Quote from: dooglus on July 21, 2013, 04:11:23 PM

Quote from: Rumpel on July 21, 2013, 03:27:49 PM

Whats to stop "investing gamblers" from taking on a high risk with a 1% edge instead of gambling with -1%?

I think the thing that stops them is that investing is too passive. Gamblers want to pick their odds and click the bet button. They don't want to deposit, invest, and wait for someone else to place the bet for them.

Quote from: Rumpel on July 21, 2013, 03:27:49 PM

To take an extreme example, what happens if 10 people are invested in the website with 10 btc each (100 btc is physically on the website), and claim to have 990 in reserve bringing the websites total bankroll to 10,000. A winning max bet of 100 will wipe out all the investors reserves and the websites bankroll is now bust.

People who risk too high a percentage of their online coins will find that they very quickly go bust. People will realise this and either not do it, or quickly stop doing it once they realise that it's not working out for them.

Quote from: Rumpel on July 21, 2013, 03:27:49 PM

The way I see it:
1) Real investors will have their % of bankroll diluted by people gambling on investing.
2) Real investors will either accept this lower return, increase their own risk, or withdraw.
3) Overall the website's bankroll will probably be under more risk.
4) Wagered volume decreasing as people gamble on the investing side with a 1% edge instead of a -1% edge.

I'll try to counter those 4 points.

1) Big investors who currently can't justify keeping 99% of their coins inactive in my cold wallet "just because" will now be able to invest in the site. This will dilute existing investors, but increase max profit, attracting bigger players.
2) Increasing risk is dangerous, and probably ruinous if you don't really have the offline coins you claim to have. Investors withdrawing balances extra investment from point 1. A balance will be reached.
3) Currently 1% of the online bankroll is under risk per roll. The whole point of this proposed change is to allow that to be increased by having investors be able to keep control of some part of their investment that isn't actively needed (yet).
4) I don't know if that would actually happen. Gamblers don't appear to be able to stay invested for long. It's too passive and boring for them. It lacks the buzz you get from clicking the 'bet' button.

Quote from: Rumpel on July 21, 2013, 03:27:49 PM

note: its entirely possible I'm misunderstanding part of this discussion

It seems to me that you've understood it all clearly, and made some good arguments against it. Thank you. I'm by no means committed to taking this course, and appreciate you helping me explore the idea.

I'd like to put in another vote to implement this system. The counterparty risk is way too high to rationally justify allocating a considerable amount of ones capital to just-dice. And time is not making it any better. As the total funds increase the motivation to run away with the funds, or the chance of getting robbed, are also increasing.

What do you think dooglus?