My understanding is that, BitShares Play is only part of the decentralized game assets ecosystem, It is not enough to achieve the goal only with a DAC.

To have the agents and merchants interested and join, we need to have a lot of games in our platform, in the same time, game providers have interested in BitShares Play game platform, because:

1. BitShares Play provide a good economic chips system to protect the user's game chips(assets) from being dilute. Because in BitShares Play, the platform must find way to guarantee that the new created chips must be created by providing play shares as collaterals, or according the mechanism as a game contract hardcoded in BitShares Play. It seems that games in BitShares Play should not be given the ability to issue chips as they want (As Benevolent Entity). Though I want to provide games with the flexibility, but maybe it should not be considered if it hurt the users' chips assets and thus the ecosystem.

There might be challenges for us to find ways to keep the assets rule in BitShares Play, but hopefully we will find ways, at least for a subset of the game kinds.

2. Another reason game providers would have interest in BitShares Play, is that we have agents and users base here. From another aspect, this system have agents because of the games already being there in some sense too. So the question is chicken and eggs, which will come out first?
The answer for this is that BitShares Play will first have chance games like Dice and Lottery being part of the DAC as a start for games. This will make BitShares Play looks like a gaming DAC at first glance, but with things growing, it's final goal is to be a game asset Platform, and those built-in games will retrograde just as third-party games.

The google document can be commented and give revise suggestions by anybody, the BTSX bounty will shared by all the editors.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KkaAnuM0a_YU2yMaeDSDiyNUv96c9TrYrCjKadC01yA/edit?usp=sharing

2000BTSX extra for outstanding proposals or changes.

Thanks.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6802.0

In DPOS RNG algorithm, an evil delegate can only choose to throw away an unfavorable random result by intentionally missing block on his slot turn.

This could only be a problem, when the ticket draw interval is less than 101 blocks, because delegate can predict which block he will produce. Then he can choose to buy ticket which will draw in that block.

If the ticket draw interval is larger than 101 blocks, which means there will be at least one shuffle in that period, then the evil delegate can not predict which block he will produce. Then his only strategy is to guess or put tickets in each of the 101 blocks. If guess, his chance is 1/101, the *expect* return he can get back by attacking is the price of that ticket when he lose, because the delegate after him will continue to replace him and draw randomly. If he choose to put ticket in each blocks, his attack cost is (101 * block_ticket_sale), but what's the expected return, still the ticket sale he put in one block, he will lose.

Maybe for some games 101 blocks draw interval is too long for their requirement, and need shorter draw time, the solution is as following:

Ticket result will be drawn by 2 delegates:

The first delegate's random number is only in charge of producing a number X, which is between 1 to 3, and that X will determine the Xth block after him will draw the result random for the ticket. The 2th delegate could be the evil guy who is trying to attack, but he can not predict who will produce the right drawing block before 4 blocks, his attack cost is (3 * block_ticket_sale), but his expect return is still only 1 block_ticket_sale. The only thing game rule need is to set the draw interval 1 block before the first delegate.

Note: block_ticket_sale means all the ticket sale the evil delegate buy in one block.

 

PLS is the main token of the DAC, and chips are special assets issued by the games.

It is different from Bitshares market issued asset like BitUSD, also different from Bitshares user issued asset. There is an exchange model between PLS and chips, which is part the DAC consensus:

Every chip asset are created with some pls collateral recorded by the system, and a total supply. After created, the collateral pls amount will be frozen in the system balance.

The game itself is free to adjust its supply according to its own business model, but there will be a system convert price between the chip and pls, according to the pls collateral and chip supply:

1 chip = ( pls collateral amount / chip supply amount) * 1 pls

This means anyone can buy/sell (in other word create/destroy) chips according to the price of current block, the amount of pls used to buy chip will be added to that collateral of the chips, and new chips will increase the chips supply. In next block, there will be a new price, according to the updated pls collateral supply and chip supply.

In this way, the best games which are welcome will have more collateral, the best profitable game will have better chip prize increasing related to pls and thus other equity. The games with unrestrained dilution similar to Tencent's Q Coin is free and ok, but will have their price of potential drop down.

One more thing, every game want to use chips as their game tokens requires:
1. Provable total supply of the game tokens
2. One way of 1: 1 transfer between chips in Bitshares Play and their system, using cross chain or support system escrow. Or more easily, develop games inside Play Platform.

I feel a strong call/need of Re-Define to Lotto:

Please refer the draft of the Bitshares Lotto white paper(unfinished, I'm not native writer, feel free to comment on the syntax and wording, help reviewing):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KkaAnuM0a_YU2yMaeDSDiyNUv96c9TrYrCjKadC01yA/edit

And this diagram:

This topic has been moved to Charity.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4597.0