Quote from: Deprived on March 02, 2013, 08:43:15 PM

Quote from: dooglus on March 02, 2013, 08:19:21 PM

Quote from: Deprived on March 02, 2013, 04:21:33 AM

If a pool discards S.DICE transactions but intentionally allows competing transactions from same source to process then the pool only needs a few % of network power for anyone to profitably attack S.DICE by trying to double-spend any losing bets - the few % of times the pool includes the double-spend (and cancels the losing bet) then outweigh the house edge on the rest of bets. You underestimate the extent to which some are opposed to S.DICE (not me - obviously).

I don't know if you're aware, but there's already a bot that routinely double-spends lots of losing SatoshiDice bets. Its transactions almost never get picked up by the miners though. All it would need would be for an anti-SD pool to start deliberately mining the double-spent transactions to make SD unprofitable. Can you think of anyone with a mining pool who's vocally against SD and has used the pool for morally questionable things in the past? Wink

I'm sure the person you're thinking of is the one I had in mind when making my comments.

No way. We have someone like that who runs a mining pool? I pray it isn't so.