683 entries in 1.315s
smickles: at these plases he sold shars of
SD smickles: S.DICE is just what one shareholder of
SD is doing with some of his shares
smickles: i mean, we were talking about that, then you tried to say that the market on S.DICE is evidence of
SD's illegality
Namworld: So
SD is also not doing anything wrong
smickles: I really don't think what
SD is doing is illegal, and I'd like to have a firm grasp of why some people do
smickles: tiberiusiv: you know voorhees isn't even the largest shareholder of
SD, right? i think he owns significantly less than half
smickles: and they see playing
sd with bitcoin in the category of zynga poker with zynga credits
error4733: i stop to hurt myslef to follow
SD price
Diablo-D3: I just wrote a script that can calculate your
SD earnings if you keep putting your entire money in
Diablo-D3: so I wonder how much money
SD actually makes every day
Diablo-D3: hey, is any of
SD's bitcoinds public?
Luke-Jr: Diablo-D3: want a hack to always win
SD?
mircea_popescu: "No, it is not. It is just the thing that we offer people to bet for. And I would be delighted to know what exactly makes us any more vulnerable to angry gov that MPEx and
SD are."
Chaang-Noi: d3 we can do
sd with ltc but have each one also have like 1 in a billion shot at 100k ltc :)
Diablo-D3: the problem with
SD is it doesn't do a huge pot
Diablo-D3: I think I might consider starting a
SD competitor
zerokwel: so by using the above reasoning if we beleve that a pool blocking
SD tx is a bad thing. then stoping that pool from working would be the same example
mircea_popescu: but yah that's what i was explainingto luke and co back in feb : if they exclude
sd txs that doesn't exclude
sd from bitcoin, it excludes them from mining.
mircea_popescu: zerokwel in fact
sd paid a little over 50% of all fees ever paid.
zerokwel: and
sd pays a shitload of fees as well
Namworld: In
SD's case, blockchain transactions
Namworld: I thought it was mostly like
SD, hate. Because of what you do, not having a slice of the pie, whatever. And trolls aplenty.
Namworld: Quite interesting, but I'm not sure about the part where they fear you vs hate like for
SD.
dub: heres some low hanging fruit for you mircea_popescu. <pjorrit_> we really should get a
SD on testnet
dub: <smickles> PeterL: it was the anti-
SD'ers who forced this issue
smickles: PeterL: it was the anti-
SD'ers who forced this issue
smickles: yeah, gotta love all those peeps encouraging the pool ops to mine blocks larger than 250k b/c of
SD mircea_popescu: this is the same coolaid of saying "
sd is hte problem"
Namworld: A lookup search box should be palced prominently on
SD Namworld:
SD offers a lookup tool to check your lucky numbers anyway. If you lose, you can see it from the tool.
BingoBongo: Another point for
SD over most miners, BitcoinJ isn't as poorly coded as BitcoinD
jcpham: lots of info for
SD investors to speculate on
mod6: you're saying that
SD does more than 5 million tx's per day?
Luke-Jr: mod6: no, that's far less than
SD does
mod6: what if
SD wasnt a gaming site?
mod6:
SD is another problem
Luke-Jr: maximian: the surest way is to stop flooding and implement
SD properly
mod6: (20:58) <+Luke-Jr> anyhow, I was just trying to get a feel for how many people would run a counter-
SD client if I take the time to write the code
mod6: (20:54) < jcpham> luke-jr if you don't stfu about
SD i'm going to burn your church down
mircea_popescu: mod6 the guy's insane,
sd paid like 55% of all fees ever paid
mod6: (20:46) <+mod6> "First,
SD has paid more mining fees than everyone else in the world, combined." << Is this a lie?
mod6: (20:48) < maximian> These morons are gonna kill Bitcoin with this anti-
SD crusade... <<< this
maximian: the problem is their little "
SD is spam" meme is starting to spread
BingoBongo: The anti-
SD crusade isn't going to kill bitcoin. The crusaders are more people who liberated their bitcoins by freeing them into S.Dice's arms. Probably... except for Luke.
maximian: These morons are gonna kill Bitcoin with this anti-
SD crusade…
BitHub: what's the price of
SD now?
doctor_pullfingr: can we speculate that the ddos against mpex is retaliation for
SD spam?
mod6: so i think that
SD pays the fee's which is what got me so worked up this morning reading all of Luke-jr's crusade to rid the world of
SD mod6: ala, something like `
SD has paid more in fee's than all the rest of the tx's combined'... must find link...
mod6: i'm gonna guess they will cut
SD out, and then
SD will just pay fees and maybe raise betting levels?
Diablo-D3: bitcoin will just shove
SD tx out because they don't pay fees
jcpham: what happens to
SD if pools or full nodes implement that patch
jcpham: the "
SD is spam" idea has traction
BingoBongo: I blame bitvisitor. At least some
SD transactions carry appreciable amunts of bitcoins.
jcpham: luke-jr and others primarily blame this on
SD BitHub: so you mean just a mining farm just for
SD transactions?
jcpham: if
SD wants its blocks mined it needs to pay a toll
jcpham: i don't care so much about
SD mod6: this stuff about
SD is getting out of hand
mod6: (20:09) < BitHub> DEATH TO
SD sgornick: Well, Mt Gox can tell. They have better things to do than track down mistakenly made
SD payments though.
jborkl: Mp, what about using bitcoin to send the trade message to your address. cant ddos the entire network, put the encypted message inside a signed transactions- use it just like
SD does
dub: but there is a scaling problem due to
SD, you can't argue against that
dub: mjr__: I'm not suggesting miners will exclude
SD dub: but is it easier to replace teh dev team or get
SD to implement their own ledger
mircea_popescu: the network works fine with
sd. what it doesn't work fine with is the appalingly poor quality of coding
mircea_popescu: this incidentallty shows clearly how misplaced all the
sd trolling is.
jborkl: only one person filters
SD transactions that I know of, and his pool is dying
dub: mjr_: they're probably arguing the wrong thing but factually
SD using the blockchain for accountign is retarded
Luke-Jr: mircea_popescu: it's easy. just go to #bitcoin and ask
SD players to PM you.
error4733: if blockchain can't support
SD now, what happen with 1M user ?
mircea_popescu: Luke-Jr dude, still with this ?
sd is the only thing happening on bitcoin, forget about it already.
mod6: i've been reading all this btctalk stuff today, and he's just wrong about
SD spamming. just because he'd design
SD differently.... or believes that gambling is immoral because he loves jesus.
Luke-Jr: you'd rather see
SD flood Bitcoin to death
mod6: i can't articulate myself enough -- im just against all his
SD blockchain spamming bullshit
mod6: all his nonsense about
SD spamming the blockchain
iz: but
SD is braindead simple to make a clone of
jcpham: otherwise my pools include
sd blocks
jcpham: if cgminer had a "no
sd" flag, i'd set it
jurov: if it was anything other "more useful" that
SD would you accept raising the limit?
mircea_popescu: as it is, if miners tried it
sd would just make its own miner drive the other miners out of business.
OneMiner:
SD is doing it wrong. But it's up to miners to increase the TX fee and price them out of business. But it's democratic. Each miner will have to choose to allow 0.0005BTC fees or not.
iz: jurov: how would my proposal of creating a better version of
SD going to cripple the whole system?
iz: someone just needs to make a better version of
SD that works in harmony with bitcoin
jurov: you will kill bitcoin together with
sd, then. at least prevent the mass adoption you are dreaming about.
dub: either
SD changes or bitcoin does
OneMiner: jurov With
SD a single person can place many bets with a small amount of coins. Each bet = two transactions. If it was a supermarket, they'd have to be making a seperate transaction for each product, overcharging you by a little and sending you a satoshi back. THEN it would be similar.
dub: my 2c.. I could run a bitcoin node on 1990's hardware before
SD dub: maximian: the weakness was always there, the cost for one person to attack was prohibitive,
SD works aroudn that
maximian:
SD just amplifies that weakness. and if it wasn't
SD it'd be someone else. The problem has to be solved, and it can't be solved by banning. It's a fundamental architectural problem.