Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 7. (Read 435357 times)

There is the possibility of getting margin called with the margin.

Just saw that just-dice ist back. But why with CALM?

EDIT: Doogolus involved with CALM 

Thats a valid point. Maybe you simply need to set it to x1.5 or so in order to raise your kelly but stay away from higher risks?

Personally i think the manual system has an advantage. When i lose then i have a higher offsite investment which means im taking sligthly more profit to get it back. And when im in profit i simply raise offsite. Of course one could see it as a risk too.


Im not sure why it shouldnt be viable. I mean the just-dice server has constantly to calculate things for the investors. Another var in the calculation doesnt matter really.

It's more of Doog's way of staying "accountable," so to speak. While he is trusted not to do anything, there's nothing *stopping* him from doing it (or someone else, if they somehow got ahold of the site and its wallets). He's trying to keep it from being a centralized system (51% would effectively be centralization, in a currency that's meant NOT to be centralized).

Just leave it as it's, or even increase the maximum profit to 1% of the bankroll (where it should always have stayed) and get rid of the offsite bankroll.

Maybe I don't understand it well, but I don't see any problem with having more than 51% of the clams supply, it's obvious we aren't going to attack the coin. Clams are just basically Just Dice casino chips.

The issue is (as Dooglus put it) the bankroll is always fluctuating, so continually altering each person's offsite after each roll just isn't viable. I think we'd be better without it at all, TBH. Like 70% of the people are maxed out anyways, negating the whole purpose of it.

That's really bad. If there's a drawdown, I'd be more exposed that I wanted to. And if there's an upswing, I'd be less exposed than I wanted to.

At least with 0.5% bankroll we can get a decent return without using offsite investment. But if that changes to 0.1%, the expected return without offsite investment gets too low. So changing the maximum bet to 0.1% seems to be a really bad idea to me, unless there's some solution to be able to still have at least a 0.5% exposure all the time (not just when we manually adjust the offsite investment).

It doesn't automatically change. For example, if you did offsite max two days ago, you'd be at ~105x offsite right now (this is where I stand).

If I write "/offsite 2x" on chat, will the invested offsite amount automatically be adjusted so it's always the same as invested onsite? I have just tried it, but the invested offsite doesn't seem to change. I'd like to just bet 1% kelly, but having to manually adjust the invested offsite amount is really annoying. I'd have to do that even more often if you change to a default 0.1% of the bankroll.

I think a better way to explain the system is like buying on margin. You may be buying $100k in stock but just have $10k. If the stock drops by $10k, you now have $0 and it's liquidated. If it goes up by $10k, you now have $20k ($10k you had + 10k you just earned), minus any fees.

Same with JD. You are buying 100k of the bankroll with your 1k CLAM. If its value goes up by 1k, you now have 2k. If it goes down by 1k, you have 0.

Ok, then i misunderstood the reason why you implemented it. I wanted to see that feature back on btc jd already and was happy to see it but i got the impression you implemented it in order to secure clams. >50% attack and stability of the currency. Security can be raised when not all clams are on the same address or wallet.

Im perfectly fine with the way it is... Of course jd should never get in trouble... otherwise clams dies with it too. 

You have a certain amount of wealth that you are willing to risk investing in dice sites. Suppose you decide that Just-Dice is the best place to invest, and you agree that risking up to 0.5% of your wealth per roll fits your risk profile.

If Just-Dice doesn't offer 'offsite investing', then you will need to convert all of that value to CLAMs, deposit it all into Just-Dice and invest it all.

That's risky. Just-Dice might shut down, might get robbed, the price of CLAMs might crash, etc.

But Just-Dice does offer 'offsite investing'. So you can convert just 1% of that value into CLAM, invest it in JD, and type "/offsite 100x". Now you are only exposed to 1% of the currency risk, and only risk losing 1% of your wealth if JD is robbed while still having the same exposure to the bankroll.

I don't need to check whether you also converted the remaining 99% of your value to CLAM - in fact you probably didn't. The other 99% is offsite, and it makes no difference to me in what form you hold it (or even whether you really hold it at all).

Im not sure if i understand your thinking about that because i believe you wanted to make sure that clams are more safe. So in order to do that you would need to make sure that clams exist outside of jd. Taking every other asset into account goes too far i think. Because these assets doesnt have any advantage for the protection of clams. The overall existing clams are still mainly invested at jd. Only if there are clams that really kept outside of jd would make a difference in protecting clams as a currency.

The reason I don't ask you to prove that you have the offsite CLAMs is because I don't expect you to keep your whole bankroll in CLAMs. You could have it split between 100 different asset classes, and invest them all at 100x offsite.

You could invest all your CLAMs at 100x safely because you have 100 times more value in other coins (or houses, fancy cars, etc.) than you have in CLAMs. You have no offsite CLAMs, but you do have offsite wealth that could easily become CLAMs on demand...

Maybe even just require you to periodically verify, or just when you change your /offsite amount. That way people who are concerned about anonymity or keeping all their coins in one place wouldn't have to worry as much. The site would generate a random code that you use to sign, leaving only site admin with your offsite amount and public key, which you could immediately change.

Dont give dooglus strange ideas. I want to keep my 100x offsite.

Though i think dooglus might have not included this because it either would mean manual work or coding work to proove this.

Wouldn't making investors prove they have offsite clams achieve the goals that you originally intended? Have investors sign address with specific code and monitor that address (or just check from time-to-time) to verify investor has said offsite clams.

Sounds fine dooglus. I think you found a compromise that is good for all investors. And gamblers.

Glad to have you running just-dice.

Just-Dice relaunched in December of last year and very quickly attracted almost all the CLAMs into its bankroll. After a month of operation Just-Dice had around 70% of all the CLAMs that have ever moved in its wallet. It is clearly bad for a coin that is meant to be decentralised to have a single entity (no matter how trustworthy) being in control of more than 50% of the staking weight. It makes 51% attacks easy to carry out. And even if the controlling entity is trustworthy, the way that proof of stake works means that the wallet with the >51% of staking weight tends to orphan a disproportionate number of the blocks staked by the rest of the network, encouraging the rest of the network to switch to the >51% side.

On January 19th I added the "offsite investing" feature, in an attempt to get the big investors to move the majority of their coins off of Just-Dice into their own local wallet. While the feature worked perfectly from a technical point of view, it was a spectacular failure in terms of achieving its goal:


In the 5 months that offsite investing have been available JD's share of the active CLAMs has risen from 70% to almost 75%.

What seems to have happened is that gamblers are using the "/offsite max" command to gamble with their coins with a positive expectation. This dilutes the bankroll, and forces the more conservative investors to also risk more than that would want to in order to maintain a worthwhile share of the site's profits.

I've received many complaints from investors saying that 100x is too much and that it should be reduced (complaint 'a'). I've also received requests from people wanting to be able to benefit from JD's staking without the risk of being involved in the bankroll (complaint 'b'). I've come up with an idea that should address both of these issues.

Currently JD's maximum profit is 0.5% of the total bankroll (onsite + offsite). That means that investors are risking between 0.5% and 50% of their onsite coins to a player who is making max-profit bets. (0.5% if they have no offsite investment and 50% if they have the maximum offsite investment). Investors basically have a range from "half a Kelly" to "50 Kellys". The complaints are (a) "50 Kellys is too much - it dilutes the sensible investors" and (b) "half a Kelly is too much - I just want to stake".

My idea is to reduce the maximum profit to just 0.1% of the total bankroll. Then investors are risking between 0.1% and 10% of their onsite coins per roll. It changes the investor range from "tenth of a Kelly" to "10 Kellys". That should address both complaints. A tenth of a Kelly is incredibly safe, and 10 Kellys while dangerous is much less diluting than the current 50 Kelly maximum.

What do you think about that idea? Do you have any better idea?

Edit: some feedback from the chat:

13:21:29 (1122749) dooglus, idk, changing numbers will still not do much, but the 0.1xkelly is cool. hmm maybe theres enought sensible investor that averages with the risky investors? (still think kelly does not work here)
13:21:49 (301465) dooglus you scared me. i already thought you want to take away offsite investment. but your proposal is fine i think. It only lowers the risk of huge wins eating away the house.
13:22:20 (1010) <@v1rtu0so> I am going to write up my response to this tonight I believe. Thanks for the heads up Dooglus!
13:25:10 (301465) max profit would be 28,191 clams then
13:25:14 (301465) way enough i think
13:27:57 (605159) dooglus making 10x kelly when people have lost on 50x kelly is that fair?
13:31:19 (1009018) <@TigerTatas> As a gambler.. I'd kind of like to still have the ability to shoot for 100k+ wins

I did it because I didn't think it would be too much work. But people aren't reasonable. I regularly have people trying to break the terms of the deal they themselves came up with.

I'll let the existing deals run their course and not enter into any new ones.