[SHUTTING DOWN] [DiceBitco.in | BE THE BANK ! | 1% House Edge]

[whiskey]

The site looks good, is there any way to try it without invest?

[1715622413]

1715622413

[1715622413]

1715622413

[1715622413]

1715622413

[leancuisine]

The site looks good, is there any way to try it without invest?

They do offer a 0.001 BTC free credit for Members with 10x rollover, although I think it is already over.

[Hfleer]

Allowing people to borrow on margin seems like an interesting idea. It certainly would set dicebitco.in apart from the others.

Giving people the freedom to invest with a 10X Kelly seems like the way to go, but I fear that this could go bad so fast. It would "artificially" inflate the bankroll and max bet.
However, I wouldn't mind actually letting people really borrow from me for a percentage if the "auto-buy-to-cover" feature were enabled.

They're not really borrowing from anyone - they never get access to the borrowed coins - they're only allowed to invest them, and only for as long as they are able to pay back the loan - so there's never any chance that they will default on the loan, and so there's never a need to hold any collateral.

In effect the lending means the site is operating a fractional reserve operation, which many will dislike the thought of. But I think in this case it is sound to do so. There's no chance of a "run on the bank" causing problems, since all loans are automatically secured by restricting what the lender can do with their loaned coins.

Sudden large changes in the maximum profit per bet would probably result from this feature, and were another reason I didn't love the idea.

When you say it could "go bad fast", mostly that only applies to people who over-borrow, don't you think? It wouldn't go bad for the site itself.

One thing that was pointed out when I brought this up in the past is that investing at huge leverage is effectively a big gamble. No sane investor would do it, but guess who would... that's right - gamblers would! It's a way of gambling with high variance and a positive expectation. So maybe offering such a feature would turn the whale gamblers into whale investors, and we'd be left without any whale gamblers.

I still think it's an interesting idea though.

What if 100 highrollers collude and bet at the exact moment with max profit bets? (lets ignore that they could yield a net loss)

How would losses over the "margin" be handled?

[suchmoon]

What if 100 highrollers collude and bet at the exact moment with max profit bets? (lets ignore that they could yield a net loss)

How would losses over the "margin" be handled?

I would say there is no such thing as "the exact moment". First one wins, decreases bankroll/max bet, other bets get cancelled or whatever it is that the site would do if someone tries to exceed max bet.

[Jungian]

The site looks good, is there any way to try it without invest?

You can bet 0 satoshis to try the gameplay

[BusyBeaverHP]

I've been watching the house profit for this site and here's my take:

I used to invest in JD, but with DiceBitco.in, as dooglus pointed out, the 1% bankroll wager is crazy and I'm not inclined to invest in this new site just for that reason alone.

I remember JD having 0.25% or 0.5% max bankroll wager? You have prospective investors like myself sitting on the sideline and watching volatility in the house profit and kinda not wanting to jump in. Most investors would prefer higher stability at the cost of lower profit.

In any case, reducing the bankroll wager down from its current 1% would attract more prospective investors which would actually increase the max bet far more in the long run.

... And if you could find a way to "Randomize Roll" before any turn while solving potential DDOS issues, I would definitely be a regular on your site.

[dooglus]

I've been watching the house profit for this site and here's my take:

I used to invest in JD, but with DiceBitco.in, as dooglus pointed out, the 1% bankroll wager is crazy and I'm not inclined to invest in this new site just for that reason alone.

Did I say that? Whenever the site owners have asked me about whether they should reduce the max profit, I've recommended they leave it at 1% for now. Plenty of investors are happy to go with full Kelly I think.

In any case, reducing the bankroll wager down from its current 1% would attract more prospective investors which would actually increase the max bet far more in the long run.

... And if you could find a way to "Randomize Roll" before any turn while solving potential DDOS issues, I would definitely be a regular on your site.

I'm not sure a lower risk factor would attract more investors. I'm pretty sure the bottleneck at the moment isn't "whoa, 1%?", it's more likely to be "who are these guys? I've never heard of them!"

You can randomize before your 1st roll, and then after every 3 rolls. At JD you could only randomize every 10 rolls.

It doesn't matter, because you get to pick the client seed after the site picks the server seed, so all the rolls are decided by YOU, not by the site.

[dooglus]

I would say there is no such thing as "the exact moment". First one wins, decreases bankroll/max bet, other bets get cancelled or whatever it is that the site would do if someone tries to exceed max bet.

Exactly that.

Bets happen one after the other. The site would make a note, after each invest/divest event, of what the bankroll needs to fall to for the next investor to get force-divested, and it would do so as soon as the bankroll hit that level.

The idea that 10 bets happen "at the same time" isn't real. Sites use locking to make sure that doesn't happen. Or sites get exploited.

[BusyBeaverHP]

I've been watching the house profit for this site and here's my take:

I used to invest in JD, but with DiceBitco.in, as dooglus pointed out, the 1% bankroll wager is crazy and I'm not inclined to invest in this new site just for that reason alone.

Did I say that? Whenever the site owners have asked me about whether they should reduce the max profit, I've recommended they leave it at 1% for now. Plenty of investors are happy to go with full Kelly I think.

In any case, reducing the bankroll wager down from its current 1% would attract more prospective investors which would actually increase the max bet far more in the long run.

... And if you could find a way to "Randomize Roll" before any turn while solving potential DDOS issues, I would definitely be a regular on your site.

I'm not sure a lower risk factor would attract more investors. I'm pretty sure the bottleneck at the moment isn't "whoa, 1%?", it's more likely to be "who are these guys? I've never heard of them!"

You can randomize before your 1st roll, and then after every 3 rolls. At JD you could only randomize every 10 rolls.

It doesn't matter, because you get to pick the client seed after the site picks the server seed, so all the rolls are decided by YOU, not by the site.

Of course, of course... I'm intimately acquainted with the math and statistically random yet deterministic value output of pseudorandom number generators, but it is a personal choice for me to arbitrarily change seeds at will. It's a choice that PD3 offers, yet PD3 is lacking in investment options.

In my perfect world, Primedice 3 would have bankroll investment options, while DiceBitco.in would have the freedom to reseed before every roll.

[MICRO]

I've been watching the house profit for this site and here's my take:

I used to invest in JD, but with DiceBitco.in, as dooglus pointed out, the 1% bankroll wager is crazy and I'm not inclined to invest in this new site just for that reason alone.

Did I say that? Whenever the site owners have asked me about whether they should reduce the max profit, I've recommended they leave it at 1% for now. Plenty of investors are happy to go with full Kelly I think.

In any case, reducing the bankroll wager down from its current 1% would attract more prospective investors which would actually increase the max bet far more in the long run.

... And if you could find a way to "Randomize Roll" before any turn while solving potential DDOS issues, I would definitely be a regular on your site.

I'm not sure a lower risk factor would attract more investors. I'm pretty sure the bottleneck at the moment isn't "whoa, 1%?", it's more likely to be "who are these guys? I've never heard of them!"

You can randomize before your 1st roll, and then after every 3 rolls. At JD you could only randomize every 10 rolls.

It doesn't matter, because you get to pick the client seed after the site picks the server seed, so all the rolls are decided by YOU, not by the site.

Yeah jd provably fair is rly the best one and its good that everybody started using it .
On pd its made that u can randomize it after every bet.

But tbh i never change seeds , i just trust the fairness of pd. I can afford that coz i only play for fun with rly small amounts that i can afford to lose any time .

@BusyBeaverHP - Yeah people love to invest in the house, and that is advantage, and from that comes possibly bigger bankroll and much bigger limit on max bet. But also a risk that u can lose invested coins any time , when some whale comes in , or when site u invested in decides to run with the money , like everydice done .

It all has advantages and disadvantages its all about personal preference .  
Honestly i only invested in JD and i just can't trust any other site with that atm.

[BusyBeaverHP]

But tbh i never change seeds , i just trust the fairness of pd. I can afford that coz i only play for fun with rly small amounts that i can afford to lose any time .

I change seeds not for reasons of trust or fairness--I know that the fairness is proven in the math and the statistical randomness in adding nonces to the seeds. I myself reminded another person of the pre-deterministic (and provably fair) properties of randomness through hashing:

well, i lost in PD despite my every strategy I've tried. I gained some big faucets and lost in one streak, if I run the robot more than 12 hours ...

I begin to question weather there is something suspicious or not...
well im not accusing but maybe just my luck ...

I'm assuming you're referring to PD3. From my understanding of PD3's hashing algorithm and personal verification, all future rolls are pre-determined after you've accepted the server seed and input your client seed. This holds true for DiceBitco.in too (I think).

The server seed is verifiably unchanged until you choose to change it before any given turn. Your seed is also unchanged unless requested otherwise. The only hashable element that change from bet to bet is the incremental nonce, which is sequential.

For each roll, all three of these elements are hashed together to produce statistically random results.

Here is PD3's provably fair page:
http://primedice.com/#/verify

Due to the laws of large numbers, it is almost inevitable that a losing streak will match your bankroll given a sufficiently large n of rolls.

The arbitrary change in seed for me, is to utterly maximize the entropy from roll to roll, and that is my personal preference.

If Primedice is able to implement arbitrary seed change on any given roll, I don't see why DiceBitco.in can't either.

[nicolaennio]

If the maxbet is going to stay to 1% I can just take the popcorns and wait for Nakowa to come 

[BitCoinDream]

Now thats some martingale strategy i never saw - till now ! lol



Gratz Shu! That was indeed a nice call

How u r randomizing the seed, mt_rand() ? Please say it only if it is disclosable.

@doglus can u please tell me how it was done in JD ?

[Lamigo]

If the maxbet is going to stay to 1% I can just take the popcorns and wait for Nakowa to come 

But this time, Nakowa or any other whales may not have the luck Nakowa used to have on JD. 

[Mitchell]

The "Login" button is very confusing if you are already logged in. It might be smart to change it to: "Switch account" or something like that.

[dooglus]

@doglus can u please tell me how it was done in JD ?

Sure.

We used

Code:

    crypto.randomBytes(48, function(ex, buf) {

and

Code:

    buf.toString('base64').replace(/[+]/g, '.').replace(/\//g, '_')

[DiceBitcoin]

The "Login" button is very confusing if you are already logged in. It might be smart to change it to: "Switch account" or something like that.

Good idea, we will implement it in the next update. Let me address some other issues as well:

For the 1% max win : we will have a meeting tonight to decide on that. 0.5% is the most possible scenario.

About randomizing the seed per roll : we will change it so that you will be able to randomize per every bet.

Feedback guys!!! Thank you all, again

[leancuisine]

The "Login" button is very confusing if you are already logged in. It might be smart to change it to: "Switch account" or something like that.

Good idea, we will implement it in the next update. Let me address some other issues as well:

For the 1% max win : we will have a meeting tonight to decide on that. 0.5% is the most possible scenario.

About randomizing the seed per roll : we will change it so that you will be able to randomize per every bet.

Feedback guys!!! Thank you all, again

Perhaps you should create two different dice games, and investors could choose which one (bankroll) to back? For example one dice game with a max bet of 0.5% of the bankroll, and the other 1%? Although it might defeat the purpose because the bankroll would be smaller each in both cases than just one.

[dooglus]

Perhaps you should create two different dice games, and investors could choose which one (bankroll) to back? For example one dice game with a max bet of 0.5% of the bankroll, and the other 1%? Although it might defeat the purpose because the bankroll would be smaller each in both cases than just one.

The obvious answer is to allow investors to decide whether to risk 0.5% or 1%, but have a single bankroll.

It's not obvious how to implement that efficiently though.

If you have 100 investors, and 100 bets per second, you don't want to be adjusting 100 investor balances 100 times per second - that's 10k adjustments per second.

When everyone risks the same percentage, you can just remember everyone's percentage share of the bankroll rather than their current investment profit. But when you allow different investors to risk different amounts, that's no longer the case; the guy risking 1% finds his percentage share of the bankroll goes up when players win, and down when they lose, and so you end up recalculating more.

It would probably be doable to have a small list of available "risk factors", and let the investors choose between them.

[Gws24]

Did you change the number of confirmations needed for withdrawal? It was 4 but my deposit was only confirmed with 6. If so, you need to change the FAQ.

EDIT: Also, it would help if on the withdrawal screen you can see the amount available to withdraw next to the total amount