Topic: [CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx - page 34. (Read 316476 times)

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!

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.

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

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.

Haha, I hope these previous comments aren't an example of the PR/customer service implimentation... Bunch of parroting shills. Transparency IS important, there should be no fee's without just explanation "Just because I don't wanna tell you about it"

The way you're looking at it - 'If I don't like it nobody shold' - Is typical of any regluar Bitcoin fearing, fiat using (but not understanding) / statist. As opposed to offering supply to a market that has demand (When it can be done with essentaily a change in the chain your calculating the bets from- Less major than a designated client)

Stuff like "Mining via their CPU or GPU: Won't last for long, FPGAs are coming for Litecoin." ...I mean oh no! More infrastructure to assist in the networks security... Same thing happened to Bitcoin.. It killed it, didn't it?

I too feel the reasoning behind the anti-altcoin ~"I like Bitcoin.  Xcoin is a competitor of Bitcoin.  So I don't like Xcoin.  So I'm not going to support it."



I also don't see why I have to keep re-asking some of my more core questions...
- Has the $5000/month cap changed for the new employee?
- How is the conversion calculated (because I see no consistency between months) ...Start/End of the month, btc average month price, expected trend value? The information on how these numbers are calculated are integeral to ensuing honest bussiness is being conducted, and that we're not just shitting magic numbers...Aswell as a demonstration that the last 2 months did have some sort of calculation alg in common so that we can see there was no deceit involved in the past addtional fees.

I realize and understand that SD is not a voting share and you're not obliged to divulge anything, however this will always result in more and more questions on this and perhaps other public forums, investor and interested enthusiasts dissatisfication is never going to have a healthy effect of share price. Neither we nor you need any of that.

Real bitcoin businesses aren't going to support the cryptocoin flavor of the day.

if SD don't grab the market, someone else will.

Grab what market? When's the last time you heard about Litecoin in MSM? Or bytecoin or feathercoin or whatever. YouTube videos of "litecoin is more secure than bitcoin" doesn't count.

Why would anyone want to use Litecoin?

1. Mining via their CPU or GPU: Won't last for long, FPGAs are coming for Litecoin.
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
3. Early adaptors: That's a group that won't grow in numbers.

Litecoin is dead. It might still be used in a couple of years, but it's not going to be anywhere as close to Bitcoin, and certainly not overtake it. There's no serious development behind Litecoin, and no serious businesses will support it because they know it's doomed.

Please don't read this as saying Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that can succeed. You need something so better than Bitcoin that a critical mass switches. Switches, FYI, implementing both doesn't count.

Need, no. Bitcoin can function alone now, but multiple independent systems in the same class are capable of amplifying the overall effect.

There may also be growing realization that trading BTC/LTC or BTC/XRP is preferable to BTC/USD or any other fiat denomination. There is arguably greater risk in having exposure of any kind to the traditional financial system, and remaining in the crypto environment is much faster for many activities.

Individuals who feel comfortable with relatively concentrated transaction processing power should have no problem with Bitcoin. Those who do not may prefer Litecoin, Ripple, or any other variant that might gain traction.

SatoshiDice would cripple and probably destroy any chain incapable of sustaining itself, while acting as a rite-of-passage for those that can pass muster; the stronger a source of revenue, the better.

Wauw, great deal. Thank you for sharing.

The entire "limit" issue is perhaps best addressed here. There's really no need for clones.

I agree with EV, the focus of SD should be on BTC. SD has a (56.4%) share of all BTC txns. This translates into 56.4% share of all fees paid to miners. What you are asking for is to get SD into a similar arrangement inside a competing world? (Pay miners to keep the network going.)

Why in the world would you want to help your competition?

The focus should be on making SD the best game out there, not spreading it thin. That's what drives profits. To a gambler it does not matter whether its BTC or LTC they are there for the game.

Exclusivity FTW!

it exists, http://litecoindice.com/

Why can't someone else just make a litecoin dice game? Maybe one already exists?

To me, Bitcoins are like paper bills and Litecoins are the cents. I'm more willing to gamble with Litecoins because I know they don't hold nearly the same value as Bitcoin.

That said, what would happen if Litecoin was added to SD? EV would have thousands of Litecoins [profit] by the end of the month...and although that sounds nice, it's not if he only wants Bitcoin in the end. Converting mass quantities of LTC or any of the smaller alt-coins could pose two problems: A) People could bid up the exchange rate when they suspect EV is trying to convert to BTC, which cuts in on the final profit obviously, or B) constantly converting thousands of coins at once to BTC would kill the alt-coins value.

Either way, it's a pain in the ass. It's much easier, and vastly more financially stable, to stick with one coin. Obviously if EV intended to hold and spend LTC as we do with BTC, then this may be different...but as far as I can tell most people use LTC as a means to convert to BTC.

definitely the reason. Btc early adopters want altcoin dead, especially those cheap clone gaining popularity. There's already a LTC Dice, another SD copycat. Bottom line is if SD don't grab the market, someone else will. Even Gox, can no longer ignore LTC. I can foresee SD share to the roof, by adding support to alt-currency, which could possibly be a lot less effort than making new games or what not.

Exactly.

I seriously doubt that is the real reason as SD has been operated very professionally and honorably since its inception.

And it appears from the MPEx contract that it already planned to include other crypto-currencies.


So dooglus, drilling down on the implications if that is the real reason then there could be a conflict of interest with the SD shareholders resulting in the bias against LTC.

For example, if one holds a significant amount of BTC and 'doesn't like litecoin' because if LTC were significantly adopted then it could leech from or perhaps even exceed BTC's market cap. This would result in value stored in BTC being significantly eroded if not converted into LTC or some other asset. This may be one of the economic reasons LukeJR is so opposed to LTC. But based on the past performance of SD's management this does not appear, so far, to be legitimate concern.

The bottom line though is that whether LTC is significantly different as a crypto-currency from BTC is completely irrelevant to whether SD integrating LTC can generate value for SD shareholders. And SD management has a fiduciary duty to generate shareholder value regardless of their personal opinions.

No, it probably doesn't.  I suspect the real reason for not supporting Litecoin goes something like:

"I like Bitcoin.  Litecoin is a competitor of Bitcoin.  So I don't like Litecoin.  So I'm not going to support it."

I often see people saying "sure, Bitcoin is limited to 21 million units ever, but there's no limit to the number of Bitcoin clones; what makes Bitcoin so special?".  People dismiss this by saying that the clone won't gain traction, so we can ignore them.  Having Litecoin succeed kind of spoils that argument.  There can be only one!

Actually, I think SD is being too transparent by listing out each individual line item. Disclosing this proprietary information gives significant advantages to competitors and potential competitors.

Consequently, just like most publicly traded companies do not disclose detailed transactions because it could harm their business so likewise I think SD should be disclosing less information so long as the material details are disclosed in accordance with the MPEx contract.

I am not sure that argument holds any logical weight. If there are 'lots of people' in the LTC space then that implies market opportunity. It seems you are referring with the temporary nature to the price by being bid up and not the coins themselves. Obviously, it would not make sense to integrate LTC if one thinks it is going to cease to exist tomorrow. With LTC difficulty rapidly rising the indications are that it will not. And if there are 'lots of people' in the LTC space and if the premise is that LTC will continue to exist then the conclusion to follow is whether the expected return on investment justifies the work.

Consequently, the relevant question is how much would it cost to integrate Litecoin or other crypto-chains in general?

Given most of the back-end work for implementation by SD is probably already done because LTC is so similar to BTC then if the integration and maintenance costs are minimal why not roll out additional product channels? Might as well offer as many options as possible for customers to provide earnings for SD shareholders. Especially if doing so would involve minimal costs.

Practically, any LTC, TRC, NMC, FTC, etc. earnings could either be used to cover costs or be converted to BTC at market rates at BTC-e, and soon MtGox for LTC, for dividends. Really seems like a pretty simple decision depending on what the cost of implementation and maintenance would be.

Would also be interesting to see MPEx support a multi-currency order-book (trading SD shares for LTC, NMC, etc.) and dividends (be able to pay dividends via LTC, NMC, etc.).

Correct, the account-based version will not be replacing the original. Both will exist.