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

[romerun]

it exists, http://litecoindice.com/

[1715131267]

1715131267

[1715131267]

1715131267

[1715131267]

1715131267

[nebulus]

I agree with EV, the focus of SD should be on BTC. SD has a (56.4%) share of all BTC txns. This translates into 56.4% share of all fees paid to miners. What you are asking for is to get SD into a similar arrangement inside a competing world? (Pay miners to keep the network going.)

Why in the world would you want to help your competition?

The focus should be on making SD the best game out there, not spreading it thin. That's what drives profits. To a gambler it does not matter whether its BTC or LTC they are there for the game.

Exclusivity FTW!

[MPOE-PR]

Litecoin offers no significant benefit over Bitcoin. I don't care to integrate it simply because lots of people are bidding it up. I believe that to be temporary.  I'm happy that there are cryptocurrency competitors, but LiteCoin doesn't excite me.

I am not sure that argument holds any logical weight.

No, it probably doesn't.  I suspect the real reason for not supporting Litecoin goes something like:

"I like Bitcoin.  Litecoin is a competitor of Bitcoin.  So I don't like Litecoin.  So I'm not going to support it."

I often see people saying "sure, Bitcoin is limited to 21 million units ever, but there's no limit to the number of Bitcoin clones; what makes Bitcoin so special?".  People dismiss this by saying that the clone won't gain traction, so we can ignore them.  Having Litecoin succeed kind of spoils that argument.  There can be only one!

The entire "limit" issue is perhaps best addressed here. There's really no need for clones.

[RationalSpeculator]

Erik,

There is a new cost charged for April: 'SatoshiRoller IP rights'

I was under the impression SD owned the IP rights themselves. How high will these IP costs be over time?

The IP cost mentioned in April's expenses was a one-time fee paid to the developer for all future rights to the IP of the apps. It is not a recurring cost.

I had previously paid for the apps to be built and used by SD, but not the rights (this enabled me to get an attractive price). I have plans for the apps, thus I wanted to close this loose end.

Wauw, great deal. Thank you for sharing.

[miscreanity]

The entire "limit" issue is perhaps best addressed here. There's really no need for clones.

Need, no. Bitcoin can function alone now, but multiple independent systems in the same class are capable of amplifying the overall effect.

There may also be growing realization that trading BTC/LTC or BTC/XRP is preferable to BTC/USD or any other fiat denomination. There is arguably greater risk in having exposure of any kind to the traditional financial system, and remaining in the crypto environment is much faster for many activities.

Individuals who feel comfortable with relatively concentrated transaction processing power should have no problem with Bitcoin. Those who do not may prefer Litecoin, Ripple, or any other variant that might gain traction.

SatoshiDice would cripple and probably destroy any chain incapable of sustaining itself, while acting as a rite-of-passage for those that can pass muster; the stronger a source of revenue, the better.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Real bitcoin businesses aren't going to support the cryptocoin flavor of the day.

if SD don't grab the market, someone else will.

Grab what market? When's the last time you heard about Litecoin in MSM? Or bytecoin or feathercoin or whatever. YouTube videos of "litecoin is more secure than bitcoin" doesn't count.

Why would anyone want to use Litecoin?

1. Mining via their CPU or GPU: Won't last for long, FPGAs are coming for Litecoin.
2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations
3. Early adaptors: That's a group that won't grow in numbers.

Litecoin is dead. It might still be used in a couple of years, but it's not going to be anywhere as close to Bitcoin, and certainly not overtake it. There's no serious development behind Litecoin, and no serious businesses will support it because they know it's doomed.

Please don't read this as saying Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that can succeed. You need something so better than Bitcoin that a critical mass switches. Switches, FYI, implementing both doesn't count.

[Abu22]

Haha, I hope these previous comments aren't an example of the PR/customer service implimentation... Bunch of parroting shills. Transparency IS important, there should be no fee's without just explanation "Just because I don't wanna tell you about it"

The way you're looking at it - 'If I don't like it nobody shold' - Is typical of any regluar Bitcoin fearing, fiat using (but not understanding) / statist. As opposed to offering supply to a market that has demand (When it can be done with essentaily a change in the chain your calculating the bets from- Less major than a designated client)

Stuff like "Mining via their CPU or GPU: Won't last for long, FPGAs are coming for Litecoin." ...I mean oh no! More infrastructure to assist in the networks security... Same thing happened to Bitcoin.. It killed it, didn't it?

I too feel the reasoning behind the anti-altcoin ~"I like Bitcoin.  Xcoin is a competitor of Bitcoin.  So I don't like Xcoin.  So I'm not going to support it."



I also don't see why I have to keep re-asking some of my more core questions...
- Has the $5000/month cap changed for the new employee?
- How is the conversion calculated (because I see no consistency between months) ...Start/End of the month, btc average month price, expected trend value? The information on how these numbers are calculated are integeral to ensuing honest bussiness is being conducted, and that we're not just shitting magic numbers...Aswell as a demonstration that the last 2 months did have some sort of calculation alg in common so that we can see there was no deceit involved in the past addtional fees.

I realize and understand that SD is not a voting share and you're not obliged to divulge anything, however this will always result in more and more questions on this and perhaps other public forums, investor and interested enthusiasts dissatisfication is never going to have a healthy effect of share price. Neither we nor you need any of that.

[romerun]

what's wrong with the site . It loads faster than ever for the first time in the past 3 months. maybe the 100btc is worth it.

[Abu22]

what's wrong with the site . It loads faster than ever for the first time in the past 3 months. maybe the 100btc is worth it.

Or maybe you're the only traffic it's getting now.

[Deprived]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

[nimda]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

Why, then, doesn't Litecoin have single-second confirmations, if time doesn't matter? You'd have the security of six Bitcoin confirmations within six seconds. It would be a paradise for meatspace payments!

[Deprived]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

Why, then, doesn't Litecoin have single-second confirmations, if time doesn't matter? You'd have the security of six Bitcoin confirmations within six seconds. It would be a paradise for meatspace payments!

Answered in my post you quoted - "The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). "

It's the bit in brackets you need to look at.  With stupidly fast block times you hit the point where block propagation time (the time between a valid block being found and most miners on the network having it) becomes significant - and miners end up constantly building competing chains and finding orphans.  That makes a 51% type attack easier - as you no longer need a majority of hashing power due to the total inefficiency of miners trying to work on the 'real' chain (attacker has no such inefficiency as their replacement block-chain is build up offline before all being released at once).  There's also issues with very fast block times and pools.

The period during which miners work on outdated chains needs to be kept to a small percentage of average block time basically.  Which is fine on LTC but not fine with 1 second block times.

[ameliaih]

Understood, I will be more careful.

[dooglus]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact

Suppose I made a payment 600 blocks ago and I want to double-spend it now.  On the Bitcoin blockchain that represents about 100 hours' worth of mining I have to redo.  Suppose (to make the math easier) that litecoin has blocks which are 10 times faster.  Then that's only 10 hours' worth of mining.

I have access to a very powerful botnet.  It has 10 times the hashrate of the whole Bitcoin network.  I can rent it by the hour.

To double-spend my Bitcoin payment which has 100 confirmations I'll need to rent the botnet for a little over 10 hours.  (10 hours to remine the 100 blocks, and a bit more to catch up with the blocks which were mined while I was doing that).

Assuming litecoin has the same total hashrate as bitcoin, I only need to rent the botnet for a little over 1 hour to double-spend my transaction.

That makes a litecoin transaction with 100 confirmations 10 times less "secure" than a bitcoin transaction with 100 confirmations (given the above assumptions).

Is there anything wrong with this argument?  If so, where?

[Abu22]

That makes a litecoin transaction with 100 confirmations 10 times less "secure" than a bitcoin transaction with 100 confirmations (given the above assumptions).

Is there anything wrong with this argument?  If so, where?

Not sure of this myself, but do Litecoin confirmations not occur faster than Bitcoin? So to compare 100 confirmations on each side would just be imagining up a situation that 'never' occurs. Would it not be more accurate to find how many Litecoins confirmations are made by the time 100 Bitcoin ones are done. Then compare them .

 eg. 1/3/12/24/96 hrs worth of confirmations each = which will have the highest security.

But comparing 1 Litecoin confirmation to 1 Bitcoin confirmation is somewhat pointless when leaving out other factors.

Disclaimer: I have no idea whether what I'm saying is true or false...If anybody has more time than I, proof or disproof of the above theory would be noice. (While we wait a few more weeks for any SD staff to reply on the posts directed at them above -.-)

[SatoshiDICE_PR]

Dear Community,

Beginning tomorrow, Thursday May 16, SatoshiDice.com will close to US players and all US-based IP’s will be blocked from the website. You will also see a new terms of service agreement to which you must
agree if you wish to play.

This decision was made on the basis of extensive legal counsel. The best way to limit legal risk for SatoshiDice, and thereby protect its stakeholders, is to block US players.

Note that this decision does not mean that online gambling is illegal in the US, nor does it mean that Bitcoin gaming is illegal. However, the courts have not been clear on the definition of gambling, nor
on what would constitute “legitimate gaming,” nor are jurisdictions properly defined, and thus this is a proactive measure to protect those involved in the project.

Further, this decision is not being made because of any citation or notice from any government agency, whatsoever. This is not, in any way, related to the recent Gox/Dwolla court order issue. Again, it is a proactive measure, based on the prudent legal guidance of our trusted lawyers.

We believe this is a wise move for the site to perpetuate in the long term. 

Further, to clarify, SatoshiDice is hosted in Netherlands, Iceland, and Ireland, and has never utilized US currency or engaged with the US banking system whatsoever. 
-SD

[Franktank]

Wow.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Dump.

I guess you can still send to address, how long will it be when there's SatoshiFans conveniently having a copy of the homepage? 

[dooglus]

Not sure of this myself, but do Litecoin confirmations not occur faster than Bitcoin? So to compare 100 confirmations on each side would just be imagining up a situation that 'never' occurs.

I was attempting to argue against the statement that:

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.

Would it not be more accurate to find how many Litecoins confirmations are made by the time 100 Bitcoin ones are done. Then compare them .

That's what I would think.  If the two networks have the same processing power doing the hashing, then an hour's worth of blocks on one network is as secure as an hour's worth on the other.  It doesn't matter that litecoin blocks are "faster" - the amount by which they are faster is the same as the amount by which each one is also "weaker".

But comparing 1 Litecoin confirmation to 1 Bitcoin confirmation is somewhat pointless when leaving out other factors.

Well, except when people are trying to tell you that all confirmations are equal.  That a litecoin confirmation is just as 'secure' as a bitcoin one.

[dooglus]

The best way to limit legal risk for SatoshiDice, and thereby protect its stakeholders, is to block US players.

OK, but is it in any way possible to block US players?  How can you even tell where a bet transaction comes from?

You can block them from reading your website but I don't think you can block them from playing.