713900+ entries in 0.381s
mike_c: kakobrekla: you have finally shamed me into fixing my comment approval system.
there will be no more spammers on btcalpha.
mrstickball: I gotta give him a rating shortly. For some reason, he never bothered with garnering a lot of
trust via OTC
ThickAsThieves: i'd give him a point for his diligence and seemingly running a Havelock asset better
than most, but
the more recent
terms of his 3POs and such kinda make me hesitant
fluffypony: oh lol, I
thought
thestringpuller was
the RENT guy
ThickAsThieves: the20year, as i hinted i wont voice people
that should already know better
assbot: Voicing
the20year for 30 minutes.
mircea_popescu: possibly worst sort of biz idea
that, devlin advocacy.
ozbot: The Devil's Advocate |
Telling it like it might be.
mircea_popescu: but if someone judges it unnecessary, well,
they're not stuck with
the rest.
mircea_popescu: seemsmore reasonable
this way. if someone judges it prudent
to wait a month, or six or sixty,
they can
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves nah, it'll sell after
the first report.
pankkake: waiting can be part of
the fun
thestringpuller: mircea_popescu: i wish you had a
tag on
trilema for articles about being so stupid you don't know how stupid you are
mike_c: that is
the
tradeoff i have ended up at. although less volume is not necessarily
the result, but slower action, yes.
pankkake: so investors would have
to chose between less volume yet provably fair, vs. more volume but maybe some stealth stealing
ThickAsThieves: white house logic: "Disclosing a vulnerability can mean
that we forego an opportunity
to collect crucial intelligence
that could
thwart a
terrorist attack, stop
the
theft of our nation’s intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities
that are being used by hackers or other adversaries
to exploit our networks,"
pankkake: still, you would have
to wait for a block for
the result
mircea_popescu: pankkake mike_c is working on something based on
that principle
pankkake: though, I was
thinking of
tweaking it: you have a secret server key still, and
the key used
to compute
the bet result would be secret+lastblock
mircea_popescu: it may, of course, steal from investors (ie, if
the player and
the casino collude)
pankkake: yes, but it has a cost. miners would have
to discard
their own blocks
to win
pankkake: you would need a secret
that can not be known in advance by anyone (bettors and investors), but
that would be revealed shortly after
the bets. so far I only see future block hashes
mircea_popescu: except if you ask it
to show it
to you,
then it always does.
mike_c: yes, unless you
tell it
to
mircea_popescu: and you can change your hash but server is not allowed
to change its
mircea_popescu: but you're saying server has a hash for each guy rather
than one for all guys
mike_c: ok, you get
the hash for server secret. you want a new server secret? click a button and it generates a new one, shows you
the new hash, and shows you
the old secret.
ThickAsThieves: for example, if "state lottery"
takes up "provably" fair
mike_c: but
this doesn't break anything. because you can change your secret after
the server secret is set.
ThickAsThieves: design a provably fair casino
that cant steal from anyone
mike_c: you change
the server secret, and he shows you
the old one
mike_c: the point is
that you can verify at will (instead of having
to wait a day)
mircea_popescu: well either i seriously misunderstood
this or else you did.
mike_c: which you can change at any
time
mike_c: um, actually each player gets
their own server secret
mircea_popescu: he'd have
to crack yours
to make a self-serving secret
dignork: ThickAsThieves: when dooglus places a long list of winning bets, who is
the loosing side?
ThickAsThieves: the
topic is whether provably fair is provably a fiat gambling killer
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves actually
that's a valid approach, mike_c's. i'd just like
to explore
the provably fair angle, from bettors prespective
mike_c: the point being, i am not investing in
the code. i am investing in dooglus. and he returned 4% in april.
pankkake: but
that means waiting for
the results
pankkake: I was
thinking of a gambling system where
the key is
the next block hash
mike_c: but,
ThickAsThieves, it doesn't matter
pankkake: BCB: was, and
the offer is now closed, and was never
taken
fluffypony: thus as it stands right now provably fair is "provably making payments", not provably fair in
the absolute sense
BCB: pankkake, are you a
troll for hire
ThickAsThieves: or maybe I'm missing how dooglus has already done
this somehow?
ThickAsThieves: explain
to me what structure prevents dooglus from rolling a win at will?
BCB: mircea_popescu,
the gox ddb dump ends 2013-11-30
fluffypony: I agree with
ThickAsThieves - I
think "provably fair" often means "proving
that
there are winners and losers"
ThickAsThieves: this may allow some forms of provably fair, but many creative ways
to game
that otherwise
ThickAsThieves: do you
think
that it's just moving
the goal posts
though?
mircea_popescu: the provably fair
thing will sink fiat gambling, only,
they don't know it yet.
mircea_popescu: gambling is bad in
that it
threatens
to empower whoever's doing it.