Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

[wolverine.ks]

with a smartphone app, people wouldnt have to be at their computer to bet, they could bet from anywhere at anytime.
and just because apple doesnt approve of it, doesnt mean there are ways to install it anyway.

[Factory]

with a smartphone app, people wouldnt have to be at their computer to bet, they could bet from anywhere at anytime.
and just because apple doesnt approve of it, doesnt mean there are ways to install it anyway.

There is no need to develop a separate app for mobile. It would make far more sense just to have a mobile optimized version of the site.

[calaber24p]

Hey Dooglus, do you have shares to invest in or do you just have the "be the bank" type investment. Thanks in advance

[Lohoris]

There is no need to develop a separate app for mobile. It would make far more sense just to have a mobile optimized version of the site.

+1

Hey Dooglus, do you have shares to invest in or do you just have the "be the bank" type investment. Thanks in advance

AFAIK this has already been asked and he answered that as of now the only investment opportunity was this "be the bank" (which is great, IMHO).

[eltopo]

The interesting thing is that the current investment model encourages investors to spread FUD to get more piece of the pie. 

Each time the site profit goes above 1% of total wagered amount, some investors pull out, reducing the max bet on the site.  They're clearly thinking that it's bad to be invested when profits are above expectation, because they'll lose out during the inevitable return to 1%.  So they wait, and reinvest once the site returns to 1%.

This is a clear example of gambler's fallacy, and I've tried explaining it to some of them.  They listen, appear to understand, then repeat the same pattern next time the site goes above 1% profit.

And it's working for them.  The site does return to 1%, and they avoid the losses.

How do I convince them that it's a losing strategy when both their gut and their pocketbook tells them otherwise (so far)?

And do I want to?

No. Every investor with a 3 digit iq will thank you.

[nimda]

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

Getting scammed is my main concern, yet I do have BTC invested. Serious injury or death is my main concern when I skydive. I still do it.

What is it about dooglus that causes this concern?  I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him?  Was he even associated with any of them?

He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
- People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins.

I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?

There are ways to protect from this, yes.

That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?"
It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation.

"I'm worried about alien abduction"
"What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?"
"Fire extinguishers exist in some countries."

I'm not qualified to answer these questions, because I don't know all of the specific security measures he has in place.  I'm less concerned about the integrity of dooglus than I am about the malicious intent of a thief or a government bureacrat.  These questions aren't related to that.

I'm leaving the quote tree here so that you can see what you're responding to. This whole subthread of our conversation is useless.

I can only speak for myself.  But, the reason I haven't invested more is because of physical security concerns, not because I'm worried about getting scammed by dooglus.

Are you a betting man? I have some odds you might want to look at.

No.  I am an investor though.  Every bitcoin investment requires an element of trust.  I invest in individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy and spread the risk accordingly.  If I was worried about everyone being a scammer, I'd just put my BTC in a paper wallet and let them sit.

Are you a hedging man? I have some potentially profitable odds you might want to look at.

I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.

If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.

[ArcticWolf]

He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)

By this logic you are best off not investing in bitcoin in the first place

[juhakall]

Getting scammed is my main concern, yet I do have BTC invested. Serious injury or death is my main concern when I skydive. I still do it.

What is it about dooglus that causes this concern?  I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him?  Was he even associated with any of them?

He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
- People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins.

It's worth noting that 'dooglus' with the same real name has had a definite online presence well before the beginning of Bitcoin. It's a rather well thought out scam, if he indeed did create a false online personality for scamming purposes before Bitcoin was invented.

[shawshankinmate37927]

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

What is it about dooglus that causes this concern?  I understand there are others in this forum that have scammed in the past, but what does this have to do with him?  Was he even associated with any of them?

He's using an anonymous, chargeback free, legal gray-area currency, and we know little more about him than his exceptionally common (purported) real name. He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)
- People are usually unable to recover stolen bitcoins.

Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies.  With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest.  That's inescapable.  Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to.

I still think theft is the most probable scenario.
Another possibility: What if dooglus accidentally lights every copy of his offline wallet on fire simultaneously? Are investors protected?

There are ways to protect from this, yes.

That does not answer the question at hand: "are investors protected?"
It also completely dodges the intent of the analogy, destroying any hopes I had for a reasonable conversation.

"I'm worried about alien abduction"
"What happens if our log cabin spontaneously combusts while the whole town is inside, will we be ok?"
"Fire extinguishers exist in some countries."

I'm not qualified to answer these questions, because I don't know all of the specific security measures he has in place.  I'm less concerned about the integrity of dooglus than I am about the malicious intent of a thief or a government bureacrat.  These questions aren't related to that.

I'm leaving the quote tree here so that you can see what you're responding to. This whole subthread of our conversation is useless.

I agree.

I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.

If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.

There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy.  That's been working well for me so far.

[Dabs]

@Lohoris, try click, drag, and don't release the button (even if the numbers are changing) then Command-Copy (or Ctrl-Copy). That works for me.

Re dooglus, I think he was also a contributing programmer for MAME (Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) before bitcoin existed. Can't verify that, but there are chat logs from 2005 on some ubuntu discussion.

[nimda]

He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)

By this logic you are best off not investing in bitcoin in the first place

That most certainly does not follow from what I have said. 'Bitcoin' as an entity cannot scam me, judging by my own review of the code as well as that of others.

Please explain your reasoning.

It's worth noting that 'dooglus' with the same real name has had a definite online presence well before the beginning of Bitcoin. It's a rather well thought out scam, if he indeed did create a false online personality for scamming purposes before Bitcoin was invented.

Creating a false personality for scamming purposes is not the only possible scenario. Another is that Bitcoin provides a way to capitalize on trust through irreversible online transactions.

If you were dooglus, would you value your online persona at more than $1M?

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.

Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies.  With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest.  That's inescapable.  Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to.

It means that the chance of scam is higher. The fact that many other people have scammed and gotten away with it increases the risk here. I never said that everyone is going to scam, nor did I claim with 100% certainty that dooglus is going to scam.

I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.

If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.

There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy.  That's been working well for me so far.

That's a rather silly statement. You say it like you're contradicting me or giving a reason to avoid my offer, but you haven't actually put forth a logical objection. I'm offering you a chance to make more money, by way of a hedge that has, from your estimated probabilities, a positive expected value.

I stand by my above statement, that there is money to be made, until you can offer an actual opposing argument rather than a pattern-matched statement pretending to be an argument.

There is money to be made in selling salt. There is also money to be made in selling pepper. This latter fact does not contradict the first statement, and it does not mean that pepper vendors should not sell salt.

Re dooglus, I think he was also a contributing programmer for MAME (Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) before bitcoin existed. Can't verify that, but there are chat logs from 2005 on some ubuntu discussion.

See above response to juhakall. That unverifiable thought adds to the uniqueness and value of his persona, but I don't think it is enough. It makes it a more costly identity to throw away, and a more costly identity to replicate, but I wouldn't value those costs at 14K BTC.
I'd be happy to lend $5 to an anonymous person with 1000 page-long posts, no questions asked, because their identity is likely worth more than $5 to them. I would not lend a newbie $5, nor would I lend the aforementioned anonymous person $1M.


NOTE: I'm not some kind of doomsayer. With pirate the question was "when" but with dooglus the question is "whether." I assign his being a scammer a less than 50% probability. I have a few BTC invested, and I'm wondering how much more to put in; it will probably be a few thousand dollars worth.

[ArcticWolf]

Sorry, That was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was "You're better off not investing your bitcoins into anything in the first place"

[nimda]

He has very strong economic incentives to take the money and run. The fact that others have scammed gives us a lot of information:
- Anonymous people here often favor the economic incentive to scam over the moral / reputational incentive not to
- Post count / duration on board is not a reliable indicator of trust
- A significant portion of the trusted people here have simply been pulling long-cons
(These actually do affect the likelihood that dooglus will scam, because probability.)

By this logic you are best off not investing in bitcoin in the first place

Sorry, That was poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was "You're better off not investing your bitcoins into anything in the first place"

Nope. I gave reasons that increased the chance of scammers who deal in Bitcoin. That doesn't mean the chance reaches 100%, which is the point at which no investment makes sense.

[shawshankinmate37927]

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.

I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future.  Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact.

Bitcoin eliminates the need to trust bankers and their currencies.  With bankers out of the loop, we each individually have to decide who we are going to trust when we transact or invest.  That's inescapable.  Yes, some have scammed, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to scam, just because they have the opportunity to.

It means that the chance of scam is higher. The fact that many other people have scammed and gotten away with it increases the risk here. I never said that everyone is going to scam, nor did I claim with 100% certainty that dooglus is going to scam.

Bitcoin definitely provides an opportunity to scam, there is no denying that.  When investing, we just have to agree on a way to minimize that temptation and determine who is most likely to resist that temptation.  If I have doubts about their ability to resist that temptation, I stay away from them.

I believe having a diversified portfolio is the best way for me to "hedge" my investments and protects me from having something go horribly wrong with one of them.

If we disagree on the probabilities of outcomes, there is always money to be made.

There is also money to be made by investing in projects run by individuals that I consider to be competent and trustworthy.  That's been working well for me so far.

That's a rather silly statement. You say it like you're contradicting me or giving a reason to avoid my offer, but you haven't actually put forth a logical objection. I'm offering you a chance to make more money, by way of a hedge that has, from your estimated probabilities, a positive expected value.

I stand by my above statement, that there is money to be made, until you can offer an actual opposing argument rather than a pattern-matched statement pretending to be an argument.

There is money to be made in selling salt. There is also money to be made in selling pepper. This latter fact does not contradict the first statement, and it does not mean that pepper vendors should not sell salt.

Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother?  Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.

[nimda]

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.

I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future.  Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact.

You said:
there are levels of trustworthiness
but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

i.e.
trust is a gradient
attaining 100% trust is impossible

This was in defense of:
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.
Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

i.e.
attaining 100% trust is impossible
attaining 0% trust is possible

To which I had responded,
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

i.e.
attaining partial trust is possible

Do you see how your statement doesn't contradict mine?

Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother?  Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.

There are only two ways I can interpret this statement:

0. You (nimda) do not provide a higher reward/risk than my current options AND
1. My current options are perfectly scalable OR
2. My investable money is less than the amount needed to break #1, i.e. bringing its reward/risk lower than your option

I'm skeptical of #0 (i.e. both ways) and #1.

I'm pretty sure I have his home phone, address and an old headshot. Anyone else can do the same in 20 minutes with the google, he has a pretty big online footprint.

That's better than both frott and I got.

The risks are obvious, and as investment levels keep exploding upwards (>24,000BTC!?!) and thus expected yield goes down, the market will determine the 'value' of his rep.

Not really, as there's some perceived morality included too, as you explain:

A fair number of people don't want to be criminals or a thief even with 2.4M, oh wait, $1.7M (damn u gox), in value on the line. I think he is in that camp.  Also, just try to cash out $1.7M in coins.  Not that easy these days.

It's not that hard, especially for someone with $1.7M worth of coins. Of course there will be slippage, but that didn't stop pirate.

[shawshankinmate37927]

There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.  Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

I agree that there are levels of trustworthiness and we all have different criteria for deciding who we want to trust, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

This statement is a little wonky. "Proving that they will never violate trust" is an absolute: it's white, 1, one bit. Levels of trustworthiness are probabilities that the person will not violate the trust.

I can consider someone to be very trustworthy, but there is nothing they can do to prove that they are absolutely trustworthy and will not scam you in the future.  Nothing wonky there, just a simple fact.

You said:
there are levels of trustworthiness
but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing someone can do to prove that they will never violate that trust.

i.e.
trust is a gradient
attaining 100% trust is impossible

This was in defense of:
There is nothing anyone can do to prove they are trustworthy.
Someone can only be proven to be untrustworthy, and that's only after they've scammed someone, not before.

i.e.
attaining 100% trust is impossible
attaining 0% trust is possible

To which I had responded,
I disagree on every level except the binary "someone is trustworthy or they aren't" level. I'd rather invest in a just-dice created by dooglus than most other forum members. Trustworthiness is not a bit, it's a gradient.

i.e.
attaining partial trust is possible

Do you see how your statement doesn't contradict mine?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say, "I disagree on every level except the binary 'someone is trustworthy or they aren't' level."  What is it specifically that you disagree with?

Yes, there is more than one way to make money, but if what I'm doing now works, why bother?  Thanks, but if I want to make/risk more money, all I need to do is invest more.

There are only two ways I can interpret this statement:

0. You (nimda) do not provide a higher reward/risk than my current options AND
1. My current options are perfectly scalable OR
2. My investable money is less than the amount needed to break #1, i.e. bringing its reward/risk lower than your option

I'm skeptical of #0 (i.e. both ways) and #1.

Huh?  There's nothing to interpret.  You're reading way too much into my statement.  There is no hidden message to decipher.

[willphase]

I totally definitely absolutely think dooglus is a scam!  You should all withdraw your investments as soon as possible and instead use his own evil plan against him! This is the only way to teach him a lesson for his terribly scammy ways - bet lots and lots of bitcoins on just-dice.com and take dooglus' own bitcoins!!!  You know you want to. /waves hands

Will

[Dabs]

A fair number of people don't want to be criminals or a thief even with 2.4M, oh wait, $1.7M (damn u gox), in value on the line. I think he is in that camp.  Also, just try to cash out $1.7M in coins.  Not that easy these days.

Can I include myself in that camp too? Every year, my non-bitcoin based business with >180 employees does about $1M to $2M in revenue. Unless you are a Robin Hood type, you can't be a criminal when you are responsible for the lives of the families of 180 individuals who work for you.

[dooglus]

Re dooglus, I think he was also a contributing programmer for MAME (Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) before bitcoin existed. Can't verify that, but there are chat logs from 2005 on some ubuntu discussion.

It's true!  I wrote the original Bubble Bobble driver.    And now I have that damned tune stuck in my head again.  I also contributed to gzip, GNU Emacs, various ubuntu packages, and a bunch of other open source stuff.

No, I'm not open sourcing Just-Dice!

I started using the nick 'dooglus' in order to dodge an IRC ban and never changed back.  Some dick in the #mandrake (which dates this, I guess) channel banned me for proving him wrong in a silly argument about a bug in XChat.  He had offered to give me "all his money" if I could prove him wrong.  When I did so, conclusively, he banned me.

[ArcticWolf]

Having a small problem trying to deposit to just-dice using inputs.io. I click the link on just-dice to open up inputs.io but inputs.io just hangs in the new window and doesnt load. If I want to deposit manually from inputs.io, what do I use as the send to address?