Topic: 🔶 YOLOdice.com 🔶 suspended on 16st Mar 2021 - page 131. (Read 143533 times)

I only meant I was planning on showing some statistics about the lightning network currently running on Bitcoin testnet3. Ethan, LN isn't as far off as you might think it is

Great to finally hear that litecoin will be available with a pretty good eta on it's arrival on the site.
And I am certain paying $0.05 would be a welcomed amount to pay as opposed to the over $24 it cost me the other time I did a deposit when the blockchain was over saturated with unconfirmed at over 229k back in december 14th.

This just posted on your site's chat from a regular user of ours:
https://www.coindesk.com/payment-provider-bitrefill-runs-successful-lightning-transaction-test/

Credit goes to pank on that one.

It must have been someone else. There is no official LN for Bitcoin yet, and I think a lot of time will pass till LN will be available for an average Joe.

I am working on LTC though and it is scheduled for release before 15 Jan. Later we'll add more cryptocurrencies - this should help us mitigate high Bitcoin fees. At least to some point. I sent a Litecoin transaction earlier today and it costed me only $0.05.

As far as we know our servers are well protected from the rest of the datacenter infrastructure. Nobody should be able to capture pieces of our data.

Data isolation within our servers is not as critical as it might seem - we only run the code we trust, from know sources (mostly the official Debian distribution). So there is no danger of data leak either.

But we stay alert and we follow the situation closely. We are monitoring the news regarding Meltdown and Spectre - these are really serious bugs!

Cheers,
Ethan

From what I remember as you said on the chat last evening that you were working on the lightening network for the site.
Now I know you do programming for the AM bot on the site.
So is this correct you are also working on this network for faster transactions to the site?

Ethan - Has YD been patched to prevent Meltdown yet?

A 30% reduction of fees is still good for your bottom line in the long run. But we need 80% of transactions or more to see Segwit's real benefits. We know transaction throughput will improve to 8000 transactions per block in Segwit. That alone could help reduce the mempool flood and bring transactions at a lower and a more bearable level.

Please do not give up on it.

Everything but the signatures are counted as normal (1 byte = 1 weight unit) and signatures are counted at 1/4 (4 bytes of signature = 1 weight unit)

Segwit helps a bit, but only "a bit". I cannot remember the exact calculation of transaction weight for segwit/non-segwit transaction, but using Segwit addresses in our wallet help us save ~ 30% in fees. In fact it's less than nothing, because the fact that the blocks are full and network fees are skyrocketing increases fees by 1000% for everyone for most of the time.

So YES: Segwit slightly helps us solve the problem that is the result of lack of scaling.
And NO: Segwit alone does NOT fix Bitcoin scaling issues and high fees.

Contrary to the common belief, Segwit solves nothing right now. It helps mitigate high fees in certain situations. Even if every transaction right now was a Segwit transaction, it would not solve the scaling problem.

Ethan

Cheers,
Ethan

Hi there!  I'm not Ethan, but I'm one of the long-time Moderators (Randall) on the site, and I can try to answer your questions, but for the super technical stuff you'd probably want an answer from him.

From what I've learned/been told by community members, the Segwit addresses do help slightly with fees, but the majority of the benefit is that by segregating the witness from the transaction, it reduces the load on blockchain.  Segwit is sort of a stepping stone for the Lightning Network which is being finished/implemented, and once that's done, that's when people will really start to see fees drop (hopefully).

Pretty much everywhere has relatively high withdrawal fees.  Checking the site right now, I believe it's 0.0008btc for instant, and 0.0004 or so for a batch withdrawal.  We know it's higher than most people like, but there are two realities we had to face: 1) If we choose too low of a fee, with the way blockchain is right now, people would be waiting several hours to days or even a week or two for a transaction to confirm and 2) Even as users pay the 0.0008btc for an instant withdrawal, YD is still fronting the extra cost of fees (at least that has been my experience).  What I mean by this is that I'll pay 0.0008btc for a fee and then go look at the transaction and sometimes it will have a 0.0015+btc fee on the transaction itself, which means YD actually contributed 0.0007btc or more for the fee on the user's behalf.  This isn't a guarantee by any means, it's just what I've witnessed myself.

Right now fees and confirmation times are pretty bad for everyone; but we are trying our best to make it less unpleasant and reasonable for our users.

I wish I could tell you "yes Segwit allows us to only pay 0.0001 in fees and transactions confirm almost instantly" but unfortunately that's not how it's been working.  Segwit is mostly a step in the right direction, not the real solution.

Hi ethan_nx. I heard that Yolodice has Segwit enabled and I would like to know what your thoughts and experiences are in setting it up. I also want to ask how much in fees do you or your users pay when they withdraw from your site and how much cheaper are they compared to legacy transactions?

Nitrogen's solution to the problem is charging their users with $20 per withdrawal which is laughable. As one of the biggest gambling sites, they should be leading Segwit adoption in the community.

I can't wait until we get Lightning Network and all of these Bitcoin casinos get instant, free transactions (or almost instant & free) and we don't need to wait this long going forward.

I don't see how these companies can stay in business with fees this high.

If the fee was too low, it might never confirm. If you are in this situation you really only have two options:
- Broadcast a replace by fee transaction.
- Broadcast a new transaction with the same hash but with a higher fee (i.e. double spend)

Theoretically the protocol will drop the tx from the mempool after 72 hours, however there is nothing to stop a node from rebroadcasting it continuously, this could leave the tx in the global mempool forever. This article is a tutorial on what you may need to do:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@profitgenerator/tutorial-how-to-fix-unconfirmed-transactions

exorbitantly high fees affect all of the gamblers
whales or not,it is not very pleasant to send 30$ just to confirm your transfer
and it has been like that for quite a while,when you have to splash out 200k fees or even more
doesn't matter if you are rich or not
I have been waiting for the deposit to clear for 20+ days now,granted it was sent with a very low fee
but 20 odd days is retarded,I don't mind to wait,but not this much

And why small gambler would like to withdraw or deposit some money to gamble? If they want to gamble then at least put some affordable money on btc or any other coin to play. And why does it matter to the transaction fee? Right now our asset(btc) is sure on high price and fee is on btc too, how can people expect to have such a low fee mean while btc price is keep on raising. If they want to have low tx fee then they should expect bitcoin price will drop till $1,000. This fee problem does not make any sense to me

People who know how to buy bitcoins surely will find ways to get altcoins as well because there are still other exchanges are still accepting new registration. If gambling sites avoid small amount gamblers then mostly they will lose huge volume so they must find a solution to all these small gamblers. Currently, with bitcoin, not just fee is a concern but you also need to wait to get transaction confirmation by then gamblers might have lost the interest in playing these games.

The issue with fees generally affects the smaller gamblers. The medium to large type of whales don't care about spending $25 to send a BTC transaction when they are typically wagering $100 a roll.

Problem is that most of the sites volume are these small gamblers who aren't afford to pay these fees.

Yes people can use alts. But you need to realize that many people might be new to bitcoin and it might not be that easy for them to buy an alt like ETH or LTC.

Many exchanges these days like Bittrex, Bitfinex already have closed new registerations due to high volumes.

i definitely agree with that

Since there is talk about what coin to use, either this one or that, when it all comes down to the transaction fees really in the players point of view.
Trying to win enough to cover the transaction fee so to be able to withdraw the amount they want to but in the end they lose a bit in the process.
It happens.

So why not come out with a token. Like a yolo-ken just for use on the site?
An exchange I use has done this and it seems to work well.

if others coins will be added I hope that, minimum bets will be the same like was btc now here, and how it was like sample in bitexo where all coins like btc, ltc, dash are similar minimum bet what is 0.00000001.

its really sh*t & that sucks if minimum bets are calculated from current "value to other coin" like it was in cryptogames(for example)...

definetly coins to add need to be from "top" eth, ltc, monero! right! and definetly not usless garbage like doge.(buf if will not take effect to other coin bet speed etc, and same shitcoin betting speed will be the same fast like was btc, the whatever - then it make sense to add any coin here, if it does not pay anything to do that&and are easy to do) but if "shitcoin micro players" will overload server, and overall betspeed for other coins like btc will decrease i think no one will be happy.

and definetly need to have coin to coin exchanger wihtout high minimums.


and I hope that adding more less value coins, will not take effect on betting speed on btc or overall at all, otherwise its sucks.




justmy2cents