Topic: [SHUTTING DOWN] [DiceBitco.in | BE THE BANK ! | 1% House Edge] - page 81. (Read 102257 times)

They do offer a 0.001 BTC free credit for Members with 10x rollover, although I think it is already over.

The site looks good, is there any way to try it without invest?

Hmm, that's a good point and interesting way to look at it. I much rather have 1 btc at the site than 10!

There is another way to view leveraged investing. It allows an investor to keep most of his invested funds under his own control. Let's say he wants to invest 10 BTC but feels the risk of hackers or the owners runningoff with the money is o high, then he can "borrow" 9BTC and deposit only one. It's not really leverage in this case. Just risk management.

They're not really borrowing from anyone - they never get access to the borrowed coins - they're only allowed to invest them, and only for as long as they are able to pay back the loan - so there's never any chance that they will default on the loan, and so there's never a need to hold any collateral.

In effect the lending means the site is operating a fractional reserve operation, which many will dislike the thought of. But I think in this case it is sound to do so. There's no chance of a "run on the bank" causing problems, since all loans are automatically secured by restricting what the lender can do with their loaned coins.

Sudden large changes in the maximum profit per bet would probably result from this feature, and were another reason I didn't love the idea.

When you say it could "go bad fast", mostly that only applies to people who over-borrow, don't you think? It wouldn't go bad for the site itself.

One thing that was pointed out when I brought this up in the past is that investing at huge leverage is effectively a big gamble. No sane investor would do it, but guess who would... that's right - gamblers would! It's a way of gambling with high variance and a positive expectation. So maybe offering such a feature would turn the whale gamblers into whale investors, and we'd be left without any whale gamblers.

I still think it's an interesting idea though.

Big bets!



actually 7 now

and many bets (> 9 million now)

So if I'm reading this right, if a whale wins big and triggers the "margin call" for the leveraged investor then the bankroll and the max bet would also drop accordingly. If this can be implemented safely I don't see a problem with it. It would introduce a more sophisticated element of gambling for the investors, whose options are currently limited to invest/divest timing.

Allowing people to borrow on margin seems like an interesting idea. It certainly would set dicebitco.in apart from the others.

Giving people the freedom to invest with a 10X Kelly seems like the way to go, but I fear that this could go bad so fast. It would "artificially" inflate the bankroll and max bet.
However, I wouldn't mind actually letting people really borrow from me for a percentage if the "auto-buy-to-cover" feature were enabled.

Sounds like a great idea doog! Much better than that of dice-now, where different bankrolls are used for different risks

I didn't.

I deposited a lot, and gambled a little. I didn't gamble the whole 50 BTC. As it turned out, a single 1 BTC deposit would have been enough:




"large" transactions are often cheaper than small ones, if you're talking about the value rather than the byte count.

I'm pretty sure all the transactions are confirmed, and blockchain.info just failed to index the blockchain properly. It's a little concerning that that can happen, because presumably it means people using their wallet can easily double-spend, and sites using their API to accept deposits will also be getting incorrect information.



While writing this post, I loaded up firefox to log in to my 'tablet' account and take a screenshot of the bets to show they were 'little' relative to the 50 BTC deposit.

The page came up with the header, but was still loading when I clicked 'my account'. I got an error page:



I know I probably shouldn't click anything while the page is still loading, but it would be better if the site didn't fail even if I did.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that post before; it's quite convincing.


In the past I have told people "if you want to risk 0.5% instead of 1%, just invest half as much".

The problem with that is that the two aren't equivalent.

If I invest 100 BTC at 1%, I'm risking 1 BTC per bet, and after a whale wins a max bet, I have 99 BTC left
I am risking 0.99 BTC on his next max bet.

If instead I risk 200 BTC at 0.5%, I'm still risking 1 BTC per bet, and after a whale wins a max bet, I have 199 BTC left.
I am risking 0.995 BTC on his next max bet.

So although the two strategies started out looking the same (risking 1 BTC per bet), they very quickly diverge (*).

Something I was considering for Just-Dice, but never actually implemented, was allowing people to "borrow" coins to invest. It would work like this:

All investments risk up to 0.5% per bet, but you are allowed to "borrow" up to N times the amount you have deposited (for some N, maybe 10).

This borrowed amount isn't available for betting or withdrawing - it can only be used to invest, and to repay your loan. Maybe you're not even allowed to withdraw at all which you have a loan outstanding.

Borrowed coins can be invested just like regular coins. The only difference is that if your investment does poorly, and you lose to the point where your total balance is close to being insufficient to cover your loan, you get auto-divested and your loan gets paid off from your remaining balance.

This would allow me to deposit 50 BTC to the site, "borrow" another 450, say, and invest a total of 500 BTC into the bankroll. I would be risking 0.5% of that 500 BTC per roll (2.5 BTC). If a whale came and won a bunch, I would get auto-divested when my 500 BTC investment reached 455 or so (2 max bet losses above me being unable to repay my 450 BTC loan). So my remaining 455 BTC investment would be divested, and the 450 BTC loan would be paid off, leaving me 5 BTC in my account.

This would allow those who want the high-risk, high-reward effect of full Kelly to approximate it (as shown above, marked (*), 2 half Kellys doesn't make a full Kelly), while also allowing the more conservative investor to use half-Kelly.


I never implemented this on JD because I was concerned that a few "whale" investors would use it to dominate the bankroll.

But now that I'm the whale investor, that doesn't seem so important.

First of all u can't call a 50 btc a "little" , that is a fact. lol .

And yeah it's a bit weird, i use blockchain.info and set it to always send min fee of 0.0001 , and never had a problem. But i never do such huge transactions so i guess there would be problems with min fee on them .

Anyways ur unconfirmed tx gets back to ur wallet after 72h or so ? Right ?

The problem is that some transactions require more than just the minimum fee.

The best thing to do is to let the "bitcoin core" client decide how much fee needs to be included - then you always have just the right amount.

Unfortunately it seems that the definition of "just the right amount" isn't agreed upon between the various clients, sites, and miners.


An unrelated point (but I don't want to be accused of post-padding, so I'm writing it here):

Yesterday I was out of the house, using my tablet, and didn't have access to my usual account, where my invested coins are. I wanted to play a little, so I deposited 50 BTC onto my tablet account, and won a little.

When I got home I read the posts on this thread, and freaked out a little that I had over 100 BTC with these guys I don't know, so panic-withdrew it all - partly as a test to see if I could, and partly as an overreaction to the posts in this thread.

The withdrawal was "pending manual withdraw" or some such for an hour or so until I passed out for the night, but upon waking this morning I see that it was processed shortly after I went to sleep.

One weird thing is that even though my withdrawal transaction has lots of confirmations already, one of its inputs is still unconfirmed according to blockchain.info.

See my posts about that here and here.

The site looks nice guys, but I have a concern related to the max bet size, which now is 1% of the bankroll. If you used the Kelly criterion for computing it, please consider kelly's computation is theoretical and works in the "long" run. However in practice the "long" run may not exist because few "whales" can bet reliably so high.

The problem not considered by Kelly's computation is that under a certain threshold of losses irrational investors may start mistrusting the website and run away with their money in panic. At the same time the lucky whale may not appear again for a long time, possibly slowing the recap of other investors.

That's why it exists the concept of Half Kelly criterion (see http://thehackensack.blogspot.fi/2009/11/half-kelly-bet.html) but if you are willing to code it you can just run some simulations of a whale betting 1% at 49.5% and check by yourselves how many times the bankroll is badly damaged before going up again and figure out the reaction of people in front of that damage.

My suggestion (as a tiny investor) is to cut the max bet to 0.5% or 0.25%.

Hehe , im sure some of that big banks would be more than pleased to help .

Just don't send transactions without fee and problem solved .

It used to be that if you sum (age of input in days)*(size of input in BTC) over all inputs in a transaction, and got a number greater than 1, then your transaction was free (so long as it was less than 1000 bytes, and so long as no output was smaller than 0.01 BTC).

But I think the rules changed recently, because I see this in the client's source:


so now I no longer understand the rules for free transactions - and apparently neither does blockchain.info, because a couple of days ago I saw a withdrawal maybe by Inkha (I think) which the DB client thought was OK to send without fees, but which b.i marked as having insufficient fees.

The transaction took over an hour to confirm, too, so I guess a lot of the miners are also still using the old rules.

What we need is a centralised body to sort out this mess - maybe one of the big banks would be willing? 

Cool, thank you. I had to do some reading up on zero fee transactions! I was not familiar with mature coins

He's using matured coins and this Tx has already got 6 confirmations.

What error you getting? we sent more than 300 BTC today, had to load cold wallet several times Please be specific with error so i can assist you )

P.S. as for the multisig, its not something we have crossed out - quite the contrary. We will update you on that manner by the end of the month as well

@doog about the latest'bug'report, its confirmed and it will be fixed in the next push Thanks once more for everything guys
Now go get some cheap btcs!

It should all be automatic.