Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CoinHoarder

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44]
646
CoinHoarder, good posts, but I am wondering what you think about my comments at https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7219.msg98205#msg98205.

I know you are a believer of "if you build it, they will come" but I am more worried about "if you build it, they will steal" at least unless we succeed at quickly building the real world infrastructure around BTSX stake (real world meaning everything that isn't code).

I think this community should not neglect the importance of quickly getting more exchanges, getting merchants on board (once BitUSD is working), creating super easy to use tools, providing lightweight clients on PC/mobile/web, creating multisig security companies, etc. If all of this infrastructure is built around BitShares X, it gives it network effect and inertia which helps further adoption and protects it from clones.

I may of come across as very anti-marketing in that post, but I didn't mean it quite that way. Mainly my problem is not necessarily with the marketing of crypto currencies, it is with the marketing of crypto currencies that are not innovating and improving upon Bitcoin. I liken the marketing of "copy and paste" coins to scamming via the greater fool theory.

Bitshares is innovative and is in the process of innovating, as long as you guys continue to do this I don't really see any problem with marketing yourselves. Just don't try to shove it down people's throats, as then it is met with skepticism and reluctance, as it will seem like some sort of scam at first glance until they make the effort to learn what Bitshares is all about.

Btw- I have replied to your post in the PR thread.

Cheers

647
Reading the altcoin subforum of BitcoinTalk is like reading YouTube comments.  >:(  There really needs to be a Crypto2talk or something like that where the various ecosystems can come together and bandy about theories and ideas without the pump and dump mentality.


Crypto 2.0 is huge and it deserves its own forum.

I agree it is like reading YouTube comments. There is a lot of trolling, ignorance, and FUD there, but I think there are some genuine posters. I think this is why I like posting there though. I like challenging people to think about the status quo and reconsider their reasoning if I disagree with something. It is probably silly, but I feel like I am making a difference in some way, for the better of crypto currencies in general.

I agree there needs to be a separate forum, but I know they will never do this. They have always been hostile towards alternative crypto currencies and lump the scam coins and alt coins in the same basket.

Anyways.. Thanks for reading. I know it was a long post. I like it over here.. You guys are pretty level headed and doing some interesting things.

Cheers

648
Thanks, that is a great post. Could you give the link please?

Thanks.  :D

It is in response to the OP of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=736118.0

649
I just made this post in an existing thread on Bitcointalk and I thought you guys may find it interesting. I am afraid it will get lost in the drivel that is the alternative crypto coin sub forum. It is my opinion on crypto currencies and adoption that has formed over years of research on crypto currencies, and is part of the reason why I support innovative crypto currencies such as Bitshares.

Re: Focusing On Adoption Versus Innovation And Development

Hi,

I am glad that you started this conversation, as I feel it is an important one to be had. I believe that most people in the larger crypto currency community (Bitcoin/Litecoin/??) think like you do in regards to the importance of marketing to attract new users, and pushing for merchant adoption. While I do not disagree that those things help increase the utility of their respective crypto currencies, I see things differently.

This was one of the main reasons why I left the Litecoin community and no longer support it. The Litecoin community and I largely disagreed on this principle, as they mainly want to focus on marketing rather than innovation and improving crypto currencies on a developmental level and in an innovative manner. Basically, they are content blindly following anything that Bitcoin implements with the few developers they have, and the rest of the community is dead set on marketing and merchant adoption as the path to success for Litecoin. I think there are several problems with this line of thinking, and I will try to explain why.

Alternative crypto currencies are supposed to be the testing grounds for improvements upon existing crypto currencies and new features. If they are not doing either of these things, then I do not see the point of their existence and it screams of a get rich quick scheme. Any crypto currency that does neither of these things I consider to be a "pump and dump" and/or "scam coin."

Marketing and merchant adoption are important, but marketing and merchant adoption coupled with no innovation and development is akin to betting that people are sheeple. In Litecoin's case, they are betting that people will look past the lack of innovation and the fact it is pretty much a copy and paste coin. While I do not disagree that the vast majority of people in the world are sheeple in regards to problems with trusted third parties and FIAT, it is not these people that are adopting crypto currencies at this point in time. The sheeple are somewhat ignorant to the extreme need of crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These people will come eventually when crypto currencies have already blown up, and are a vast improvement over the current financial system. It will happen naturally, not by some marketing scheme with an underlying code base that was copied off of some other crypto currency.

It is the free-thinkers (skeptics/non sheeple) that are in the process of adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These are the same people that will be doing the marketing and pushing merchant adoption. If the free-thinkers can look past your crypto currency’s marketing strategies and see that the underlying crypto currency is mainly a “pump and dump” and/or “scam coin” with no innovation or improvements over another larger already existing crypto currency, then how can they be expected to support it? How can they be expected to help with marketing and pushing merchant adoption, when they don’t believe in the underlying technology themselves?

I believe there are only two answers to that question in regards to alternative crypto currencies. The first being that the supporters of the alternative crypto currency are sheeple themselves, and the second being that the supporters of that crypto currency are only focused on one thing and that is making a profit by "pumping and dumping" at the expense of sheeple. Both answers to this question make me completely and utterly sick, and I do not think that Satoshi would approve either.

After much analysis and reading user’s opinions and thoughts in such crypto currency communities over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of their community at this point in time falls under the latter answer to that question, which makes me even sicker when thinking about it. Crypto currencies are still in the early adopter phase. As I said earlier, it is mostly the free-thinkers that are adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies at this point in time, and I find it highly unlikely that the majority of these early adopters are sheeple. It is utterly shameful people are praying on sheeple for their own financial gain, and relying on “the greater fool theory” to fatten their wallets.

Again, this is why I left the Litecoin community. I realized that it is an either/or situation, and I was completely disgusted by it. Either I was surrounded by sheeple, or I was surrounded by cut throat free-thinkers preying on sheeple by the use of the “greater fool theory,” and either way I decided I wanted no part in it. There was an “ah ha” moment in which I decided Litecoin needed to be innovative and really focus on improving crypto currencies on a technical and developmental level, or the sad reality is that's just how it’s going to be and how it will always be as long as they continue down the same path.

I am a big believer in an altered quote from a corny 90s movie named “The Field of Dreams” in regards to crypto currency adoption, “if you build it they will come.” If you stop and think about it for a second, this is exactly what Satoshi did with Bitcoin, and look at how far Bitcoin has come today. If a crypto currency is innovative enough and a vast improvement over prior crypto currencies, the users and merchants will come eventually. Now and in the near term future, as a crypto currency community… the free-thinkers and early adopters… we should mostly focus on improving crypto currencies the best way possible through innovation and development.

Sadly, I think Bitcoin and Litecoin have mainly gotten off the path that Satoshi paved which was focused on innovation and development, and adoption happening naturally instead of forced upon people. A large part of their community has trouble seeing that both of these crypto currencies are not perfect and have flaws. Try bringing up the flaws of Bitcoin in the General Discussion sub forum and see the kind of hostility and ignorance you are met with. This kind of group think is poison, and it affects the improvement of crypto currencies on an innovative and developmental level, and will only slow down the improvement of crypto currencies. They are not in a large way focusing on implementing new features, improving existing features, and openly talking about flaws of their respective crypto currency.

Doubly sadly, I think most of this group thinking stems from greed. They do not want to talk about the flaws of Bitcoin/Litecoin, and they brush everything off as FUD or “scam coins gonna scam coin.” When in reality they are the ones that are doing the scamming, as they are so worried about fattening their pockets, that they stifle innovation and development. In general, they are so worried that if someone reads a genuine concern about a flaw or short coming about Bitcoin/Litecoin and believes it, that that someone will not invest in the crypto currency they have invested in. This affects the size to which their pockets can fatten, they do not like this one bit, and they make every attempt to shut it down and label it as FUD.

In summary, marketing and pushing for merchant adoption is important, but it is equally important to not succumb to greed and ignorance and to push the crypto currency and/or decentralized technology movement forward through innovation and development. I applaud innovative crypto currencies for paving the path to the future of crypto currencies, a path that Satoshi started and a path that the larger crypto currency community seems to be wandering off of. Once that path is filled with great new useful features and vast improvements over old crypto currency features, the general public will flock to that path once they realize it is so much better than the government built overgrown bumpy pebble path they have been travelling down their entire lives.

Thanks for reading,

Ch

650
General Discussion / Re: "Bitshares - The Great Satan on the Blockchain"
« on: August 23, 2014, 03:13:32 am »
Welcome CoinHoarder. Thanks for posting.

Thank you.

 +5% to you as well.  :D

651
General Discussion / Re: "Bitshares - The Great Satan on the Blockchain"
« on: August 23, 2014, 02:39:18 am »
Stan, can you tip this guy $20 in BTSX... that way he can get out of debt by the end of the year?     

Thanks for helping out!

Awesome!

That wasn't necessary, but I appreciate it very much. I mainly just wanted to make the point that you guys should fight FUD/ignorance with facts. Anyways.. I am excited about where Bitshares is headed and can't wait for the BitsharesX market to open up.

Thanks again bytemaster/stan!

652
General Discussion / Re: "Bitshares - The Great Satan on the Blockchain"
« on: August 23, 2014, 01:11:11 am »
I realize you guys think that threads such as this are FUD and/or ignorance, and I do not disagree. However, I think threads like this can hurt adoption and community perception of Bitshares. I have spent all day explaining bitassets to these guys and I do not even own a single Bitshares token (PTS, AGS, X, etcetra.) I think Bitshares is a great idea, but I am in debt and could not afford to invest.

I still find crypto currencies very interesting and like to discuss, learn, and debate about them. However, my fingers hurt from sticking up for you guys all day long. :P

Come on.. go stick up for yourselves and eliminate the FUDsters/ignorance and drop Bitshares knowledge bombs on them mofos.  :D

653
Keyhotee / Re: Using Keyhotee For Decentalized Poker
« on: June 23, 2014, 07:32:37 am »
What about "double-blind" identity verification?
You have an independent service that verifies identities. The verifying organization makes sure there are no duplicate accounts by checking real-world IDs, but then in the actual DAC you "untie" your real-world identity from the ID you use in the DAC with a zerocoin-esque mixer thing.

That may be the best solution, but it is not an entirely decentralized solution like I feel would be optimal. I suppose if there is no other solution, that would be better than what I have proposed. It seems that might be the best course of action until the technologies around fingerprint/iris/face recognition are improved upon to where something like a smart phone or web cam can do those tasks. That to me is the ideal decentralized solution, but I don't think you can perform them accurately quite yet without specialized hardware.

Sometimes the answers to the questions you seek are the most obvious! Perhaps I was making it too complicated.

654
DAC PLAY / Re: PokerChips: Hosting Fair RNG Sessions
« on: June 23, 2014, 03:26:19 am »
Can I get ya'lls opinion on this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhvqsa702k8p5vg/v0.01%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx

On version 0.02 now.. I added a lot more data points to catch collusion and bots, and made some other minor changes such as adding "infractions" and initiating a three strike rule for innocent players that are mistakenly flagged.

My concerns:
1. The vote system might be able to be gamed, any suggestions to make an improvement on it?
2. What is the best way go about stopping multi accounting?
3. Eliminating duplicate data points and adding ones I haven't thought of.

I decided that giving people three chances wasn't a good idea and removed the infractions and "three strike rule". If cheaters are caught, they should be banned. Not sure what I was thinking there, but it seems ridiculous to have to catch someone cheating three times to ban them.

Anyways.. I could really used some feedback on what I wrote. I've been to like 4 forums, emailed a couple people I know are really interested in decentralized poker, and I haven't got any feedback on this is it is rather frustrating. I am trying to help, but I need a little feedback to improve upon what I have done this far. I can keep working on the data points... consolidating them, deleting duplicate searches, and adding ones I haven't thought of/researched yet. However, I need help on the following:

My main concern at this point is stopping multi accounting (which I feel might be impossible in a decentralized poker network after doing some research), and people being able to game the cheating detection system. Multi accounting is tough, because the way centralized sites stop it is by asking players to send in photo IDs, utility bills, etc.. then they analyze them for fakes and make sure no one has more than one account. In a decentralized poker network I feel there may be no good solution for this.

655
Keyhotee / Using Keyhotee For Decentalized Poker
« on: June 23, 2014, 03:14:19 am »
Obviously Keyhotee could be used to log into an online (centralized, or decentralized) poker network. There is one glaring problem with a decentralized poker network in that it may be impossible to combat "multi accounting". Multi accounting is used to describe the practice of entering multiple accounts (screen names) into the same online poker tournament. The sole purpose of multi-accounting is to create an advantage by offering one player multiple chances to advance to the later stages of a tournament where the significant money is, can also be used in cash games to collude with yourself, and also can be used by good players whom people have stopped giving action because they are that good.

I have a few ideas I could think of to deter multi accounting, but I don't think they are a very good solution to the problem, and I'm not sure if one really exists that could be used in a decentralized poker network. Centralized sites stop multi accounting by having poker players send in identification (passports, photo IDs, utility bills, etc.) I'm not sure that solution would really work in a decentralized site... who would analyze the IDs? and who would know enough about them to spot fake IDs?? Who would keep the identification and would everyone just have to trust that they keep them secret?

Now that I've outlined the problem, I am wondering if Keyhotee could be a possible solution. Is there any way that you could stop people from getting multiple keyhotee log ins? After searching around there seem like no good answer, so I am here asking you guys if you can think of anything. I don't really see these as optimal solutions, but these are the only ways I can think of:

Quote
-   Each person in a hand should be assigned a multi accounting score. This score represents the likelihood that player(s) involved in a hand were the same person based on the examining the multi accounting data points.
-   Possibly use of biometric fingerprint scanners, iris, or facial recognition software to use to make sure no one is playing more than one account at the same table. However, I’m not sure this technology is practical yet. Another more practical idea may be to make web cameras mandatory so you can see who you’re playing against.
-   Charge for player accounts. In my opinion is the most practical way at the moment of fighting Multi Accounting. Charge a fee for the account to play, based on the stakes they want to play at, so that it isn’t too much to deter players but that it would be expensive to multi account. This money can also be used for marketing and/or collusion/bot/ma checking.
-   All data points will need to be extensively beta tested to figure out how heavy they should be weighted, as a ton of false positives are possible and the formula for the multi accounting score will need to be tweaked. I suggest setting points for each data point, and have the data points that are more likely to catch what we’re looking for be worth more points.
-   Multi Accounting Data Points:
1.   Check IP for TOR and Proxy use
2.   Check for same IPs across the network.
3.   Check if the player funded his account with the same Bitcoin/whatever coin address as another player, or used to fund another player’s account. Block chain analysis could be done versus players who have mixed their coins.

Any ideas of how Keyhotee could be used for this purpose? Decentralized poker in games where multi accounting is possible may not be practical at this point in time if this problem is not solved, and that will be a serious setback for the Bitshares decentralized poker network project.

656
DAC PLAY / Re: PokerChips: Hosting Fair RNG Sessions
« on: June 22, 2014, 04:36:06 am »
Can I get ya'lls opinion on this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhvqsa702k8p5vg/v0.01%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx

On version 0.02 now.. I added a lot more data points to catch collusion and bots, and made some other minor changes such as adding "infractions" and initiating a three strike rule for innocent players that are mistakenly flagged.

My concerns:
1. The vote system might be able to be gamed, any suggestions to make an improvement on it?
2. What is the best way go about stopping multi accounting?
3. Eliminating duplicate data points and adding ones I haven't thought of.

657
DAC PLAY / Re: PokerChips: Hosting Fair RNG Sessions
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:55:57 am »
Does the paper say how a network can know holecards and guarantee with a very high degree of certainty that only the network knows?  You were the one to point out to me that a network can't know private keys. (Which led to a lot of insight as to what is possible/the necessity of "tokens") 

If a network can guarantee that no one knows holecards then you have solved the same problem AFAIK.  I'm sure that there is some way to fragment the data where one node won't know, but that isn't quite acceptable.  The expectation lost due to collusion with the house far outweighs any collusion between players.  This is likely true in most any multiplayer game of imperfect information.  IMO that is why so much of the effort to make poker honest is misplaced.

The difference between centralized vs decentralized poker is that the number of actors you have to trust is finite in centralized poker.  In a network, it is unknown.

There is almost nothing I know more about than the meta game in/of poker.  I had an account on Planet Poker which was the first for money poker site.  Not trying to pull rank or whatever, just saying this is like the one thing I've wasted far too much of my life being involved with.  So I'd love to see a decentralized poker solution that solves house collusion.  Catching player collusion has little value to me and is relatively straight forward.  This isn't intuitive to most people though. It appears more value is placed on the solvable problem of detecting (with some certainty value) inter-player collusion or some simplistic fixation on the "fairness" of the RNG.

Mental Poker solves this, which is what Toast was implying. If you read the paper you will see that Sergio has all of that figured out, collusion in between the host and players will be mathematically impossible through cryptographic functions. The problem of Mental Poker has been researched since 1979, there is a ton of work that has been done on it in academia. It is practically solved at this point after 30+ years of research.

658
DAC PLAY / Re: PokerChips: Hosting Fair RNG Sessions
« on: June 20, 2014, 09:01:45 pm »
Good collection of anti-collusion suggestions.

Serio Lerner who wrote the 100% trustless Mental Poker Framework paper is providing consultation for BitShares =D

Awesome, yes he is an expert on mental poker.. I am sure he has it all figured out!

I am trying to focus more on ways to fight collusion, as that is another challenging problem that perhaps developers are not fully aware of. I've played a lot of poker in my time, so I'm fairly familiar with the logistics of online poker networks.

I really like Bitshares and Bitshares AGS.. wish I had some money to invest! Hopefully I can get some in before AGS closes up. I've been recommending Bitshares AGS to some of my friends/family, as you guys have a lot of good projects in the works.

Good luck to you guys, I'll be around. This is only my first iteration of that paper, I would like feedback and it will be revised as feedback is received.

659
DAC PLAY / Re: PokerChips: Hosting Fair RNG Sessions
« on: June 20, 2014, 08:44:22 pm »

Pokerstars has 'Zoom' tables at multiple stakes.
There are usually a couple of hundred people in the zoom pool at any one time.
After each hand you are zoomed to another random table & given a new hand, this is to speed up the action but it also means you can't collude because the likelihood of you sitting at the same table as your colluders enough is very low.

Also I'm sure 80% of the poker volume is under 2/4 ($400 buy-in tables) and at those levels colluding is pretty pointless. Winners at those stakes are either bum-hunting (seeking out & getting position on weak/recreational players, no collusion needed, not worth it.) or they're mass multi-tabling playing 8-24 tables at the same time, making so many decisions so quickly it's not possible to collude. (They break even and live off rake-back*)

Rake* you showed the rake table earlier in the thread which looks lucrative for shareholders but bear in mind players can get anywhere from 20-60% of that back on most sites via rake-back. So you'd probably have to undercut that model by 75% to be attractive.

A bigger problem at lower stakes than colluding is bots, many people have automated bots that just play basic strategy on multiple tables and eek out a profit.
People talk about collusion etc, but the real problem is insuring that the DAC is not leaking information to another player.  How do you guarantee that ?  The goal seems to go against the nature of "Distributed" in DAC.

Research the term "Mental Poker"


Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44]