The difference is scalability, the transferable utility/medium of exchange, and the smart contracts which secure the token issuance.

Pyramid schemes and mlm models don't actually scale, they are advertised to people who don't understand how to properly analyze if a business will scale or not. These can scale its not a thing where you need perpetual people joining. It just like a stock offer where shares also have utility as casino chips.

So if the issuance is honest and finite and guarded by well scrutinized smart contracts and the business runs well then there is value to be shared. If not, the value will show on the markets (basically in relation to bitcoin).

In regard to coinpoker's recent ico proposal, its way too quick. They have to give time for proper scrutiny otherwise its just "hey we have something we are promising, quick give us money before we tell you what it is"

And their stated head of security should know better (although the hastiness seems eerily familiar).

I'm trying to question them so I can do some proper research, but if they only respond here and there, I can't get enough answers to do that before the sale. This is a negative, obviously from the investor stand point safety, but also because I would endorse projects that I feel are worthy (unofficially and not for money (unless I disclosed).

Im confused (shocking)

Did CoinPoker create their new currency as a tool (means to an end) marketing strategy to create and sell their new poker site.

or

Did they create their poker site as a tool (means to an end) marketing strategy to create and sell their new coin?

They are now one and the same. It's a new use case for money. We are learning what money really is. It's just like a stock offering but its easier to do and the shares can be sold anywhere in the world. And now the shares work as tokens for whatever the system will be that is offered as a product.

This is an extension of Nick Szabo's smart contract protocol (20 year old paper) Vitalik Buterin turned into ethereum which had its own "offering". Ethereum allows for more precise stipulations with the tokens that can also be created on top of ethereum.

The tokens can be designed so they function as the voting protocol for the shareholders or "players" of a network.

The Lightening network does hold promise for bringing the bitcoin blockchain's game up to speed, literally. I've looked at Lightening, nad think it holds more promise as a tool for supporting tournaments than cash games at first glance, but did not look very deeply into it.

Post or send me a link when the white paper is posted ? (The last time I bought a crypto other than BTC was when the Ethereum whitepaper was published ...)

People are correct to think about lighting channels in relation to a p2p poker hands, but its not something that is limited by the blockchain. You enter escrow once (albeit a complex one) and then the hands are played much like chips at a legacy online poker table. It's also via any fast messenger service you choose (could be text or even skype or some new online protocol). The msgs are digitally signed so they cannot be forged or changed.

Once the play is finished then you can settle and you might incur time or fees.

But this is only a basic view, as the settlement gets more complex and liquid you will be able to settle on the front end without necessarily incurring fees on the back end (like having a bankroll or a cage/cashier).

I suspect, and its a guess, the topology is not really predictable and that is the nature of it but its a microcosm of a free banking settlement system so there would be multiple layers of clearance specifically for the purpose of making "low value" transfer efficient and secure.

How would it not be? Using a different currency doesn't change the legality.

So in other words, it's illegal but you feel it can't be enforced. Fine.

You need to decide what your point is here. One post you talk about it being legal, then next ones it's technically illegal, then legal, then illegal but not enforceable.

Illegal but difficult to enforce seems like the one you should be sticking with.

Its true but only as a country changes the laws to say crypto is a currency a money. Some countries its quite easy, some it has other ramifications like tax considerations etc. The complexity is what causes countries to flip flop. Many did that or are in limbo. Ulimately its obviously a money but its true in a basic sense the laws really come into affect at exchange (for or from fiat).

So there are (for now) looser laws on just crypto to crypto trade. Just as a general trend, it varies. Some countries are banning icos, but its really a formality because its pretty difficult to track in a meaningful way.

Ya he's not quite saying it right, its really a trend and process of successive steps. Bitcoin is really good for governments and banks and they are learning it. Ico's are good for public hobbiests and for an investment opportunity we always wished the little guy got.

But its wild wild west and needs to evolve and will evolve regulatory frameworks etc.

I don't have to consider these things, I think the industry needs an open source core protocol to build on, and it doesn't involve money of any sort.

No, but using a different method of settling wins and losses might change the legality in a place where payment processing is illegal but playing isn't.

Well he doesn't express himself very well, but in the paragraph you quote he says a law could be written to ban actual playing rather than the more standard ban on on running a site offering poker to residents (including from elsewhere) which would make playing poker technically illegal. There are places that don't have such laws written at the present time.

Maybe some of you remember the name: Pangea Poker. It made some noise during the (rather short) NXT period. Pangea was initially developed in the Supernet Platform, which used the NXT platform tech to develop their services. They abandoned the NXT platform and now built their own platform: Komodo Platform.

Pangea uses the Privatebet (will be renamed to BET) technology, that allows people to make bets directly with each other in a decentralized way. Information on this is scarce, but as far as I know, BET is implementing a generic decentralized gaming platform and will be using CHIPS for the internal ledger of the in-game betting results. CHIPS will use the Lightning Network for fast transactions.

Like I said, information is still scarce, because only the basics have been developed and nothing substantial is made yet. More information, such as the whitepaper release, will be announced here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2078449.0

Exactly, at this time there is not a law that actually bans playing poker in your home, the ban is on the sites offering it. So playing on a p2p network in crypto currency appears to be legal if someone made it available.

Bobo fett, I get the impression you don't like me do you? lol. Maybe its because you're a starwars fan (I presume) and i'm a Bond fan, we're just different breeds!

WOW!... this will be nuts! ... but cryptos isn't massive atm ... but fur sure this is the next poker! I hope they have good rakeback and im in!

OK... after stumbling into the CoinPoker site last night for the first time and thinking more about what they are doing, my head is in process of assploding.

Firstly..Blockchain protocol (if I could call it that for sec) is going to revolutionize so many things, in the exact same way simple little old TCP/IP changed everything enabling the internet.

When several cryptos move a bit farther up the adoption curve from Innovator to Early adopter phase, and we have scores of trusted, market based solutions to lots of common banking problems using something other than a FIAT, then the world changes.

Im still wrapping my ahead around CoinPoker and bundling the launch of a ICO with a product (online poker). I'll have some more intelligent questions about this after I think about it a bit, but as I sit with current understanding.... mind officially blown.

for now my only question. Are there other examples in any market of using ICO launch strat of bundling coin with some product, any product ?

This is not the same as Brian Rast's venture?

Yes this. Now its not that I'm suggesting its legal full stop. But the reality about (constitutionally based) governments is that they are by the people and for the people. For many, Americans loosely included, this mean the gambling laws are aimed at the operators.

You are free to pursue your own selfish wants, provided you don't encroach on another freedom of pursuit. It is very difficult for a government to prosecute a person for player poker in their own home.

https://www.pokerwebsites.com/washington/

This and since its very easy to play undetected, the law is effectively arbitrary. I'd wager the law exists for other reasons than trying to catch average joe. Law is complex and happens for reasons other than politicians state (they have to sell it, not give the real reasons). It just LOOKS like there is an evil bad government that wants to take the freedom of people. Thats not actually how it works.

Takes awhile doesn't it. I had the pleasure of seeing the entirety of the evolution in a flash. It hurt.

Yes.

This happened a few years ago. The world changed well before anyone was paying attention. Now you have the IMF and all major central banks creating their own crypto coins. But you also have the top devs and knowledgeable people in crypto laughing, because it doesn't work that way and governments move law fast enough. Law doesn't move fast, even if government wants it too. The separation of duties/power ensures this.

In regard to a blown mind, we haven't touched the tip of the iceberg on this subject. I'm still dealing with people calling me a troll instead of trying to pick my brain to get to understanding the paradigm

There are hundreds probably thousands of ico's. For the most part they are too early to tell what is successful. Many products, some legacy, but some you can't do without a native token themselves like a prediction market. But I have always suggested poker will reform first, because we have the smartest population in regard to game theory, and we have the densest network socially.

We could really enact change on our industry over night in regard to the pressure that even a small amount of liquidity would create. Legacy site haven't been forecasting this change, they are forecasting optimal conditions that don't include actually emerging competition.

Thanks for this. I will traverse it today. JL77 seems moral, I have run into them in the past. But typically they are talking pipe dreams. nxt was a bigger pipe dream than ethereum (which i support). It has laudable goals. But the goal of a good software solution should be to render the problem such that you can create a very small demo and build on that. It's a longer process but you get incremental TANGIBLE results.

Projects like nxt are trying to reform the entire world before they truly launch and thats not the way to do it imo.

I could never get good communication with the pangea team and all I found was a user interface for poker, a lot of projects first start out to make the poker game which is the exact wrong approach. There are already infinite poker skins out there, they are easy to create.

The underlying back end solution is the difficult part, and I haven't seen any projects except one that are working on it from that direction. If JL77 builds a poker project on komodo is that really decentralized?

See this has to be approached properly...but also from the view of an ACTUALLY poker player....that was my job. Some projects are consulting with me (I have never received money), and other projects are massively missing the mark.

Sure, that has the potential to get around the UIGEA. What about the laws of every other country (and the one or two states that do have laws against playing online poker)? You started this whole conversation off with the premise that it must be possible for a p2p solution to make it possible to play in any country without breaking any laws, which is just silly. Then you've gone back and forth on whether it would be legal, or just difficult to stop. All I'm saying is that your initial premise is very flawed, and you should stick with the idea that this could make online poker compliant with laws in some places, and the law harder to enforce in others.

But I feel like this has become something of a derail at this point, so I'll try to step away.

It would be pretty silly of me to dislike someone I don't even know simply because I disagree with their posts. You're reading much more into my posts than is there.

That may be the case in your home state, but it isn't the case in all US States and there are also countries in the world (and this is site is international in scope) where participating in gambling is punished by public physical punishment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4618595.stm

Like Bobo Fett says, stick to the idea that it may make it legal in some places, and laws harder to enforce in others.

For myself, I'm usually careful to make the distinction by pointing to constitutionally based countries which would be a major start if they could be pooled together. Assuming the purpose of a constitution is, in some form, to limit the powers of the government down to "protecting the people".

I think its relevant to point out that if there were countries in which the existence of online gambling was creating a net capital outflow, this would probably be accompanied by corresponding pressure on the government (and the agents that carry out their laws) to enact laws that protect that capital.

The inverse would be true as well, or in other words if there was a net capital inflow (perhaps a country where all the best players in the world resided), this would probably put favorable pressure on the laws.

If the games were dry overall the landscape was such that one mega company (or a coalition of a few smaller companies) was pulling capital from all nations, this would have a drain on the industry as a whole in regard to the friction of regulation.

It's also perhaps interesting to note that in countries where their fiat is inflating heavily, it might be almost worthwhile to gamble for terms of, for example, american dollars (holding one's money in an alternative savings that has increasing value is a good strategy line in and of itself). But this inflating money wouldn't be favorable money for other players and operators to "win" even if such players ARE net depositors.

I think then if the projected outcome is that bitcoin will have an overall positive effect (or negative effect) on the overall value of our respective fiat currencies then this effect might alter the landscape of the regulatory battle players of the world face.

FYP, by and large, gaming/betting regulatory battles are faced by businesses/operators, not "mere bettors/players"

Perhaps as though they are "players" of their own games, and perhaps acting as agents (that could be good agents or malevolent agents) acting on behalf of the players.

An operator that brings a domestic net inflow would creator favorable laws domestically I would assume, and then in the regulatory battle, the taxes on the nation they are attacking could be used to deter such an attack. Or it could be more mutually favorable but probably not if their is significant drain.

Quite Machiavellian considerations I think.

(and yes to Venezuela as an example!)

you kind of freak me out when you keep coming back to this.

ITT I thought we were talking about a new technology protocol (you know the one) and how / if P2POperators might leverage it to offer real money poker games around the world.

Do you really see this specific topic as a constitutional law matter or is it just a gaming law matter?

I just don't get why people keep going on about the laws in various states and countries. One you have a p2p application on your pc you are anonymous on the p2p network and connected directly to other peoples pc's running the same application (you are not on the internet and connected to a specific server) so regardless of where you are in the world you can use the app and not be identified so even if it was against the law in a particular place it couldn't be enforced. Its like with eMule for file sharing. I'm surprised no one has come up with an eMule for poker yet to be honest.

Our gaming laws are a function or extensions of our constitutions. As the population favors games the laws will change with that favor. So there is a relevant relationship there.

Everyone else in this thread is speaking of today's reality and the choices that are arising right now rather than a hypothetical future. Nonetheless a small but definitive shift in the dialogue and psychology of the general population, mixed with the leverage a few emerging projects and technology could have an impact with an accelerated migration towards change. Wherever that change ends up to be headed.