just semantics.

no new business paradigm.

When Coin Poker gets sold, holders of CHP get nothing.

They have no equity in Coin Poker.

But we digress.

I think you mean the value of the business does not get split up among CHPs holders, and it does though. If the value of the business increases, so will the value of the CHPs and vice versa.

If for example you sold the business to amaya and the CHP holders were disgusted...what would amaya be buying?

I'm not up to speed on all aspects of this - do you get a portion of other players' rake?

No, but certainly all options can be programmatically explored. I say it "programmatically" because the token they have can have advanced restrictions.

But in this case, basically, Coinpoker takes rake in the form of their currency CHPS and they can choose to add it to the prizepools. Or they could have a new token or centralized point system and they can peg it to their own currency and offer it to the players rakeback etc.

They could also burn CHPS that they rake, thus increasing the value of the CHPS everyone is holding, which is effectively equivalent to dividends (unless ptlou contends that and we'll have to discuss etc.).

I don't think PTLou has the implications quite grasped through. But I appreciate his offer to translate, whether my words/wording are just wrong or awkward.

(It's all just to my own knowledge. I'm sometimes checking out their telegram chat to understand the specifics better. Quite happy to be corrected etc...)

Well, if that's the case, I think PTLou is 100% correct.

Rakeback is not in any way similar to periodic distributions. And while there are a few common elements, owning CHPs are definitely not the same as owning shares in a company. And finally, "If for example you sold the business to amaya and the CHP holders were disgusted...what would amaya be buying?" - the same thing as if they bought any other poker site.

That's not to say there aren't merits to the model - just that owning CHPs is not the same as owning shares in a company.

I think otherwise, because the player base has an interest in the valuation of the CHPs. If the players don't like the acquisition they will liquidate and the price of CHPs will reflect this. Then the acquirer will have destroyed all of the equity or capital that was represented by the price.

"Game theoretically" I think it's QUITE different.

"George: [stands] Alright. Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants. I mean, you say I'm an outlaw, you say I'm a thief, but where's the Christmas dinner for the people on relief? Huh? You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always strong, to gather flowers constantly whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, huh? No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe. You follow?

"Judge: Yeah... Gosh, you know, your concepts are really interesting, Mister Jung.

George: Thank you.

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars. "

Investors are looking for a return (and sometimes a regular scheduled income as return ie dividends) and perhaps participation in the direction of the company. CHPs offers this.

I am not projecting these sentiments. I was taught law by Nick Szabo (number one contender for being Satoshi Nakamoto) and Ayn Rand's works. Regulatory wise there are definitions etc. but from the players perspective, holding CHPs is like holding shares IN THE SENSE that you benefit from the success of the project and you have a say in the direction of it (which might violate PTL and BF's definitions etc but still holds true).

And these aspects will increase and become solidified in the code of the tokens, over time.

I was taught economics by Milton Friedman, and took courses at Chicago in an interesting program called Politics, Rhetoric, Economics and Law.

Those are not equivalencies and their respective interests/roles often conflict. In a world of action perhaps more so than on an internet forum.

Your rhetoric makes it way too easy for the Chairman of the SEC to seek to regulate sale of what is really a commodity like a coin, should it relate to a targeted use case.

There is a reason gambling chips in Nevada have no monetary value outside the game play,their application in other uses,like settling non-game debts between two people, is illegal.

(As an aside, in New Jersey however, Donald Trump once gave his father $2 million in casino chips as security for a loan to one or the other of his failing casinos. The Donald's casino went bust and hisfather sought to collect on the chips. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-casino-chips/(says about $500K)

OK, I can see what you're saying here. I'm used to sites acquiring other ones primarily for the player base. If a poker site were to acquire someone like CP for the valuation, then yes, I agree - but I'm not sure how likely that would be.

On the return, I'd agree - that's why I said there are some commonalities between CHPs and share ownership. No dividends possible though, unless I'm missing something - but many "regular" companies don't offer them either.

The second part is where the biggest differences come in IMO. There is no direct participation. Yes, bad moves could hurt their value. But if they choose to make an unpopular move and take that hit, they can still do so.

Its not likely but it illustrates a point. It's different now. Yes there are commonalities, but you say "no dividends possible.." I think there are no stated dividends but its is perfectly possible and likely that coinpoker and other sites will add dividends that pay out to their chips holders in automated contracts. Am I not understanding that word?

In regard to participation...there is no stated implicate participation from CHPs holders, but this can and will likely change. Those that hold larger amounts of CHPs will have influence and eventually it will be programmatically so.

Noose, I get that this new frontier will open up all sorts of new business models. Up is down and left is right .


Semantics aside, what is it that you are driving toward with the discussion of a companies customers also being pseudo-owners.

Are you trying to dissect what coin poker is doing now, or offering up a new enhanced model for a site.

It's a natural progression. You could bet on it.

a natural progression being CHP token holders also MAYBE getting some future benefit that can be likened to having ownership in Coin Poker ?

Even if its zero, its still existent. And yes, its quite obvious. Its obvious.

Me thinks you are punch drunk off Tony G's Kool Aid.

Granted he can be quite persuasive.

I see you have moved into ad hominem territory. I am talking reason. Sorry for trying.

ouch. I accept your label of me as a moron.


But propagating an unsubstantiated claim that CHP token holders MIGHT benefit from some future, theoretical, possible, vague other benefit, is kinda like the BitConnect boys pumping their dream of future, theoretical, possible, benefits.

How many CHP's do you own now?

You have nothing intelligent to add, and you are years behind in your thinking.

yeah, the problem is me.

Keep drinking the kool aid. Tony G will for sure make everyone whole out of his own pocket

Tony G is also pimping https://bankera.com/ which looks more promising than this mouse trap with no cheese.

Were you looking in the mirror when you posted this?

Noose's recent thought train.

1) There will be some other benefit to CHPs in the future (ownership in Coinpoker)

2) Tony G will make you whole if you lose.

#1 I have no idea.

#2 is ludicrous.


Seriously, noose, how many cheeseburgers did you spend on CHPs ?

I have no problem with someone buying CHPs. But your assertions over the past several posts are mind numbing'ly naive at best and just pure shilling at worst.

Sure, it's possible that at some future date sites could choose to pay dividends and give their currency holders some direct voting rights. And when that happens, the model will have even more in common with shares. Depending on what this hypothetical situation looks like, it might even be just like shares.

But until this hypothetical situation comes about, you are premature, to say the least, to declare that someone has "not updated your definitions in regard to this changed business model."

Are you referring to the equivalence of a 51% mining control model like bitcoin ?

(I downloaded the white paper but am willing to take your word rather than read through it all.)

You have done nothing in this thread but ignore the content of the dialogue and shill your own favored crypto coin. If you continue I can guarantee the mods will ban you.

I did not say Tony G will make you whole if you lose. You maliciously put those words into my mouth as if I said them and created a big strawman.

People wanted out of their investment and Tony DID make them whole. He DID. I'm losing respect for your posts, don't do what you are doing.

That they created a new token, gives them the ability to do these things programmatically. It is quite obvious this is the plan. What they did was keep everything as simple as possible for their launch. There already exists many crypto projects in which there are dividends paid out. What poker players are to realize is that similarity between rakeback paid to CHPs holders and dividends.

Breakout poker LITERALLY pays out to stakeholders, so they certainly pay the equivalent of dividends. I'm not really sure what the disagreement is. This is the reality of industry now.

No not at all. I am saying if the majority of CHPs are held by a group of poker players and the CHPs are retaining value well, the developers and team behind coinpoker have GREAT interest in listening to the holders of the CHPs.


Its an OBVIOUS and natural progression.

edit: also PTL I didn't but any money into coinpoker, I told you they put up a ton of CHPs for freeroll, it was a negative rake bonanza, you could win but you couldn't lose. I won a couple thousand etc. playing against players that didn't know how to play poker...because crypto poker attracts a ton of players new to the game.