Normally, I'm morally opposed to "gambling"...
Feel free to deflect your embarrassment with something about ... your other hypocrite moralizing bullshit.
Please enlighten us why "free will" is immoral (i.e. the free will to choose to participate in a randomized redistribution of bets).
Seems immoral to want top-down control to remove "free will", for it is the antithesis of the physics of existence:
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
If
Satoshi's idealism was decentralization, you don't want it.
Now readers will understand why I referred you to your own request to look up the definition of 'idiot'. You aren't one of sharpest Qtips in the medicinal cabinet.