I said "Someone more reputable than me offered to approach joey on my behalf".

And i didn't dig on joey. I said I already know he doesn't understand this content and thinks its spam.

oh my bad.

and if you are interested in continuing your crash course in regulatory, after grunching the simple standard above, peruse this one. Cause its the one more germane to topic. This is just one example and will likely serve many states in the USA. Various jurisdictions have other ones. You would start to see similarities if you were to look at more of them.

http://www.gaminglabs.com/pdfs/GLI-19_Interactive_Gaming_Systems_v2.0_Final.pdf

I can accept bitcoin or ETH as payment.

(I should disclose that I accepted a $1 retainer payment from the Virtue poker creator when he wanted to ask me a question a long time ago, but do not represent them at this point or recently. Still have the dollar.)

Perfect. I'll send you $20 to so we can ask and get answers to 20 legal questions ITT I'll let others ask the questions. Ill keep count and reload if we get past 20. Deal?

See how our constitutions protect us?

So imagine then a p2p storage system, this is also tech we have now, and we then relate it to a blockchain. Normally adding a block chain as a solution is redundant and so we might not have thought to fit this paper gives me and idea and an understanding of where you are speaking from. You have the problem of hand verification/store and needing honest nodes which produce honest immutable accounting results. The nodes get paid from the rake and secure the appropriate data needed for analytical purposes. I'd make the blanket statement there is nothing in that document that this system wouldn't make more secure and safe from a regulatory perspective. I skimmed it, so if you think you have a counterexample let me know.

This is somewhat a new thought btw, I never realized this, it could be that a blockchain is needed to comply and none of the projects would have realized this. It's just accounting and a database, but also you add p2p storage. The blockchain verifies the storage etc.

Nonetheless I see nothing in there that prevents such a protocol from being used instantly. It seems worded perfectly to accept evolving technology that is provably more secure.

I have no idea about the costs involved here - neither the financial costs, nor the lag "costs" of having an entirely peer-to-peer network. Balancing the various competing issues here is about balacing different trade offs, and I'm not familiar with the underlying computer network issues here. I'm not a programmer or cryptographer, I'm focused on in-game poker security (ie, stopping players from cheating each other through collusion, etc.).
Hah, this is NVG, I wouldn't take any of it too seriously
I'm not familiar, obviously, with the detail of whatever project you were involved, but I agree deeply that these things are awfully complicated and take a chunk of time to think through properly.

Section 2.5.... Client Software ?? dunno. just scanned myself and that jumped out.

BUT... before you spend your time on regulatory matters, please consider this is one of a dozen of tech standards that are going to need to be dealt with to "comply".

Here is the one for Nevada... Which is different than the one from NJ.. which is different than the one from UK... which is different than the one from France... on and on.

Nevada btw way would require the "developer(s)" of the protocol to get a personal gaming license (takes 1+ year, $20,000 - $50,000 per person and biggest PITA imaginable) along with the P2POperator that uses the protocol. Not sure how NGCB is gonna deal with the new world order of collaborative open source projects where nobody owns the code and everybody owns the code. Their heads will insta ASSPLODE.

Also please keep in mind that in regulatory, the Agency has ALL the power. Unlike our larger legal system, gaming regulators are the judge, jury and executioner. Gaming licence is a privilege not a right. Burden of proof is on tech provider to PROVE they meet standards, not on agency to prove they don't.

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdoc...ocumentid=2942




MUCH MUCH MORE importantly please don't get bogged down in regulatory and I dont mean to derail the discussion. Your time and energy along with people ITT could be better spent on bringing this technology forward vs pulling your hair out analyzing tech gaming standards.

(but please stop saying a P2POperator could use the protocol AND comply. Because they cant without considerable time (years) and lots of money (many many many cheeseburgers).

A p2p truly decentralized model could enable something that grows to be the largest poker "network" in the world and NOT be regulated. I think that should be the focus. Its the path the pseudo decentralized sites Virtue and CoinPoker have taken.


(ps. but if you want to keep debating about regulatory with me we can do that to. Its fun for me cuz I will most likely win all those debates against you , but your efforts could be better spent on more important topics/discussions.)

PTLou, I think you are still thinking aloud, or rather you need to catch up. These reg docs you are linking are perfect examples that support my points. You aren't putting it all together. The "nooseprotocol" doesn't need licensing. It is not a gaming platform. An operator uses it for shuffling dealing rng etc. They still have their own front and an operations. So they go to a commission and make sure they comply. The nooseprotocol is a regulatory bodies dream. It is a perfectly accountable database that provides a perfectly fair game. This is the reg bodies mandate to ensure is available.

You are new with the concept but I think you are also thinking generally and not looking at the actual rules on the pages you are linking. This is fair dealing and accounting software.

Unless you mean to say that the reg body will ban it because it makes some of their job obsolete? That would be conspiracy though.

Compare the components of Virtue Poker to any section in your links: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...78&postcount=9

Maybe you aren't interested in answering and haven't read through the thread also. Here I mean to assume that you have shuffling and dealing and a gameplay engine/interface that runs off a core protocol. Assume its perfect in every way. The only difference is that many projects work off of it.

This premise is thought to be possible if the choice of core protocols is such that many projects WOULD be incentivized to use it and contribute to its development.

So I asked you, because I thought you would have a better idea than the rest in this thread, what is the difference in cost of launching if you had a magical software that does all the gameplay perfectly, securely, and compliantly. All the new operator needs is the front end etc and licenses. Comparing that with say Galfond as our example of someone starting up completely traditionally with none of the new tech.

just stop saying a P2POperator can use the nooseprotocol AND elect to comply with major regulated markets today, because they cant. I can explain but I cant understand this stuff for you.

A P2POperator that uses the protocol AND wants to operate as a licensee in a regulated market has to be licensed.

When regulators see the protocol in use as part of the tech stack, they will ask who wrote / owns that? In the world we live in today, the protocol and people associated with that then get pulled into licensing. Using a simple example of Nevada thats a fact not my opinion.

I have no idea what magical perfect software costs. I don't even know what imperfect, real, software costs. I don't have much of an idea of such things.

However, I doubt that magical, perfect, absolutely, secure software is even possible, let alone that it exists. There's a pretty strong track record in bugs existing in all sorts of software that were previously believed to be "secure", and that's why I believe an effective security system relies upon security in depth, not just one line of defence that is (often mistakenly) believed to be perfectly secure.

I have no special knowledge of what the Run It Once team are looking to launch, or how they're planning on doing it. I did, however, see that the guy who was previously their Chief Operating Officer has been recently appointed as their Managing Director, so I imagine that these sorts of challenges are on his mind.

In my question you don't need to know the cost of the magical software, because its provided for free. It doesn't have bugs, its magical. Bitcoin works like this, it is the most secure software in the world. So we are in a thought experiment about this exiting in regard to to a card game protocol.


The example is meant to be a comparison to the tradiction server based model. Coinpoker is a hybrid and lies somewhere in between. There must have be some cost saved if you don't have to provide an rng to be audited in special ways. You "rng" is provably secure by nature (ie so you don't have a photon generator locked in a room with security key pads).

So we are asking the cost between a startup that has a magical perfectly secure dealing protocol with provably fair rng, versus a startup that doesn't have this.

You showed me 2 examples of reg rules to be followed the protocol doesn't break a single one, that I can find. You haven't provided a single example (client software is perfectly complied with). Highlight a rule you think it breaks because your last example wasn't one.

$31,450, fact.

Nooseknot,

I'm not able to answer your question about hypothetical situations; Sorry for not being able to help you here.

Are you saying the operator would need to pay 31k? That is perfectly and obviously fine. Operating off the noose protocol doesn't prevent that.

Ok. So you are saying, you are clueless to the startup and operation costs of any poker operation including your own?

I could but...

#1 you are asking the wrong questions.

#2 you are asking the wrong questions.


simplify your problem, just build for unregulated world . regulated world we can layer in later

Its the wrong question to ask you to show me one single section or rule that the protocol isn't' in perfect compliance with?

fine. I will do this one time for you. Can I use Nevada as a test case jurisdiction? They are all different you know !

Come on. I'm saying what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need for you to put words in my mouth or come up with fictitious interpretations of what I wrote, because what I wrote is just above for anyone to read.

I think the members of this forum - including myself - would benefit more from you sharing your ideas in a dialogue rather than treating this as some sort of interrogation of other posters.

I thought we did you already posted the docs. But yes, lets be specific about some rules that you think noose protocol couldn't/wouldn't comply to.
I must not understand. Do we have access to anyone we know that would know the difference between the startup costs of a traditional model versus one that is provided a secure p2p card dealing protocol?

I posted a single set of rules from a single jurisdiction. There are many others.

Just want to define your question as it relates to a single jurisdiction so I can do this i a few minutes, and yes i can get very specific. Are we in agreement that we can use Nevada as a test case?

Beyond that, I'm with Gzesch.. will require retainer for me to practice gaming law here, (maybe a law degree for me as well... dunno)

Yes we can use nevada as a test case.

I can assure NGCB heads assplode right here as new P2P Operator attempts explain the new protocol they use , where it came from, who coded it, who maintains it , who owns etc etc etc. Burden of everything is on them, not NGCB. They are not obligated to know or care about new paradigms.


that took me 11 minutes. good gaming atty makes $400 / hour. So although I agreed to do did this for free, If I was actually a gaming attorney ( I am not) I would be owed :

USD 73.33, or
EUR 62.13, or
BTC .009293 or
CHP 1240 (thats the new coin from CoinPoker ICO. According to their website its currently worth .05 EUR. IF thats true, they've already made EUR 3,100,000 for themselves and havent yet dealt their 1st hand of real money poker)

It would be trivial to make actually software used only accessible but they actual commision body itself. Or any specific person or group. You haven't understood.

This perfectly explains that the commissioner could immediately approve the software. Since its 100% secure and 100% auditable I would suggest to you they would favor it over centralized models.

You have to ask yourself, how can noose say this could be controlled by a key only the reg body has? It's quite obvious, but you don't seem to be listening. There is nothing in there that this protocol doesn't ultra comply too. They are there for security and fairness purposes, the protocol is provably fair and secure and publically auditable as such.