Is this what this forum has become?

[adalov]

I enjoy the Ponzi schemes and other games available, plus they generate good interest in Bitcoin. They create a use for the currency beyond the few businesses that accept BTC. That being said, I agree 100% with creating a separate section for these as it can be difficult to find non-game threads in this board.

[1713567833]

1713567833

[1713567833]

1713567833

[1713567833]

1713567833

[1713567833]

1713567833

[Jimerson]

+1 A seperate section would make wading through the marketplace much easier.

[tysat]

+1 A seperate section would make wading through the marketplace much easier.

Check out this thread I created a few days ago.  Might be able to get one created if enough interest is shown in it.

[Serge]

Cyber Wild Wild West =)

I would play poker tho

and +1 to keep this forum clean

[Oldminer]

+1 dedicated forum

^^

Seems no-ones listening tho

[foggyb]

They will die out once people realize what a scam some of them are.

People know that casinos (online or B&M) will almost always win in the end, but they still go there to gamble.

[RevolutionMaster]

They will die out once people realize what a scam some of them are.

People know that casinos (online or B&M) will almost always win in the end, but they still go there to gamble.

Not only this, but in the ponzi scheme system, the operator has little to no incentive to collapse the pyramid, and in most cases, it benefits them to make sure that it goes for as long as possible. My pool has had something like 84% of the people this round get paid back.

In the ponzi-scheme system, it's not operator vs. the users, which makes things different from a traditional casino game.

[btcLottery]

I 100% agree with a gambling/lottery section.  I myself have learned some etiquette and now reuse older posts instead of creating new ones.  I can imagine as a non-gambling bitcoin business having to wade through tons of gambling posts would be annoying.  But yes, bring on the gambling section!

[hawks5999]

I agree with a separate section. Though it's possible they would die out when the operators see what little money there is to be had in operating them.

[btcLottery]

I agree with a separate section. Though it's possible they would die out when the operators see what little money there is to be had in operating them.

This is true, you have to want to do this.  Because I can attest, the money that I personally make is pennies.  I just like *doing* it.

[nhodges]

I agree with a separate section. Though it's possible they would die out when the operators see what little money there is to be had in operating them.

This is true, you have to want to do this.  Because I can attest, the money that I personally make is pennies.  I just like *doing* it.

Most people that have taken to operating pools (esp the low fee ones) are doing it simply to move Bitcoins around. High fee or high payouts where bets stagnate by a person who made a 10BTC deposit and is waiting for a payout of 15BTC, allowing the operator (scammer, imo, in this case) to receive up to 4 BTC for free.

[Delicious]

Dedicated section would be welcome.  I don't resent the number of games popping up though.  If you're smart about it, they are great way to increase your early mining rewards.  It will increase BTC usage and I think gambling will be a primary component of BTC popularity going from niche to mainstream. 

[hawks5999]

...High fee or high payouts where bets stagnate by a person who made a 10BTC deposit and is waiting for a payout of 15BTC, allowing the operator (scammer, imo, in this case) to receive up to 4 BTC for free.

There is no free for an operator. Either you coded an automatic game (which has value) or you run it manually. Running it manually is TIME CONSUMING. I ran a specifically targeted high-roller game and if I compare the BTC I walked away with to the time I spent managing the game I'm well under minimum wage. Heck, I'm under minimum wage of 20 years ago. BTCLottery is right - you have to want to offer the games which is why I ran exactly ONE game and won't operate another.