Yeah, it's working on Firefox too now. Thanks Dean!

Thanks. I'll let you know if I can get back on.

Hmm, I'm still having trouble. The site just seems to load forever. Same thing's happening on my phone as well.

I tried clearing my browser's cache and history.

This is what I see:

http://i.imgur.com/T5KkIas.png

Site down for anyone else?

What about the two relatively recent dice sites that absconded with investor dunds, Dice Ninja and Dice Bitcoin?

Surprised they aren't here, because they seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. Anyway, great record OP.

Any explanation for this other than an insanely brazen inside job?

Edit: I see. Glad stunna caught it.

The problem that remains with many of these proposals is that it will always be cheaper to transact off-blockchain and it is free to hold bitcoins once the inflation rate falls. Depending on people's desire for on-blockchain vs. off-blockchain transactions, this can be a serious problem.

Regardless, Meni's suggestion seems clearly better than limiting the blocksize by data.

Is this 50% per year intended to be a hardcoded rule like the block reward?

That's not how I interpreted Gavin's report. It sounded more like a goal that the developers thought was attainable.

That said, 50% per year does seem aggressive. At some point, the opportunity cost of including more transactions is going to exceed the tx fee value, certainly as long as the block reward exists, so the blocksize cannot increase indefinitely. And so what if there is little room in the blockchain? Not every single tiny transaction needs to be recorded indefinitely. Since the (I expect) cost of increasing the block size is increased centralization, shouldn't the developers be hesitant to make such a commitment without allowing for discretion?

I also wonder what the best approach will be, way out in the future, when the block reward is near zero. Can there be an equilibrium transaction fee if the difficulty is allowed to continue to fall? A simple, kludgy solution might be to fix the difficulty at some level, allowing blockrate to depend on the accumulated bounty of transaction fees.

Though I'm sure some new kind of proof of work/stake approach could best solve this problem and make the network more secure and cheaper.

At or near bubble peak, I would give this a shot. I would just wonder what the tax consequences of this are; more options to trade while avoiding taxable events is always a good thing.

PRC down?

Correct my misunderstanding then:

Private keys are intended to be one-to-one with public keys, so that would certainly be a flaw in ECDSA if two private keys correspond to one public key, but since you turn the 256 bit public key into a 160 bit digest, it would just be incredibly unlikely, not impossible, for an ideal hash function to map two different inputs 256 bit to a single 160 bit output.

What's wrong with my understanding?

I promise, if every other bitcoiner holds onto their coins until the spot price is $1,000,000 per coin, I'll spend mine. So don't you worry about it. Keep hodling until then.

The old model gave Dean more profits on wins and no profits on losses. By contrast, this system gives Dean profits that only depend on the amount wagered. Ignoring the variability in the amount wagered, this new system just gives Dean steady but small profits, versus variable profits in the old system.

You're right to say that the model is not 100% the same. Expected profit isn't everything. In traditional investing, if expected profit is known to be positive, you can always hedge against volatility with financial instruments. We don't really have that option yet in the world of crowdsourced bitcoin casino investing.

You're smart enough to know how misleading that is. Expected return is the same; the investors are just giving PRC free insurance to dampen the volatility in the site's commissions.

If Dean needs consistent income to operate the site, then so be it. People can divest if they don't want to take on the (slight) extra risk.

Evidently...

This I don't get. Doog's actions are consistent with an interest in helping PRC.

I'm not entirely surprised that Dean didn't take him up on his offer though; if the code is buggy, what's the guarantee that Doog won't use that information to promote a competitor?

This seems to me like an honest conflict; I don't think there are any bad guys here.

I just want PRC up and running

If someone does, we can kiss 1%+ monthly profits from investing in the bankroll goodbye

I think over the course of a few hours the glitch manifested. My profit was -0.9 and jumped up to -0.6 next time I logged on, without significant changes to site profit. I figured I had gotten lucky and someone divested then invested during a win/loss streak respectively, or that it was just a display error. I didn't withdraw and I didn't notice site investment drop at all after I saw my profit rise. And I'm not sure whether my profit was on net, hurt or helped; I just saw an abrupt change in one direction.

Shortly after I noticed this, Dean closed the site. I don't think much damage was done in that period of time, but we'll see I suppose.

My 2FA code isn't working and I can't withdraw any coins. Is this a bug?

Edit: Resolved. All is good.

To me, that's not very good evidence. Why would he post-date it solely to throw people off if you can see the real date in the URL?