I can see where this could make sense for new start-ups - there could be some savings in not needing as much infrastructure. But Stars already has that infrastructure. Of course, there is a cost to maintaining, upgrading, etc. But the savings to them would not be as great as it would be for new poker sites. And there would be a cost to making a switch. IOW, I don't think the case is that clear to do so, at least with the information (more like lack thereof) that you and I have about the costs involved.

I'm not sure what this really means. How does the fact that Bitcoin is increasing in value help new sites' advertising budgets? I suppose if they have their seed money in Bitcoin, it's gone up in value, but Stars could also purchase Bitcoin and gain from this increase. Or am I missing your meaning?

We need the numbers. Who can we call into here that can give proper numbers to this?

No I think you are nailing it. But did you suggest poker stars bought bitcoin? They aren't serving their customers with the option we know that. they aren't claiming it on their books etc. right? Josem never told them he was studying the subject of emerging poker tech evolution.

No one that I know of.

I'm not suggesting anything about what Poker Stars has done. My point is that you are mixing two completely different and unrelated things. We were talking about potential new decentralized sites vs. Poker Stars as they are now, and you brought into this that these new sites will have larger advertising budgets because Bitcoin has increased in value. My point is that this assumed increase in budget isn't related to them being decentralized. It's based on an assumption of yours that they're holding on to Bitcoin, which is something anyone or any site could be doing.

Your need to bring Josem into so many of your posts is...odd.

noose you are talking in circles (again) and derailing your own progress.

I have no direct knowledge as to why RIO never launched, but I think its safe to say it was NOT the cost of servers and server room and everything that goes with that.

It was much more likely to be the the cost of licensing and regulatory.

Please just let the Stars server room video go !!!!! You may not realize it , but its largely irrelevant to what you are trying to achieve.

Developing in the " blockchain" right now is anything but cheap. Assuming you can find one, blockchain developers currently cost what 2x? 3X? 4x? 5x? normal .net, c++ type developers ?

What are the metrics that you are using for this assessment?

You are conflating decentralized with serveless (and in coinpoker's cause pseudo provably fair rng).

You've suggested its plausible or possible Poker Stars was also holding a significant amount of capital/wealth in bitcoin. Do you feel this is on the books or not on the books? How we would we resolve that they just 10x'd their savings but not having added a payment processing option for bitcoin? Isle of man is nearly leading the world in liberality of regulation in this regard. Nearly all nations they serve allow crypto currency based business. Whats the hold up? Its extremely cheap and easy to set up.

I think we KNOW poker stars has no bitcoin and if they do, I'm sure the investors would like to know. As I understand they have to disclose these things.

It might make more sense going forward.

Coinpoker just raised 6 million which is now probably worth closer to 10. Next month it will probably be worth closer to 20.

Can you HONESTLY not see the difference between phil galfond's sunk cost fallacy and a project that just paid for itself?

Patrick did it for free. Bitcoin was done for free. You are out of touch with reality. The programmers do not cost "more" nor is the net benefit less.

.NET code monkeys aren't costly, and not all blockchains require solidity experience. Stratis is a perfect example of a low barrier to entry if you want to hire a bunch freelancers.

Bitcon's price when from $780 to $16,000 in the last year. As I said, its observable reality:

PLEASE POST MOOOOOARRRR!!!

The money they raised is worth more then they will ever earn with hair brained gobbledy guuk you projectile vomit itt.

Gzesh, you accused me of making a mistake, but the mistake is yours, we need retraction here.

I notice you chose an ad hominemy type approach rather than actually making a counter point.

I noticed you're a puss!

Care to explain what Bitcoin price has to do with a poker site's market share?

lets say a poker site makes 1 bitcoin per day 1 year ago, thats 700 usd. Let's say they make the same amount today, thats nearly 20k usd. The net cap of the bitcoin poker sites might have been x a year ago, its 10x now. You aren't denying anything. You are tactically implying you are denying something, but that implication is obviously observably wrong.

The "money" (ie wealth) in poker just shifted dramatically, observably, and obviously. That you deny that the bitcoin poker sites are 10 times richer and their profits have not increased proportionally is a denial of fact.

We need Gzesh to rescind his false accusation. It is false and I was right. He called me out.

So ... which poker sites are currently taking rake in Bitcoin, and what's your estimate of their combined market share at current Bitcoin prize?

They just 10x'd. I don't think you are making any reasonable points. And I suspect you have NO idea about the bitcoin poker industry. Is this true? Are you posting from a vantage point of complete ignorance on this subject? This would help me address your questions to know.

You haven't alluded to any inaccuracies in my statements but your are implying that you are.

Pokerstars no longer has a de facto monopoly, they have lost their lions share of the control and equity of the markets. And this phenomenon is increasing at an awesome pace.

Go on....



p.s. Since noose has gone full on Marshmallow mode again, and with BTC price discussion now in intertwined in otherwise focused thread, thread is about to get unreadable.

I am responding to and debunking silly assertions and denial. I am far more inclined to agree Pokerstars won't adopt serverless technology than I would that they still have control of their de facto monopoly. In regard to the cost of software programming, the basis and nature of it is that it gets less labour intensive and less costly over time, not more. That is the purpose and function of it. I have already programmed in this language. I have already been involved with projects and traversed implementations of this protocol. Your assertions are wrong, not based on fact, and full of ignorance.

Who are "they"?

Please list a few sites which "just 10x'd."

Admit you are ignorant on the subject or claim otherwise and we can continue, otherwise you are just trolling.

I really don't know how to make my point any clearer, but you're missing it by a million miles. I don't know or care what Stars is or isn't doing with Bitcoin. I'm simply suggesting that the value of the currency a poker site holds its funds in is completely independent of whether the site is decentralized, serverless, or anything else. That's it.

His "accusation" was that you were wrong about something. Perhaps he's incorrect, I'm not sure, but there's no requirement of retraction or rescinding.

Seems like you've reverted back to your old and very unproductive ways. Just answer his question or don't; your game-playing isn't getting anyone anywhere.

A decentralized poker site cannot hold all its value in a single inflationary currency ducy?

Then we are allowing baseless and wrong accusations to stand. The interesting part is he called me out for being wrong... I would suspect that the virtuous thing to do would be to admit the mistake. Otherwise this thread is just full of people that are less knowledgeable than me making assertions I am wrong when I am not. Gzesh has a reputation. I don't. It is quite meaningful when he asserts I am wrong when I am not. And just as so when he corrects his mistake publically.

That poster has implied that my statements about the 10x growth of the bitcoin/crypto poker industry is not factual and baseless, and they have implied that it has not affected pokerstars market share and monopoly status. They are continuing, in a disingenuous fashion, in light of the obvious stats, that I did in fact post.

It is not me being derisive.

If they are curious and want to further intelligent discussion they could curiously ask what the stats are. But this is not their tone and they are not adding productive style inquiries to the dialogue.

Someone from isle of man has been regularly reading my essays/blog on the subject of the decentralization of poker through p2p technology, over the last few years, and it coincidences with Josem's time there (and the time he wasn't there etc.). I have analytics/statistics that show this.

So my assumption is that it was him, or pokerstars employees. Which isn't a stretch since the isle of man is effectively very crypto friendly and savvy.

Server, storage, and data costs for enterprises the size of Pokerstars have never been cheaper. It would take more than a million dollars worth of software developer time to develop and test a decentralized solution, never mind the headache of convincing your customers that they should be totally fine with their resources powering your business model. (which is also just a hilarious notion to anyone who has ever worked for an actual software company. That conversation alone will destroy you).

Also you are totally neglecting the most critical role here, which are the project management and architecture roles. Your posts belie a complete lack of understanding for how quality software is actually written.