@Gzesh. I'm capable of making basic errors, I really am.

This is the relevant response:
(and you certainly don't work for the government, or certainly not in a centralized fashion)

My response remains the same. And andy's account is still curious in that he doesn't admit that poker players love bitcoin and what it "does".

Liking something doesn't make it viable.

It does when they like it because its viable.

Mods generally do not give warnings in the middle of threads, but I will make an exception in this case.

Let's ease off on the snarkiness.

This topic is important (at the very least potentially) for the poker community and deserves to be discussed in a reasonable manner. Even if there are some people who are strong advocates and others who are skeptics, let's keep the discussion civil.

Thank you very much.

I don't think it would be upsetting for Haven for me to bring to public today that he put pressure on me for lying when he later admitted that it was essentially my grammer he misunderstood.

I'm being quite factual, and reasonable. And I must sincerely state I'm not capable of guarding my profile in regard to my use of language. But I don't take your warning as a threat (and perhaps its not perfectly directed at me). Maybe someone alerted you, maybe you have followed some of the recent dialogue.

I must be allowed to call it as it is. I have to be glaringly accurate.

"Like' and 'viable" relate to each other only in terms of what prospective customers "like". Back like 1,000 years ago in 2001, when we launched an online poker business, the product was a "different" way to play poker. Enough people liked it to make it viable, and it attracted a lot of interest from people who had never ventured into a casino or cardroom. (Personally, I like live poker much more than the online ux.)

That I liked what I later saw regarding BTC had no bearing its viability. When I was asked to look at bitcoin in 2012, as a payments tool, I saw great potential and volunteered to speak on gaming industry applications at the first Bitcoin Foundation conference, held in 2013. While my remarks kept mixing "bitcoin" with what later was understood as the "blockchain technology", I'll stand by most of what I said about the promise and advantages both the coin, and by inference decentralized technology, held for the online gaming industry.

Viability for specific uses or applications also changes over time.

At the time I think the USD price was around $40, and I learned in San Jose one gambling operator accounted for something like 80% of all blockchain transactions. He was operating in a manner that would be cost prohibitive today but made elegant sense at that price point, even with an entirely decentralized blockchain-dependent, provably-fair gaming and transactions model.

This is wrong. There is no problem pointed out here. If bitcoin poker site x offers bitcoin poker, there is nothing that is being argued correctly in regard to the growth of this side of industry. Bitcoin grew 10x this year and so did this side of the industry. The profits grew, caps grew, players bankrolls grew, spending grew, etc. Sites don't all of a sudden run into fee problems and stop increasing their profits. They make the equivalent bitcoin profits and thus gain financial related power in the industry. U have asserted something is correct but its not.

It's not a mistake, that segment of the industry grew proportionally and the increased fees do not at all necessarily get passed on to the site. Sir, you are incorrect and have not pointed out a flaw in my thinking/explanation. Pokerstars has lost its monopoly its market share has shrunk dramatically. If we cannot admit this then we cannot have dialogue based on logical ground.

I always talk about state channels and smart contracts. We should understand the simpler form which is lightning channels. Bitcoin is expensive and slow....

However, you can "timelock" a final settlement amount, somewhat like the entire spending limit of a credit card. The purpose is really in case the receiver "dies"-you can reverse the transaction if the receiver times out.

Then you can digitally sign unforgeable IOU's and send them via fast messaging/text etc.

The receiver gets incrementing IOU's (up to the spending limit) and can only cash in 1 of those to the block chain.

We can extend this concept to poker actions quite naturally as poker is effectively played via fast messaging/text.

https://casinocoin.org/coinswap/

This project will comply. And it is still perfectly suited to utilize the noose protocol and integrate it with the ripple based project. There would be no extra regulatory considerations.

The biggest issue here is assuming decentralization is the future when aggregation is the backbone of the internet. Serverless poker will never exist because the blockchain is a database that MUST be hosted somewhere, and if it's not a company it's the end user. Spreading out power consumption is one thing, but this futuristic hogwash has gone too far. ITT you've managed to put a bow-tie on a brown bag full of ****.

The future of poker is simple to understand. States and countries eventually legalize it or they won't. If they do, companies will pay a licensing fee and offer the service. Where does your unlicensed operator fit in when its easy to buyin and cashout with real $ through a card already in your wallet? Oh wait, the licensed operators will opt for a bloated and expensive cryptopayment network to attract all those underbanked Venezuelans right?

Both examples of licensed and unlicensed versions of p2p poker offerings exist already. You are filling this dialogue with trash and ignorance. We are WELL beyond the point of debating whether or not it will exist. And you obviously do not understand anything about the 2nd layer technology that also exists (ie lightning channels and state channels).

This sentence is the grossest misunderstanding of this technology I have come across as of yet.

p2p poker is sloppy seconds that has 0 use case in a regulated environment. Others have pointed this out, but you conveniently slide over that and revert to regurgitation.

I understand perfectly well how transactions are settled. Lightning has nothing to do with compliance, which is the true issue. Again your spew has flown out into the wind and landed back in your own eyes, blinding you to the truth. US facing poker apps use crypto for payments now because what are the alternatives? They'd quickly accept jelly beans or matchsticks too if the market conditions were right.

Hi Nooseknot,

It's really bizarre for you to repeatedly post on my behalf in this thread. Your imaginations of what I think, or what I feel, or what I have done, is generally just made-up fiction, and it's not helpful to anyone else reading this thread.

I've not said any of the things that you've fictiously attributed to me. Please stop falsely attributing such things to me.

I suggest that you confine your own thoughts and opinions here to your own thoughts and opinions. I've made almost 20,000 posts on this forum across various accounts, and know how to post myself. I'm perfectly capable of sharing my own thoughts and opinions if I wish.

It's not really that bizarre. You served as the Head of PR for the poker site that at that time served as a monopoly. You were instrumental (although not as much as dnegs) in selling the players the idea that higher rake is better for the players (https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...anges-1485671/) Now you have left this role to provide a form of security over watch for a competing project that is launching with part of the technology we are discussing.

I don't think you can deny that you feel this technology has value because you are working for this project.

I have nearly 20k posts here too I'm sure.

While you are here, since your rep isn't responding in the coinpoker thread, and since its perfectly on topic, and your project claims a type of transparency, can you comment on the feasibility of your business model given that the ethereum blockchain fees just increased substantially because of a SINGLE app usecase? Is your project still viable? As written in regard to your whitepaper, it seems to me its not and you might disclose this to investors if thats true.

But if you were to cash out decent amounts on regular basis you would realize that bitcoin's indispensable to US based players right now and wouldn't argue about it's value to them.

And by extension the value of decentralization in general.

Yes, and an essential one. You might not believe in decentralized model but you're looking at it through centralized model's goggles and based on your statements I doubt you grasp it. That would be the only reason to bring up project managers.

Also, you're bringing up Pokerstars as if it's an example to be followed. The whole point of decentralized is to not be like Pokerstars when it comes to the players' interests.

The centralized model and, yes, regulation provide for liability which doesn't exist in a decentralized model. We are in the wild wild west with cryptocurrency. It's properties have made it the foremost target of digital theft, including by nation state attackers. If you think you can secure your personal computer against attacks that have succeeded in exfiltrating information from literal spy agencies then good luck.

I don't understand why bitcoin users' #1 argument to opponents is "You don't grasp it". I do grasp it, and better than most. What I do for a living is largely the opposite (we are turning distributed networks of health information into a centralized hub and spoke model to save our clients the increased costs of maintaining the additional connections required in a decentralized model).

Responding to various comments: There are also two simultaneous conversations going on here. (1) The viability of bitcoin and altcoins as a currency, versus (2) The viability of blockchain technology in providing for a distributed poker network without an owner.

(1) is the topic I'm mostly concerned with. The multitude of ways users can lose their funds through no fault of their own with no recourse is the main reason I don't consider it even slightly viable aside from the black market, but there are plenty of others which by themselves would be enough to tank the project (Transaction limits, the power/processing/storage requirements of crypto with almost zero adoption relative to the population already being an order of magnitude worse than conventional payment processors).

(2) is more hairy. The security problems are still unsolved (by which I mean any system depending on 100% of users securing their private keys against a risk of total loss can't work). Beyond that I have concerns - mostly about coin distribution - but not strong feelings. It could be an interesting project for small amounts of money, but it will never rival a regulated poker site in scale or size of games (for the same reason you're not going to get a pro to walk into your home game with his entire bankroll in his pocket).

digital theft as an argument against cryptocurrency? what about online banking? do you just not use computers for fear of being hacked?

you don't believe in the viability of cryptocurrencies??? you really don't grasp it . and really the opponents of cryptocurrencies in general don't grasp it. like they call it a bubble. technically yes all fiat currencies are a bubble but not in the sense that opponents espouse. they call it a ponzi scheme which is ludicrous. they'll claim the valuation is complete speculation and no one is spending them which is of course false. you don't grasp it buddy and saying you do is ignorant. "i don't grasp it" - socrates

you're the guy in 2000 saying "Netflix, they don't even stream movies online they just claim they will be in the future. It's not viable now therefore it never will be. I'm not gonna buy in now if its only DVDs by mail." and now you'd have been rich if you bought Netflix stock back then. Do you see the future of online commerce shrinking as a market? Do you see people spending less cryptos online in the future? That's what it sounds like you are saying to me.

With an online banking password you can't clean out an account in an untraceable manner from the opposite side of the world. Further, you can't clear out Chase's entire account in an untraceable manner (see: multiple exchange hacks).

As far as viability: What goods and services are being traded for crypto currencies after 8 years of adoption? As bitcoin's price has increased it's become less viable as an exchange of goods. Fewer people are accepting it every day. Why would anyone want to sell something for a totally random amount of money.

Didn't read much of this monster thread but...

EU just passed a law to restrict cryptocurrencies and require identification when purchasing and selling. Supposed to be fully implemented in 18 months.

As for me, I'm banking on Ripple and plan on cashing out my Litecoin and Ether early next week before the bubble bursts. I'll keep me crap ton of Ripple in case it booms in a year or two. My Lite and Ether profits will pay for my WSOP trip this year so I guess, in a way, cryptocurrencies have contributed to poker; at least when it comes to my profits going into the poker economy.

Believe it or not anonymity is not that big a concern to gamblers. The data protection laws are pretty strict in regard to their info going outside their bookie, the banker, or their crypto-provider. They give up kyc info every day. A bigger concern is a requirement, if there is one, to really trace back source of funds to some ridiculous degree beyond the customer level..... I'll have to look at the directive you reference.

lol, @ your frank assessment of your relative skill at poker.

Here's a link:
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.re.../idUSKBN1E928M

Nooseknot - I think almost every sentence you wrote includes a factual error.

PokerStars isn't a monopoly, hasn't been a monopoly, and this idea is just nonsense.

Firstly, even if you narrowly define "the" industry as poker (and there's a lot of dispute around that - gambling and entertainment might be fairer segmentations) then there are still a bunch of big competitors in the form of PartyPoker, 888, Zynga, the Asian network IDN, iPoker, Microgaming, and others.
I certainly posted a message that was substantially written and reviewed and approved by the leadership of the company - the one that you link to.

But even there, I do not say that higher rake is, of itself, better for the players - because of course it isn't.


Just from an excess of detail, however, let me be very clear that the profitability of a game is a function of many different factors - the skill of opponents, the design of the game, the payout structure, and, indeed, the rake. The rake is just one of a number of different factors that can affect the profitability of the game.

No, I am not "providing a form of security over watch". Rather, I am providing some advice on how to mitigate the risk of cheating for a company.
This might be literally the only sentence which doesn't include an objective falsehood.
You might. What are your other 2p2 account names?

1) CoinPoker is not "mine". I have no ownership stake in it, I am not an employee, as I have explained to you repeatedly. Don't talk about "my" business model, because you're again working on false assumptions.

2) I am not an expert on the finances of blockchains, and thus, I am reluctant to comment on such things. However, I have no reason to doubt the feasibility of the CoinPoker business model.

with your checking account number and your bank routing number can they steal all your money? ever heard of cold storage for crypto? your arguments about security are weak and flawed.

do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies? im not going to there are more this year than last year and the trend has been more places accepting cryptos, not less. wake up.

8 years of adoption or 8 years since introduction? so you think that since its been 8 years since bitocin first came along and mainstream adoption has been slow (but progressing) you think that means its not going to progress more in the future? especially in today's climate where more people use and understand what cryptocurrencies are?

you didn't answer my question, which would make it abundantly clear you are wrong about the viability of cryptocurrencies. will they be used MORE or LESS in the future???????

please answer MORE or LESS.