you didnt answer which goal is primary. they lead down different paths.

edit. If in fact coinpoker was in talk with any regulator... I'd suspect the convo ended abruptly when they talked about their ICO capital raise model.

no idea about Virtue. their strategy is still vague to me.

I think optimal is to build a protocol that serves both and I think it is intrinsic in the solution. In the meantime we are seeing hybrid models test and push the regulations. So there is sort of pressure from many angles.

thats fighting a war on several expensive fronts, but not impossible .



all conjecture on my part, but with their ICO model hard to believe a regulator would hold any serious discussion with Coin.

Virtue is still vague so maybe they are. But if they are, Consensys exec team would have to go thru some level of personal licensing. not so hard in some places. total PITA in others

Are there other new operators in the mix?

Ill pipe down and see if any others have comments / ideas.

If we take Gzesh's sentiments we can see that regulators have a choice whether they want to regulate and be relevant or lose out to an emerging unregulated (unregulateable) industry. So there is sort of great incentive for regulators to come to the table (in a somewhat friendly manner too).

In regard to a "war" I think it was predictable in the past but that we are in the midst of watching it unfold today.

Not what I was saying really.

1. This thread is about P2P poker, a different proposition than other decentralized gambling services.

2. I do think decentralized poker is a favorite to get licensed by "some regulator" sooner than 5 years out from today.

3. However, if you try to read into my estimate any sentiment that some regulator will be acting out of fear of losing relevance to the poker industry specifically, you misjudge the relative volume/value/revenue of different igaming channels.

4.Decentralized P2P sports wagering offers a much more competitive model versus other provider models and also higher value to a regulator than would poker. Same for decentralized casino-style games.

5. Getting licensed would not ensure that any particular gaming model would be a competitive successful model. P2P decentralized poker offerings, unless technology improves and acceptable game speed is enabled, will be hard-pressed to compete against traditional, server based poker offerings, especially versus those server-based offerings which welcome use of crypto for deposits/cashouts.

Just some points of clarification as to what I see in my tea leaves. Carry on.

Its really helpful having your contributions.

We are well beyond the speed problem. Hands are played via any fast messaging by way of lightning transactions (state channels on ethereum). It's as fast as any internet connection. You digitally sign your action and commit it with your signature. The action doesn't touch the blockchain. There is no speed limitation.

I am somewhat familiar with lightning, including its potential for speeding up execution of al sorts of transactions P2P that would otherwise sit on the somewhat expensive and relatively slow (vis a vis poker game speed demands) BTC blockchain.

Lightning is a very interesting approach for gaming, one which underlies why I said < 5 years out.

https://lightning.network/

"Lightning Network
Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

Transactions for the Future
Instant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds.
Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.
Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments."

Its rapid development, including recent "atomic swaps" across cryptos is also encouraging, but I can't agree that decentralized poker is "well beyond the speed problem".

Same for Raiden, a similar concept ETH based speed solution.

Yes you open an escrow backed agreement that says "the hand will be paid out to the winner based on verification". Then each action is simply "I bet x" plus an unforgeable signature. This goes back and forth via a messenger server. It's as instant as anything.

Theoretically it certainly is. Lightning will take some time because bitcoin evolves slowly. I'm pretty sure cypherpoker already utilizes this. Not sure any other projects have an implementation. Coinpoker has a different model. Acebusters intends to, and I think virtue intends to.

In the early 2000s, about every three months, someone new would show up to play poker in some casino in Costa Rica and tell everyone about their new gaming software, which was the greatest ever. They were stuck in "theoretically".

There is a wide gap between theoretical and operational, and an even wider gap between operational and competitive in the market. These gaps can all be overcome, but "theoretical" is not way beyond anything.

Theoretical "has potential", but it doesn't scoop the pot ...... except in the world of scooping up ICO cash.

That's a practical observation, however, sometimes I think a strong theory or conjecture can bring a type of change in and of itself. I just mean to make the point about “speed” that its not reliant or limitation based on a block-chain. The speed is easily there. The technology is new, but it exists. And as I understand cypher poker has a demo that uses state channels (acebusters was working on one not sure how far they are).

On the topic of the theoretical, this thread really is important because it paints the proper perspective needed for “decentralization”. The players can't really expect one of these new projects to solve “decentralization” as they are intrinsically centralized. This is why, for example, Coinpoker isn't exploring a proper p2p mental poker algorithm and why Virtue Poker has no demo for theirs.

Lastly, and still in regard to theory, an observation that might be interesting to explore:
In our case today players haven't learned to demand "rakebake" or perhaps shares or chips of a project be tradable on exchanges. Nonetheless the industry seems to be migrating towards this end. The prices might act as signals for the quality of offerings (chips, RB, Shares, or any of each etc.) and this would increase the liquidity of the players looking for better "deals".

FYP

The theory exists that something can be done, perhaps "easily". Whether there is an actual technology, that can put out a market competitive product, for poker services or other gaming services, is by no means assured to be "there" as easily. Nor is the assumption that, in industries like poker, such a decentralized product or service is likely to be competitive versus other models, which themselves will be evolving.

If anything should be clear about the remote gaming industry, it would be that continual evolution and adaptation are part of any successful competitive enterprise's DNA. The "legacy" industry will hardly be static in response to new competition.

I've played hands using ethereum state channels. I'm not arguing that its fully developed tried tested and true, just that it's beyond the theorizing state where we are still arguing whether or not its possible.

This I agree with this completely, it's part of the premise.

Nice clip. That was at ICE in London, a huge turnout

Regulators are "aware" of technology, I sat down with gaming folks from the Isle of Man, Alderney, and Malta that same day several years ago to discuss payment processing attributes of Bitcoin. They had varying degrees of knowledge, but the IOM folks were certainly up to speed.

The topic was BTC as an acceptable method for processing payments, not a decentralized blockchain-based gaming engine. Those are two very different topics for regulatory discussion. Back then, other than SatoshiDICE, there were not really notable decentralized game engine operators.

Regulatory "awareness" may be a long way from understanding or appreciation of a new technology. In 2002 I recall meeting with an advisor to Progressive Gaming, who was at the time engaged by Sheldon Adelson of all people when the Venetian's Canadian sub held a license from Alderney, , to discuss regulatory response to then emerging online gambling. He related that one regulatory review literally asked that a port to the server being demonstrated be covered with a piece of tape, to prevent unauthorized access.

This made me happy and then sad very quickly.

Perhaps I just don't understand, but @Nooseknot, you seem to be solving problems that don't exist.

Do you believe there is a substantial enough player pool out there ready, willing, and able to support this decentralized poker model? I just want to toss in a couple hundo or so for the Sunday Million. How do?

People that could play on Pokerstars or some other platform, but they just don't trust "the man" will be fine now with playing on a new platform because it's decentralized and it's secure, trust us? This does not even account for basic risks that I'm not sure have really been addressed like in-hand collusion. How is that to be prevented or remedied? Are identities known or multiple accounts allowed?

Regulations prevent some people from playing on some platforms. If this is just another flavor of online poker how is it going to stand out? Lower rake sounds great for people who understand what rake means. These are not the people that keep games going. Learn, chat and play with the pros. If it's just a depositing end-run, then other options are already established.

The answer to everything isn't just "blockchain"

Yeah, I made a similar point a few days ago, that the problems this is best at solving haven't been a major issue to this point, and he seemed to agree.

While I think it's great that other avenues like this are being explored, I'm not convinced that the masses are going to flock to it simply because of decentralization.

I have to disagree. I believe this is a bit short sighted. Decentralized model is a radical step and might be hard to embrace, especially for those that have been around online poker for a long time. But I don't think a new generation of players will have a hard time embracing it, on the contrary, it might make it more attractive for many. In some shape or form IMO this will be the future of online poker if online poker has any. It is the only way to offer a game of skill where skill is not negated by rake and other factors designed to cannibalize player's capital in the poker echo system. Which is the direction centralized legacy model is heading in at the moment.

Where did you learn this, why are you so accurate?

this I totally agree with.

I have to disagree with your disagree.

To date the primary benefits alluded to for decentral model have been

1) Provably more secure shuffle/ RNG

2) Reduced costs for P2POperator

3) More competition in the market. Skill based vs not. rake issues.

#1... just isn't a big issue for anyone except rigtards. The rigtards will only increase their rigtardness under a decentral model. They will not understand the improved technology and just assume they are getting screwed. That's what rigtards do.

#2... is still not proven, but has been discussed.

#3... is a function of many things aside from decentral vs central model. Increased number of functional sites will increase competition. Decentral could bring more functional sites, or maybe not. That will depend on the value proposition decentral sites offer players. A decentral site with no meaningful market share will notchange any competitive dynamics in the market.

The primary player focused value prop offered thus far is a more secure RNG/Shuffle. While that is technically true, 'that dog don't hunt' for me as value prop.

Vast majority of players dont believe that to be an issue.

I'm a player and I think RNGs at all the major, regulated sites are just fine.

Yup. I"m certainly not selling the idea that #1 is significant from the players eyes (although thats coinpokers main value proposition). Our premise here is #2 creates #3

The question of player migration is cruxed on the boycott dilemma. How do you migrate the intelligent and influential players when they can't unilaterally deviate and gain (when the good players leave, the games they leave get softer and good players care about profitability). So you have two equilibriums. The legacy equilibrium player network and then a future decentralized poker equilibrium player network. The latter is more valuable to all of the players but you cannot count on foresight and altruism to move the population.

Nonetheless I think a proper bearing point is created. And induction (of the mathematical type rather than philosophical) allow us to make use of this bearing. Like a form of a bridge that is useful for the design and development but becomes ultimately unnecessary.

The problem creates the question, "How do you solve the boycott dilemma problem?"

Or in other words, game theoretically, how do you move a population from a lower equilibrium to a higher payoff equilibrium? This is the question any intelligent player should be asking and trying to solve.

I recommend you read The Logic of Collective Action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lo...lective_Action

You are assuming a value in the new network which does not yet exist prior to the condition you seek, i.e. migration of players.

(Prior to igaming, etc. I represented labor interests in a variety of industries. In poker terms, players are the labor force even in a dual role as the customers; Regs moreso than recs.)

The question you pose is no different in competition among legacy poker rooms, adding in decentralization as a product feature changes little.

The common mechanism has been rakeback or similar rewards for volume of play.

Fwiw, major rakeback programs likely already offer players crypto payouts from affiliates, the "unregulated" marketing arm of the regulated industry.

You are perfectly on point Gzesh and provided a parallel example of the "boycott dilemma problem".

Virtue poker just posted this paper "Instantaneous Decentralized Poker" https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06726

My understanding is that they have changed their roadmap with the addition of one or more of the authors to that paper to their team (waiting on clarification). The implementation of that paper is the "nooseprotocol".

Found the book and am skimming through it: https://moodle.drew.edu/2/pluginfile...%28book%29.pdf This is the thesis or at least most relevant point no doubt:

This problem should be quite familiar to any player that studies game theory.

So the question arises, who led the "impossible to succeed" player boycotts?

And naturally, what type of coercion or special device could be used to mobilize the players network?

noose. please read this a few times because its been presented several times and you keep sidestepping.

does the noose protocol have value and should it come to be.... yes.

but I agree with Gzesch, its hard to understand how it will bring about the changes you want to see (more profitable games where skill play is rewarded) in any sort of meaningful timeframe.

There are too many other competitive forces at play in online poker market that trump the technical superiority of the solution and impact profitability of play.


EDIT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY. why you do keep talking about player boycotts ? they are barely even tangentially important.

I disagree with your analysis. Did you lead the player boycotts? Who lead them? Because the strategy was not game theoretically sound. It was completely ignorant to game theory. The population was in an equilibrium and a propaganda campaign went around calling for players to act against rational self interest. That is complete ignorance to game theory and the quote above from the book Gzesh recommended.

And now you are saying there is no solution and/or the problem is too complex.

It's a very simple problem. Why did a community full of "game theorists" get swept up in an absurd strategy line? Who were the leaders?