Topic: SatoshiDICE: Win Bitcoins while stress testing the network! (Reddit ad) (Read 4188 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.

"Greed corrupting a once noble soul..."  Or maybe a more apt observation is "jealousy corrupting a once logical community"

Bitcoin must handle 100x SatoshiDice. What happens if a nefarious group decides to spend $X creating dust on the blockchain en masse? Have you considered this? The community needs to face this fact. Criticizing me, or SatoshiDice, is a scapegoat and a foolish distraction.

"If only Erik and his yachts would go away, Bitcoin would once again be healthy and happy!"  Right... cause I spend my time waterskiing behind yachts. 

Hehehe I knew the title of the ad would ruffle some feathers

His site has nothing to do with stress testing the network, but there they are making it sound like the people are almost required to play in order to help the network. Basically, they're trying to pretend that it's not a gambling site, of course most people will figure it out but only after clicking the link. I'm not trying to pretend I'm an expert on the topic, but basically he's advertising apples and serving oranges and a lot of people might be upset about that if they were expecting apples.

make a better version of SatoshiDice and people will flock to you

Change it to "Lose Bitcoins while stress testing the network." and it's accurate.

Erik Voorhees is just another example of greed corrupting a once noble soul.

He can fix it, but doesn't think it is worth the effort - why should he, you're not the boss of him! You don't have those bitcoins rolling in! How dare you commoners try to point out his flawed implementation! And so it goes...

Once you're on that path, nothing will work - the money has taken over. Which is precisely why the transaction patch has been floated as a possible fix. Congratulations Erik, you're the first despoiler of the blockchain - how proud you must be.

I don't want SD to go away, he can continue to waterski behind yachts, I'd just prefer he didn't pollute the entire blockchain to do it.

how is that illegal?  i can't think of any ads that aren't misleading or false in some ways.

its actually displayed based on subreddit, not your browsing habbits (I think).


Anyways, why does everyone have their panties in a bunch so much about SD? Its not like they arnt paying any TX fees on their transactions. And I have NEVER noticed any delays in any transactions I have sent or recieved, ever. Nor any signifigant delay in confirmation times. Who the fuck cares? Besides, like many others have said, if bitcoin cant handle a huge volume of transactions, its not going to succeed. Simple as that. If the response to anybody who produces a large (even excessive) amount of transactions - no matter how small -  is to try and shut them down, then that is just sad. And not to mention futile.


You play till your broke if your foolish and easily addicted to things. Thats the way gambling work. You can go to vegas, some random casino or any other online gambling service and guess what... alot of people play till they dont have the money to keep playing. Thats how gambling services make their money. If there was any way to gamble where YOU came out at a profit more often than not, then the game you are gambling on wouldnt last very long at all. The house always wins.

For me /r/Bitcoin is the best source for general bitcoin related news. If anything major happens it will pop up there...

I only started visiting Reddit recently, and only for /r/Bitcoin.

One thing I'm seeing with Bitcoin and the Internet is the bad advertising because nobody is monitoring it - not sure if that's a good or a bad thing but I've seen more than one site advertise with features that they don't actually have or use words like "biggest", "best" or "number #1" and from where I come from such claims should be backed by evidence and not used at will because they sound nice.

The SatoshiDice ad is at least clever, but I'm guessing it would still be illegal in the US and EU because the reality of SatoshiDice is very different from the ad (and it's not clearly a parody ad or anything like that).

Relax, step back and take a broader perspective. The entire Bitcoin ecosystem is like a lush rainforest of habitats ready to be claimed! The blockchain is itself a giant resource of practically limitless resources and Erik has done a fine job of claiming his piece. Other people now have opportunities to satisfy the demand of a smaller blockchain or faster network, new improvements or benchmarks may be given bounties in the future. When we stop yelling and shaking our fists at each other we start tending our own garden, cooperating, and contributing to the solution.

i find that advert pretty funny. of the few things in it, the only thing thats true is its name.

you dont "win money" you play till your broke. its the stupid kind of gambling, the kind you cant win. and its not really stress testing the network, just filling the blockchain with useless data.

i personally find it annoying because he words it like hes doing bitcoin some big favor out of the goodness in his heart rather then greed. the only stupid issue i see is that he's spamming the network with useless transactions rather then coming up with another way to inform the loser of a loss. it would seem to me like the amount of money sent should be at least greater then or equal to the fee paid. personally id rather see it at least double what the fee is. to me it seems like your paying someone 2$ to send 1 penny, which they cant spend unless they pay 2$. such transactions should be blocked  unless someone can come up with a good reason why you would pay 2$ to send someone 1 penny.

To put this into perspective, im not saying raise the fees or block free transactions. just if the fee you send is 1 satoshi, you would have to send 2 satoshies minimum. if the fee you send is .0005 BTC then you would have to send .001 BTC minimum. i cant think of any way where that would hurt the blockchain or its adoption. it would still allow you to send a 50 BTC transaction with no fee if you wanted to. though maybe this has already been said? i largly ignore the whole satoshidice argument, i figure gavin will push for a "fix" when hes ready.

nah, those adds are generated by personality monitoring algos that collects your searches and browsing history and tailor specific adds that are most probable for you to click on at any given moment

my guess is that you personally look up bitcoin more than the top (97% , *speculating*) of users of Reddit  

What's there to discuss? SD are advertising their services with clever advertising. And it's working because it makes people like you tick. And now you're advertising them here for free.

I have an idea, raise the max block size limit and there won't be any trouble. Also, if you have a problem with unspendable outputs (i.e. lost coins) then you don't understand what it means to be infinitely divisible and inflation/deflation neutral. You know, like bitcoin.

You talking about S/N is hilariously ironic.

The only thing you're correct about is that I didn't read all of your posts, there's only so much pedantry one can handle.  Your participation in this project is harmful and counterproductive.  Go find some other cryptocurrency to nitpick with your unhelpful, banal advice. 

Litecoin is ---> that way.

I guess you saw the posts but either didn't read them completely, or didn't understand them. The blockchain "spam" I complained about was economically unspendable outputs, not high transaction volume.

High transaction volume is something that will come sooner or later anyway and it is not something that we can necessarily do anything about. The fees will make sure that transactions are priced appropriately relative to the volume.

If you don't have anything productive, or if you can't be bothered to actually read through my posts can you please simply refrain from comment? The signal doesn't need your noise.

*sigh*

everybody is wrong sometimes. but when erik is wrong it always looks like he is loosing his grip on reality.

Eat what? I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that it exists. And nothing can be done about it (nor should it).

Good, it will make bitcoin strong enough to face the real abuse which will come later OR
it will make bitcoin fail early , and that would be good thing

Sponsored advertisement on Reddit:



Discuss.