Topic: 🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021 - page 119. (Read 143533 times)

It sounds like a reasonable explanation, but I don't think it's the correct one.

Looking at the all-time largest bets for LTC, I see Sadie's 47, 48, and 49 bets showing up as "hidden" (check my previous screenshot to see that they belong to Sadie), but in the biggest LTC bets of the last 7 days I see a bunch of 36.65 LTC bets by "Sadie(149603)" - ie. not hidden. So even though days have passed since my previous screenshot, some of Sadie's big bets are "hidden" and some are not.

If a player changes his privacy settings, some tables don't reflect this change immediately. We don't generate 7-day summary every few minutes and I guess this is what happened: someone changed the privacy setting, the tables that are refreshed more often got the change, while it took longer on other tables. But I'll keep my eye on it!


We are mentally preparing for opening LTC investments. ETH takes longer than expected and it will start with a private bankroll too. We'll open investments to everyone later on. I have no ETA on this, but we are spending most of our time to bringing ETH to YD now.

Cheers,
Ethan

Yes, Bitcoin Core 0.16 supports bech32 natively, so we're one step closer. It also solves a few other issues that we need, so I guess we'll upgrade soon. Some testing is required though. Right now I have ETH integration being worked on, but I say definite "yes" to all the Bitcoin goodies. :-)


It would be clean indeed. All these confusing FAQ questions about investments could go away.

I am not sure though how to handle rounding. Commission from a 100 satoshi bet would be less than 1 sat and we don't use floats anywere. For some purposes I am using "probabilistic rounding" (for the float in range [n,n+1], the closer it is to n+1, the higher probability of rounding to n+1, and not n). Maybe this would work. I'd have to check if using just floor() would make a significant difference.

Thanks for the input! Cheers,
Ethan

I think it makes the most sense to just switch to taking commission per bet. It's cleaner that way. Let the investors handle the variance so you don't have to. That's what you pay them for.

It's certainly possible, but I don't think so. I do know I was thinking about it for a while before I posted, but I don't think I actually posted about it twice.

I could be completely wrong too though.

Now that Bitcoin Core, Electrum, and Samourai Wallet (and possibly others) support bech32, could you please again consider adding support to withdraw to bech32 addresses? I do not believe that this would be a cause of concern because the deposit addresses would remain nested P2SH segwit addresses, so the bankroll and user funds couldn't be identified from blockchain analysis.

Nested P2SH addresses (3......) are also one byte per output more expensive than creating bech32 outputs, and 23 bytes more expensive per consumed UTXO when used as input.

These features are best added while fees are low, so that when fees inevitably rise again, YOLOdice would already be prepared.

Any update on adding LTC for investors in the bankroll 

That's something we've been thinking about for a long time now. Our current commission rate (based on net profit) is a bit low compared to our spendings (rakeback, referral bonus based on house edge). Sure we do have an extra stake in bankroll (from our private investments) and have a "site buffer fund" from our profit so far, but still, what we have now is not perfect. It's also one of the reasone we are not opening investments in Litecoin - we might actually restructure the whole investment/commission/bankroll thing before.

What I am saying here is not binding, but we had a few ideas:

1. Just increase the commission rate. Right now it's 35%. However increasing it still keeps us depending on site profit, and could leave us for months without any income, but with costs. Supporting multiple coins mitigates the issue a bit since our income sources could be diversified. But again, it's not perfect. I'd rather have something that is more stable and predictable.

2. Pay Referral bonus and Rakeback directly from bankroll. It would protect us from costs based on "expected profit" for sure. But honestly I find it messy from investors' point of view. It's not transparent at all, you cannot verify site profit any more. Bankroll just leaks coins without any transparency.

3. Something you mentioned and I was thinking before: move to "per bet commission" only or "per bet" & "net profit" combo. So, for every bet we'd take a small commission, n0% of house edge, that would cover all referral and rakeback expenses. It's independent of site profit, so the site's internal budget is definitely more stable. Everything is still verifiable (well, rounding on small bets might still be an issue). Easy to code (much easier than the whole "commission" thing).

   3a. We could  move to the "per bet" commission model only This would remove the need for weekly commission. Maybe 40%-45% commission would be totally sufficient. It's simpler, it's clean and obvious. The only issue is that the risk is moved towards the investors - if site profit goes down, thay are hit by both the players AND commission. But on the other hand, if site profit goes up beyond expected, they profit more.

   3b. Or, we could have both "per bet" and "net profit" at the same time, this would leave weekly commission in place, be we would split the percentage a bit. Keep the "per bet" only as high to cover the expenses. This could be e.g. 30/15 split.

People, tell me what you think. @dooglus, I am glad you brought this issue, this was something I wanted to discuss too! The topic is even hotter because I am getting huge number of questions about LTC investments which I'd like to open at some point, better sooner than later.

Cheers and thanks,
Ethan

I could be wrong, but didn't you ask this a few weeks back?  I distinctly remember someone (and I thought it was you) asking about the whole risk/house edge/referral/insolvency thing not too long ago, and I'm pretty sure Ethan had said something along the lines of "we understand its fairly risky, but it's working so far".

I could be completely wrong, after all, I just woke up and it's 1am here. 

I will also ask Ethan to address your concern directly here when he comes online.

they can't become insolvent. I'm playing there now

That's a very interesting point. I'm wondering if there simply haven't been big enough players that have been referred by other users for this to matter.

I have another question:

It seems that some people get 30% of the house edge of the people they refer, and the people themselves can get 10% of the house edge if they place a few big bets. In combination, that's 40% of the house edge of those bets immediately going out. Since the site only takes 35% commission, and only on actual profits, not expected profits, isn't the house at some risk of insolvency? If the player gets lucky and wins a lot, the house makes nothing in commission but still has to pay out maybe 40% of the expected profit in rackback and referral fees. Even if the player runs true to form and loses exactly 1% of the amount they wager, the house still takes a loss on their play.

Seems to me it would be better for the house to charge commission per bet, not on net profit. That way the house isn't risking insolvency.

You're probably right, this looks like a visual bug, I'll ask Ethan when he comes online tomorrow.

But is there an option to hide on some of the leaderboard tables but not others? Both the lists I screenshotted are on the same page. Seems weird that he's hiding on one and not the other.

Now would be the right time to introduce it more than ever.
Since your major competitor is having massive difficulties with the hijacking of their site right now and doesn't look like to be resolved any time soon.
Now is the time to get some of those primedice eyes looking for their next dice fix.

Hey any eta on ethereum being added as it's beem a while since it was announced
And also would like to know will it also have a private bankroll in starting like litecoin ?

Correct. If they set certain options and not others, their bets will be visible from certain areas but not others.

Image link

Dont think its a bug dooglus.
They have options available on the profile page that they can checkmark next to them to enable to hide their bets from the public and on the leaderboard.
Those can only been seen by the player when they have these options they choose to show to others on the site.

Is this a bug? In the 'largest bets' list a lot of the bets are by a "hidden" player, but in the "last 7 days" list I see the same bets with "Sadie" next to them. If Sadie wants to hide you should hide her name in both lists!

Ethan, you might be able to use instructions from this reddit thread to do something about this, but for such a small amount of money I'm not sure it's worth it.