This is the magnificent bitcoin gem

[elux]

Bitcoin gem, version 1: the aftermath

Some of you might have seen the price of the bitcoin gem skyrocketing to 126 bitcoins 2 days ago. This first version of the bitcoin gem had a vicious flaw: there was no exit point. The price just went up and up and I did not want to produce a really big loser at the the end of the chain.

That's why I stepped in, refunded the last 2 buyers and took down the website. Some say that was the dumbest move ever since I could have made a really big cut here. But it just did not feel right for me.

Good man.

Bitcoin gem, version 2

But... That doesn't sound fun.

It's a gem, it cannot disappear with a 7% chance every time.
What's the difference between this and satoshidice?
However thank you for what you did.

This, this and this.

[1714941186]

1714941186

[1714941186]

1714941186

[1714941186]

1714941186

[1714941186]

1714941186

[1714941186]

1714941186

[1714941186]

1714941186

[maxmint]

The gems odds are better than at Satoshi Dice (10% return at 93.75% winning change ) plus you can place your link.
But of course Satohsi Dice operates with 0 confirmations, that's a big plus there.

It's a gem, it cannot disappear with a 7% chance every time.
What's the difference between this and satoshidice?

However thank you for what you did.

[maxmint]

Good idea. I guess I leave the gem as is for some rounds and see how it does, might implement your idea later.

At the start of each new round (when someone has lost), you should randomize the starting price and the reset chance for that round.

[ingrownpocket]

Awesome! 

[elux]

Kudos for being decent.

My first thoughts in more detail: To start with the conclusion, V2 doesn't sound very interesting.

Diamonds don't suddenly turn into charcoal for no reason. If they did, they wouldn't be worth a lot.

The bitcoin gem is in it's essence, worthless. Obviously.

But! The bitcoin gem had potential to be a good story. Like Laszlo's pizza. Like The million dollar homepage. Like The Red Paperclip.
Those stories have a sense of uniqueness and permanence about them that no copy-cat can emulate.
"Look at this shit... Back in 2013, someone actually paid [a bajillion dollars] for having their name on this pretty picture."

I guess I just wanted to see it featured in Wired and ArsTechnica as an example of the fascinating stupidity, brilliance and opportunity of Bitcoin.
It could be... I dunno, an epic monument of that stupidity or a warning against greed.

With resets, that uniqueness and permanence is gone. Now, it's just another game.
This is probably for the best, but it's not very exciting compared to the original.

Lastly, a question: Are names, links and addresses retained between resets?

[arklan]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

[Fuzzy]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

Call it the Bitcoin Crystal, those things shatter all the time.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

This would certainly satisfy elux's concern (post above yours). But a warning of sorts on the page would be warranted: The last player to purchase has the potential of not being able to procure a buyer.

As a game, the way it's currently set up is not that bad. But, what if this wasn't a game, and structured as a viable endeavor without any losers? That's what I propose here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139532.0

[arklan]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

This would certainly satisfy elux's concern (post above yours). But a warning of sorts on the page would be warranted: The last player to purchase has the potential of not being able to procure a buyer.

As a game, the way it's currently set up is not that bad. But, what if this wasn't a game, and structured as a viable endeavor without any losers? That's what I propose here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139532.0

for my btc, i'd go with the actual chance to win something. but i'm sure there's an audience for the other as well.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

This would certainly satisfy elux's concern (post above yours). But a warning of sorts on the page would be warranted: The last player to purchase has the potential of not being able to procure a buyer.

As a game, the way it's currently set up is not that bad. But, what if this wasn't a game, and structured as a viable endeavor without any losers? That's what I propose here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139532.0

for my btc, i'd go with the actual chance to win something. but i'm sure there's an audience for the other as well.

And you don't want the viable endeavor affiliated with the gaming one, not saying that it's a bad thing.

[arklan]

i say do both. two games. one permanent, one that resets. thus people who want to can knowingly take the big risks, and those who just want a game can have that too.

This would certainly satisfy elux's concern (post above yours). But a warning of sorts on the page would be warranted: The last player to purchase has the potential of not being able to procure a buyer.

As a game, the way it's currently set up is not that bad. But, what if this wasn't a game, and structured as a viable endeavor without any losers? That's what I propose here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139532.0

for my btc, i'd go with the actual chance to win something. but i'm sure there's an audience for the other as well.

And you don't want the viable endeavor affiliated with the gaming one, not saying that it's a bad thing.

hmm. honestly, i don't know. i think i, personally, would be fine with them being associated. but i don't own bitcoingem or anything, so i don't really get a say.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why are confirmations taking so long?

[tbcoin]

Why are confirmations taking so long?

0 transaction fees...

[rickylford]

I'm curious...why does a brand new bitcoin sending address generate for every single transaction? Your wallet must be MASSIVE with all kinds of receiving addresses. Are you doing that for security purposes?

[arklan]

I'm curious...why does a brand new bitcoin sending address generate for every single transaction? Your wallet must be MASSIVE with all kinds of receiving addresses. Are you doing that for security purposes?

a lot fo different sites that accept bitcoin do that for book keeping purposes. use a different address for everything, then you have an obvious receipt of the transaction, without having to figure out which send to the address it was.

[maxmint]

I'm curious...why does a brand new bitcoin sending address generate for every single transaction? Your wallet must be MASSIVE with all kinds of receiving addresses. Are you doing that for security purposes?

That's the normal way to handle payments from different customers. Just set up one address for one customer and you can easily track incoming payments.
Yes, there's quite a lot of addresses on the server, but there seem to be no problems so far.

[Otoh]

Version 1 was fun as it was a biggest balls/ego/wallet 'Are you feeling lucky, well are you punk?' type game, very popular I gave up on trying to get a look in between 50 & 100 btc as the next levels went so fast one couldn't catch them before someone else got in (& 6 confirmations was silly & a pain, but it was obvious that it would race over 100 btc in no time for a nice safe punt or two).

But version 2 is a fail I feel, still hyped a bit on the old version I joined & quickly found of course that next to no one is playing this > 3% Russian roulette, then checked the FAQ as to why = BS things like after 24 hrs your bet goes to the house = sucks, so you end up needing to buy the gem from yourself to continue in such a slow interest game (I had Gollum lined up as my next, in the hope of attracting a naive Bilbo Baggins to run with it), thanks goodness that I managed to get in & out with only having to do this re-buy once - lucky maybe it was the weekend, I fear this version is doomed & doubt that it will ever get above 10 btc balance (except for the same person rolling over by having to buy their own top spot within 24 hrs), not fun to play at all, still I'm 1.31 btc up overall on it but it wasn't worth what I had risked imo.

Version 1, everyone knew what the end result would be, that was it's edge & for the spectators/traffic too, even for anyone left/stranded at the top spot that was cool, expensive risky crazy cool maybe but cool nevertheless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21285262

https://i.imgur.com/vDZSaJ0.jpg

[skydust]

i agree with you, now it's just a gambling site like many others, nothing "special"

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

There are similar games out there

[BitcoinBasics]

This could have went down in history. Now its just ....ehh.