[CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx

[romerun]

what's wrong with the site . It loads faster than ever for the first time in the past 3 months. maybe the 100btc is worth it.

[Abu22]

what's wrong with the site . It loads faster than ever for the first time in the past 3 months. maybe the 100btc is worth it.

Or maybe you're the only traffic it's getting now.

[Deprived]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

[nimda]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

Why, then, doesn't Litecoin have single-second confirmations, if time doesn't matter? You'd have the security of six Bitcoin confirmations within six seconds. It would be a paradise for meatspace payments!

[Deprived]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). 

If I flip 2 coins then the chance of 2 heads in a row is 25% whether it takes me a second per flip or an hour per flip.  It's very similar with finding blocks - the likelihood of any individual miner finding a block is dependent on the percentage of total hashpower they own.  Someone with 51% of hashpower will find just over half of all blocks regardless of whether it takes 1 minute or 1 hour on average to find a block.  Their chance of successfully starting a 51% attack from any given point will be near enough identical on LTC/BTC - where they have a slight advantage on LTC is that they can make more tries in the same amount of time (but that has nowhere near the impact you indicated).

The fallacy you stated is one widely assumed to be true by those with little grasp of math (or a flawed understanding of how block generation works).  It IS, however, a fallacy - lots of semi-numerate people failing at math doesn't make their incorrect answers right.

If you want to understand in detail how you're wrong then Meni Rosenfeld (apologies if I got his name wrong) did a proper analysis of it somewhere.

Why, then, doesn't Litecoin have single-second confirmations, if time doesn't matter? You'd have the security of six Bitcoin confirmations within six seconds. It would be a paradise for meatspace payments!

Answered in my post you quoted - "The amount of time taken has little impact (unless reduced so far that propagation time begins to become a significant percentage of total time between blocks). "

It's the bit in brackets you need to look at.  With stupidly fast block times you hit the point where block propagation time (the time between a valid block being found and most miners on the network having it) becomes significant - and miners end up constantly building competing chains and finding orphans.  That makes a 51% type attack easier - as you no longer need a majority of hashing power due to the total inefficiency of miners trying to work on the 'real' chain (attacker has no such inefficiency as their replacement block-chain is build up offline before all being released at once).  There's also issues with very fast block times and pools.

The period during which miners work on outdated chains needs to be kept to a small percentage of average block time basically.  Which is fine on LTC but not fine with 1 second block times.

[ameliaih]

Understood, I will be more careful.

[dooglus]

2. "Faster" blocks: Faster but less secure. It's not the speed of the blocks, it's the *time* taken. 24 Litecoin confirmations are needed for the same security of 6 confirmations

That is totally and utterly incorrect.

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.  The amount of time taken has little impact

Suppose I made a payment 600 blocks ago and I want to double-spend it now.  On the Bitcoin blockchain that represents about 100 hours' worth of mining I have to redo.  Suppose (to make the math easier) that litecoin has blocks which are 10 times faster.  Then that's only 10 hours' worth of mining.

I have access to a very powerful botnet.  It has 10 times the hashrate of the whole Bitcoin network.  I can rent it by the hour.

To double-spend my Bitcoin payment which has 100 confirmations I'll need to rent the botnet for a little over 10 hours.  (10 hours to remine the 100 blocks, and a bit more to catch up with the blocks which were mined while I was doing that).

Assuming litecoin has the same total hashrate as bitcoin, I only need to rent the botnet for a little over 1 hour to double-spend my transaction.

That makes a litecoin transaction with 100 confirmations 10 times less "secure" than a bitcoin transaction with 100 confirmations (given the above assumptions).

Is there anything wrong with this argument?  If so, where?

[Abu22]

That makes a litecoin transaction with 100 confirmations 10 times less "secure" than a bitcoin transaction with 100 confirmations (given the above assumptions).

Is there anything wrong with this argument?  If so, where?

Not sure of this myself, but do Litecoin confirmations not occur faster than Bitcoin? So to compare 100 confirmations on each side would just be imagining up a situation that 'never' occurs. Would it not be more accurate to find how many Litecoins confirmations are made by the time 100 Bitcoin ones are done. Then compare them .

 eg. 1/3/12/24/96 hrs worth of confirmations each = which will have the highest security.

But comparing 1 Litecoin confirmation to 1 Bitcoin confirmation is somewhat pointless when leaving out other factors.

Disclaimer: I have no idea whether what I'm saying is true or false...If anybody has more time than I, proof or disproof of the above theory would be noice. (While we wait a few more weeks for any SD staff to reply on the posts directed at them above -.-)

[SatoshiDICE_PR]

Dear Community,

Beginning tomorrow, Thursday May 16, SatoshiDice.com will close to US players and all US-based IP’s will be blocked from the website. You will also see a new terms of service agreement to which you must
agree if you wish to play.

This decision was made on the basis of extensive legal counsel. The best way to limit legal risk for SatoshiDice, and thereby protect its stakeholders, is to block US players.

Note that this decision does not mean that online gambling is illegal in the US, nor does it mean that Bitcoin gaming is illegal. However, the courts have not been clear on the definition of gambling, nor
on what would constitute “legitimate gaming,” nor are jurisdictions properly defined, and thus this is a proactive measure to protect those involved in the project.

Further, this decision is not being made because of any citation or notice from any government agency, whatsoever. This is not, in any way, related to the recent Gox/Dwolla court order issue. Again, it is a proactive measure, based on the prudent legal guidance of our trusted lawyers.

We believe this is a wise move for the site to perpetuate in the long term. 

Further, to clarify, SatoshiDice is hosted in Netherlands, Iceland, and Ireland, and has never utilized US currency or engaged with the US banking system whatsoever. 
-SD

[Franktank]

Wow.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Dump.

I guess you can still send to address, how long will it be when there's SatoshiFans conveniently having a copy of the homepage? 

[dooglus]

Not sure of this myself, but do Litecoin confirmations not occur faster than Bitcoin? So to compare 100 confirmations on each side would just be imagining up a situation that 'never' occurs.

I was attempting to argue against the statement that:

6 Litecoin confirmations are approximately as secure as 6 Bitcoin ones.

Would it not be more accurate to find how many Litecoins confirmations are made by the time 100 Bitcoin ones are done. Then compare them .

That's what I would think.  If the two networks have the same processing power doing the hashing, then an hour's worth of blocks on one network is as secure as an hour's worth on the other.  It doesn't matter that litecoin blocks are "faster" - the amount by which they are faster is the same as the amount by which each one is also "weaker".

But comparing 1 Litecoin confirmation to 1 Bitcoin confirmation is somewhat pointless when leaving out other factors.

Well, except when people are trying to tell you that all confirmations are equal.  That a litecoin confirmation is just as 'secure' as a bitcoin one.

[dooglus]

The best way to limit legal risk for SatoshiDice, and thereby protect its stakeholders, is to block US players.

OK, but is it in any way possible to block US players?  How can you even tell where a bet transaction comes from?

You can block them from reading your website but I don't think you can block them from playing.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

The best way to limit legal risk for SatoshiDice, and thereby protect its stakeholders, is to block US players.

OK, but is it in any way possible to block US players?  How can you even tell where a bet transaction comes from?

You can block them from reading your website but I don't think you can block them from playing.

That's impossible to do, a transaction from My Wallet will always have a relay address of My Wallet's IP for example, and relaying IP != IP of who sent it.

Anyway, I'm quite happy I caught the news before the market reacted and dumped by SDICE shares, go F5ing forums

[Abu22]

Woo all time low!

1: Can the SatoshiDicePR please demonstrate somehow that you are indeed the real elected PR for SD. (And not some scammer trying to effect the market through FUD and false claims)

2. If this IS true, the actions taken are useless. It does not prevent any U.S users from using SD. (particularly if you just added a standalone client for it too) ...A disclaimer on the page saying "If you are located in the U.S.A please don't make any bets" ...They shouldn't be barred from analysing the bets taking place, big wins, losses. Unnecessary hiding of information.

3. Preemptive action like this is stupid. If the U.S government finds your site to be against their rules and regulations let them bring it up with you, or let them go about black listing it. Mitigating a possible problem before it occurs is a good idea, but in this scenario you're shooting yourself in the foot, when you could easily wait to see if it ever becomes a problem and if it does possibly comply with their requests.

4. This is piss shit poor management. News like this should have been nor openly disclosed earlier that you where getting legal counseling that may end with you making a decision like this.

Erik...You used to be cool man, what happened. All you do now is cover your own arse with lead enforced platinum shielded velvet.

[lethe]

Could S.Dice have a new CEO or something? One that tries to drive the share value up instead of down..

[Namworld]

Abu22, here: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=77870.msg2104349#msg2104349

Evoorhees confirms this is an official representative.

[Logik]

What a bizarre decision.

I guess that's what you ge with non-voting shares.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

What a bizarre decision.

I guess that's what you ge with non-voting shares.

Eh, Erik / others still have a majority..

[usagi]

What a bizarre decision.

I guess that's what you ge with non-voting shares.

Eh, Erik / others still have a majority..

Historically the only reason a company puts out non-voting shares is so that when they decide to restructure the company they can cut out the shareholders. I wouldn't buy non-voting shares of /anything/ unless my life depended on it. Just look at what happened to Yellow Media in Canada last year or two for a really great example.

In short, don't pay attention to what the clowns in the white shirts say on TV. Just watch what the company does and come to your own decision based on that.