IF we can make a premise that a shared protocol could by used be any sites then the implication would be they would have to in order to survive, once the protocols network evolved enough. The reduced cost would allow the p2p based sites to operate at a significantly increased profit margin. They could offer games for a significantly reduced price from the players view.

This is not different than we are seeing with bitcoin in the banking industry today. At first large banks and settlement institutions ignored bitcoin and blockchain technology but now years later they are desperately trying to fit them both in their models.

I think you are still under the false assumption that the user experience changes on a p2p based site than a server based model. There is absolutely no reason to make any distinction.

If poker stars or rio poker were to migrate to a serverless model there would be no difference from the players view, except possibly the addition of crypto payment processing which will eventually happen anyways. (ie you could still do kyc and some emerging p2p projects are)

So think of rio poker, but without galfond going broke trying to get his infrastructure built in time to attract a player base. All of that initial start up cost can now go to marketing.

Ah ic. So it would have to be built by enthusiast. But this could be done because building protocol is really just based on smart contracts, like ethereum provides. It's a small project. Bitcoin was much like this, it started with one person that wasn't really a programmer but he produced a full solution with a proof of concept and then let a community build around it that took care of the nuances. None of the developers were paid directly by the project.

But there was no opportunity cost, because the developers became highly sought after for businesses that extended from the project.

Perhaps we can sort of function on the assumption or premise that the protocol is basically already built and talk about whether it would make sense for rio poker and other emerging sites to use it or not?

ah most interesting. I think we have fully peeled back the onion. we'll put aside all the other macro type discussion and focus on the above which I assume is what you were heading toward all along.



This is a really important question if one is to have a serious discussion about the commercial viability of the "protocol" in the online poker market.

Is the suggestion that a poker site would use the new protocol and totally obfuscate that fact from the player ? I agree UX between two would be identical or mostly identical. I would also agree that if above is all true, then player acceptance issues are eliminated.

I was working on the assumption that a site using P2P would fully disclose that to players. To me, it would seem dishonest otherwise.

Please clarify.


ah very good.

for this discussion could you describe the feature set of the hypothetical protocol.

at the simplest extreme, is it just a p2p protocol for randomizing a 52 card deck?

or at the other and most advanced extreme, RNG shuffle from above, PLUS a fully programmed poker game engine, a scale-able p2p communications protocol, and a snazzy poker game UI, with lobby and cashier UI.

probably in between but where?

Then the analogy of market leaders in the car industry deciding to ditch their own engine technology and cooperate on an open-source version that anyone at all can use is pretty apt.

Apologies if I misunderstand your post here.

I think you are saying that its a more than fair point to suggest that the industry dinosaurs will not migrate to such a protocol. It's true that large car companies do not use the same engines. But this isn't at all a point against what I am suggesting. It would actually be quite straw man.

Fair disclosure: I am VERY strong on the subject of economics.

It is quite common for different businesses to seek or arrive at common supplies. Think of the food industry, different restaurants that share the same wholesaler, but make different products. Such business is the crux of specialization through division of labor. It is how we made incredible strides by efficiency throughout the ages.

More to the point, it is the very power of the internet, to allow us to have common grounds. The entire efficiency of the internet and software is to reuse parts, because they can be copied. It is also the crux of the value of genes and process of evolution.

The trick or question is 'what is the common grounds and what isn't?' Or 'how do we separate out what should common from what doesn't make sense to be?'

Once you figure this out, and translate the solution to a software language, you have created a type of efficiency that has its own self sustaining momentum powered by different individual self interested actors.

So please don't misconstrue what I am suggesting and dirty it with the word "cooperation". I don't mean altruism. I mean "co-operation". That is, to operate together, but in a self interested manner.

I repeat, this is the basis for bitcoin, and the banks ignored it at first, but they have already realized that if they don't strive to adopt the technology, they won't survive the technological revolution. They have no choice.

I forget its a difficult and new paradigm to wrap our heads around. From the user perspective there would be no difference. If Poker Stars changes their hardware (successfully from a business view) the average players wouldn't know. Not by look, not by feel.

Same if poker stars used a different programming language. It wouldn't change anything in a meaningful way from a customer experience POV. Player acceptance isn't an issue in this regard (just the challenge of RIO poker etc. getting initial customers).

Of course it would be disclosed, not that it matters because most players don't have any clue or care about the backend. But don't forget, the whole purpose of the protocol solution in the first place is that its PROVABLY secure. And its auditable as such because its to be open source. It is FAR more trustworthy, and completely removes the possibility of a security issues such as a superuser account etc. (I don't see this as super important to the average player, but its completely unequivocally true).

It is the shuffling and dealing, and the handling of the player funds. It is basically and only perfectly just those two aspects. The rest, in regard to 888, party, stars, etc, remain perfectly the same.

However, going forward, the software/protocol is developed in such a way that the bridge between the back-end layer and the front end layer, makes it increasingly easier to develop scalable front ends (Graphical user interfaces).

The uniqueness of the protocol is that it allows for trustworthy randomness, shuffling and dealing without the players discerning information about the deck, selecting cards securely, and the ability to continue playing with drop out tolerance.

So to create a set of elements, perform functions securely, and to verify results. Most casino games do not need this solution, but most card games do for example. Its in its own class, more difficult then a provably fair slot machine etc.

LectorAJ I expect good and challenging questions out of you. I have rendered the approach such that the entire problem has a consistent, coherent, and full solution. I need players that understand poker and the industry to scrutinize the philosophical basis for the implementation and success.

I see above "Virtue Poker". I want us to understand how and why their approach is impossible. I want us to understand how each project is approaching things in a centralized fashion while claiming to be decentralized.

And to be clear, I have nothing to sell. This protocol is not for sale, its open source.

The difference is that the range of wholesalers available isn't a major barrier to entry for other restaurants, wholesalers exist anyway to supply small shops, so yes they have may have arrived at a common supplier.

Common software is used by people in different industries. That's a lot different to large companies sharing business specific systems with their competitors.

When you already have developed the system, the costs of running pokersite servers are not massive - that's why play money poker exists.

Of course you can always gild the lily - PS firing photons on semi-reflective mirror as a random number seed is totally unnecessary but if they do it now to distinguish themselves from their competitors they won't hesitate to point out distributed poker lacks photons.

The large sites will be the last people to ever adopt this because it's turkeys voting for Christmas.

To be firm and clear, this is not at all more random or secure than a p2p protocol from the players perspective.

I think you mean because we eat such turkeys for Christmas?

I completely agree with you thoughts. But this is the difficulty our legacy finance system is facing and the governments that control or make legislation. They don't want to legitimize bitcoin, but its already beyond that. None of them want to be the first to fully acknowledge the power of the technology but none of them want to be second. So there is a great pressure involved. Bitcoin has grown 50,000% in 5 years, the bitcoin exchanges and "banks" have capital that is growing at an accelerated pace. Bitcoin's market cap is now 100 billion, at 300 billion it pases the cap of the IMF's SDRs. Thats why you are seeing articles like this:

IMF Head: Cryptocurrency Could Be the Future. Really. http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/bitcoi...stine-lagarde/

So what I think we have said that we agree on, is that in order to bootstrap the use of such a protocol as a common grounds, you would need to start it up with a few independent sites using it, in order to foster and motivate the further development and advancement of it.

Once the technology is so useful that the cost savings makes incredible sense, then you would expect legacy sites to migrate to it. This would also run in tandem with the success of emerging sites, like perhaps rio poker, that would have a FAR better chance at successful launches with user friendly and scalable products.

If the technology reduces costs significantly AND provides a new breed of competition on the market, then PROVIDED it is successful, I think legacy migration is a given.

We are watching this unfold in our financial system its just that most bitcoiners don't understand this, most of them think bitcoin will kill banks. Thats a silly and ignorant view. Bitcoin is FOR banks.

True, but then why do they do it? (the photon RNG seed) The answer is marketing.

It may be that in the future the playing and depositing public is educated enough to demand a proper p2p protocol rather than some proprietary photon bull**** they can't examine, forcing major sites to migrate, but I'd say that's a generation away.

About BTC - I got in a year ago at about 700, so even if you are not first or even second to adopt, it's also not so bad to be (metaphorically) about fifth.

OK. But first need to fully understand their approach. Cuz at this stage I am still not clear (watched the video. scanned the whitepape)

Are they planning to operate a real money site AND offer their technology to others to use (for a fee? for free ?)

If they plan to operate they should consider that failed business venture road is littered with companies that tried to compete against their customers. Usually doesnt end well.

But I digress, back to your post....after understanding if they plan to operate a site or not, it would be easier to dissect their approach.

Perhaps, I think the technical answer is that its the best possible design given the technology. Secure p2p network protocol technology didn't exist before bitcoin though. Now we have ethereum which allows for more advanced (escrow based) protocols.

I'd agree but to me a generation in technology terms is about 2 years now. Keep in mind im referencing the very power of this software evolution that Satoshi Nakamoto started. All of a sudden these types of advances are going to happen very fast because the infrastructure can be put up all at once, by different groups that work on different components of it simultaneously.

The only missing part is the incentive structure. But we have somewhat covered the reasons why not much incentive is needed (as opposed to traditionally). The problems and solutions for them can be rendered such that they are quite solvable by small teams with big thinkers. These individuals and teams become highly valued in the emerging industry they create.

Yes but consider what is happening to the financial/banking industry. People don't realize this (cause its backend tech), but all nations are working on their own crypto fiat. Conspiracy tards and ignorant loudspoken people will cry out that this is governments supressing bitcoin and that governments will never allow bitcoin to be wide spread adopted. But thats too late.

The cryptoRuble, and any such countries crypto fiat has the purpose of creating an on ramp to crypto. So people will unknowingly (because of indifference not dishonesty) convert to the crypto-fiat, and then their ability to use bitcoin's protocol will be seamless and they won't know or care its being used.

No country wants to be 5th. Its a rush now to encourage adoption because a wealthy nation supports its government. A poor nation revolts.

This is in contrast to the current but changing narrative, but as I said, I am very well read on the subject and I mean to extend the philosophy to the poker industry and see it translated into a software solution.

I don't mean to tear on an advertiser based account. But they are proposing something irrational and inconsistent with itself. A centralized attempt at decentralized poker. They don't have solutions for the actual technological problems they mean to solve. They don't have a working protocol implementation. They are effectively outsourcing their problems to trusted 3rd parties as their solutions, which is again, the very problem in the first place.

The 3 of us alone would be able to immediately agree, the players will not migrate just because you provide a more secure game. The players are complacent about the current environment.

And no. Virture poker is not trying to create an open source project that allows multiple projects to piggy back on their software. They might even claim to (I don't believe they have), but you can clearly see they are working on their own skin, their own site, their own model.

So what will these projects do, when they offer no product, no solutions, they don't understand the bootstrap costs, they don't understand the current equilibrium they have to break (that as intelligent players migrate the current games they leave become more profitable). But they are asking for millions of dollars...

And what will they do with this money? I know what they claim. They claim they will use it for marketing. Poker players don't care about marketing, they care about security and profitability, and player liquidity, that the games are filled with a favorable balance of recs versus regs.

If we understand the difference between what I am painting versus a centralized project that claims to offer decentralization, then we can spot problematic business models instantly.

Decentralization has no such business model. And the crux of it is the protocol. All current projects that are calling for crowdsales have no protocol.

cant argue with that.

But it seems you want to talk more about your solution. So let me ask you three basic questions, because I am not clear on what your solution is. It would help if you could answer each question in 20 words or less.

1) What is your product ?

2) Who will your customer (s) be?

3) Why would your customer(s) use your product vs use something else?

I want to be clear, and there are different levels and layers to what I think would be an important actionable dialogue about the "problem" and the solution to it.

I am not offering a product or selling anything, and so there are no customers. These are not the correct words. Much of the crypto industry that is trying to extend the emerging technology has gotten this wrong and perpetuated very sticky myths.

We are talking, first layer, about a protocol that allows for secure shuffling and dealing and escrow/payout functions.

So that is what you call "product". It is literally only a method of communication, using a secure network such as (but no exclusive to) ethereum.

The customers are emerging poker sites like RIO Poker, that are quickly realizing the startup and operating costs a new business faces in the industry make the venture impractical. This protocol completely removes that barrier in a way I think Galfond is by far most positioned to understand.

The reason they would use it as opposed to some other protocol is because there can only be one common grounds that is the leading project. Just like bitcoin. Whatever that leading project is, is the one that will attract the most use. An INVERSE commons becomes more useful and evolved as it gets used (as opposed to a land or tool that degrades with use).

The emerging "p2p projects" we see today, are approaching the problem from the wrong direction, their projects are purposefully proprietary, and this limits their ability to provide a useful evolution. They cannot provide this common grounds, because it would destroy their business model to do so.

well then I want the 3 hours of my life back spent ITT

Secure shuffling IS NOT a problem in the minds of any player other than a few dozen posters in the Rigtard Thread in Internet Poker and certainly not a problem in the minds of any site.

better escrow payout services are readily available thru a growing number of robust and comprehensive crypto solutions.

so what you propose solves no meaningful problems and offers nothing that isnt already widely available in market.

If your intent ITT is to promote yourself and get a job with RIO, please just sent them a resume.

Like I said, I want my 3 hours back

Did you miss me perfectly highlight this sentiment in a post above:

This is also what I said, you are simultaneously scoffing at it while citing it.
The protocol completely removes the need for hardware, servers, real estate, and security related infrastructure and staff for ALL sites. I think you have not well understood.
Rio is simply an example. And its a very good one and very relevant one. The players cheered when galfond announced it. I laughed. He thought it would be a breeze and so did most of the players. But those knowledgeable and experienced warned him. He is a year beyond schedule and trapped in a sunk cost fallacy. He can't launch and a p2p protocol would completely and immediately remove the impassible barrier he faces.

Luckychewy poker could be another example, and opens up another deep dialogue, in which I am the expert on, and it would take great time for you to understand that I am right. Chewy COULD arrange his venture such that the jurisdiction of the US government could not reach it. The basis is that there are no servers to seize and claim jurisdiction over.

If you can't see the value of such technology, and specifically from a player perspective I would suggest you are blind and not at all familiar with the current climate of the industry. Or you are purposefully being disingenuous.

PTLou it occurs to me I might have misunderstood your complaint. I don't mean to suggest a protocol implementation doesn't exist. That there is no product for use. I mean that I am not here to sell it. It's a protocol, it cant' be made propriety and anyone trying to sell it as such would be selling snake oil. It can copied, forked, changed, improved on, etc.

But I am trying to "sell" or paint the philosophy or perspective that is needed to understand the value and utility of it, and how the process of moving the industry to migrate to it might be designed and take place.

The difficulties are the myths, which include the belief that a wealthy respected player like galfond could easily surpass the barriers to enter and compete in the industry based on moral intention and poker experience alone.

If we subscribe to that myth, then a protocol that removes those barriers would seem valueless. If we understand those barriers, then a protocol that removes them should be incredibly intriguing for any serious online player AND operator.

Virtue Poker Demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYypmr5Negs

The shuffle is really slow for online poker, but the rest of the game UI is pretty reasonable. I saw another eth poker client that sent out game invites via URL links, so I'm guessing the game client is in the browser window.

Do you have a UI mockup or screenshot for the game lobbey? Any other screenshots? Another coin I was looking at is allowing playtesting periodically. Will you guys have open playtesting prior to your ICO?

A really slick UI, video of someone playing on an ipad, and more info about the user experience would probably create some hype in these forums.

well in closing I'd say this.

#1 In the list of top five strategic issues for online sites (or players) improvement in security of the shuffle is about number twenty seven in order of strategic importance. You are solving a problem that isn't important in the minds of players or operators

#2 Like we've both stated there are a plethora of good crypto solutions already operating in market, that do not require a p2p model.

#3 There are admittedly IT infrastructure operation advantages to p2p but imo those advantages would be dwarfed by the money one would need to spend to educate the market on what the hell the p2p model is, and then convince them its better than all the legacy sites they already can play on . Just watch any 3-4 episodes of Shark Tank. You will likely see at least one company pitching that is told " great product but the amount of money you'll have to spend educating market on this new paradigm is cost prohibitive... and for that reason I'm out"

Maybe in technology but not in social terms. I'm saying it'll be a human generation before the bulk of the population get why your distributed encrypted shuffle is more secure than a doing it all in one place with the help of photons and start pressuring major sites to do this. For example my wife is 39 now - I doubt she will ever get this (or care).

I have to convince your wife?!

Someone google "phil galfond sunk cost fallacy".

This isn't how economics works. I cannot explain to you what BACK END means.

Back end could mean alot of things... and since some of your posts are crytpic and closing in on gibberish I'll just have to guess.

Back end ... IT HW Infrastructure.

Back end... getting paid on the back end of a venture

Back end... pulling chit out of your back end


You still refuse to confront the fact that your primary benefit of secure shuffle is solving a problem that does not exist in the minds of players or operators. And that your secondary benefit of escrow/payout functions is already provided from multiple sources in a legacy arch. So escrow / payout advantage has almost nothing to do with p2p online poker arch.

And for all those reasons... I'm out.

Moving on from you to OP and Virtue Poker.. I think they are going to be challenged with market education and ever present technology adoption cycle.

These problems are difficult in any market, they are made much worse in a marketing new online poker paradigm due to poker's unique problem of liquidity .

Well if you are expecting any public pressure on sites to move to p2p then yes, you have to convince people like her.