Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 47. (Read 435353 times)

I think Just-Dice is a great site and the 'invest in the bankroll' has been an incredible added value. I think the amount of money invested is a testament to the model's strength.

I agree with the discussion regarding a 'plan B,' but honestly, if he is located in the US, this is something that would have to be done by the executor of his estate if he actually suffered some terrible accident (this is a very morbid thread). Assuming we are talking about avoiding this more protracted, 'painful' process. The shared keys sound good in principle.

Incidentally, does anyone know of any other site that has a similar ability to invest in the bankroll?

If that's the only use for that laptop, and the only way someone would have access to it is on dooglus' death, why not make it simpler and do away with the gui? Then he can tell some IRL friends "If I die please turn the laptop in my room".

Edit: Or do away with the fallible friends and make it a dead man's switch by having a power timer set to provide power to the laptop once per week, and needs to be reset to prevent that from happening.

Dooglus should write a script with a basic GUI that would correctly disperse funds if given the paper wallet keys and internet access, and store it on an offline laptop. Then, he can tell several people he knows in real life, "If I die, there's a laptop in my room with a number taped to the top. Turn on the laptop and type in the number."

A Dead Mans Switch would be interesting indeed. Dooglus would need to enforce that every player and investor has set a emergency withdraw address. Then a function has to be set that, in case dooglus isnt logging into the website anymore for a month... all coins are withdrawn. 1 Month would be enough for dooglus to deal with things when he is in hospital for a while or some other things happened. The switch should be able to be pushed by dooglus manually too in case someone is raiding his house... or so...

No other persons would have to be involved.

There would have to be a way for users to withdraw directly up to the amount they put it. That way everyone is there own dead man switch. Enough with the voting stuff. Don't tell doog what to do with other peoples money.

There could also be a nlocktime transaction after each bet that is posted to each user and is only valid at some future date. I'm not sure if nlocktime is useable in 0.8.6 yet.

My apologies. You are right, this is worthy of discussion. Sorry, I guess I just got so used to hair-brained schemes on here that I assumed this was another one without looking closely at it.

I do think your proposal has a primary issue which doog outlined here, which really ought to be addressed before going any further with the idea:

Wow, it's like neither of you two read the last page of posts. No one, at all, was asking to have binding votes to tell Doog what to do.

Since you didn't read the background and both posted knee jerk reactions to what you thought the discussion was about, I will explain it to you.

Doog is running a site with a BTC35k bankroll + unknown sized gambler deposits. Everyone agrees that he should run it however he wants to run it. He has most of the accounts stored off-line in a cold wallet for security, which is great. However, if he gets hits by the proverbial bus - what happens?! Luckily for us, Doog has a "dead man's switch" - someone else (or something) that will reload the hot wallet and issue refunds in the case he is no longer able to run the site. The question being discussed (and note, this is not what you thought was under discussion) was what happens if both Doog and the dead man's switch fail? Are BTC35k lost forever in limbo? Is there some way investors [1] can trigger the dead man's switch via multi-signed keys or other cryptographic mechanisms?

Two points were being discussed: 1) Is it technically feasible? 2) How can we determine a consensus has been reached?

This was a part academic and part practical discussion.

Please contribute to that discussion before arrogantly dismissing it without even understanding what you're talking about.


[1] one who "expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or by using it to develop a commercial venture"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/invest

It is certainly true that Doog could simply say "If you don't like it, then leave." However my, possibly mistaken, impression has been that Doog cares deeply about the proper functioning of his site. This incudes investor concerns; where "investor" was a word chosen by Doog himself. I don't see any harm discussing with Doog ideas for improvements we deem necessary. In many cases, Doog has thought about many "investor" issues way ahead of investor concerns and has figured out the optimal way of handling them. This doesn't mean that Doog couldn't profit from the use of a public forum where his brain gets picked and he may the opportunity to speak up publically outside a trollbox.

Amen.

I think this is another problem with using the terms "invest" and "investor". It should really be "positive-expectance bettor" or something. People think ridiculous things because they are so-called "investors", like that they are somehow due a positive return, or that they should get to vote on how doog runs the site.

The site should be run how doog says it should be run, no more and no less. If he wants to take an informal poll of investors to help guide his decision, that's fine, but the so-called "investors" are not in charge. And quite frankly, I'm glad they're not, judging by so many of the hairbrained schemes that come up on here.

sure that's how you vote, but that points out the exact problem I am concerned with:

1) if every investor gets 1 vote, you need to have an super-majority of investors watching JD and this thread to know when something requiring a vote happens.
2) if investors get votes proportional to the amount invested, a competing website and buy out and shut down JD very easily by investing lots of money and sending "shutdown" votes

Investors could send a specific amount to their account to vote yes.

I've been struggling trying to figure out how to identify investor consensus. There are many cases where you would need fast response, and many investors don't monitor JD often enough to respond quickly. You also are worried about a rival site shutting down JD but making large deposits just to call the vote and shut down the site.

I like the idea - do you have an idea how investor consensus can be determined?

I'm with zipmaster on this -- something have to be figured on in terms of vote to have the coins return propositional to the investors' equity.  This is the only thing that is preventing some of us from going "all-in".  Not the risk of losing, however from the risk of having our BTC stuck in limbo.

Or.... you could have a precompiled script that runs all necessary transactions returning the investor's bitcoins to the emergency addresses. Every time that you shuffle the cold wallet around this script could be automatically updated with all the correct investor amounts. Last but not least, it should be possible to activate the script via investor consensus somehow.

you just need a multi-signature wallet and share the keys to trusted people( maybe a laywer etc.)  then if you are unavailable then the wallet is unlocked by consensus and the funds released to all the investors.  I am guessing you keep a backed up list of investors somewhere?
 

I saw your original post, didn't know how to respond, put it off, then forgot about it.  Sorry.

I've been asked for this kind of thing before.  The previous suggestion was to regularly issue timelocked transactions paying the top investors their balance.  There's some feature of Bitcoin where you can set a transaction to only be valid after some point in time.  When I run 'decoderawtransaction' on a transaction I see "locktime" : 0, which I'm guessing would be different for a timelocked transaction.

The problems with that scheme are:

1) Investor balances change every second.  I guess I'd have to make the transaction for some amount under the investor's balance.

2) I'd have to keep moving the cold wallet coins around before the date on the timelocked transaction to invalidate the transaction in the event that I'm not dead yet (or whatever).  I try not to be accessing the cold wallet too often.

I'm unclear of the details of zipmaster's proposed scheme.  How does it allow funds to be returned after I'm dead but not before?

I don't check these forum posts often enough to answer this kind of question in a timely manner.  It's better to email the address at the end of the JD FAQ tab if you need my attention.

But as a rule I don't want to get involved with escrow.  It seems messy.  I don't understand what I'm meant to do when he gets your amazon card and finds it has already been used.  You say it was good, he says it was bad, and I have to somehow pick sides?  Ewww.

Your argument about nakowa having limited funds reminds me, however, of the following:

People have run simulations, running the bets that nakowa made against a random number generator over and over, to find out how likely it was that he got the result he got purely by chance.  They found that he wins as much as he did only 1 in 20 times (or whatever the number was; I forget).

However, the bets they're running through the simulator include one day where he bet over 1.5 million BTC.  We can be pretty sure he didn't have a million BTC at any point.  And that he couldn't have bet that much if he didn't have the kind of luck he had.

So is the simulation even valid?  The bets he made could *only* have been made if he won a significant number of them.  So running them through a random number generator seems somehow invalid, but my knowledge of stats (or whatever) isn't strong enough to know for sure.

This is the cue for someone knowledgeable to come and use some Latin or mention Bayes' theorem or such other clever stuff.

You've completely misunderstood what I've written. There's no mention of the public key in it. There's no transaction without the private key, and group either has or has not access to the complete passphrase (as a group) = private key. Read again, I'm out.