4 ms·

We now have digital currencies. The state lottery monopolies will be outcompeted, and their competitors will be impossible to shut down. Here's one that's dece

by natrius 11y ago

We now have digital currencies. The state lottery monopolies will be outcompeted, and their competitors will be impossible to shut down. Here's one that's decentralized and provably fair: https://etherpot.github.io/ https://etherpot.github.io/

vinceguidry 11y ago
They can simply declare alternative lotteries illegal. Then nobody will touch it because any winnings will have to be laundered like drug money.
- djrogers 11y ago
  That's already the case in most states. After all, they don't want any competition - that'd mess up the whole point of being a monopoly for an addiction-driven product.
vanattab 11y ago
>Probably fair Really? The following text is coped from them message at the top of the link you provided. TLDR: block.blockhash() only works for the previous 256 blocks, so EtherPot is broken. Something strange happened with EtherPot after it launched. There were 3 subpots the first round, but somehow a single player was being reported as the winner of all 3. This single account only had 8% of the tickets, so winning all 3 subpots was pretty unlikely.
- logn 11y ago
  Yes. From what I gather the correct way to generate a random number is described here: https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice ... and some background discussion here: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-random-number-function https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-rando... However, that game is not totally fair. There's a house edge and of course fees to pay the Ethereum network (the miners). And stepping back, I think Ethereum overall slightly missed the mark. I like the idea of Turing complete programs verified in a blockchain. But I don't think there should be any cost if you're able to run your own node. Further, it's impossible to know the cost of a Turing complete program (halting problem) which is further compounded by the relatively confusing fee chart (variable based on market demand) and currency unit names.
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    Anyone verifying the blockchain will have to run the programs in it. So it makes sense to charge a little bit for people to be able to put programs in there.
bbcbasic 11y ago
Digital currencies would pose a worse problem for addicts as there is less of a wait time between playing and getting the result, which may result in more frequent playing and more money spent. Also when you win $1m in bitcoin, cashing it out is probably a bit of a challenge, and you probably need to pay tax on the winnings.

by natrius 11y ago

vinceguidry 11y ago

They can simply declare alternative lotteries illegal. Then nobody will touch it because any winnings will have to be laundered like drug money.

djrogers 11y ago
That's already the case in most states. After all, they don't want any competition - that'd mess up the whole point of being a monopoly for an addiction-driven product.

vanattab 11y ago

>Probably fair Really? The following text is coped from them message at the top of the link you provided. TLDR: block.blockhash() only works for the previous 256 blocks, so EtherPot is broken. Something strange happened with EtherPot after it launched. There were 3 subpots the first round, but somehow a single player was being reported as the winner of all 3. This single account only had 8% of the tickets, so winning all 3 subpots was pretty unlikely.

logn 11y ago
Yes. From what I gather the correct way to generate a random number is described here: https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice ... and some background discussion here: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-random-number-function https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-rando... However, that game is not totally fair. There's a house edge and of course fees to pay the Ethereum network (the miners). And stepping back, I think Ethereum overall slightly missed the mark. I like the idea of Turing complete programs verified in a blockchain. But I don't think there should be any cost if you're able to run your own node. Further, it's impossible to know the cost of a Turing complete program (halting problem) which is further compounded by the relatively confusing fee chart (variable based on market demand) and currency unit names.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  Anyone verifying the blockchain will have to run the programs in it. So it makes sense to charge a little bit for people to be able to put programs in there.

bbcbasic 11y ago

Digital currencies would pose a worse problem for addicts as there is less of a wait time between playing and getting the result, which may result in more frequent playing and more money spent. Also when you win $1m in bitcoin, cashing it out is probably a bit of a challenge, and you probably need to pay tax on the winnings.