It seems an atomic bomb
Topic: Poker and the shared pot at the table in a decentralised network - page 4. (Read 14727 times)
November 29, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
Are there any news about this project?
It seems an atomic bomb
It seems an atomic bomb
December 18, 2010, 07:27:38 PM
October 18, 2010, 03:24:31 AM
Well, playing a fair game of poker online is a very tough subject indeed.
First, I'm not sure mental poker is already reliable. I've red that right now it works only for two players games.
Second, how exactly do you intend to prevent collaboration ? As I see it, the only way to prevent this, is to make sure none of the players know each other. This is tricky, and in my opinion it can only be done in a anonymous network, such as Freenet or something.
Third, as far as an escrow service is concerned, it is also tricky. It is not a pronlem specific to poker, though. I didn't understand well your solution, but I think one can use a principle that would be close to the bitcoin system. A network of anonymous nodes would offer escrow services, and the choice of the actual node for a game would be chosen in a random way. The escrow node would have to perform some proof of work in order to gain the priviledge of being the third party. Hopefully if honnest nodes are numerous enough, the escrow service would work fine.
Finally, I think it would be great if it was possible to create some kind of a robot on an anonymous network. This robot would act like a virus, and would be programmed to organize poker games. He would chose players, not letting them know each other, and would collect bets as a third party. I don't know if such a bot would be feasible, though. Plus, there should be a way to make sure the robot is honnest, for instance by making it open source. But then, I don't know how could people be sure the instance they are playing with is really the one they think.
I think this subject is a little too advanced for me, but I reckon it is a very interessant and important one, as far as information technology is concerned.
I have the feeling that a good solution for online fair poker games won't be found during this century...
First, I'm not sure mental poker is already reliable. I've red that right now it works only for two players games.
Second, how exactly do you intend to prevent collaboration ? As I see it, the only way to prevent this, is to make sure none of the players know each other. This is tricky, and in my opinion it can only be done in a anonymous network, such as Freenet or something.
Third, as far as an escrow service is concerned, it is also tricky. It is not a pronlem specific to poker, though. I didn't understand well your solution, but I think one can use a principle that would be close to the bitcoin system. A network of anonymous nodes would offer escrow services, and the choice of the actual node for a game would be chosen in a random way. The escrow node would have to perform some proof of work in order to gain the priviledge of being the third party. Hopefully if honnest nodes are numerous enough, the escrow service would work fine.
Finally, I think it would be great if it was possible to create some kind of a robot on an anonymous network. This robot would act like a virus, and would be programmed to organize poker games. He would chose players, not letting them know each other, and would collect bets as a third party. I don't know if such a bot would be feasible, though. Plus, there should be a way to make sure the robot is honnest, for instance by making it open source. But then, I don't know how could people be sure the instance they are playing with is really the one they think.
I think this subject is a little too advanced for me, but I reckon it is a very interessant and important one, as far as information technology is concerned.
I have the feeling that a good solution for online fair poker games won't be found during this century...
October 18, 2010, 02:54:50 AM
I think I trust a company more in this situation than any escrow type system. You're asking escrows to approve every round of betting, but do you think this would be done for free? The rake would have to pay them, but it wouldn't be easy at all having to approve every round of betting, and in that sense I also trust a well-polished program that detects error rather than an escrow approving bets when they never even see what's working behind the scenes and can't see face down cards.
A Bitcoin casino that allows deposits, gives people fake poker money to play with, then cashes out for real Bitcoin whenever they're finished feels like much less of a hassle, especially considering withdrawals could be made nearly instant.
A much easier system would be: Players sit at table, agree on escrows, send their money, and they're given the equivalent in play money at the poker table to play with. The players play the game normally, allowing the computer to handle bets and wins. When it's time to leave the table and they're done playing, they turn in their play money for the Bitcoin equivalent. At this point the escrow could also take a 1-2% fee, as I wouldn't expect for something like this to be entirely free. Given the fact that almost all poker sites take around 5% rake, you'd save 2-3%. Depending on your dedication, it could be worth it, but I think it's going to be a long time before the security I have with a real poker table is worth giving up for 2-3%.
A Bitcoin casino that allows deposits, gives people fake poker money to play with, then cashes out for real Bitcoin whenever they're finished feels like much less of a hassle, especially considering withdrawals could be made nearly instant.
A much easier system would be: Players sit at table, agree on escrows, send their money, and they're given the equivalent in play money at the poker table to play with. The players play the game normally, allowing the computer to handle bets and wins. When it's time to leave the table and they're done playing, they turn in their play money for the Bitcoin equivalent. At this point the escrow could also take a 1-2% fee, as I wouldn't expect for something like this to be entirely free. Given the fact that almost all poker sites take around 5% rake, you'd save 2-3%. Depending on your dedication, it could be worth it, but I think it's going to be a long time before the security I have with a real poker table is worth giving up for 2-3%.
October 18, 2010, 01:56:26 AM
I am very interested in this. It seems very hard to implement, but I really wouldn't know.
One thought:
Won't players need to send bitcoins to an 'account' so that each bet doesn't need to go through the bitcoin system and to verify for table stakes purposes? Do some multiple escrows hold this?
One thought:
Won't players need to send bitcoins to an 'account' so that each bet doesn't need to go through the bitcoin system and to verify for table stakes purposes? Do some multiple escrows hold this?
October 18, 2010, 01:23:50 AM
In an escrow:
1. A offers to sell laptop for 2000 coins, and escrows X coins as security.
2. B offers to buy and escrows X coins as security.
3. B pays 2000 coins to A.
4. If A refuses to send the laptop, both A and B have lost X coins. Therefore, A has an
incentive to send the laptop, and B can't use this system to put A out of business.
5. A sends the laptop to B.
6. If B refuses to acknowledge receipt of the laptop, both A and B have lost X coins.
Therefore, B has an incentive to acknowledge receipt of the laptop.
where X > 2000 (e.g X = 2500)
In Poker here, the transaction confirmation is when the hands are revealed and the escrow confirms the winner. I'm asking about a distributed escrow in essence.
1. A offers to sell laptop for 2000 coins, and escrows X coins as security.
2. B offers to buy and escrows X coins as security.
3. B pays 2000 coins to A.
4. If A refuses to send the laptop, both A and B have lost X coins. Therefore, A has an
incentive to send the laptop, and B can't use this system to put A out of business.
5. A sends the laptop to B.
6. If B refuses to acknowledge receipt of the laptop, both A and B have lost X coins.
Therefore, B has an incentive to acknowledge receipt of the laptop.
where X > 2000 (e.g X = 2500)
In Poker here, the transaction confirmation is when the hands are revealed and the escrow confirms the winner. I'm asking about a distributed escrow in essence.
October 17, 2010, 10:53:15 PM
Hey,
Over the past days having discovered bitcoin has driven my mind wild. All this year I've been reading a lot about distributed networks. I was a programmer and I'm hugely interested in maths.
When we play Poker online, we are using a centralised network. You deposit your cash online, sit down at a game and play. You place your trust in the site to be secure; no other players can see your hands and no money is being secretly stolen from you. Even big name sites have been known to cheat and smaller sites just shut down and steal your money.
There are two well known sites- PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. By being secure, they charge you excessive amounts to use their service. The market is monopolised by them since small sites are untrustworthy. This year I played on PokerStars and made $3k profit and payed $4.5k in rake- so I had to win $7.5k in total and hand over more than half my winnings to PokerStars. Many players hate this.
A decentralised Poker network (using bitcoin). Here's the advantages:
+ Government heavily taxes Poker sites. Decentralised networks are outside the law.
+ No rake.
+ Don't need to place your trust in a company
+ Customise your client since you own the source!
+ No tracker sites gathering statistics on your play against the rules of Poker
How could such a thing be implemented?
Mental poker is a scheme for neutrally verifying cards among players but is slow. Yet I imagine there's ways to speed it up by relying on trust/probabilistic methods.
The real problem is money put into the pot. For those unfamiliar with Poker I'll explain: People bet on the strength of hands, and put money in a pot. After so many betting rounds, both players show their hands. The strongest hand wins the money put in the middle. How can this be decentralised?
The best scheme I imagined was if the pot was stored by a third party. We want to protect against collaboration so using the other players not involved in the hand at the table is not possible (5 of the 6 players on the table could be collaborating together and just steal your money). Each player could nominate a few escrows each that hold fractional amounts of the money. Since people disconnect (bad internet .etc), the escrows would need to be dedicated services.
6 players sit down at a table. Each nominates 2 escrow services that hold the money (12 in total). Player A and B start betting and putting money in the pot. $200 goes into 12 escrows or $17 each. After they show the hand everyone agrees player A won. But one escrow refuses to award their share of the $7 to A... Everyone at the table blacklists that escrow to never trust them again and alerts everyone else in the network. If the majority of the players at the table >50% agree that an escrow is bad, then everyone blacklists them.
This would be a great boost for bitcoin. My scheme is full of holes though. Looking for ideas.
Over the past days having discovered bitcoin has driven my mind wild. All this year I've been reading a lot about distributed networks. I was a programmer and I'm hugely interested in maths.
When we play Poker online, we are using a centralised network. You deposit your cash online, sit down at a game and play. You place your trust in the site to be secure; no other players can see your hands and no money is being secretly stolen from you. Even big name sites have been known to cheat and smaller sites just shut down and steal your money.
There are two well known sites- PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. By being secure, they charge you excessive amounts to use their service. The market is monopolised by them since small sites are untrustworthy. This year I played on PokerStars and made $3k profit and payed $4.5k in rake- so I had to win $7.5k in total and hand over more than half my winnings to PokerStars. Many players hate this.
A decentralised Poker network (using bitcoin). Here's the advantages:
+ Government heavily taxes Poker sites. Decentralised networks are outside the law.
+ No rake.
+ Don't need to place your trust in a company
+ Customise your client since you own the source!
+ No tracker sites gathering statistics on your play against the rules of Poker
How could such a thing be implemented?
Mental poker is a scheme for neutrally verifying cards among players but is slow. Yet I imagine there's ways to speed it up by relying on trust/probabilistic methods.
The real problem is money put into the pot. For those unfamiliar with Poker I'll explain: People bet on the strength of hands, and put money in a pot. After so many betting rounds, both players show their hands. The strongest hand wins the money put in the middle. How can this be decentralised?
The best scheme I imagined was if the pot was stored by a third party. We want to protect against collaboration so using the other players not involved in the hand at the table is not possible (5 of the 6 players on the table could be collaborating together and just steal your money). Each player could nominate a few escrows each that hold fractional amounts of the money. Since people disconnect (bad internet .etc), the escrows would need to be dedicated services.
6 players sit down at a table. Each nominates 2 escrow services that hold the money (12 in total). Player A and B start betting and putting money in the pot. $200 goes into 12 escrows or $17 each. After they show the hand everyone agrees player A won. But one escrow refuses to award their share of the $7 to A... Everyone at the table blacklists that escrow to never trust them again and alerts everyone else in the network. If the majority of the players at the table >50% agree that an escrow is bad, then everyone blacklists them.
This would be a great boost for bitcoin. My scheme is full of holes though. Looking for ideas.
Jump to: