⭐ Crypto.Games ⭐ Low House Edge ⭐ Wagering Contest ⭐ Daily Challenges ⭐

[Lutpin]

So, it seems 2x has just been called off.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html

[1713879336]

1713879336

[1713879336]

1713879336

[jamie1029]

Hi Lutpin, I must say again I'm a little disappointed  with the fact that the fee system for withdrawals is not, to me totally transparent. This might not matter to the majority of gamblers, but for smaller investors like me, it makes a difference, and is an issue.

You said earlier that the transaction fee slider is in the units BTC / Kb. (i.e. based on the size of the transaction).

I just withdrew 0.5747133 BTC. I selected the transaction fee slider to 0.00156000 BTC, expecting that the total balance (i.e. 0.5747133) will be sent, MINUS a transaction fee per kb, OF 0.00156BTC/kb. (so for example if transaction size is 300 bytes, I'd have expected to be sent 0.5747133 - 0.00156/1024*300 = 0.574256269.

Now what's actually happened was TWO things:
https://blockchain.info/tx/f92697229a778f6d7884cd9cd4dbc63ca0f84ea59322a33ae781125b9d36b010

1) Only 0.57315332 BTC was sent, therefore 0.00156 (approx $11.70 USD) was taken a SEPARATE FEE to Crypto-games.
2) A transaction fee per kb of 0.00156BTC / KB was used to send the transaction in 1) to the blockchain.

Therefore the ACTUAL fee assumed a transaction size of 1KB (and applied that fee to me, on that basis), even though the ACTUAL transaction size was only 224 Bytes, therefore I paid a significantly larger fee than I thought I would.

I know you might attack me and say I'm wrong. I like the site, and the ability to invest, I just don't know why the fee system isn't clearer and also cheaper. From the link, I expected to pay 0.00034944 BTC (Which was the actual transaction charge for putting it on the blockchain, not 0.00156).

Additionally, I have other investments in other coins but have no idea how fees work for them. For example, the slider can't all be based on fee per kb because ETH has a different system (uses gas). Are you able to make it clearer to everyone on how fees work?

[Lutpin]

I think you misunderstood my previous post about the fees.
The withdrawal fee you pay is always the fee a 1 kB transaction would need (hence "you pay the per kB fee").

If your transaction is bigger than 1 kB (eg because there are several inputs used, which quickly amount to a huge transactions, as they are way bigger than outputs), then the site takes up the remainder of the fees.
If your transaction is smaller than 1 kB, then you end up paying more fees than actually used.

As users can't influence how big their withdrawal transactions are, and it's hard for the site to predict how big those transactions will be, before actually sending it,
all users are paying the same fee (as in, the fee for 1kB), regardless of transaction size. This way, the system is fair for everyone.

therefore I paid a significantly larger fee than I thought I would.

The withdrawal window tells you exactly how big a fee you pay and how much you receive from your total withdrawal amount.

I just don't know why the fee system isn't clearer and also cheaper.

I think it is clear, the only thing not mentioned on the withdrawal page itself is that the fee is per kB (which is mentioned in the FAQ, though).



You can see that a 0.1BTC withdrawal with a 0.00108BTC fee gives you a value of 0.09892BTC sent to your wallet (0.1-0.00108=0.09892).

As for the costs, that's mainly related to Bitcoin transaction fees, fees for eg litecoin are fairly low if you want alternatives.

[jamie1029]

I think you misunderstood my previous post about the fees.
The withdrawal fee you pay is always the fee a 1 kB transaction would need (hence "you pay the per kB fee").

If your transaction is bigger than 1 kB (eg because there are several inputs used, which quickly amount to a huge transactions, as they are way bigger than outputs), then the site takes up the remainder of the fees.
If your transaction is smaller than 1 kB, then you end up paying more fees than actually used.

As users can't influence how big their withdrawal transactions are, and it's hard for the site to predict how big those transactions will be, before actually sending it,
all users are paying the same fee, regardless of transaction size. This way, the system is fair for everyone.

therefore I paid a significantly larger fee than I thought I would.

The withdrawal window tells you exactly how big a fee you pay and how much you receive from your total withdrawal amount.

Ok fine. Then my thoughts are that assuming a transaction size of 1kb is unrealistic (most transactions are much smaller than this), I believe that crypto-games would be definitely net ahead on charging fees this way. For perspective, Yolodice allows you to withdraw for only 15,000 Sat (regardless of the network), they probably make a loss on that but for people like me it keeps us happy. Well, I guess if no one else is complaining then the system will remain as is, however I think it'd be good to simplify it to change a static fee, where on average, the site is on balance even. I will take it that for all the other coins, the slider fee is the ACTUAL fee too.

[Lutpin]

For perspective, Yolodice allows you to withdraw for only 15,000 Sat (regardless of the network), they probably make a loss on that but for people like me it keeps us happy.

This might not matter to the majority of gamblers, but for smaller investors like me, it makes a difference, and is an issue.

Yolodice charges a 35% commission on investments, while Crypto-Games only charges 30%, and at the same time carries 30% of the loses for the investors, should there be any.
Maybe they can afford to make net losses on transactions because they rake in more profit through investment commissions?

Would you prefer a higher investment commission over higher transaction fees?

[jamie1029]

For perspective, Yolodice allows you to withdraw for only 15,000 Sat (regardless of the network), they probably make a loss on that but for people like me it keeps us happy.

This might not matter to the majority of gamblers, but for smaller investors like me, it makes a difference, and is an issue.

Yolodice charges a 35% commission on investments, while Crypto-Games only charges 30%, and at the same time carries 30% of the loses for the investors, should there be any.
Maybe they can afford to make net losses on transactions because they rake in more profit through investment commissions?

Would you prefer a higher investment commission over higher transaction fees?

Charging higher withdrawal fees disadvantages those will lessor coins over those with more. A slightly higher commission affects everyone evenly. I'd choose the latter. In addition, very low withdrawal fees is a psychological benefit that could see a lot of more smaller players gamble on the site. If I was the owner I'd def. choose a higher commission (like 33% etc).

[RedGolpe]

Would you prefer a higher investment commission over higher transaction fees?

Unless I misunderstood the whole discussion, it looks pretty obvious to me that players would prefer lower transaction fees and investors would prefer lower commissions.

[Lutpin]

A slightly higher commission affects everyone evenly. If I was the owner I'd def. choose a higher commission (like 33% etc).

Yet provides a disadvantage for those who stake the bankroll for a very long time, loyal users with standing investments for several months or even years (at least a disadvantage compared to the current system).

Different sites handle situations like transaction fees or investment commissions in different ways, I don't think there's a right or wrong here.
Likewise, users might prefer one way or the other.

Gladly, we're currently in a phase where there are many different trusted services to pick from,
so everyone can find something suited for them (one just has to think back to when MtGox was the only exchange and everyone had to use it).
On top of that, there's viable alternatives to Bitcoins rising transaction fees with Litecoin, Ethereum or similar options all available on CG.

And after all, Lightning is just around the corner, possibly instant deposits and withdrawals with close to no fees, an interesting time, to say the least.

[RHavar]

For perspective, Yolodice allows you to withdraw for only 15,000 Sat (regardless of the network), they probably make a loss on that but for people like me it keeps us happy.

Sorry for mentioning another site here, but if you're interested in an at-cost model check out the fees on bustadice.com . It constantly changes based on network conditions, but is designed to exactly model the site costs. For reference at the moment:

Deposit fee: 368 satoshis  (since there's a consolidation overhead for deposits)


Instant Withdrawal Fee: 45580 satoshis (should confirm in < 2 confs, with a 95% probability)
or
Delayed Withdrawal Fee: 9010 satoshis (delayed until someone else makes a withdrawal)


Although a big part of the reason it's so cheap is due to optimization (like using segwit), but I think it makes a good base-line as it's not subsidized (or a profit center). Not that it's particularly relevant, but the amortized investor commission is 25%

[Crypto-Games.net]

Today's Bitcoin lottery (round 213) draw results:

Place	Nickname	Owned Tickets	Winning Ticket	Chance of winning	Reward in Bitcoin
1	Dimagog	95	251	18.924%	0.04016 BTC
2	thenerd314	23	366	4.582%	0.00753 BTC
3	baapvis	55	37	10.558%	0.00301 BTC

Congratulations winners




Ethereum Lotto round #76 will close in approx 7 hours!

Current prizes:
1st place:  0.0760 ETH
2nd place: 0.0143 ETH
3rd place: 0.0057 ETH

Total tickets bought so far: 38
Price per ticket: 0.0025 ETH






Catch the winning spirit!

[jpcfan]

Hi Lutpin, I must say again I'm a little disappointed  with the fact that the fee system for withdrawals is not, to me totally transparent. This might not matter to the majority of gamblers, but for smaller investors like me, it makes a difference, and is an issue.

You said earlier that the transaction fee slider is in the units BTC / Kb. (i.e. based on the size of the transaction).

I just withdrew 0.5747133 BTC. I selected the transaction fee slider to 0.00156000 BTC, expecting that the total balance (i.e. 0.5747133) will be sent, MINUS a transaction fee per kb, OF 0.00156BTC/kb. (so for example if transaction size is 300 bytes, I'd have expected to be sent 0.5747133 - 0.00156/1024*300 = 0.574256269.

Now what's actually happened was TWO things:
https://blockchain.info/tx/f92697229a778f6d7884cd9cd4dbc63ca0f84ea59322a33ae781125b9d36b010

1) Only 0.57315332 BTC was sent, therefore 0.00156 (approx $11.70 USD) was taken a SEPARATE FEE to Crypto-games.
2) A transaction fee per kb of 0.00156BTC / KB was used to send the transaction in 1) to the blockchain.

Therefore the ACTUAL fee assumed a transaction size of 1KB (and applied that fee to me, on that basis), even though the ACTUAL transaction size was only 224 Bytes, therefore I paid a significantly larger fee than I thought I would.

I know you might attack me and say I'm wrong. I like the site, and the ability to invest, I just don't know why the fee system isn't clearer and also cheaper. From the link, I expected to pay 0.00034944 BTC (Which was the actual transaction charge for putting it on the blockchain, not 0.00156).

Additionally, I have other investments in other coins but have no idea how fees work for them. For example, the slider can't all be based on fee per kb because ETH has a different system (uses gas). Are you able to make it clearer to everyone on how fees work?

yeah, i bet everyday 5-10 people wd like you did thinking it would cost $2.59 to wd. letting the player pay $11.70 and doesnt know its gonna be that much is wrong.

but of course luptin is calling you stupid for not understanding how blockchain and fees work.


because all gamblers know everything about blockchain and fees per k and how to mine ect.

[DogecoinMachine]

For perspective, Yolodice allows you to withdraw for only 15,000 Sat (regardless of the network), they probably make a loss on that but for people like me it keeps us happy.

Deposit fee: 368 satoshis  (since there's a consolidation overhead for deposits)

Charging for deposits  

Hi Lutpin, I must say again I'm a little disappointed  with the fact that the fee system for withdrawals is not, to me totally transparent. This might not matter to the majority of gamblers, but for smaller investors like me, it makes a difference, and is an issue.

You said earlier that the transaction fee slider is in the units BTC / Kb. (i.e. based on the size of the transaction).

I just withdrew 0.5747133 BTC. I selected the transaction fee slider to 0.00156000 BTC, expecting that the total balance (i.e. 0.5747133) will be sent, MINUS a transaction fee per kb, OF 0.00156BTC/kb. (so for example if transaction size is 300 bytes, I'd have expected to be sent 0.5747133 - 0.00156/1024*300 = 0.574256269.

Now what's actually happened was TWO things:
https://blockchain.info/tx/f92697229a778f6d7884cd9cd4dbc63ca0f84ea59322a33ae781125b9d36b010

1) Only 0.57315332 BTC was sent, therefore 0.00156 (approx $11.70 USD) was taken a SEPARATE FEE to Crypto-games.
2) A transaction fee per kb of 0.00156BTC / KB was used to send the transaction in 1) to the blockchain.

Therefore the ACTUAL fee assumed a transaction size of 1KB (and applied that fee to me, on that basis), even though the ACTUAL transaction size was only 224 Bytes, therefore I paid a significantly larger fee than I thought I would.

I know you might attack me and say I'm wrong. I like the site, and the ability to invest, I just don't know why the fee system isn't clearer and also cheaper. From the link, I expected to pay 0.00034944 BTC (Which was the actual transaction charge for putting it on the blockchain, not 0.00156).

Additionally, I have other investments in other coins but have no idea how fees work for them. For example, the slider can't all be based on fee per kb because ETH has a different system (uses gas). Are you able to make it clearer to everyone on how fees work?

yeah, i bet everyday 5-10 people wd like you did thinking it would cost $2.59 to wd. letting the player pay $11.70 and doesnt know its gonna be that much is wrong.

but of course luptin is calling you stupid for not understanding how blockchain and fees work.

because all gamblers know everything about blockchain and fees per k and how to mine ect.

They know exactly how much they'll pay before executing withdrawal. If they position slider to the left, they'll pay 0.0006 btc, if they want fast withdrawals, they'll slide it to the right and pay 0.003 btc. It's player choice how much they'll willing to pay for withdrawing their funds.

[TheQuin]

While you're on the subject of transaction fees can I ask if you have any plans to support withdrawals to bech32 BTC addresses as implemented in Electrum version 3?

[Lutpin]

While you're on the subject of transaction fees can I ask if you have any plans to support withdrawals to bech32 BTC addresses as implemented in Electrum version 3?

BIP173 base32/bech32 is still very new and not commonly used yet, AFAIK the only wallet currently able to send Coins to base32/bech32 addresses is Electrum itself.
If base32/bech32 happens to become the standard for segwit addresses (which imo is likely, opposing to current p2sh), or even just becomes commonly used besides p2sh,
it's going to be integrated and you'll be able to withdraw to a base32/bech32 address.

As to when this option will be available, I can't really make a prediction yet.

[TheQuin]

Thanks for the prompt reply Lutpin.

AFAIK the only wallet currently able to send Coins to base32/bech32 addresses is Electrum itself.

That was what I thought but when I asked over on the Electrum board I got this answer.

The support for bech32 is indeed very weak but Bitcoin Core can also send to (and receive) this address if you compile from github source. The bech32 support was included in commit aa624b6. There might be some other wallets that support it because these transactions can be spotted in the wild from time to time.

If this is the case then hopefully it will speed up adoption. Anyway, I have a nice new wallet ready for it when it comes.

[jamie1029]

They know exactly how much they'll pay before executing withdrawal. If they position slider to the left, they'll pay 0.0006 btc, if they want fast withdrawals, they'll slide it to the right and pay 0.003 btc. It's player choice how much they'll willing to pay for withdrawing their funds.

I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point. It's less about the fact that the site is charging higher transaction fees. It's more about, based on reading the FAQ/blog, most players/investors will assume the slider gives full control of the actual fee paid, and that it's totally dependent on network conditions, with crypto-games taking no cut, but that's simply not the case.

Reading below (From blog):
Example: I paid 0.0008 BTC for withdrawal fees, but blockchain shows it was paid less, why?
In this example we paid 0.0008 BTC fees per one kB. It is not possible for us to give good estimates, or an estimate at all, of how large your transaction will be. When a transactions size is lesser than a kB, the transaction fee is lower than 0.0008 BTC accordingly. Same goes to different amounts.

I can't help believe this is cleverly worded. It could mean:
1) The transaction fee sent to the blockchain is lower than 0.0008 (which means nothing to the user, and is irrelevant)
2) The transaction fee charged by crypto-games to the user is less than 0.0008 (this is what actually user thought should happen based on that wording, but doesn't).
This is a CLEVER way to charge users more without them knowing it!

I think I've made my point. No transaction fee size is 1kb, therefore your fees are significantly higher than other sites, well to be exact, over 10 times higher than Yolodice for lower fee per kb, therefore I'm going to have to agree with jpcfan. Being 10 times higher (although not ideal, but a separate topic) is not a problem in itself (ie you have other benefits like lower investment commission), it's hiding this fee in a confused fee/kb scenario that is a problem --> Most users wont think they are charged higher fees but are shocked when they see the txid.

Now I see two potential replies to this post. 1) I'm wrong (and telling me why) and I shouldn't bother to play on the site anymore coz you don't care, or 2) You've listened to me and take my point and may possibly look at the situation. I hope it's 2) but I think it will be 1)

[Lutpin]

but of course luptin is calling you stupid for not understanding how blockchain and fees work.

I didn't call them stupid, do not put words in my mouth.
Also, please learn how to spell my name, if you have to address me.

because all gamblers know everything about blockchain and fees per k and how to mine ect.

Think I've taken my time to explain certain aspects, haven't I?

The support for bech32 is indeed very weak but Bitcoin Core can also send to (and receive) this address if you compile from github source. The bech32 support was included in commit aa624b6. There might be some other wallets that support it because these transactions can be spotted in the wild from time to time.

If this is the case then hopefully it will speed up adoption. Anyway, I have a nice new wallet ready for it when it comes.

I'd rather wait for a stable release than compiling from a mid-development commit.
It's likely to be included in the next stable version, so you can expect base32 support shortly after.

[jpcfan]

They know exactly how much they'll pay before executing withdrawal. If they position slider to the left, they'll pay 0.0006 btc, if they want fast withdrawals, they'll slide it to the right and pay 0.003 btc. It's player choice how much they'll willing to pay for withdrawing their funds.

I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point. It's less about the fact that the site is charging higher transaction fees. It's more about, based on reading the FAQ/blog, most players/investors will assume the slider gives full control of the actual fee paid, and that it's totally dependent on network conditions, with crypto-games taking no cut, but that's simply not the case.

Reading below (From blog):
Example: I paid 0.0008 BTC for withdrawal fees, but blockchain shows it was paid less, why?
In this example we paid 0.0008 BTC fees per one kB. It is not possible for us to give good estimates, or an estimate at all, of how large your transaction will be. When a transactions size is lesser than a kB, the transaction fee is lower than 0.0008 BTC accordingly. Same goes to different amounts.

I can't help believe this is cleverly worded. It could mean:
1) The transaction fee sent to the blockchain is lower than 0.0008 (which means nothing to the user, and is irrelevant)
2) The transaction fee charged by crypto-games to the user is less than 0.0008 (this is what actually user thought should happen based on that wording, but doesn't).
This is a CLEVER way to charge users more without them knowing it!

I think I've made my point. No transaction fee size is 1kb, therefore your fees are significantly higher than other sites, well to be exact, over 10 times higher than Yolodice for lower fee per kb, therefore I'm going to have to agree with jpcfan. Being 10 times higher (although not ideal, but a separate topic) is not a problem in itself (ie you have other benefits like lower investment commission), it's hiding this fee in a confused fee/kb scenario that is a problem --> Most users wont think they are charged higher fees but are shocked when they see the txid.

Now I see two potential replies to this post. 1) I'm wrong (and telling me why) and I shouldn't bother to play on the site anymore coz you don't care, or 2) You've listened to me and take my point and may possibly look at the situation. I hope it's 2) but I think it will be 1)

of course luptin will say your wrong. for some reason they think all gamblers know how cryptocurrency works. every aspect . but we are gamblers. we gamble.

when we gamble at casino site that doesnt take crypto, deposit and withdraws are simple and you pay exact same fee everytime.

[Lutpin]

of course luptin will say your wrong. for some reason they think all gamblers know how cryptocurrency works. every aspect . but we are gamblers. we gamble.

For god's sake, stop assuming what I will say or claiming I did say things that I did not.

Reading below (From blog):
Example: I paid 0.0008 BTC for withdrawal fees, but blockchain shows it was paid less, why?
In this example we paid 0.0008 BTC fees per one kB. It is not possible for us to give good estimates, or an estimate at all, of how large your transaction will be. When a transactions size is lesser than a kB, the transaction fee is lower than 0.0008 BTC accordingly. Same goes to different amounts.

I think this section in the blog post is badly worded, however without any malicious intent.
It's not meant to be confusing, but maybe you can misunderstand it due to that.
I've proposed an update for this specific part to make it more clearly and better understandable for users.

[Samarkand]

...

And after all, Lightning is just around the corner, possibly instant deposits and withdrawals with close to no fees, an interesting time, to say the least.

I don´t share the same optimism regarding Lightning. The technology is great and very talented developers are working on it.
However, I have read in various sources that the actual launch is still more than a year away.

As we all know, development roadmaps are prone to postponements (hey, Ethereum  ) due to unforeseen issues and
extensive testing before releasing the code. This could indicate even longer delays until the Lightning network
is actually live and available for use.

After all, I think the fee situation will improve in the next weeks, because several malicious actors that have been
spamming the blockchain have lost the incentive to do this due to Segwit2x being called off.