BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Empirical1.1 on January 27, 2015, 11:22:04 pm
-
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
Edit: An internal option that only let you wage with BitAssets (but not BTS) would be ideal. It would get us using the wallet & BitAssets more and massively increase BitAsset volume.
Even an external site would be fantastic though and from cursory research would do big volumes from inception. (No advertising required for the first mover either & BTS users would use it in a similar ratio to what Bitcoin users do.)
-
This also had a major impact on getting bitcoin's network effect going early on. (Satoshi Dice!)
-
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
-
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
You must have a very skewed definition of ponzi.
A certain % of people like to gamble, crypto gives the option to do it with a very small house edge so it's extremely popular.
-
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
You must have a very skewed definition of ponzi.
A certain % of people like to gamble, crypto gives the option to do it with a very small house edge so it's extremely popular.
My reference was to the very recent explosion of ponzi 'gambling' going on in BTC. Dozens popped up in the last month after one giant one made off with thousands in BTC. Sure there is the standard gambling.
-
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-gambling-boom-just-getting-started/
Some Bitcoin gambling platforms do $10 million+ a month in Bitcoin volume, so I'm guessing you're looking at $100 million a month Bitcoin gambling volume.
Considering BTS is about 1% the size and daily volume of Bitcoin, we could be talking up to a $1 million in monthly BitAsset volume right now if BTS users were given access to BitAsset gambling.
WOO HOO.. BTS Ponzi here we go come. Somehow I don't get the sense that this community has a huge desire for this. I maybe wrong... but there are a LOT of issues that come with this... none of them seem to fit into BMs mission statement either.
You must have a very skewed definition of ponzi.
A certain % of people like to gamble, crypto gives the option to do it with a very small house edge so it's extremely popular.
My reference was to the very recent explosion of ponzi 'gambling' going on in BTC. Dozens popped up in the last month after one giant one made off with thousands in BTC. Sure there is the standard gambling.
Cool. Yeah the absolute ideal would be some blockchain based one where everything was provably fair and everything accounted for. In fact with a small house edge the BTS blockchain could even be the bank. We could make the edge extremely low simply because it's in our interest to get people using BitAssets. This would be huge for BitAssets.
-
My reference was to the very recent explosion of ponzi 'gambling' going on in BTC. Dozens popped up in the last month after one giant one made off with thousands in BTC. Sure there is the standard gambling.
I'm pretty sure that the suggestion was to implement something liek SatoshiDice in Bitshares, not to implement Cryptodouble.com in Bitshares. :)
-
This also had a major impact on getting bitcoin's network effect going early on. (Satoshi Dice!)
+5% +5% In fact gambling accounted for up to 50% of all Bitcoin transactions all the way up to the middle of last year.
But we can do what Bitcoin can't and possibly have it all on the blockchain?! All the 'ponzi' gambling problems solved. (If so we just took up to half of Bitcoin's business...)
How did we miss this?
This is how you get BitAssets going. I can relax. As soon we offer BitAsset gambling internally we're all rich and it's just that simple.
Can we use anything PLAY has?
-
My reference was to the very recent explosion of ponzi 'gambling' going on in BTC. Dozens popped up in the last month after one giant one made off with thousands in BTC. Sure there is the standard gambling.
I'm pretty sure that the suggestion was to implement something liek SatoshiDice in Bitshares, not to implement Cryptodouble.com in Bitshares. :)
+5%
Besides if a user wants to gamble they should at least gamble using a bitasset.
-
Another point is that it's transactional volume that mostly stays inside BTS, unlike when you make a purchase, where the retailer often exchanges for fiat creating selling pressure and it will probably be that way with BitAssets till they gain a bit of traction too.
-
Gambling is like ponzi too but with style.
-
This also had a major impact on getting bitcoin's network effect going early on. (Satoshi Dice!)
+5% +5% In fact gambling accounted for up to 50% of all Bitcoin transactions all the way up to the middle of last year.
But we can do what Bitcoin can't and possibly have it all on the blockchain?! All the 'ponzi' gambling problems solved. (If so we just took up to half of Bitcoin's business...)
How did we miss this?
This is how you get BitAssets going. I can relax. As soon we offer BitAsset gambling internally we're all rich and it's just that simple.
Can we use anything PLAY has?
I also think using PLay is better. If what in play, music, and bitshares can be used by each other, we avoid much repeat work. And this let other DAC no need to make their own BitUSD.
-
The real problem is not software, since this is a trivial problem, but gambling licencing, which is crazily expensive, unless you can find someone to host in lives in a jurisdiction where crypto-gambling doesn't need a licence.
-
The real problem is not software, since this is a trivial problem, but gambling licencing, which is crazily expensive, unless you can find someone to host in lives in a jurisdiction where crypto-gambling doesn't need a licence.
Ok yeah I haven't even thought of that.
How is PLAY going about it?
If PLAY reach their 3000 BTC for 20%, then that will already value them at 13% of BTS and they're only at crowdfunding stage.
If PLAY have blockchain gambling & show any decent transaction volume at all, which is growing, the more I look at the numbers (Transaction volume and MoM growth in early Bitcoin gambling or new popular sites) the more it seems BTS will capitulate (No/Low BitAsset volume and growth rate) and be replaced by PLAY in a matter of weeks.
-
How is PLAY going about it?
I'm guessing they're licencing agnostic, since its a platform more than anything else.
-
If PLAY have blockchain gambling & show any decent transaction volume at all, which is growing, the more I look at the numbers (Transaction volume and MoM growth in early Bitcoin gambling or new popular sites) the more it seems BTS will capitulate (No/Low BitAsset volume and growth rate) and be replaced by PLAY in a matter of weeks.
Whats wrong with that?
Odds are this current BitShares will fail anyway, so its in our interest that something in which we have a stake does well. Much better than some other group forking BitShares, becoming successful and we getting nothing.
-
People who gamble are seeking risk. Why would they want to gamble in a pegged asset meant to reduce volatility?
-
I'd like to believe that if one of the BTS-arms (Play, Music, etc) is able to catch on, it'd be only natural for BTS to rise with it. I would think it'd be a synergistic effect as people are introduced to the entire ecosystem, as opposed to a direct competitor effect squashing BTS.
...but what do I know, could be wrong.
Anyway, yes, I'd love to see some kind of BitAsset gambling implemented. Would be a perfect catalyst for adoption. And from what I've gathered, Play doesn't seem to have much of any interest in gambling, so why not have BTS fill this all-important niche?
People who gamble are seeking risk. Why would they want to gamble in a pegged asset meant to reduce volatility?
Just ask anyone at a casino. They're gambling with fiat, not some unknown market-price-driven token.
-
People who gamble are seeking risk. Why would they want to gamble in a pegged asset meant to reduce volatility?
BTS is about as risky an investment as you can get. We can expect people who are invested in BTS to gamble in similar percentages to Bitcoin. If they are only given BitAssets as an internal wagering option then...
Also BitAssets are just a currency option, currently a fairly risky one at that, BitAsset holders will often be trading speculatively & also be the exact same risky personalities who hold BTS, little reason to expect them to be much more averse or non gambling prone. (As nomoreheroes said above not much different to wagering fiat.) Even if we're talking 1/3 the rates, it's probably much bigger than anything else I can imagine.
Looking at the 2012 Bitcoin gambling report is probably our best 'bet' :)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/22/bitcoin-casinos-release-2012-earnings/
(Bitcoin had a low user base & CAP through 2012 of about $70 million, so not too dissimilar.)
Satoshi dice had nearly 1.8 million BTC worth of volume and BitZino 700 000 BTC, so probably about $30 million dollars turnover. 2.5 million of the 9 million BTC would be about 700 million BTS worth of BitAsset volume & I think there were about 6 million betting transactions. Imagine just a fraction of that.
The most important thing is that a really low house edge, provably fair, funds accounted for on the blockchain option could not only satisfy gambling demand & bootstrap BitAsset use internally, but displace Bitcoin options which have recently been hit by a string of 'ponzi' take the money and runs...
Gambling is what made up half of Bitcoins volume and helped Bootstrap it and it still makes up the major chunk today. So nevermind BTS, it's possible that whoever takes the gambling even takes Bitcoin.
-
If PLAY have blockchain gambling & show any decent transaction volume at all, which is growing, the more I look at the numbers (Transaction volume and MoM growth in early Bitcoin gambling or new popular sites) the more it seems BTS will capitulate (No/Low BitAsset volume and growth rate) and be replaced by PLAY in a matter of weeks.
Whats wrong with that?
Odds are this current BitShares will fail anyway, so its in our interest that something in which we have a stake does well. Much better than some other group forking BitShares, becoming successful and we getting nothing.
BTSX sacrificed immense value & momentum to become a Super-DAC capable & with the option of doing exactly this. In the case of peertracks there's a centralized part of their business model we can't replicate but PLAY & blockchain based gambling is mostly a code based solution & we still have the bigger user base, so BitShares still has the option to adapt & fight for survival if it wanted to.