You solved problems that weren't really problems. You cannot create demand out of thin air, and the majority of poker players who are recreational could give 2 sheets about centralization vs decentralization. All they want to know about is are the games full and juicy.

Your years of problem solving has accomplished exactly fook all, which is to say you are a bloviator with no real accomplishments to speak of. PTLou actually contributed something to the poker community even though he was several years too early. The real issue you should have been solving is how to get $ on/off site fast and free. Raiblocks solves this, so its time for you to take the noose protocol and go home.

Coinpoke is an interesting proposition for the players. Firstly there is the initial coin offering which has gone through its pre sale so far, and will enter its next stage in a couple weeks. The token is finite and investors expect that the demand for the use of CHPS on the poker site will increase the value of their investment.

At the end of the month there is a promotional tournament to win a tesla and all this month leading up to it there is a daily schedule of free rolls. The frequency is slowing but they are running about every hour atm.

The free rolls pay out in the same token that investors get when they invest in coinpoker.

The other day I was playing and about 70% of the field was sitting out, yet for every player entered there is an entry fee amount of CHPS in the pool.

Its interesting to play poker tournaments in which the effective rake is basically negative. Its free money for grabs.

And we can see now, how because of the advent of crypto currencies, emerging sites are able to address the players boycotts problem. A player can now unilaterally deviate from the status quo and expect to gain, and in fact, those that deviate first and early stand to gain the most.

If the site is wildly successful these CHPS might even pump in value.

Negative rake.

And the sound from all the players rushing the doors is deafening.



Its interesting because they did an ico and are giving away a tesla? They are returning .01% of money back to the original suckers who bought the tokens.

Raiblocks processing enables rakefree poker to become a viable business model. No fee's when buying in for player or casino, no play through restrictions before cashing out, and no fee's when cashing out. I'll argue with you all day over which is more important (and useful), the nooseprotocol or free transactions.

please expand.

OT but thanks. we were early but made lots and lots of mistakes. Version 2.0 coming this summer. Learning from past mistakes, plus using 2017 technology vs 2005 technology will hopefully provide a better product / experience for the player.

The biggest points of friction are getting $ on site/keeping it safe/getting $ off site. Raiblocks eliminates all that headache and would allow operators to pass savings on to player, assuming they weren't amaya. IAP's are the most obvious way to monetize instead of rake or time. #raikfree

IMO your accomplishments vs knots are not off topic because what you did was solve a real world problem. The tech sucked and demand waned only because you were too early, not because you were trying to reinvent the wheel and sell us on how a square rolls smoother than a circle #nooseprotocol

The issues of getting funds onto/off of a gaming site are quite different that the idea of running a decentralized game.

Look, payment processing roadblocks and fees are a huge drain on the poker economy. (Last May mining fees/costs spiked for BTC, lightning may be an answer for some operators.)

XRB may better "solve" this transaction cost issue iby lowering costs, it may have further utilities as well. Currently, gaming sites which are interested in processing through crypto have an ability to accept 60+ cryptos. XRB may prove an ideal solution, I'll confess it only recently hit my radar but will be giving it a serious review, along with other cryptos.

I've been working in or with online poker since 2000, the rise of crypto as a payment processing system for gaming CAN align player and operator interests against payment processors in removing that particular source of friction/cost. Believe me that operators are open to lower cost, more effective means of handling player transactions, always have been.

In contrast, what a decentralized game discussion, i.e. this thread, involves is revising the game engine and, likely also the user experience, to put that onto a blockchain. I've worked with both gaming coin issuers that built a specialized blockchain and advised another project that seeks to decentralize poker.

As this thread progressed, I've posited certain friction points in the game and the UX that would need to be addressed in decentralized poker to compete against traditional game experiences in poker. Noose cites various answers, but neither you nor Lou nor I have to accept them as "solved" unless you are putting up your capital to fund/operate a business reliant on them for success.

At a minimum however, keep the "processing" issues/answers and game decentralization issues distinct for discussion purposes*.

(*In 2013, SatoshiDice presented an elegant combined transaction/gaming design that actually resolved both concurrently. Were this poker thread a discussion of decentralized casino or sportsbetting, it would be much further along. Compared to casino or sportsbtting, Poker however has distinctive complexity and liquidity requirements.)

This thread should be renamed decentralized poker is not the future, but decentralized payment processing is. Decentralized poker is an unnecessary and inferior product with no demand. case rested.

fyp

First, decentralized payment processing has been the present since around 2013.

Decentralized gambling, in channels like casino and sports betting, does not require much further technical development. The former was offered as far back as 2013, accounting then for about 80% of btc blockchain transactions. decentralized sports-betting is easily enabled using the Etherium blockchain, as P2P wagering or staking by an operator.

We get it that you feel decentralized poker is both "unnecessary" and inferior to offerings of poker services already in the online market. I think "unnecessary" is an adjective with no place in this discussion. I can assure you that gambling itself is deemed "unnecessary" by a pretty broad share of the population, but the freedom to engage in "unnecessary" activities allows for personal choice.

Finally, while you may be correct about the competitiveness of decentralized poker services in the marketplace at present, even if you claim that inferiority would persist for a long time to come, the "future" is a long time.

My then-company joined the online poker industry in early 2001, offering its services. At that time, the industry future left it up to the emerging market to decide which services it liked and which were "inferior", across a spectrum of varying demands. At the time, there was no NLH online, no MTTs online, no SnGs, no multi-tabling,and the market leader hosted a whopping 300 concurrent players at peak. Fortunately, the industry allowed for making money while the market demanded unfettered rapid innovation among operators.

For you to say there is no future for decentralized poker betrays a lack of understanding of the prospects for innovation in design and shifting market demands. The "future" is a long time, bet on it always being open to innovation.

Unnecessary is the perfect adjective because decentralized poker is not needed in a regulated environment whereas a cheap/fast method of payment is the holy grail of every industry. Decentralized poker adds layers of friction to an already inefficient method of doing business. So when I say there is no future, it has nothing to do with a lack of respect for innovation or shifting market demands. The market ultimately decides, which is my point in the first place.

I get that you've been around online poker racking up the billable hours since the beginning. But neither you nor any other poker site can claim they created the demand for NLH and poker tourneys. NLH and the idea of tournaments were popularized by the media in movies and on TV. There was an evolution to the product offerings early on, but the site operators were not thought leaders by any stretch. When site operators innovate, they come up with spin an go's.

What catalysts are there for decentralized poker to evolve and takoff now or ever if regulation happens everywhere? Can you direct towards where the demand for it is coming from? Can you explain how it will improve upon the business of online poker in a regulated environment now or ever versus a black box operator?

Btc, you are using the phrase "decentralized poker" in an absurd manner.

I think you have your innovative chickens and eggs mixed up. The WSOP was a NLHE event for 25+ years before there was online poker.

What innovative online operators, like PStars and Party and others did was recognize and provide services to new demands from the market, demands which were either new, unmet or impossible to meet through the live gaming providers. An undeniable contribution that online poker operators made to poker early on was the idea of online satellites to the WSOP Main Event. Another innovation was micro-limits play. Multi-tabling became key to site liquidity and appeal.

FWIW, I was not racking up billable hours "since the beginning", in my early life I actually helped launch and ran a site/network and development company. Since 2012, I've been meeting with regulators across the world to promote adoption of crypto for games. I would posit that conflicting regulation is a drag on innovation, especially in the payment processing area; the major gaming regulators have been receptive to crypto-payments for years, it is their financial regulation counterparts that have resisted its adoption.

As for gaming-specific innovation under regulation, you would be hard pressed to cite a poker industry innovation of real merit arising since say 2006, aside from marginal improvements to the UX.

Do I see a current demand for decentralized poker specifically at the margins of player liquidity sufficient to challenge the business of traditional game engine providers who adapt to crypto payments ? Not presently, but folks smarter than me see an operating advantage to layering gambling, including poker as an element, onto a blockchain environment. There is an some irony that you try to contrast "decentralized" gaming and "regulated" gaming; in reality a transparent blockchain based gaming environment is the antithesis of the "black box" you decry.

I've never claimed to be an innovator, I did not see a demand for online poker during RGP days, not until I later saw Paradise operating ....There were, for sure online gaming innovators, some of whom may now see a customer demand for less traditional gaming that the 2001version of poker or its current progeny online.

What is the future ? I'll wait and see, invest time and effort into some specific assets or projects and take my chances on catching lightning in a a specific bottle. There are interesting cross-overs between poker playing and crypto-seeking behaviors and not just among the name players jumping into crypto trading.

But you go right ahead and pronounce your judgment.

Cool buzz words like trustless, smart contracts and provably fair get you all wet? Conjecture at its finest.

I don't have it backwards. Like I said, NL was popularized by the media, not the wsop running an event for old men during the 80's and 90's. The sites just stepped in and filled the demand that was already growing. Which brings us to - there is no demand and you cannot create it out of thin air. You cannot identify where it will come from and neither can anyone else regardless of their intellect.

You are degrading this forum and the dialogue in this thread.

You can go back to pumping your own garbage now and time will tell.

Okay, the sites just stepped in and, using new technology, and created and filled a demand for poker online, online poker being something that largely had not existed before 2000 or so.

Demand did grow during 2001 - early 2003, but it was driven more by sites' online marketing, their media sponsorship and the emerging popularity of Google than prescient media coverage.

Introduction of the hole card camera was the huge boost to broadcasting media appeal; it was the early 2003 WPT launch that drove that coverage breakthrough and swamped the early online sponsors of that programming. ( My then-partners had turned down sponsorship without my knowledge, .... after the first two shows, which crashed Party and UB servers, we scrambled to buy up spots directly from the Travel Channel because the unique positioning of the online industry )

In 2003 and thereafter, poker tournaments were run for emerging hordes of online players, brought to the game by the sites' offerings, marketing support, and emerging technological infrastructure for the industry to expand.

Basically, without online satellites, a new innovation from the industry, Chris Moneymaker 2003 and Greg Raymer 2004 would not have had the story lines that the media then ate up. Online tournaments and satellites made the WSOP grow, capitalizing on the 2003 and 2004 outcomes and media coverage.

Is there a demand for poker on a decentralized blockchain, we'll see. You say, never, I think you are wrong. Gamng and gambling on a blockchain IS in our future, SatoshiDICE demonstrated that. Poker can certainly fit in a mix of decentralized offerings.

WSOP sat's were not a new innovation from online poker industry. Mohegan Sun and other casino's were running sat's well before partypoker was online. The demand for satellites was already there in the casino's.

.....but nothing online, must have been those casino satellites

WSOP ME entries

2000, 613
2001 639

Spring 2001, Stars, Party and UB launch,

2002 839 entrants
2003 2576
2004 5619
2005 8723

interesting post. I think I get it. also algorithm such as you describe has applications in lots of other markets, but lets stick to poker for the test case.

I like the idea of players that haven't yet earned enough reputation paying more rake. Bots would loose some incentive.

But, I dont get how or who sets up and then measures the policies around reputation. Is this done automatically ?

The point remains the same, there was already demand for satellites and poker before the sites got big. Online was just gas on the fire. Please take the beer goggles off and rejoin reality.

here's one reason why.


other than that, why you so mad?

I'm not mad, I'm motivated.

and your motivation is to ________ ??

add much needed context

to what end ?