Topic: ⭐ Crypto.Games ⭐ 0.8% House Edge on Dice ⭐ Largest wagering contest...ever ⭐ - page 180. (Read 345929 times)

You can choose the lowest fee available if you want.

Thank you very much for lowering the fees for Bitcoin and making the FAQ clearer to avoid any and all confusion.

While we are on the topic, will you be reviewing the 'assumed' average transaction size (or equivalent) of other coins to brings costs down, and in line with the adjustments you made to BTC? I actually have investments in other coins and would be happy to see these fees come down to be more reasonable too.
For example, I have no idea what assumptions are used for withdrawal of Ether, but a fee of 0.0075 ETH is recommended (less than this, it says there will be network delays), this is approx 2.47USD.
From https://ethgasstation.info/ with a standard gas price of 1gwei and using 21,000 GAS this equates to a fee of (0.000000001*329*21000 = $0.0069, 0.7 Min predicted wait).
This means the site is charging 357 times a fee that would take on average 0.7 mins to confirm and warns of slow transaction times if a lower site fee is used.
Would be hugely great if transaction fees can come down alot for alts, after that I believe investments and more gamblers will come to the site. Thanks.

A small problem, masterfully managed. Thank you.

I do admit I might have exaggerated there a tiny little bit.
Between you and me, I'm pretty excited about Lightning and the possibilities it will bring.

Yet I do know that most clients have hardly reached beta status right now, and it can take a decent while before anything is ready for release, even then, LN won't have its full impact rigth from the beginning.
On the other hand, the eclair testnet version seemed very promising when I had tested it a while back.

---

---

There's been two updates to improve the overall user experience with bitcoin withdrawals.

First: Withdrawal fees are now based on 500 byte transaction size instead of 1000 byte transaction size, meaning effectively a 50% cut in costs for users compared to the previous system.
This goes in line with current average transaction sizes (reference: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1d-f-tsize_per_avg-01101), which range between 450 and 600 byte.
As a result, fees charged by the site should much better represent fees paid for transactions.

Second: The blogpost was updated with a better explanation of how the withdrawal fees a user pays and the transaction fees the site pays are corelated.
This should help to avoid any misunderstandings about how much fees a user is charged. You can take a look at it here: http://blog.crypto-games.net/2017/02/withdrawals-q.html

Example: I was charged 0.0005 BTC fees for my withdrawal, but the bitcoin transaction sent used a lower fee, why does this happen?
The withdrawal fee charged to a user issuing a withdrawal is the fee for a transaction with the size of 500 bytes (which is the current median transaction size according to tradeblock), in this exemplary case, 0.0005 BTC. The actual transaction sent uses a per kB fee that’s twice the size of your charged withdrawal fee (in this example, 0.0005 BTC are charged, and 0.001 BTC per kB are used). However, if the transaction is smaller than the average, the total fee will be lower accordingly. Likewise, if the transaction is bigger than the average, the total fee will be higher accordingly. In either case, the fee charged to the user will be the same, 0.0005 BTC, as it’s not possible to estimate the size a withdrawal transaction will have before the withdrawal is requested. In any way, the fee you are being charged is always the fee that is shown on the slider (“withdrawal fee”), where you select the fees, and the amount you receive is always the amount shown in the withdrawal popup (“Withdrawal amount after fees”).

Unchanged, but notably mentions:

The withdrawal fee charged to a user was always and will always be the one shown above the slider ("withdrawal fee"), whatever you set the slider to will be what you will pay for your withdrawal.
In no case will a user be charged more than what they set the slider on.

The amount sent in a withdrawal was always and will always be the one shown on the bottom right of the withdrawal window ("withdrawal amount after fees").
In no case will a user receive less than what they are shown in this area.


Let me know if you have any further questions about the way withdrawals and fees are handled.

I don´t share the same optimism regarding Lightning. The technology is great and very talented developers are working on it.
However, I have read in various sources that the actual launch is still more than a year away.

As we all know, development roadmaps are prone to postponements (hey, Ethereum  ) due to unforeseen issues and
extensive testing before releasing the code. This could indicate even longer delays until the Lightning network
is actually live and available for use.

After all, I think the fee situation will improve in the next weeks, because several malicious actors that have been
spamming the blockchain have lost the incentive to do this due to Segwit2x being called off.

For god's sake, stop assuming what I will say or claiming I did say things that I did not.

---

I think this section in the blog post is badly worded, however without any malicious intent.
It's not meant to be confusing, but maybe you can misunderstand it due to that.
I've proposed an update for this specific part to make it more clearly and better understandable for users.

of course luptin will say your wrong. for some reason they think all gamblers know how cryptocurrency works. every aspect . but we are gamblers. we gamble.

when we gamble at casino site that doesnt take crypto, deposit and withdraws are simple and you pay exact same fee everytime.

I didn't call them stupid, do not put words in my mouth.
Also, please learn how to spell my name, if you have to address me.

Think I've taken my time to explain certain aspects, haven't I?

---

I'd rather wait for a stable release than compiling from a mid-development commit.
It's likely to be included in the next stable version, so you can expect base32 support shortly after.

I'm sorry, but I think you're missing the point. It's less about the fact that the site is charging higher transaction fees. It's more about, based on reading the FAQ/blog, most players/investors will assume the slider gives full control of the actual fee paid, and that it's totally dependent on network conditions, with crypto-games taking no cut, but that's simply not the case.

Reading below (From blog):
Example: I paid 0.0008 BTC for withdrawal fees, but blockchain shows it was paid less, why?
In this example we paid 0.0008 BTC fees per one kB. It is not possible for us to give good estimates, or an estimate at all, of how large your transaction will be. When a transactions size is lesser than a kB, the transaction fee is lower than 0.0008 BTC accordingly. Same goes to different amounts.

I can't help believe this is cleverly worded. It could mean:
1) The transaction fee sent to the blockchain is lower than 0.0008 (which means nothing to the user, and is irrelevant)
2) The transaction fee charged by crypto-games to the user is less than 0.0008 (this is what actually user thought should happen based on that wording, but doesn't).
This is a CLEVER way to charge users more without them knowing it!

I think I've made my point. No transaction fee size is 1kb, therefore your fees are significantly higher than other sites, well to be exact, over 10 times higher than Yolodice for lower fee per kb, therefore I'm going to have to agree with jpcfan. Being 10 times higher (although not ideal, but a separate topic) is not a problem in itself (ie you have other benefits like lower investment commission), it's hiding this fee in a confused fee/kb scenario that is a problem --> Most users wont think they are charged higher fees but are shocked when they see the txid.

Now I see two potential replies to this post. 1) I'm wrong (and telling me why) and I shouldn't bother to play on the site anymore coz you don't care, or 2) You've listened to me and take my point and may possibly look at the situation. I hope it's 2) but I think it will be 1)

Thanks for the prompt reply Lutpin.


That was what I thought but when I asked over on the Electrum board I got this answer.


If this is the case then hopefully it will speed up adoption. Anyway, I have a nice new wallet ready for it when it comes.

BIP173 base32/bech32 is still very new and not commonly used yet, AFAIK the only wallet currently able to send Coins to base32/bech32 addresses is Electrum itself.
If base32/bech32 happens to become the standard for segwit addresses (which imo is likely, opposing to current p2sh), or even just becomes commonly used besides p2sh,
it's going to be integrated and you'll be able to withdraw to a base32/bech32 address.

As to when this option will be available, I can't really make a prediction yet.

While you're on the subject of transaction fees can I ask if you have any plans to support withdrawals to bech32 BTC addresses as implemented in Electrum version 3?

Charging for deposits  

They know exactly how much they'll pay before executing withdrawal. If they position slider to the left, they'll pay 0.0006 btc, if they want fast withdrawals, they'll slide it to the right and pay 0.003 btc. It's player choice how much they'll willing to pay for withdrawing their funds.

yeah, i bet everyday 5-10 people wd like you did thinking it would cost $2.59 to wd. letting the player pay $11.70 and doesnt know its gonna be that much is wrong.

but of course luptin is calling you stupid for not understanding how blockchain and fees work.


because all gamblers know everything about blockchain and fees per k and how to mine ect.

Today's Bitcoin lottery (round 213) draw results:

Place	Nickname	Owned Tickets	Winning Ticket	Chance of winning	Reward in Bitcoin
1	Dimagog	95	251	18.924%	0.04016 BTC
2	thenerd314	23	366	4.582%	0.00753 BTC
3	baapvis	55	37	10.558%	0.00301 BTC

Congratulations winners




Ethereum Lotto round #76 will close in approx 7 hours!

Current prizes:
1st place:  0.0760 ETH
2nd place: 0.0143 ETH
3rd place: 0.0057 ETH

Total tickets bought so far: 38
Price per ticket: 0.0025 ETH






Catch the winning spirit!

Sorry for mentioning another site here, but if you're interested in an at-cost model check out the fees on bustadice.com . It constantly changes based on network conditions, but is designed to exactly model the site costs. For reference at the moment:

Deposit fee: 368 satoshis  (since there's a consolidation overhead for deposits)


Instant Withdrawal Fee: 45580 satoshis (should confirm in < 2 confs, with a 95% probability)
or
Delayed Withdrawal Fee: 9010 satoshis (delayed until someone else makes a withdrawal)


Although a big part of the reason it's so cheap is due to optimization (like using segwit), but I think it makes a good base-line as it's not subsidized (or a profit center). Not that it's particularly relevant, but the amortized investor commission is 25%

Yet provides a disadvantage for those who stake the bankroll for a very long time, loyal users with standing investments for several months or even years (at least a disadvantage compared to the current system).

Different sites handle situations like transaction fees or investment commissions in different ways, I don't think there's a right or wrong here.
Likewise, users might prefer one way or the other.

Gladly, we're currently in a phase where there are many different trusted services to pick from,
so everyone can find something suited for them (one just has to think back to when MtGox was the only exchange and everyone had to use it).
On top of that, there's viable alternatives to Bitcoins rising transaction fees with Litecoin, Ethereum or similar options all available on CG.

And after all, Lightning is just around the corner, possibly instant deposits and withdrawals with close to no fees, an interesting time, to say the least.

Unless I misunderstood the whole discussion, it looks pretty obvious to me that players would prefer lower transaction fees and investors would prefer lower commissions.

Charging higher withdrawal fees disadvantages those will lessor coins over those with more. A slightly higher commission affects everyone evenly. I'd choose the latter. In addition, very low withdrawal fees is a psychological benefit that could see a lot of more smaller players gamble on the site. If I was the owner I'd def. choose a higher commission (like 33% etc).

Yolodice charges a 35% commission on investments, while Crypto-Games only charges 30%, and at the same time carries 30% of the loses for the investors, should there be any.
Maybe they can afford to make net losses on transactions because they rake in more profit through investment commissions?

Would you prefer a higher investment commission over higher transaction fees?