SatoshiDICE.com - The World's Most Popular Bitcoin Game

[Bowjob]

Looks like dice went down to 0.00534524 O_O

[1714237103]

1714237103

[FTWbitcoinFTW]

Looks like dice went down to 0.00534524 O_O

no ask wall... first "little" dump and price go down quickly
But 12h before the div ?

What the point ?

Looks like someone has learned how to cheat satoshiDICE - made themselves BTC10,000+ - while causing disruptions for other players

Same player lost 15K 2 days before, for me it's ok, he can continue for life

[organofcorti]

Looks like dice went down to 0.00534524 O_O

Buy up big - unless sd is completely broken (which I find very hard to believe) they'll be back over the red line in no time. You won't go broke investing in the house.

[flaab]

I just gave it a spin, played x64 and won. No payment yet after 4 confirmations.
https://blockchain.info/es/tx/0116c393c8a7d78de301e69b3110428bff42e8f97d8f37b2cccf8a3344db0470

Will SD be forced to switch 1confirmation payments?

[dooglus]

I just gave it a spin, played x64 and won. No payment yet after 4 confirmations.
https://blockchain.info/es/tx/0116c393c8a7d78de301e69b3110428bff42e8f97d8f37b2cccf8a3344db0470

It looks to me like they paid you in the same block as you paid them.  That means they processed your bet before it was confirmed.

[ingrownpocket]

I just gave it a spin, played x64 and won. No payment yet after 4 confirmations.
https://blockchain.info/es/tx/0116c393c8a7d78de301e69b3110428bff42e8f97d8f37b2cccf8a3344db0470

Will SD be forced to switch 1confirmation payments?

http://src.satoshidice.com/longpoll.php?tx=0116c393c8a7d78de301e69b3110428bff42e8f97d8f37b2cccf8a3344db0470
Lucky you  

EDIT: With that lucky number you could have won the 249.861x (less than 256). 

[ghostshirt]

Is it possible for SatoshiDice not to pick a bet even after  many confirmations?
http://blockchain.info/tx/949b387b09582c5e9faddf5f395423dd57cfeb64304d37bacd9c7baa5e207413
but,
http://satoshidice.com/lookup.php?tx=949b387b09582c5e9faddf5f395423dd57cfeb64304d37bacd9c7baa5e207413&limit=100&min_bet=0&status=ALL

[BRules]

as you sent below the minimum bet yes, you will have to wait a while

[dooglus]

it's only a 1BTC bet with 0.01 fee... no response... what the fuck?

I just looked at blockchain.info, picked a random satoshidice bet transaction, and looked it up.

The bet: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/48513265
The payout: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/48513287

Both are currenty unconfirmed, so they're definitely still paying out some unconfirmed bets.

I don't know why they're not processing your bets until they're confirmed.  It would be useful if you could look up a bet on their site and see its status even if it wasn't processed yet.  Possible statuses could be "waiting for confirmation due to insufficient tx fee" or "waiting for confirmation since not all inputs are confirmed".

[dooglus]

i include 0.01 miner fee, and all my prior transactions are confirmed.

[...]

here is another one:
https://blockchain.info/tx/484a19a838247b08b5bd9cd5d53704c339d325f55080f30cd9c1fdc38a76a14d

That one's input is confirmed in the same block as the bet itself.  This means that the bet's input wasn't confirmed when you sent it.

I would suggest breaking your 300 BTC input up into a bunch of smaller inputs.  Like send yourself 30 BTC ten times in the same transaction.  Then you won't be recycling the same brand-new 300 BTC input over and over.  Hopefully the client you use is smart enough to use confirmed inputs before new ones.

[Ploo]

It'd be interesting to let players bet on 'greater than'. At the moment to consistently win a player must repeatedly get below a certain threshold which is unlikely as lucky numbers are evenly distributed. If players could bet on 'red' as well as 'black' maybe you could exploit more players suffering from gamblers fallacies?

[organofcorti]

It'd be interesting to let players bet on 'greater than'. At the moment to consistently win a player must repeatedly get below a certain threshold which is unlikely as lucky numbers are evenly distributed. If players could bet on 'red' as well as 'black' maybe you could exploit more players suffering from gamblers fallacies?

I'm not sure your wording would encourage anyone to run with your suggestion.

[gmiwenht]

[deleted]

[evoorhees]

SD is fucked up AGAIN

every time i make a bet it tells me "tx ... cannot be spent" (i am using blockchain.info)

what the fuck does that even mean? all my previous transactions are confirmed! and i am including generous miner fees.

i don't get a payout until 1 confirmation, and even then there is a significant delay.

WHY WHY WHY

What size bet are you placing? Also, can you copy here a link of the transaction ID?

[scatha]

It'd be interesting to let players bet on 'greater than'. At the moment to consistently win a player must repeatedly get below a certain threshold which is unlikely as lucky numbers are evenly distributed. If players could bet on 'red' as well as 'black' maybe you could exploit more players suffering from gamblers fallacies?

I'm not sure your wording would encourage anyone to run with your suggestion.

It really does make no difference because the numbers are truely random and are used only once for each game- you can't bet against another player, only against the house, so it wouldn't catch on.

[dooglus]

It really does make no difference because the numbers are truely random and are used only once for each game- you can't bet against another player, only against the house, so it wouldn't catch on.

Your argument is similar to saying that we don't need the 'red' bet on a roulette table, since there's no difference between 'red' and 'black'.

Mathematically that's true, but players like to feel like they have some control.  If you feel the lucky number is going to be high next time you play, wouldn't you like to be able to play "over 32767" instead of "lessthan 32768"?

[kano]

It really does make no difference because the numbers are truely random and are used only once for each game- you can't bet against another player, only against the house, so it wouldn't catch on.

Your argument is similar to saying that we don't need the 'red' bet on a roulette table, since there's no difference between 'red' and 'black'.

Mathematically that's true, but players like to feel like they have some control.  If you feel the lucky number is going to be high next time you play, wouldn't you like to be able to play "over 32767" instead of "lessthan 32768"?

Ah nice - help people 'feel' better about their delusions

[organofcorti]

It really does make no difference because the numbers are truely random and are used only once for each game- you can't bet against another player, only against the house, so it wouldn't catch on.

Your argument is similar to saying that we don't need the 'red' bet on a roulette table, since there's no difference between 'red' and 'black'.

Mathematically that's true, but players like to feel like they have some control.  If you feel the lucky number is going to be high next time you play, wouldn't you like to be able to play "over 32767" instead of "lessthan 32768"?

And how many people would bet each way (both over and less than x) and think they have a fool proof way of beating the house? It might take over from martingale strategies.

[Ploo]

It really does make no difference because the numbers are truely random and are used only once for each game- you can't bet against another player, only against the house, so it wouldn't catch on.

Your argument is similar to saying that we don't need the 'red' bet on a roulette table, since there's no difference between 'red' and 'black'.

Mathematically that's true, but players like to feel like they have some control.  If you feel the lucky number is going to be high next time you play, wouldn't you like to be able to play "over 32767" instead of "lessthan 32768"?

That's the exact reason why I suggested it. While mathematically it makes no difference, the unaware gambler may misinterpret this as something they can use to their advantage which may lead to more volume.

[dooglus]

Ah nice - help people 'feel' better about their delusions

The whole premise of any kind of gambling seems to be "we'll pay you .98 times what we should, according to the true odds of you winning".  That's clearly a bad deal for the gambler, but once we've somehow decided that it's OK to offer a bad deal to people who are (willing|mathematically challenged enough) to take it, I don't see how offering two different ways of taking the same deal is any worse than offering just the one.