You are being more useful now PTLou.

P2p "site" is perhaps not the best, because it implies a server. So we might say p2p "operator". The operator could be pure server based, in a country that allows it. And they could serve american players via crypto just like current sites do (perhaps through a VPN I'm not even sure and I don't really care because its arbitrary).

But the layers on top of the layer1 protocol (what you dub nooseProtocol, lord don't let that name stick ;p) will also naturally become decentralized in some form or another.

Bitcoin for example has wallet software, made by "centralized" projects. And exchanges. And as time goes by, more and more, the trusted software is that which is developed by open source projects that don't reside anywhere except multiple sites that host the repos with the code.

It's all already in place its just a model that is unfamiliar to those that don't have knowledge about the programming revolution we have gone through. There is not much use in arguing about its validity. Its clearly here.

There is better things discuss, like how it will change the nature of the industry and the game itself.

Cheers.

agreed and amended


edit. and ha on this:

According to you! Dont let my proposed naming conventions go to your head

There haven't been enough cases enforcing such laws because there wasn't much to be gained by doing so. That will no longer be true once the licensed market is created.

I wasn't implying that the government is bad. But it is definitely not stupid. Why would it allow unlicensed 2p2 gaming cannibalize the legal marketplace it just created and collect less revenue for us the people as a result?

I might be wrong, but didn’t proposed Michigan legislation include the language outlawing participation in unlicensed gaming?

Believe me, I hope I’m wrong. I share and appreciate your passion and desire of a fair beatable game. I hope that people like you do find a way of delivering it.

It is the people that decide the law. And as poker playing online becomes prevalent again the law changes. You have said something like "government will lose taxes to arbitrary licensing being inefficient" and so they will enact more force and restrictions.

But it does not have power to act this way. As it loses revenue from these streams it loses power accordingly. Governments power is meant to be restricted to protect our rights and freedoms. This is the trend. The trend is not towards totalitarian and has not been.

Much like marijuana the trend is for the most liberal states to legalize it which puts pressure on the rest and the federal government. This is the trend that should be the premise. We aren't perfectly there, but we are perfectly heading there.

And if there is a political initiative that the players should focus there effort on its this. And a p2p protocol (noose protocol, but I didn't develop such a protocol myself only the philosophy of its design).

Noose --

Is there any existing poker project that, to you, seems the most promising?

All of the projects I've seen so far have their own brand of disappointment.

Rightfully so one cannot just come onto a forum like this and start listing business crowdfunding projects because even if I'm moral in this regard it opens a precedence for mass spamming.

Of course on the other hand we need to be able to discuss the pros and cons of each model that is presented because the players are now given the options of many models. One reason I thought a good thread would be about how we favor different rake models but without necessarily quoting different projects.

Each project so far, except one i know of (and there are more not listed in 2p2 as advertisers), has approached the problem wrong. And this renders the problem it not solvable from their perspective. Some will die out because of it, and before launch, but some will survive because they got it correct enough.

What I see as the vision for the future of the industry and the operators in it, is a central core protocol. And that protocol is not proprietary, it doesn't cost money, there is no business, and no sale.

If we are allowed to discuss it then I will. It is not my project but its the crux of what is going to happen.

Quote:
@8ROM Most of the p2p plans we are talking about still have someone running the lobby, advertising etc, and presumably taking a cut of the money at some point. That's the person who would be charged with running a gambling operation. Genuine p2p with no company, no lobby, no advertiser, no rake, may well be legal in some places that organized gambling is not depending on the local laws of that jurisdiction.

I understand what you're saying there. Then what is really needed is a team consisting of people who love poker including top pros and wealthy amateurs and IT professionals who could work together to create the ultimate p2p poker app just for the love of the game rather than as a business. Rake free poker could become a reality!!!

Jurisdictions are irrelevant with p2p, anyone in the world can use it and theres nothing authorities can do about it.

Not exactly, people have been in trouble for using file sharing services over p2p i.e. where the underlying action is something illegal where they are.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lly-downloaded

but it's true that when there is no good big target to go after there is a certain safety in numbers for the little guys.

The attraction of p2p for poker is that in some cases the underlying action of playing poker itself isn't illegal, just organizing the game, so genuine p2p poker might be legal if there was no organizer. But if you are in some backward islamic country where participating in gambling is totally forbidden then saying "lol it was p2p" doesn't save you from the jurisdiction where you were when you did the things that are illegal in that jurisdiction. P2p poker doesn't solve that problem nor does it seem to offer much to people in enlightened places that have pokerrooms paying for advertising to attract recreational players - just for the places in the middle (which for poker is a lot of US states it seems).

In any constitutionally based country it certainly will be.
It's a dream. But if we took it as the premise of the future of the game, we could certainly say it be a difficult model to beat. So think of the trend rather than the end of it.

We could call this the libertarian micon mistake. It's not about 'rake' free per se, there is some x cost at a given time to provide gameplay etc. But the network could be arranged such that there is pressure and incentive to offer games that rake asymptotically approaches cost. In this setting the trend would be to make operators (as if they are opponents of each other in their own game of bluffing and betting) large "plays" which leads to lower costs.
Go directly to jail, do not pass go ;p

No thats too far in the future, but there can be a change of incentives with the introduction of protocol technology which causes operators to monitor and compete to provide a certain level profitability for the games they offer.

Nooseknot: "It's not about 'rake' free per se, there is some x cost at a given time to provide gameplay etc. "
If each person is playing on his own computer, what costs are you referring to here?

I'm fairly certain it's okay to discuss projects, especially ones in which you have no vested interest.

The development. So from today A to an asymptotically approach to B in the future that has "no rake" there is a development process. If you start the project right all of the critical stuff gets built up front, and then the necessary evolutions get less and less and the programmers move on from the project down to a small group of gate keepers etc. (I won't speculate beyond that). It's a trend that come from a project with the properly chosen "axioms".

I've had a good hand in those axioms as a special perspective/paradigm is necessary.

Most of the projects are not thinking yet about a core layer one protocol. I helped one project head in that direction which me and the actual programmer discussed the philosophy together over the last few years. It's a working demo, done by one person, but he happens to have a steller resume with good qualifications. Ex poker star employee, not disgruntled just moved on. Brought products to market, nothing major.

It's a humble project built from a perspective of morality for the game. He refuses to make it and ico for sale. It doesn't fit the model that he created, which is why his project does what no one else's does. He built it out of a library connection he visits when he can.

The rest of the projects I know of, some advertised here, fit on top of that layer.

This is how we designed the evolution of the industry.

That is the vision, and then we would have to discuss how we move from today's equilibrium to the catalyst that moves the industry to the new platform. It's a game theoretical problem/solution, and it can be viewed fairly formally and analyzed as such. Like cooperative/coalition games by the big industry "players" versus the smaller ones that might have a greater utility to cooperate but still out of selfishness.

Here I am thinking of all the emerging part crypto part p2p sites that are still centralized in nature, and also of sites like riopoker and luckychewypoker etc.

Even the beginning of the threat of the trend could have a major impact on the whole industry.

OK, now with some common and basic nomenclature its a bit easier to discuss.

I felt like the thread was about to go unhinged with several people all making comments about something without an agreement on what "something" was.

So, TheNooseProtocol is certainly technically possible and might already be developed. I get that nobody owns it and everybody owns it so no jurisdictional or legal issues.

What am still struggling with is how a P2POperator could take that to organize and market real money games. Sure they could do it on a very small scale without attracting any attention.

But any of the new P2POperators that broke away from the pack, and started showing up in PokerScout type market share data, might then just collapse under their own success. The bigger they get the more scrutiny they would receive from regulators

Think the DFS mis-step of last year with all those annoying "i won a milllion dollar" ads on network TV in the U.S. which only attracted unwanted scrutiny and regulatory action against them.

Its problem, right ?

Now you have the idea. But its new to your head. Remember I have already traversed the history of law in relation poker and gambling.

Some sites will comply, some won't, and as poker and even new games become popular, and rake gets pushed DOWN, there is less "gambling" and more want for skill games. It changes psychology of the field. This affects whether the general population "likes" games or becomes "against" them. Which translate to support for different laws.

I've read studies about this from the "kula ring". Games arise in relationship to the general psychology of the people. And technology affects the games that arise. This is related to how cards evolved to have kings and queens etc.

Things have to evolve, but its technology that sparks that evolution, once you understand the direction we are surely going, then you can extrapolate the solution to get there.

PTLou: "I get that nobody owns it and everybody owns it so no jurisdictional or legal issues."
To whom do the costs above go to if no one owns it? How does the developer get paid?

Its a tough paradigm and its not quite as simple as I'm making it seem. The conversation also gets clouded if we are fighting about whether "free rake" is a real thing. The basic idea is the developers of the protocol are valuable to any sites that want to use it. So if some sites want to, they can hire them to consult (there's not really any such team at this time but this is how bitcoin works).

But its free and open source so there is no obligation. Sites have their own programmers and they can do what they want with the software or bridging to it.

This is how the design works and why its different than all these other crypto poker sites which are still effectively NOT decentralized in any meaningful fashion.

This is what it means to be the difference between "the decentralization of poker" and a "decentralized poker site". The former is a large movement based on a kernal of code, and the later is an oxymoron (which covers up a security leak).

Where does the rake go then? Someone needs to collect it and distribute it to someone. Who and how would the consultants get paid?

You are thinking into a future that is hypothetical only, thats too much for me here. Just think about a single software that many sites share. its p2p and provably secure. A small group of hobbyists maintain it. It doesn't evolve much. They don't get paid, they have other jobs, perhaps related, perhaps not. This is how bitcoin works.

"Sites", with their own models offer what ever structures games and rake they want. Its not different than today but its a freer market. So the best models serve the players wants instead of spending money trying to hold onto a regulatory based monopoly.

Will these "sites" have an internet address? Are we not back to a server location problem in regards to legality?

We've had decentralized server-less internet addresses for almost 10 years. You are thinking too far in the future again. Eventually it will be "decentralized". It happens in layers, and each layers is massive progress for the industry landscape. Right now we are seeing the emergence of crpyto poker sites that have part p2p nature. They often sell their chips as part of their shares. So the players that hold the chips have incentive to participate in raising the value of the economy. Often the chips give you a stake in the automated jury pools so you can run software that ensures the games are honest and even get a rakeback for it. Sometimes these share give voting rights for the future of the project.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying its legal for everyone to participate in ico's. It's not in some countries. And in others the regulation can snap in an instant. Most sites have done at least SOME legal consultation and will explicitly state and answer questions about each area. This is why I think there are important discussion to be had so people aren't blinding get in trouble or investing in scams.

So Coinbase ICO is next week. Not the exact same thing being discussed ITT but similar in many ways. will be interesting to see how this plays out. Im guessing pretty sparse lobbies for foreseeable future.

Will this be legal to play in USA? They are pretty vague in their whitepaper and only provide a picture of world broken down into "under regulation", "KYC problems" and ROW that doesnt fall into one of those two categories (they color those areas green, I guess that means good to go ???) Have no idea what all that means.

To me, as a player, its also seems to be placing your faith and confidence in a bunch of strangers as I couldn't find any mention of any independent, third party regulatory oversight?

How does one know they aren't just a bunch of crooks? Their Team Bios look legit but who knows. Its all according to them.

What if one has a dispute with the site, who do you go to?

Is the bundling of new site with new crypto ICO offering any cause for concern. sounds kind of cheesy. Why not just launch the site and take bitcoin?

The idea is you are to invest in the projects that you think are the most legit. And so you have incentive to help grow the network because you own a piece of it (here network refers to the mesh of customer acquisition etc.). Developers often get paid in their own coin. So its like an initial crowd fund that either they can run off with, or if its structured properly there is great incentive for them continue to hit milestones (obviously the latter is more moral from the players and investors perspective).

This is much how bitcoin worked and its just a matter of generalizing the new business model. Of course many or most are scams. They need scrutiny and so the part of the community interested needs to have a decent dialogue on the correct questions to be addressed.

There can be great reward too, if you happen to invest early in the best projects you can have a nice bank roll to either play with to exchange for bitcoin etc.

This is part of the frenzy that could be arranged to help start a migration to crypto and put pressure on the rest of the industry to want to accept it. If there happens to be good investment opportunity this might create pressure on existing sites to increase their offerings.

"What am still struggling with is how a P2POperator could take that to organize and market real money games."

PTLou: "I get that nobody owns it and everybody owns it so no jurisdictional or legal issues."
To whom do the costs above go to if no one owns it? How does the developer get paid?


This is why I think we need p2p poker with no operator company, they spend a load on marketing and then shaft the customers with rake. More importantly, theres no company then for governments to target/shut down/ban people from. The power is in the hands of the players for a change! Just need a team of wealthy people who love poker to pay some top software developers to build a secure app and with cryptocurrency they can play for real money anywhere in the world. They could make a small charge to download the app to help cover development and marketing costs. It wouldn't take much marketing costs to catch on very quickly I reckon especially with US players, there must be millions of them who would love the chance to play online poker again.

Its a laudable goal but its way bigger idea and project than you are thinking. It makes far more sense to build a system in relation to the existing landscape. Use the existing networks and build a bridge for the legacy infrastructure to move too.

Rake free no operator poker is not here at this time. But its a direction to head towards, which is a key insight on how to solve meaningful problems today.

If there could be significant improvement on the different choices players have to play at, catalyzed by a lower barrier to entry for operators, and players could move their equity/bankrolls at a lower cost and effort (ie near instantly and not through banks) then this would increase the player liquidity and put a pressure on operators to lower rake towards their operating costs.

It's not an altruistic event. Its a gradual trend over time based on the free market competition that a protocol technology would provide.

EDIT... I obv meant CoinPoker ICO in my previous post.... not coinbase... fingers moving faster than brain


interesting. sounds like modern day version of Amway or Mary Kay Cosmetics multi level marketing. Yeah we want you to sell soap and use the soap, but more importantly we want to recruit others to sell the soap and they recruit other to sell the soap. lather, rinse, repeat.

I guess if it works the peeps out the top levels of the pyramid make the most.

funny that I'm not sure I knew what CoinPoker was until I saw the 2+2 banner ad while reading/typing in this thread just a few minutes ago. I thought Virtue Poker was the site stirring up all the discussion.

Shouldn't all these new sites just use a common platform or something and save money ? <----- example of trolling