Topic: [CLOSED] S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx - page 88. (Read 316363 times)
August 29, 2012, 11:10:01 AM
For the progressive games, does the house ensure that Jackpot * Win_Odds < Bet_Unit ?
August 29, 2012, 11:09:41 AM
The offered IPO shares aren't going anywhere. I like the price that it's at, but it's a lot of money/shares, so it may take a while to sell. Perhaps people will wait until they see the new sexy site launched 
Or maybe they're waiting to see dividends. IMHO that's holding back FZB.A too. [Disclosure: I'm holding a small amount of both as a longer term investment.]
August 29, 2012, 11:06:52 AM
I dumped my shares mainly because it's taking too long to sell. I'll buy back in when all of its nearly sold.
August 29, 2012, 10:59:59 AM
What happens if someone wants to get out of their purchase by selling back at 0.0034 / share, does their order take priority over the unsold IPO shares? Or is everyone stuck with either taking a loss if they want to get out, or waiting?
The offered IPO shares aren't going anywhere. I like the price that it's at, but it's a lot of money/shares, so it may take a while to sell. Perhaps people will wait until they see the new sexy site launched
Anyone who has shares and wants to sell can list them at whatever price they want. If IPO shares are being sold at .0034 and you have shares you can sell for .0033 and they will be bought first, obviously.
August 29, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
mathematically provable bets.
SatoshiDICE doesn't know the blockchain transaction ID in advance so SatoshiDICE cannot influence the results of my wager.
So it is provable mathematically that the house cannot cheat the player.
You are describing the situation where if I know the secret before I place the wager, I can cheat the house. Now that the house has investors, you are suggesting that this list of secrets makes it is possible for a party [edit: a party who has access to the secrets] to cheat the house, lowering its profits, which in turn, lowers the dividends for investors.
Over enough trials, the chances of that occurring without notice are lowered. There isn't "proof" available to say that this isn't happening but it can be detected pretty easily if it is.
Bingo.
August 28, 2012, 07:55:54 PM
There is confusion here because usually shares are issued in a "company" or "corporation" which is separate from the individual.
Look at it this way: The company, SatoshiDice, issued the shares. They then gave them all to evoorhees as compensation for building the company. He is now free to sell as many of them as he wants, and keep the ones which don't sell.
Sure. I dont have an issue with this.
Im staying away from S.DICE simply because of the risk of MPEX and the behaviour of their PR account.
August 28, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Everyone's stuck (and are already). People have resorted to selling at 0.0032 BTC per share.
So if there are IPO shares at 0.0034 and secondary market shares at 0.0034, the IPO shares take priority? First in first out?
August 28, 2012, 07:52:58 PM
Everyone's stuck (and are already). People have resorted to selling at 0.0032 BTC per share.
So if there are IPO shares at 0.0034 and secondary market shares at 0.0034, the IPO shares take priority? First in first out?
August 28, 2012, 07:48:56 PM
What happens if someone wants to get out of their purchase by selling back at 0.0034 / share, does their order take priority over the unsold IPO shares? Or is everyone stuck with either taking a loss if they want to get out, or waiting?
Everyone's stuck (and are already). People have resorted to selling at 0.0032 BTC per share. August 28, 2012, 07:47:27 PM
What happens if someone wants to get out of their purchase by selling back at 0.0034 / share, does their order take priority over the unsold IPO shares? Or is everyone stuck with either taking a loss if they want to get out, or waiting?
August 28, 2012, 07:29:57 PM
So what happened with this "IPO?" It looks like less than 20% of issued shares got sold, and it's already past the last offering date.
Was the IPO overpriced?
Probably. I've pulled my buy orders until GSDPT stabilizes at the 0.0025 mark. The MPEX risk is just too high for most potential shareholders.Was the IPO overpriced?
IMO it is overpriced. Since this is Erik selling the shares he personally holds, he can value them at whatever he wishes.
August 28, 2012, 07:27:01 PM
So what happened with this "IPO?" It looks like less than 20% of issued shares got sold, and it's already past the last offering date.
Was the IPO overpriced?
Probably. I've pulled my buy orders until GSDPT stabilizes at the 0.0025 mark. The MPEX risk is just too high for most potential shareholders.Was the IPO overpriced?
IMO it is overpriced. Since this is Erik selling the shares he personally holds, he can value them at whatever he wishes.
August 28, 2012, 07:24:36 PM
So what happened with this "IPO?" It looks like less than 20% of issued shares got sold, and it's already past the last offering date.
Was the IPO overpriced?
Probably. I've pulled my buy orders until GSDPT stabilizes at the 0.0025 mark. The MPEX risk is just too high for most potential shareholders. Was the IPO overpriced?
August 28, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
So what happened with this "IPO?" It looks like less than 20% of issued shares got sold, and it's already past the last offering date.
Was the IPO overpriced?
Was the IPO overpriced?
August 28, 2012, 03:47:37 PM
Now that the house has investors, you are suggesting that this list of secrets makes it is possible for a party to cheat the house, lowering its profits, which in turn, lowers the dividends for investors.
Now the question is "who?". Is it fireduck cheating Erik? fireduck & Erik cheating would-be-investors in Macau? Some unknown-as-yet actor in this drama?My hunch is that Erik is innocent, sort of like Hans Buehler in the Crypto AG drama.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG
If Erik had any experience in the gaming sales he would've come up with a better racket. Or maybe he really wants to go down in history as a first loaded dice and crooked table salesman in the crypto-currency era? Kind of like Soapy Smith was for the Wild West?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapy_Smith
But I still would like to know who's the cortex of the operation and what was the game plan.
August 28, 2012, 03:28:41 PM
mathematically provable bets.
SatoshiDICE doesn't know the blockchain transaction ID in advance so SatoshiDICE cannot influence the results of my wager.
So it is provable mathematically that the house cannot cheat the player.
You are describing the situation where if I know the secret before I place the wager, I can cheat the house. Now that the house has investors, you are suggesting that this list of secrets makes it is possible for a party [edit: a party who has access to the secrets] to cheat the house, lowering its profits, which in turn, lowers the dividends for investors.
Over enough trials, the chances of that occurring without notice are lowered. There isn't "proof" available to say that this isn't happening but it can be detected pretty easily if it is.
August 28, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
The individual here happens to own the other 95% of the company. He created the shares in the first place. It's without a doubt he's entitled to the profits.
It would help if the "individual here" would disclose his agreements with fireduck. The "individual here" is well known for his sales skills, but not for mathematically proving anything, least of it mathematically provable bets.I'm not trying to flatter myself at all. I'm trying to flatter Bitcoin. Blockchain enables mathematically provable bets, and this is a game changer for gambling around the world.
I wonder how the link below will become a mathematical proof of corruption in wagering.https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/satoshidice/hash.keys
I think this is the first case in the history where somebody sold the racetrack, but kept the list of horses that are going to win on it over the next 10 years.
So, who else has the full secret list?
August 28, 2012, 12:02:18 PM
There is confusion here because usually shares are issued in a "company" or "corporation" which is separate from the individual.
Look at it this way: The company, SatoshiDice, issued the shares. They then gave them all to evoorhees as compensation for building the company. He is now free to sell as many of them as he wants, and keep the ones which don't sell.
August 28, 2012, 11:55:21 AM
So it is thus accurate to say that I prefer 32k BTC instead of 10% of SatoshiDICE, but I would not prefer 15k BTC instead of 10% of SatoshiDICE. My investment preference only shifts to the BTC at the 32k for 10% exchange rate. Further, I wouldn’t sell another 10% for an additional 32k btc, for at that margin my preference shifts back to SD.
If some portion of the Bitcoin investment world has a matching inverse time preference to to mine, and is thus willing to pay 32k BTC for 10% of SD, then we all have a deal and the exchange is made. Otherwise, my exchange preference and that of the market do not align, and we continue on as we were.
If some portion of the Bitcoin investment world has a matching inverse time preference to to mine, and is thus willing to pay 32k BTC for 10% of SD, then we all have a deal and the exchange is made. Otherwise, my exchange preference and that of the market do not align, and we continue on as we were.
Are you planning to call off this IPO since the second tranche is practically untouched after 24 hrs and the third one should also be released by any moment now? Seems like your conditions above (emphasis mine) are not going to be met.
What price you're going to use when buying back shares? I mean, if someone is now buying in for .0034 and then you decide to cancel the IPO and buy back for .0032 there's immediate 6% loss (plus possible MPEx/GLBSE fees etc). Didn't find a clause for this when glancing over the conditions.
No intention of "calling off" anything. If shares don't get bought, then I get to keep the dividends to myself. No biggie.
I hope you arent going to transfer unsold shares to your own account because that would be fraud, because thats the only way you can earn dividends from them.
The shares originate in my account - I'm the owner. Why are you suggesting it's fraud if they remain under my ownership when they're under my ownership currently?
There is confusion here because usually shares are issued in a "company" or "corporation" which is separate from the individual.
The individual here happens to own the other 95% of the company. He created the shares in the first place. It's without a doubt he's entitled to the profits.
August 28, 2012, 08:00:36 AM
So it is thus accurate to say that I prefer 32k BTC instead of 10% of SatoshiDICE, but I would not prefer 15k BTC instead of 10% of SatoshiDICE. My investment preference only shifts to the BTC at the 32k for 10% exchange rate. Further, I wouldn’t sell another 10% for an additional 32k btc, for at that margin my preference shifts back to SD.
If some portion of the Bitcoin investment world has a matching inverse time preference to to mine, and is thus willing to pay 32k BTC for 10% of SD, then we all have a deal and the exchange is made. Otherwise, my exchange preference and that of the market do not align, and we continue on as we were.
If some portion of the Bitcoin investment world has a matching inverse time preference to to mine, and is thus willing to pay 32k BTC for 10% of SD, then we all have a deal and the exchange is made. Otherwise, my exchange preference and that of the market do not align, and we continue on as we were.
Are you planning to call off this IPO since the second tranche is practically untouched after 24 hrs and the third one should also be released by any moment now? Seems like your conditions above (emphasis mine) are not going to be met.
What price you're going to use when buying back shares? I mean, if someone is now buying in for .0034 and then you decide to cancel the IPO and buy back for .0032 there's immediate 6% loss (plus possible MPEx/GLBSE fees etc). Didn't find a clause for this when glancing over the conditions.
No intention of "calling off" anything. If shares don't get bought, then I get to keep the dividends to myself. No biggie.
I hope you arent going to transfer unsold shares to your own account because that would be fraud, because thats the only way you can earn dividends from them.
The shares originate in my account - I'm the owner. Why are you suggesting it's fraud if they remain under my ownership when they're under my ownership currently?
There is confusion here because usually shares are issued in a "company" or "corporation" which is separate from the individual.
Jump to: