Topic: SatoshiDICE: Win Bitcoins while stress testing the network! (Reddit ad) (Read 4212 times)

I wish Satoshi would become a bit more community-centric and give all those dormant 7 mil BTCs that Shamir discovered to the community for no fee at all.

Isn't that just a wee bit egocentric in that it presumes you get a call in the matter? I'd imagine if they were actual sharks it all boiled down to whether they wish to swim with you, not whether you wish to swim with them.

I'm fully aware what the depths of the human experience can produce, but I admit it is a first where I've seen someone take a psychopathic bent towards empathy and eject it from their mental core. But perhaps I don't care to swim with sharks. The people I surround myself with I can trust.

I guess that simply shows you've never had anything but "community-centric" kool-aid.

Take a drink of water now and again, it's good for your kidneys.

So every lottery/raffle/game that does not have a negative house advantage should be banned from stating 'WIN xxxxx' and instead should say 'LOSE xxxxx (though there is also a chance you may win)'? 

Amazing, Godwin's law is alive and well.

Altruism is stupid? I suppose that is your personal view, because it is completely divergent from any community-centric thinking I've ever come across.

It actually saddens me that you think actions without profit are useless. What a horrible world it would be if everyone thought that.

Altruistic is another word for dangerously stupid. And a dangerously stupid way to say dangerously stupid at that, because it makes it unapparent just how dangerously stupid the dangerously stupid stuff is.

Bear in mind that the world's most famous altruist was Adolf Hitler. (Hint: he wasn't doing it for money).

My point is this - there is a big difference between acting for the good of the system and acting merely to preserve profit. As the 'suits' would say, profit incentivizes completely different behaviors than altruistic ones.

I'm surprised I actually have to spell this out.

This for sure.

Its simply true, more abuse will come. If Bitcoin can't handle SD it can't handle whats possible in the future. I said that before. No bitcoind v.1.0+ with SD being a problem.

So what you're saying is that the incentives of the system make the people using the system behave in ways that help. Sounds good to me. Isn't that how a proper free market is supposed to work? 

Satoshi Dice has a purpose (as others are stating), it won't 'break' the system, it's provided a nice early 'test'. And we've able to sort out a problem before bitcoin goes even more mainstream.

You gotta think about the equilibrium in the mining ..

Satoshi Dice works because of its transaction fees, miners love this, though (extra info on the network (barely noticable btw) the increase in mining value will be offset by more miners and current miners investing in better equipment. This brings the network back into 'speedy mode' (for those that noticed any difference). And thus ready for the next 'satoshi dice' style business.

Gl with the site.

Yes, it was taken offline - because he couldn't stand doublespends getting in the way of profitability. If you think it was for any other reason, you're mistaken. It's pretty much been proven the only thing Erik cares about beyond himself is how much he can stack up in the corner.

This really made me laugh my ass off

LMAO
of course you did.


Personally, I actually think SatoshiDice is GREAT for the network (I cant be the only one!). We're involved in a free market here!, and people should take advantage of whatever they can if the system allows them to; this is natural and good for securing the system. Because the sooner we figure out any issues that MAY come up with Bitcoin, the sooner we will figure out a way to solve them.

It's preparing us for the future, and is allowing us to overcome these issues before they're really really hard to fix.

SatoshiDice COULD make the blockchain issue nonexistent if they wanted to. But why should they? It's in their benefit not to, and its in all of ours.

I love it!

At least you are doing something and have provided some reasonable and logical ideas for the argument.

It should also be noted that SD was taken offline during the inadvertent hard fork.

I think a bigger threat is some nefarious group that might try to mount an attack as suggested. A solution to this potential attack vector should be debated and decided on.

In the meantime, one of the great aspects of open-source is the ability to engage in cooperation without coordination. And isn't this a prime example?

Oh, and a troll too - I'm Tim's total lack of surprise.

Sure thing Erik - your blockchain spam machine is beyond reproach. How silly of me to question your motives - I mean, it isn't like you're profiting off of the backs of others in the system, right? You're just a little fuzzy bunny nibbling amongst the blockchain leaves, taking small pellet-like craps that the environment can tolerate easily.

Wow, you really are just beyond help. Good luck with that, just remember we tried to talk some reason into you.

I gotta agree with you there; we're lucky the first person to do so is known publicly. I created an uneconomical UTXO blocking patch myself, https://github.com/petertodd/bitcoin/tree/block-uneconomic-utxo-creation, and if anything the discussion around that patch showed a community that can't decide among themselves on an approach to take or even that it's an issue at all. Instead I do see a lot of silly crap like calls to block SatoshiDice specifically, in particular people like Luke-Jr calling on miners to "do their job" and filter out "garbage" - sounds like a whole lot of central control to me. You also get people like Mike who see no issues with an unlimited blocksize, because after all miners will "act responsibly" and ensure the chain doesn't get flooded with crap by an attacker.

Frankly if Bitcoin requires that mining be centralized enough and miners be well known enough that we have to ask them to protect the network whenever an attacker shows up we're screwed and haven't created the decentralized currency Bitcoin was supposed to be. After all look at FinCEN taking the first potshot at miners by referring to them directly in their recent guidance, not to mention how convenient it would be for regulators like them if mining is centralized.

Fundamentally the security model is supposed to be that Bitcoin will function just fine provided that less than 50% of the hashing power in existence is specifically trying to attack Bitcoin. Don't compromise on that guarantee.