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?
I think that if I want to attract more investment, implementing something like the proposed scheme would achieve it. But I'm not sure I do.
The maximum profit *per roll* is already over 340 BTC, which is enormous, and investment continues to grow.
I worry that if I offer a "safer" way for big players to invest then a small number of very big investors will come in and destroy the yield for the current investors, effectively forcing them to either dangerously increase the amount they're risking per roll, or to pull out completely.
My vision for the site was as a community of small investors together building a decent sized bankroll for themselves and others to play against. Not as a money-making scheme for a small number of already-rich bitcoin millionaires.
I was attracted to the idea of having "local coins" because it very neatly solves the implementation trouble I was having, but I don't think the effects it would bring about would necessarily be desirable.
pros:
* investors can keep more of their coins locally, reducing counter-party risk
* new investors are attracted (those not willing to deposit 100% of their bankroll with me)
* max profit increases
cons:
* max profit becomes much more volatile
* existing investors are diluted such that it's no longer worth staying invested without taking big risks
* changing core functionality carries associated risk and expense
At the moment I'm thinking "ain't broke, don't fix it". I get that the current scheme is deterring
you some people from investing, but that's OK. We have lots of investment already.
Edit: changed the last paragraph to make it less personal