unsolicited Satoshi Dice compromise proposal

[fancy_pants]

of course all of the bitcoin should go directly to the developer most able to solve the problem with the fixed block size.

(I had some fun trolling a bit last night, but I promise I won't troll this one.  I'm an s.dice shareholder who thinks Satoshi Dice has the opportunity right now to earn a favor from an entire community.  Opportunities like that are hard to come by...)  

[1713299365]

1713299365

[1713299365]

1713299365

[1713299365]

1713299365

[misterbigg]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that in return for SatoshiDICE suspending its transaction spam for one day, that a developer should go work for them for some time period (30, 60, 90 days?) and pay or receive some Bitcoins? This is quite confusing.

Anyway, I already suggested three possibilities for eliminating the transaction spam and letting SatoshiDICE operate as a good Bitcoin citizen:

1) Require gamblers to include a tiny additional deposit of 0.01 BTC which is always refunded regardless of a win or loss

2) Send an amount equal to the transaction fee back to losing bets, instead of sending 1 satoshi.

3) Stop sending betting loss confirmations

[fancy_pants]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that in return for SatoshiDICE suspending its transaction spam for one day, that a developer should go work for them for some time period (30, 60, 90 days?) and pay or receive some Bitcoins? This is quite confusing.

I'm suggesting that Satoshi Dice modify their centrally controlled/easier to change system for 90 days in return for the cost of a single competent developer for that same period.

I suspect that changing the system in the ways you describe may be an existential threat to this beloved operation, so I'm suggesting that it might be more tolerable to compromise.  Basically Satoshi Dice stops long enough to get the problem fixed, and in return BTF commits real resources to actually fixing the problem.

[pyra-proxy]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that in return for SatoshiDICE suspending its transaction spam for one day, that a developer should go work for them for some time period (30, 60, 90 days?) and pay or receive some Bitcoins? This is quite confusing.

I'm suggesting that Satoshi Dice modify their centrally controlled/easier to change system for 90 days in return for the cost of a single competent developer for that same period.

I suspect that changing the system in the ways you describe may be an existential threat to this beloved operation, so I'm suggesting that it might be more tolerable to compromise.  Basically Satoshi Dice stops long enough to get the problem fixed, and in return BTF commits real resources to actually fixing the problem.

Heck they should offer up some financial support to this developer too, heck if they kept the service as is and made a serious funding support to help bit coin work better even with their style of use I think that would be a great compromise too...

[SRoulette]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that in return for SatoshiDICE suspending its transaction spam for one day, that a developer should go work for them for some time period (30, 60, 90 days?) and pay or receive some Bitcoins? This is quite confusing.

Anyway, I already suggested three possibilities for eliminating the transaction spam and letting SatoshiDICE operate as a good Bitcoin citizen:

1) Require gamblers to include a tiny additional deposit of 0.01 BTC which is always refunded regardless of a win or loss

2) Send an amount equal to the transaction fee back to losing bets, instead of sending 1 satoshi.

3) Stop sending betting loss confirmations

This is quite easy to achieve, for a working reference see our 2 games:
reverse dice - traditional satoshidice style blockchain spam
jackpot dice - no loss notification unless the user includes jdice-r (jackpot dice result) in a multibet.

This way users have a choice of which they prefer and can vote with their wallets, should the tx fee rise they can play jackpot dice and save on the fees.
We are also working on adding a 3rd betting system which will allow players to create and deposit funds on our site and play outside of the blockchain.

As for eliminating dust all together by sending back a fraction of the bet, this is a good suggestion. We will take it on board and see how we could incorporate it into our current dice games.

Our theory is that many players would prefer a higher win multipler over having both a win and loss multiplier.
After reworking clone dice - > jackpot dice to not do blockchain spam we have had several players request two dice game with the numbers reversed on one so they could chose their preferred method of playing.

[SRoulette]

I'm not sure I really understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that in return for SatoshiDICE suspending its transaction spam for one day, that a developer should go work for them for some time period (30, 60, 90 days?) and pay or receive some Bitcoins? This is quite confusing.

I'm suggesting that Satoshi Dice modify their centrally controlled/easier to change system for 90 days in return for the cost of a single competent developer for that same period.

I suspect that changing the system in the ways you describe may be an existential threat to this beloved operation, so I'm suggesting that it might be more tolerable to compromise.  Basically Satoshi Dice stops long enough to get the problem fixed, and in return BTF commits real resources to actually fixing the problem.

with no criticism intended for satoshidice, this problem is trivial to fix as we described and with the income they generate they could easily address this issue without going to the players for funding. We addressed it ourselves with a team of 2  in a matter of hours.

Simple Solution:
Host 2 games
1st game - there is no loss payout unless the player opts to pay a fee for one by including jdice-r in a mulibet
2nd game - blockchain spam as normal.


Premium Solution:
Add an account system.

We have to note that for many gamblers, requiring the creation of an account is a detractor.
It increases the trust required in the site as they now act as a bank in addition as a bet processor.

It also eliminates any trust that could be had in a progressive jackpot system.
Why ? because when you bet against a progressive jackpot on the blockchain all bets are public record. Should the house try to claim its own jackpot it would have to bet against it like all other players, increasing the pot and taking the risk another player may collect the jackpot first.
When there is an account & login setup the house can simply keep hashing potential bets until it finds a winner and claim the jackpot with zero risk and zero blockchain tx fees.

[jubalix]

YOU HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION NOT LIMIT SATOSHI DICE

because every possible exploit will be tried and more and more as BitCoin is adapted.

I would rather find a problem no that later!!!!!

[misterbigg]

I would rather find a problem no that later!!!!!

Yeah. Thanks to SatoshiDICE, we found the problem. So now I think, wouldn't it be great if they could REFRAIN from the bad behaviors until the developers come up with a fix? Or perhaps, as SRoulette has made clear, they could find an alternative to the bad behavior?

[jubalix]

I would rather find a problem no that later!!!!!

Yeah. Thanks to SatoshiDICE, we found the problem. So now I think, wouldn't it be great if they could REFRAIN from the bad behaviors until the developers come up with a fix? Or perhaps, as SRoulette has made clear, they could find an alternative to the bad behavior?

No there continual showing us the problem forces a solution or fail now

if they were "nice" no one would care until it is too late that's the whole way the free market works, they keep sticking it in your face because it makes them a profit....they are doing us a favor by keeping the topic live

[apetersson]

what thread is this referring to?

[greyhawk]

I would rather find a problem no that later!!!!!

Yeah. Thanks to SatoshiDICE, we found the problem.

No, actually I pointed out months ago that this will become a problem. But people were all "Haha, stop spreading FUD. That'll never happen."

[pyra-proxy]

I would rather find a problem no that later!!!!!

Yeah. Thanks to SatoshiDICE, we found the problem.

No, actually I pointed out months ago that this will become a problem. But people were all "Haha, stop spreading FUD. That'll never happen."

What's kind of sad is now that the problem is staring them in the face many still have the same opinion, OR say you/we just hatin' on honest gamblin', OR want to just kick the can down the road and lift the block size limit w/out really addressing the issue and making the system in general better and more scalable.

[SRoulette]

whatever happened with all this.

Due to the blockchain size being lifted to help out satoshidice process transactions quicker the network forked.
We reverted back to the old block size limit, does this mean tx's are still delayed due to a saturated network ?