PTS or RPM view on adding gambling

[Empirical1]

I realise PTS doesn't have a BitAsset however it's my understanding the BitShares devs are capable of adding recreational gambling to a DPOS blockchain. However BitShares has a big Chinese market and gambling isn't worth the risk to BTS value.

If the code was already written would PTS or RPM consider adding it to their blockchain?

Some threads from BTSTalk on the subject

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13869.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13860.0
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=13956.0

[fuzzy]

I am a big fan of implementing it as long as we find a way to have a % of the bets burned.  I think PTS would be fine with user-issued assets as well...but I do think it should stay largely untouched other than a few features.

[cube]

I like the idea of gaming.  But I am not so sure it is a good idea to have it on PTS.  It would deviate PTS from its mission - being the 'golden currency'.  Perhaps a new DAC based off pts/bts would be a better idea.  If we can gather more people to be interested in it and support it, we would help for sure.

fuzzy raised the idea of PTS incorporating AGS in some form of PTS's asset.  I think this idea is worth exploring. But we do need to take care of the AGSers' sentiment.

[Empirical1]

PTS seems pretty quiet now so I thought it might be worth it to inject some life, especially if some code had already been written that could add value, I'm not sure that it has. But I think you're right a new DAC might be better than doing too much on PTS.

Besides being a sharedrop DAC, PTS could be a DAC that showcases features such as bingo/gambling that might be worthy of a DPOS DAC. If it works well then another DAC is free to use/take it if they sharedrop on PTS and if not PTS just drops it after the trial.

[graffenwalder]

I like the idea of gaming.  But I am not so sure it is a good idea to have it on PTS.  It would deviate PTS from its mission - being the 'golden currency'.  Perhaps a new DAC based off pts/bts would be a better idea.  If we can gather more people to be interested in it and support it, we would help for sure.

fuzzy raised the idea of PTS incorporating AGS in some form of PTS's asset.  I think this idea is worth exploring. But we do need to take care of the AGSers' sentiment.

I'm not a real fan of this whole gambling idea, either for PTS or BTS. Let Play be the gambling DAC.

My Bitshares portfolio is pretty much equally spread (percentage wise) out over PTS,AGS and BTS.
Personally I don't mind AGS being non-liquid.
I don't really see a point to doing this, it would probably just peg AGS to PTS.
Also it could cause another heated discussion on BTSTalk, which we really don't need right now.

side question:
Are there still plans for marketing PTS into something more than a sharedrop DAC?

[pc]

I like the idea of gaming.  But I am not so sure it is a good idea to have it on PTS.  It would deviate PTS from its mission - being the 'golden currency'.  Perhaps a new DAC based off pts/bts would be a better idea.

+1

IMO the legal difficulties wrt gambling all around the world make it mandatory to create a separate DAC specifically for gambling. In my understanding, this was the initial idea for the Play DAC, but they have since decided to shift focus away from gambling as such to offering services around gambling, like providing game tokens.

The most difficult part to get right is probably the distributed RNG. I think the BTS RNG is not sufficiently safe against colluding delegates (which is fine because of the way it is used). Play have got it almost right (but not quite, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12327.msg163427#msg163427 ). Freetrade has proposed a solution, but AFAIK there is currently no implementation of it: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7989.msg105269#msg105269 .

[freetrade]

What occurred to me while making LottoShares was that a dice DAC could run effectively with a 0% house edge so long as it controls its own money/share supply.

Consider if you have 100 coins issued.

Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.

If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.

There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.

Most bets aren't large in proportional to the total money supply, so the effect is very small for the bettor.

[fuzzy]

What occurred to me while making LottoShares was that a dice DAC could run effectively with a 0% house edge so long as it controls its own money/share supply.

Consider if you have 100 coins issued.

Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.

If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.

There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.

Most bets aren't large in proportional to the total money supply, so the effect is very small for the bettor.

Nicely stated...

[Empirical1]

What occurred to me while making LottoShares was that a dice DAC could run effectively with a 0% house edge so long as it controls its own money/share supply.

Consider if you have 100 coins issued.

Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.

If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.

There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.

Most bets aren't large in proportional to the total money supply, so the effect is very small for the bettor.

Nicely stated...

I think that would work very well.

I think the big market is building it around a BitUSD.

- 1 BitUSD requires $3 of BTS collateral so demand has a bigger impact.
- People leave funds (to play later), so the BitUSD CAP will increase.
- The games will generate a lot of BitUSD transactions. Possibly generating enough revenue to sustain a no-inflation DAC.

The total supply of NuBits hasn't increased since inception & the BitUSD CAP is pretty stagnant, the majority of it was created by only a few people. While centralised dice site numbers suggest that a lower edge, decentralized, fast, no volatility BitUSD gambling option could create a rapidly growing, high turnover 'X'USD.

BitShares can't compete as they would lose their Chinese market.

[pc]

Consider if you have 100 coins issued.

Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.

If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.

There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something seriously wrong with that reasoning.

I mean, in the long run the total number of coins is expected to swing around the average of 100. So as long as the market cap is constant, there is neither inflation nor deflation.

[freetrade]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something seriously wrong with that reasoning.

I don't disagree with you. It does seem very weird, but i'm pretty sure it is true - the house has a slight advantage on every bet. The advantage is much larger with big bets (consider a bet of 50% of the coinbase).

Anyway, I'd guess there will be a successful gambling coin, and I'll guess the 0% edge will be it's killer competitive feature.

[Empirical1]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something seriously wrong with that reasoning.

I don't disagree with you. It does seem very weird, but i'm pretty sure it is true - the house has a slight advantage on every bet. The advantage is much larger with big bets (consider a bet of 50% of the coinbase).

Anyway, I'd guess there will be a successful gambling coin, and I'll guess the 0% edge will be it's killer competitive feature.

Yip and that the blockchain is very unlikely to run away with your money like a centralized site.

I imagine the coin without X BitUSD backing it at the start would have to limit bet sizes till the CAP is larger and the coin more liquid. In the LottoShares example, the coin couldn't conceivably pay you out a big win without crushing its value thereby making it a lot less EV than a centralized site.

Winning 1000 dollars worth of volatile tokens in a new low CAP DAC vs. a 1000 BitUSD is also very different. I imagine a gambling DAC would have to sell at least 10% equity and use the majority raised as the starting float that backs the game.

[fuzzy]

I think it is nice to offer the ability to do so.  I also think that the user should be able to "unlock" the feature in their wallet by burning a certain amount of the token to the "wall" of their account so-to-speak. 

It really comes down to how you frame it.  Frame it as a perk you have to pay to enable but that doesn't come stock in the wallet.  This way people feel like it is a privilege to "gamble" in the wallet if they want it, but most importantly that it isn't being pushed on them. 

[cube]

What occurred to me while making LottoShares was that a dice DAC could run effectively with a 0% house edge so long as it controls its own money/share supply.

Consider if you have 100 coins issued.

Player makes a 10 coin bet on a 50/50 outcome, 0% house edge.

If the player loses, 10 coins are destroyed, now only 90 coins are issued - existing holders are 10% better off through deflation.
If the player wins, 10 new coins are created, 110 now exist - existing holders are 9.09% worse off due to inflation.

There's a 10% upside but only a 9% downside to the bet for the DAC . . and the opposite for the bettor. Effectively a small house edge is hidden by inflation.

Most bets aren't large in proportional to the total money supply, so the effect is very small for the bettor.

This seems an interesting and workable algo.  Did LottoShares implement this?  I did not follow LottoShares.  What happened to it?

[freetrade]

This seems an interesting and workable algo.  Did LottoShares implement this?  I did not follow LottoShares.  What happened to it?

LottoShares implemented a 0% house edge dice game on a PoW chain, and generated quite a bit of interest. Ultimately I was unable to implement a provably fair distributed random number generator. See also ChanceCoin.