcs are done on the basis of share ownership at the time of payout then selling up prior is not the best idea. Maybe MPOE-PR can clarify?

Div goes to owners at time of payout.  Sell now, get no div.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

I had been wondering when the ownership of the shares is taken for the calculations.  If for instance it is midnight UCT then regardless of when the actual payment is shares could change hands without affecting the payout.  On the other hand if the calcs are done on the basis of share ownership at the time of payout then selling up prior is not the best idea. Maybe MPOE-PR can clarify?

I'm pretty sure it's at time of share payout.

[zkay]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

It's absolutely tiny volume.  One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares.  There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing.

If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them.

There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006.  The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking.

When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities:

1.  One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows.
2.  One person needs some cash quickly.

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations.

[Deprived]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

I had been wondering when the ownership of the shares is taken for the calculations.  If for instance it is midnight UCT then regardless of when the actual payment is shares could change hands without affecting the payout.  On the other hand if the calcs are done on the basis of share ownership at the time of payout then selling up prior is not the best idea. Maybe MPOE-PR can clarify?

I'm pretty sure it's at time of share payout.

It's time of payout.

[Deprived]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

It's absolutely tiny volume.  One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares.  There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing.

If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them.

There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006.  The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking.

When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities:

1.  One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows.
2.  One person needs some cash quickly.

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations.

What happened next is also standard.

He puts up his sell order.  Other people (I'm one of them) realise he's in a rush to sell - so lower their own bids and also put up small asks just below his.  Although those orders are small they force him to either undercut or to sell into the bids.  But he's in a rush to sell and will have noticed bids being taken down/lowered.

Which is why the 30k Ask vanished and bids got filled down to .005.

But he left up a single 100 bid at .005.  What does that mean?  That means he still has shares left and left it up as he wants people to overbid it.  So of course anyone with awareness of what's happening will put up more bids BELOW that to try get shares as cheap as they can (though inevitably someone who doesn't know what's going on will overbid it and everyone else then has to raise their bids).

That's one of the ways to make profit in an illiquid market - when you see someone is desperate to sell OR buy, try to make them do it from YOU at the most advantageous price you can.

[Bugpowder]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

It's absolutely tiny volume.  One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares.  There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing.

If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them.

There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006.  The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking.

When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities:

1.  One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows.
2.  One person needs some cash quickly.

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations.

What happened next is also standard.

He puts up his sell order.  Other people (I'm one of them) realise he's in a rush to sell - so lower their own bids and also put up small asks just below his.  Although those orders are small they force him to either undercut or to sell into the bids.  But he's in a rush to sell and will have noticed bids being taken down/lowered.

Which is why the 30k Ask vanished and bids got filled down to .005.

But he left up a single 100 bid at .005.  What does that mean?  That means he still has shares left and left it up as he wants people to overbid it.  So of course anyone with awareness of what's happening will put up more bids BELOW that to try get shares as cheap as they can (though inevitably someone who doesn't know what's going on will overbid it and everyone else then has to raise their bids).

That's one of the ways to make profit in an illiquid market - when you see someone is desperate to sell OR buy, try to make them do it from YOU at the most advantageous price you can.

Well the 637k ask wall came down.  About 100k has been bought around .005-.0055 in the last 10 minutes.   So I would say there is about 537k of 'shadow' inventory for sale at .0050001. If you want to put a bid up at or above there, I'm sure it will get sold into.

[Deprived]

Any ideas why the share price is diving right before the dividend release? Last trade was barely above the last tranche evorhees released.

It's absolutely tiny volume.  One person selling 0.01% of the outstanding shares needs no reason other than that one person needed or wanted to sell their shares.  There's usually very few buy orders up (other than at low prices to catch anyone who mistypes the number of zeros) so it only take someone selling a few 10ks of shares to make it look like the price is crashing.

If there was some significant reason then you'd be seeing Ask walls up with hundreds of thousands of shares in them.

There's one person trying to sell 30k shares - looks like he just automatically undercut a 1k order at .006.  The other small sell orders will be people who just got sold into and are looking to flip the shares quickly to pick some more up from anyone who is panicking.

When there's only one sell order of any size at a low price there's two possibilities:

1.  One person somehow knows something major about S.DICE that noone else knows.
2.  One person needs some cash quickly.

One of those two options is a regular occurrence.  There IS actually at least one more option - but you'll have to work that one out for yourself.

Awesome! Thank you for this. As a person new to btc and investing I greatly appreciate clear explanations.

What happened next is also standard.

He puts up his sell order.  Other people (I'm one of them) realise he's in a rush to sell - so lower their own bids and also put up small asks just below his.  Although those orders are small they force him to either undercut or to sell into the bids.  But he's in a rush to sell and will have noticed bids being taken down/lowered.

Which is why the 30k Ask vanished and bids got filled down to .005.

But he left up a single 100 bid at .005.  What does that mean?  That means he still has shares left and left it up as he wants people to overbid it.  So of course anyone with awareness of what's happening will put up more bids BELOW that to try get shares as cheap as they can (though inevitably someone who doesn't know what's going on will overbid it and everyone else then has to raise their bids).

That's one of the ways to make profit in an illiquid market - when you see someone is desperate to sell OR buy, try to make them do it from YOU at the most advantageous price you can.

Well the 637k ask wall came down.  About 100k has been bought around .005-.0055 in the last 10 minutes.   So I would say there is about 537k of 'shadow' inventory for sale at .0050001. If you want to put a bid up at or above there, I'm sure it will get sold into.

Didn't have much cash there to spend - but bought what I could in the .005-.0055 area.  Was deliberately low on cash as expecting the S.DICE dividend which I have to convert to LTC for my pass-though - so had run cash down so as not to need to move or exchange funds.

EDIT: And yeah, looks like its a more significant quantity that has been in decreasing Ask walls for a while.  Someone who bought out one of the vorhees batches and didn't manage to flip for the profit they expected and now wants cash in a rush would be the obvious guess.  If he got them in the first batch then he's still doing OK if he sells at .005.

[zkay]

If the market can be moved that heavily with seemingly not a whole lot of effort, what's to stop a person or group of people with a big enough bankroll from putting up bogus bids/asks and slowly stepping the market price up to a certain point, then cashing out? Is this what is referred to as a "pump and dump"?

Thank you all for humoring me.