MoneyPot.com :: The bitcoin gambling wallet

[JackpotRacer]

thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.

and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment  our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.

and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%

and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk

I agree (to some particular parts of the argument). You should have mentioned that this suggestion is particularly relevant to your app. But still, your suggestion that the app owner gets 50% is already there (unless you plan to suggest everything goes to the app owner).
And still your position is the same or better than before which doesn't really explain your stand.

Usually a continuity is expected. If zero risk bets gives nothing to investors, and an extremely small risk tending towards zero gives 50% of edge to investors, it would be a little awkward. Correcting that would put things like the previous set up with less or no predictability of earnings.

lol, once again I don't see why you are complaining.
What investor gets should go to Moneypot?

it is not only related to our game. there are many games out there with possible zero risk bets (not yet on MP).

lets take roulette (Ryan' example). a zero risk bet in roulette would also be (much easier to place)
same roll to bet same amount on
red and black
pair and impair
passe and manque
and if one wants to make it even more secure he will bet the zero with a small amount  actually paying
the HE for each bet

and lets imagine the new owner of the roulette app will do a most wagered contest.
now ndnhc will watch the contest and jump in with some zero risk bets to win the contest and maybe some other smart players will do the same too (maybe even whales)

and you can trust me that I know why I am complaining and as I mentioned it before for me it is a big difference between MP and Investors and yes each one should get their share but a fair share and again IMO the Investors should not get 50% of a zero risk bet

cheers

[1714271966]

1714271966

[1714271966]

1714271966

[1714271966]

1714271966

[ndnh]

thank you very much for explaining what a zero risk bet is. and yes I am really surprised that Nico and ndnhc didn't know this.

and regarding but it's really such an edge case at the moment  our app had this zero risk bet a lot of times (bets on all 6 racers same time/bet) and even ndnhc (not the only one because it was smart to do this bet during this contest in the right moment) was doing this zero risk bets during a most wagered contest. and I promise you that in case of another most wagered contest there will be again many zero risk bets.

and if you look at the "before" graph that dooglus posted it was exactly like you also posted it
in case of a zero risk bet
MP should get 50%
and app owner get 50%

and this was fair enough because the Investor had no risk

I agree (to some particular parts of the argument). You should have mentioned that this suggestion is particularly relevant to your app. But still, your suggestion that the app owner gets 50% is already there (unless you plan to suggest everything goes to the app owner).
And still your position is the same or better than before which doesn't really explain your stand.

Usually a continuity is expected. If zero risk bets gives nothing to investors, and an extremely small risk tending towards zero gives 50% of edge to investors, it would be a little awkward. Correcting that would put things like the previous set up with less or no predictability of earnings.

lol, once again I don't see why you are complaining.
What investor gets should go to Moneypot?

it is not only related to our game. there are many games out there with possible zero risk bets (not yet on MP).

lets take roulette (Ryan' example). a zero risk bet in roulette would also be (much easier to place)
same roll to bet same amount on
red and black
pair and impair
passe and manque
and if one wants to make it even more secure he will bet the zero with a small amount  actually paying
the HE for each bet

and lets imagine the new owner of the roulette app will do a most wagered contest.
now ndnhc will watch the contest and jump in with some zero risk bets to win the contest and maybe some other smart players will do the same too (maybe even whales)

and you can trust me that I know why I am complaining and as I mentioned it before for me it is a big difference between MP and Investors and yes each one should get their share but a fair share and again IMO the Investors should not get 50% of a zero risk bet

cheers

But, mate, the solution  for that would mean reverting back to the previous one in which:
1. You would get a less share than before.
2. Earning would be less predictable.
All because you don't want investors to get 50% of a risk-free bet?

IMO, the current one is much more fair than the previous one.


There is no rule that investors should get nothing for a zero risk bet. Suppose your site is funded by X who is an investor, he would get his share whichever bet the player makes - zero risk or not. Most sites do not differentiate - Investors have the same, exactly the same EV whether the bet is small or big, zero risk or not.

[dooglus]

now my question is how much will the app owner get if there is a zero risk bet and the Investor has actually zero risk?

The rewards from a zero risk bet are split 50% to app, 45% to investor, 5% to moneypot. But the amount being split is itself zero so it really doesn't matter. You are arguing over how to divide a zero amount of money. Do you want more than 50% of nothing? Are you prepared to fight for it?

but now the app has a bet from the whale that will be zero risk for the Investor and the app owner will need to split the HE with the Investor? that is more than unfair IMO

What kind of bet do you think causes no risk to the investors? If the investors can't lose then the player can't lose either, and there's nothing to divide up.

Compare the green line in the two charts showing the app earnings. There is no point at which it is lower now than it was before. App owners did well from the change, so you probably don't need to keep complaining about it.

Investors have gained too except for high risk bets where they've lost a bit (up to 10%) to moneypot, and moneypot has lost almost everywhere to both apps and investors, gaining only on the top 20% of riskiest bets, and then only gaining from investors, as did app owners.

[ndnh]

now my question is how much will the app owner get if there is a zero risk bet and the Investor has actually zero risk?

The rewards from a zero risk bet are split 50% to app, 45% to investor, 5% to moneypot. But the amount being split is itself zero so it really doesn't matter. You are arguing over how to divide a zero amount of money. Do you want more than 50% of nothing? Are you prepared to fight for it?

but now the app has a bet from the whale that will be zero risk for the Investor and the app owner will need to split the HE with the Investor? that is more than unfair IMO

What kind of bet do you think causes no risk to the investors? If the investors can't lose then the player can't lose either, and there's nothing to divide up.

Compare the green line in the two charts showing the app earnings. There is no point at which it is lower now than it was before. App owners did well from the change, so you probably don't need to keep complaining about it.

Investors have gained too except for high risk bets where they've lost a bit (up to 10%) to moneypot, and moneypot has lost almost everywhere to both apps and investors, gaining only on the top 20% of riskiest bets, and then only gaining from investors, as did app owners.

I got the "zero risk" bet wrong too..

It means player betting on all possible outcomes (not possible in dice, which is why we don't see it right at first) and ends up losing the house edge. Like betting on all 6 racers in his app. Or say 0 and above in dice giving a 99% return on the sure win (no such option tho).

He seems to be ignoring all the other points. Claim is investors shouldn't be getting 50% off zero risk bets. Why not? I don't see any reasons why app owners should be getting more than 50% of HE to be honest. They are obviously in a very good situation than investors, IMO. (No risk of losing funds and guaranteed 50% HE if max bet is limited to 0.5% of BE.)

[JackpotRacer]

now my question is how much will the app owner get if there is a zero risk bet and the Investor has actually zero risk?

The rewards from a zero risk bet are split 50% to app, 45% to investor, 5% to moneypot. But the amount being split is itself zero so it really doesn't matter. You are arguing over how to divide a zero amount of money. Do you want more than 50% of nothing? Are you prepared to fight for it?

but now the app has a bet from the whale that will be zero risk for the Investor and the app owner will need to split the HE with the Investor? that is more than unfair IMO

What kind of bet do you think causes no risk to the investors? If the investors can't lose then the player can't lose either, and there's nothing to divide up.

Compare the green line in the two charts showing the app earnings. There is no point at which it is lower now than it was before. App owners did well from the change, so you probably don't need to keep complaining about it.

Investors have gained too except for high risk bets where they've lost a bit (up to 10%) to moneypot, and moneypot has lost almost everywhere to both apps and investors, gaining only on the top 20% of riskiest bets, and then only gaining from investors, as did app owners.

thanks again for your input but it looks like that we have a misunderstanding regarding zero risk bet for the app owner and Investors

lets take again the roulette. lets say a whale will bet 4 BTC on red and 4 BTC on black.
the HE for roulette is 2.7% and with a bet on red and black same time and betting the 2.7% HE of the 8 BTC (0.216) on zero the whale can only lose only the HE (0.216). for my understanding it is a zero risk bet for the app owner and the investors and even for the bettor who risks only a small amount of 2.7% in this case. but this so called small amount of 2.7% (for roulette) is exactly what all casino operators are striving for.

please let me ask again my question why should an app owner split 50/50% this 2.7% for this zero risk bet
with the Investors.

and it looks like everyone is thinking that I am against the Investors but I am not and I even did not say that Investors should get nothing I only said that IMO the Investors should not get 50% of a zero risk bet.

I am with our game on MP because I (older generation) could never handle the security issue I would have outside of MP (hacking and trying to steal my Bank Roll) and the provably fair option that I would not know how to handle it.

but everyone should be allowed to share his opinion.

[RHavar]

lets take again the roulette. lets say a whale will bet 4 BTC on red and 4 BTC on black.
the HE for roulette is 2.7% and with a bet on red and black same time and betting the 2.7% HE of the 8 BTC (0.216) on zero the whale can only lose only the HE (0.216). for my understanding it is a zero risk bet for the app owner and the investors and even for the bettor who risks only a small amount of 2.7% in this case. but this so called small amount of 2.7% (for roulette) is exactly what all casino operators are striving for.

please let me ask again my question why should an app owner split 50/50% this 2.7% for this zero risk bet
with the Investors.

Actually, this isn't 0-risk for investors =)

There's actually a 97.2% chance that it lands on red or black. If it does, the investors need to give the gambler their money back, but also have to pay the app owner 50% of the house edge. So this means that the investors have a 97.2% of losing 0.054 BTC, and a 2.8% chance of making 7.94600 BTC. A good deal by any measure, but certainly not without risk.

(But like my earlier roulette example, there are cases when investors don't actually have risk)
 

and it looks like everyone is thinking that I am against the Investors but I am not and I even did not say that Investors should get nothing I only said that IMO the Investors should not get 50% of a zero risk bet.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from and I think your point is valid. But just remember, one of the reasons MP accepts investors is to try get buy-in from investors, and that they'll want to promote MP (and it's apps) as they have a financial interest in seeing it do well. But all this bickering and in-fighting over the crumbs has become a bit toxic.

[dooglus]

thanks again for your input but it looks like that we have a misunderstanding regarding zero risk bet for the app owner and Investors

Yeah, I posted before I had read to the end of the thread. I hadn't considered bets where the player could lose but not win, like betting both red and black on roulette.

please let me ask again my question why should an app owner split 50/50% this 2.7% for this zero risk bet
with the Investors.

Well, the bottom line is "that's how it is; it you don't like it don't use the service".

But note also that the investors are getting a pretty rough deal at moneypot already. Most places they could invest only take 10% of their profits. There's no "app" to pay, only the site which takes a commission. Most places take just 10% of investor profits. In other words the invest gets 90% of the house edge and the site gets just 10%. So I don't see what grounds you really have to be upset when you "only" get 50% at moneypot.

As I understand it there are a few exceptions to the 10% commission rule : bitdice takes 20% and PRCdice takes 25%. But even PRC's 25% is still only half of what moneypot is taking from investors. Here's a chart for comparison. Compare the thick red line (investors at moneypot) with the three horizontal thick lines at the top (JD, BD, PRC) - for all but the biggest bets investors at moneypot do much worse than at the other places:



I suspect that the reason investors get 50% of no-risk bets is because Ryan is aware of how they can do better elsewhere and wants to make moneypot a more attractive proposition for them.

everyone should be allowed to share his opinion.

You are allowed to share your opinion, and so are the people who are telling you that they think you are wrong. What's the problem?

[ranlo]

thanks again for your input but it looks like that we have a misunderstanding regarding zero risk bet for the app owner and Investors

Yeah, I posted before I had read to the end of the thread. I hadn't considered bets where the player could lose but not win, like betting both red and black on roulette.

please let me ask again my question why should an app owner split 50/50% this 2.7% for this zero risk bet
with the Investors.

Well, the bottom line is "that's how it is; it you don't like it don't use the service".

But note also that the investors are getting a pretty rough deal at moneypot already. Most places they could invest only take 10% of their profits. There's no "app" to pay, only the site which takes a commission. Most places take just 10% of investor profits. In other words the invest gets 90% of the house edge and the site gets just 10%. So I don't see what grounds you really have to be upset when you "only" get 50% at moneypot.

As I understand it there are a few exceptions to the 10% commission rule : bitdice takes 20% and PRCdice takes 25%. But even PRC's 25% is still only half of what moneypot is taking from investors. Here's a chart for comparison. Compare the thick red line (investors at moneypot) with the three horizontal thick lines at the top (JD, BD, PRC) - for all but the biggest bets investors at moneypot do much worse than at the other places:



I suspect that the reason investors get 50% of no-risk bets is because Ryan is aware of how they can do better elsewhere and wants to make moneypot a more attractive proposition for them.

everyone should be allowed to share his opinion.

You are allowed to share your opinion, and so are the people who are telling you that they think you are wrong. What's the problem?

Yeah, reading over this, I like that investors get part of the "no-risk" bets as well. Generally speaking, they will be pretty rarely made, but they help give investors some upside. As it is, just like Dooglus said, it's already rough for us in its current state, and finding that perfect balance is hard.

[JackpotRacer]

I hope you guys don't mind if I stay with the zero risk bets

I thought I will post this example for users who did not understand what we were talking about

today we had a nice example of the zero risk bets we discussed lately

I just caught a few of those with a screenshot and there were many more but as the bets were done with the bot it ran very fast through and difficult to catch all

you can see that all 6 racers ( we have only 6 racers to bet on) were covered with a bet with same amount
so there was no chance to lose even 1 satoshi

I would allow a whale to bet 100 BTC and more on each racer if each racer has the same amount of bet
( I was a few times at a VIP Roulette table when a real whale covered Pair and Impair with the same amount and enjoyed the thrill to bet actually against the zero. the casino OP had no problem with those bets in contrary they gave him a VIP treatment with many complimentary gifts )

[BoXXoB]

My experience with MoneyPot has been nothing but positive, quick way to bet multiple kinds of games without having to wait for confirmations in between. Also what I like is the fact that we can have an actually provably fair experience due to the way MP works. Thanks a lot for this

[RHavar]

BTW I've been having a lot of problem with malicious bitcoin peers, so I decided to setup a little firewall of my own using full validating nodes. So if anyone wants a to connect to a safe full-node that's not out there to kill, log or deprive you of blocks or transactions I've setup a public: bitcoin.moneypot.com

[Insanity]

Good idea to hold the funds for small sites that wanna get out there

[ranlo]

BTW I've been having a lot of problem with malicious bitcoin peers, so I decided to setup a little firewall of my own using full validating nodes. So if anyone wants a to connect to a safe full-node that's not out there to kill, log or deprive you of blocks or transactions I've setup a public: bitcoin.moneypot.com

What do you mean by malicious peers? Wouldn't all transactions have to be confirmed by the majority anyways?

[FrozenOne]

BTW I've been having a lot of problem with malicious bitcoin peers, so I decided to setup a little firewall of my own using full validating nodes. So if anyone wants a to connect to a safe full-node that's not out there to kill, log or deprive you of blocks or transactions I've setup a public: bitcoin.moneypot.com

Is it supposed to be a visible site or what? I tried going there and it always says connection refused. I suppose it is more of something that we see on the blockchain instead?

[RHavar]

What do you mean by malicious peers? Wouldn't all transactions have to be confirmed by the majority anyways?

Oh nothing interesting like that. Just more annoyance type things, like denial of services and having all blocks being withheld (despite having literally hundreds of peers)

Is it supposed to be a visible site or what? I tried going there and it always says connection refused. I suppose it is more of something that we see on the blockchain instead?

Oh no, sorry it's not a website just a bitcoin peer in the network. It's really only useful if you run a node or spv client and want an honest node to connect to

[RHavar]

As a new privacy feature, some (but not all) of your withdrawals will now have multiple change addresses (which may be from the cold, hot or warm wallet).

Here's an example withdrawal: https://blockchain.info/tx/93edee61b741dca549f4fad518caa7a4728b9e3f73b055756feb977fd8d7c7fc

This makes it even more of a PITA for anyone trying to do blockchain analysis on MP withdrawals (as it makes it almost impossible to reliably tell change addresses from withdrawal addresses).  And remember to generate unique addresses for each transfer you receive, and when you need that extra level of privacy use our awesome cold-addresses ( https://blog.moneypot.com/cold-addresses/ ) for deposits.

[BetterBets.io]

As a new privacy feature, some (but not all) of your withdrawals will now have multiple change addresses (which may be from the cold, hot or warm wallet).

Here's an example withdrawal: https://blockchain.info/tx/93edee61b741dca549f4fad518caa7a4728b9e3f73b055756feb977fd8d7c7fc

This makes it even more of a PITA for anyone trying to do blockchain analysis on MP withdrawals (as it makes it almost impossible to reliably tell change addresses from withdrawal addresses).  And remember to generate unique addresses for each transfer you receive, and when you need that extra level of privacy use our awesome cold-addresses ( https://blog.moneypot.com/cold-addresses/ ) for deposits.

Great idea, privacy concerns are always a concern for some bitcoin users and especially helpful for this business. Good job on this implementation!

[ranlo]

As a new privacy feature, some (but not all) of your withdrawals will now have multiple change addresses (which may be from the cold, hot or warm wallet).

Here's an example withdrawal: https://blockchain.info/tx/93edee61b741dca549f4fad518caa7a4728b9e3f73b055756feb977fd8d7c7fc

This makes it even more of a PITA for anyone trying to do blockchain analysis on MP withdrawals (as it makes it almost impossible to reliably tell change addresses from withdrawal addresses).  And remember to generate unique addresses for each transfer you receive, and when you need that extra level of privacy use our awesome cold-addresses ( https://blog.moneypot.com/cold-addresses/ ) for deposits.

Great idea, privacy concerns are always a concern for some bitcoin users and especially helpful for this business. Good job on this implementation!

Huge +1. I've never heard of this method being used before, but it's a great idea. Did you come up with this from somewhere else or did you get the idea on your own? This is a huge step forward for obfuscation of addresses.

[RHavar]

Huge +1. I've never heard of this method being used before, but it's a great idea. Did you come up with this from somewhere else or did you get the idea on your own? This is a huge step forward for obfuscation of addresses.

I independently came up with it, but I'm sure it's been proposed many times before. I know a lot of people have worked on coin selection ideas that make change amounts difficult to distinguish from the sending amounts, but in practice it's very difficult to do that well. On the other hand, having multiple change addresses makes it easy to have them completely ambiguous with the actual withdrawal, at the expense of making the transaction a little bigger and occasionally spend-linking a few extra outputs together.

(The other disadvantage being that transactions with 3 or more outputs are relatively uncommon, so I can't use them too much or it will be characteristic of a MP withdrawal)

It started off when I was playing around with blockseer on MP and some other sites, and it was a bit surreal to see that in what seemed like ~99% of the cases you could build up a pretty accurate picture of the hot wallet, purely by tracking transactions and deducing which was the change and not. I'm pretty sure that with enough effort, it would be quite easy for someone (e.g. coinbase or circle?) to build quite an accurate idea of what is a deposit and withdrawal (but not really link them together).

As another benefit, the code now monitors the size of the hot wallet and actually automatically spills it over into cold storage (using bip32 addresses) which avoids the other potentially privacy damaging sweep operation =)

[ranlo]

Huge +1. I've never heard of this method being used before, but it's a great idea. Did you come up with this from somewhere else or did you get the idea on your own? This is a huge step forward for obfuscation of addresses.

I independently came up with it, but I'm sure it's been proposed many times before. I know a lot of people have worked on coin selection ideas that make change amounts difficult to distinguish from the sending amounts, but in practice it's very difficult to do that well. On the other hand, having multiple change addresses makes it easy to have them completely ambiguous with the actual withdrawal, at the expense of making the transaction a little bigger and occasionally spend-linking a few extra outputs together.

(The other disadvantage being that transactions with 3 or more outputs are relatively uncommon, so I can't use them too much or it will be characteristic of a MP withdrawal)

It started off when I was playing around with blockseer on MP and some other sites, and it was a bit surreal to see that in what seemed like ~99% of the cases you could build up a pretty accurate picture of the hot wallet, purely by tracking transactions and deducing which was the change and not. I'm pretty sure that with enough effort, it would be quite easy for someone (e.g. coinbase or circle?) to build quite an accurate idea of what is a deposit and withdrawal (but not really link them together).

As another benefit, the code now monitors the size of the hot wallet and actually automatically spills it over into cold storage (using bip32 addresses) which avoids the other potentially privacy damaging sweep operation =)

Really cool idea. I think this should be displayed somewhat prominently when making a withdrawal, though. Some sites in the past have had issues when making a deposit that had multiple outputs to it, and would ignore the deposit altogether as a result. I can't think of the big one I did this with, but I learned when I withdrew from the original SWC (which had like 50 outputs linked together) and never saw my transaction show up on one of the exchanges.