RationalSpeculator



Offline



Activity: 294

Merit: 250



This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!







Sr. MemberActivity: 294Merit: 250This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight! Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 15, 2013, 02:36:05 AM

Last edit: June 15, 2013, 03:49:25 AM by RationalSpeculator #1802 Quote from: adamstgBit on June 15, 2013, 01:52:34 AM SDICE appears to be on sale



what going on? profits are down? is the company going down the drain? good investment opportunity?





Growth has been weak the past months. Even though the dividend of this month is on target to become the biggest ever, over $600,000, this is due to luck as the expected earnings based on btc bet amount is only $300,000.



Current share price at 0,0020 gives 18% dividend based on estimated earnings, or P/E of 5. Since inception this P/E has been on average 6. Growth has been weak the past months. Even though the dividend of this month is on target to become the biggest ever, over $600,000, this is due to luck as the expected earnings based on btc bet amount is only $300,000.Current share price at 0,0020 gives 18% dividend based on estimated earnings, or P/E of 5. Since inception this P/E has been on average 6.

Rampion



Offline



Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1120Merit: 1000 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 15, 2013, 09:41:06 PM #1803 Quote from: Abu22 on June 14, 2013, 02:36:09 PM



Shameless self repost to re-align this derailing on the glorious page 93.



Quote from: Abu22 on June 14, 2013, 12:01:35 PM



So please Erik,

take some time to both consider some of the suggestions put forward by the community (1), providing your reasoning why/why not you choose to accept or deny them; And give us all an idea of where you're steering this - What are the current developments in working and what are their expected time frames.



These are not unreasonable requests and undoubtedly will improve your public reception. If we can just see some evidence showing you're not going at this whole thing blind folded, we'll instill some confidence in the long term prospects of this endeavour.



(1)

- Unobtrusive Text advertisements/s. I gurantee there is a market for other business' wanting to plug a simple link to a high traffic BTC related site such as SD. The time-frame, advertisees and placement of course is up to you. An auction nearing the end of each time frame would be the simplest way to calculate the demand/charge cost for the ad. This provides both a source of income ( That could go towards the betting pool instead of dividends ) AND helps establish other btc companies trying to get some exposure to the exact crowd they want/need (btc users). I'm not usually one for supporting advertisements, but in this instance it is so clearly a smart move for all those involved. If any other members here support or dislike this idea, I urge you construct an intellectual response , not a forum sliding waste of space - "yea do that! / no that's shit!".

( A sample of how this has already been implemented in another site is here, in the top left. Generating ~100 btc a month: http://bitcoinity.org/markets? )



-A dual system of account-less play and pseudo accounts (like PrimeDice (as much as I don't want to support the visibility of a real competitor)); These psudo accounts work simply with a user defined cashout wallet and a server defined play wallet...you can instantly deposit to the play wallet but Once you press cash-out, it will only send once the conditions are met (deposit has x confirmations for a amount of x btc). Additionally, the method of defining the odds you want / payout ratio is far superior. I would definitely suggest innovating on that idea. (There is no need to leave the veil of complexity and confusion by using the 0-64000 set. Of course for Authentication and result calculation you can still use them and give means to access them by users, but they should be represented as a decimal-ed percentage 99.25%...Anything more is undue complexification.



-Opt-in/opt-enabled CHAT. Giving users who wish to socialize whilst gaming the option and ability to, while leaving those who wish not to alone. Even a complex chat system is not difficult to implement ( I built one from scratch in my second year of Uni) ..I can't think of any good reason not to pioneer this idea. (I'm sure your I.T guys are itching to do something other than nothing? maybe penetration, bug, load testing?) ---Example chat, but not exactly as I'm describing ===



-Alt games. Yes the simplicity of SD has it's appeal. But one should not only eat rice, there are many different flavours out there..Many better and more appealing than 'rice'. Implemented as straight forward coupled with accounts. (blackjack, video poker, roulette, war etc.) - These can work standalone per user or on the same virtual table for a far more realistic social experience) -always opt-enabled/disabled



-Alt currencies: By all means, game the system a little and buy a bulk of coins before the announcement of plans to implement alt coins. You can let it create it's own betting pool over time by limiting the max bets etc until it can sustain higher level. The benifits of this would be increased traffic from miners who have little to do with their coins but gamble,hold or sell.



-The lifting of the overly cautious American user barring. (Of course, comply to these restrictions if and when they become present)



- A site redesign competition with a prize (in exchange for full ownership rights to the design)







Lonewolfing this operation initially started well for you, but these string of events these last past months are not showing an signs of encouragement towards a favorable future...



Erik and others, please voice your thoughts and opinions of the above...Ensuring not to make any 'I'm an uneducated dick with an (unfounded) opinion' style posts.



P.S.

Erik, the announcement and inexplicit costs are still awaiting your (or the PR's, lolololol) appropriate explanation.

Ok, I think the people are finally waking up to how badly this whole business, not just this situation is being managed.So please Erik,take some time to both consider some of the suggestions put forward by the community (1), providing your reasoning why/why not you choose to accept or deny them; And give us all an idea of where you're steering this - What are the current developments in working and what are their expected time frames.These are not unreasonable requests and undoubtedly will improve your public reception. If we can just see some evidence showing you're not going at this whole thing blind folded, we'll instill some confidence in the long term prospects of this endeavour.(1). I gurantee there is a market for other business' wanting to plug a simple link to a high traffic BTC related site such as SD. The time-frame, advertisees and placement of course is up to you. An auction nearing the end of each time frame would be the simplest way to calculate the demand/charge cost for the ad.I'm not usually one for supporting advertisements, but in this instance it is so clearly a smart move for all those involved. If any other members here support or dislike this idea, I urge you construct an, not a forum sliding waste of space - "yea do that! / no that's shit!".(like PrimeDice (as much as I don't want to support the visibility of a real competitor)); These psudo accounts work simply with a user defined cashout wallet and a server defined play wallet...you can instantly deposit to the play wallet but Once you press cash-out, it will only send once the conditions are met (deposit has x confirmations for a amount of x btc). Additionally, the method of defining the odds you want / payout ratio is far superior. I would definitely suggest innovating on that idea. (There is no need to leave the veil of complexity and confusion by using the 0-64000 set. Of course for Authentication and result calculation you can still use them and give means to access them by users, but they should be represented as a decimal-ed percentage 99.25%...Anything more is undue complexification.. Giving users who wish to socialize whilst gaming the option and ability to, while leaving those who wish not to alone. Even a complex chat system is not difficult to implement ( I built one from scratch in my second year of Uni) ..I can't think of any good reason not to pioneer this idea. (I'm sure your I.T guys are itching to do something other than nothing? maybe penetration, bug, load testing?) ---Example chat, but not exactly as I'm describing === https://btc-e.com/ . Yes the simplicity of SD has it's appeal. But one should not only eat rice, there are many different flavours out there..Many better and more appealing than 'rice'. Implemented as straight forward coupled with accounts. (blackjack, video poker, roulette, war etc.) - These can work standalone per user or on the same virtual table for a far more realistic social experience) -always opt-enabled/disabledBy all means, game the system a little and buy a bulk of coins before the announcement of plans to implement alt coins. You can let it create it's own betting pool over time by limiting the max bets etc until it can sustain higher level. The benifits of this would be increased traffic from miners who have little to do with their coins but gamble,hold or sell.of the overly cautious American user barring. (Of course, comply to these restrictions if and when they become present)with a prize (in exchange for full ownership rights to the design)Lonewolfing this operation initially started well for you, but these string of events these last past months are not showing an signs of encouragement towards a favorable future...Erik and others, please voice your thoughts and opinions of the above...Ensuring not to make any 'I'm an uneducated dick with an (unfounded) opinion' style posts.P.S.Erik, the announcement and inexplicit costs areawaiting your (or the PR's, lolololol) appropriate explanation. Rampion and nubbins, kindly stfu. This isn't your twitter feed, nor is it a place to discuss the various exchanges. The question of where SD shares can purchased has be answered (Even though that too is not a question appropriate for this thread. If this thread could be found, then so can the pass-through threads in the securities section too...also Google achieves the same)... Tired of seeing the degeneracy in peoples understanding of how a forum works. see- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217081.0 Shameless self repost to re-align this derailing on the glorious page 93.

No one is reading your brain farts, do you realize that, bro? No one is reading your brain farts, do you realize that, bro? PGP KEY

thoughtfan



Offline



Activity: 602

Merit: 500



thoughtfanwritesstuff.wordpress.com







Hero MemberActivity: 602Merit: 500thoughtfanwritesstuff.wordpress.com Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 16, 2013, 05:29:15 PM

Last edit: June 16, 2013, 05:40:09 PM by thoughtfan #1805



Erik,



I have much respect for you but disagree fundamentally with the way you appear to be seeing this situation with the 'loan', my thinking being more aligned with Pale Phoenix, ThickAsThieves and Peter Lambert.



My claim is that the betting pool belongs to the business and was sold as part of the assets of the business. Your starting point appears to be that it was a loan and that you may withdraw that loan at any time without consultation. And though you have moved from this in what you are currently proposing you appear still not to have shifted from the belief that it was and is a loan.



I strongly request you:



accept given there was no documentation of this that the situation is not as clear cut as you have portrayed it;

accept given you do not own the company 100% that you do not have legitimate authority to decide on this and act on this unilaterally;

look to a means of resolving this with shareholders, whether debating here, arbitration or whatever;

agree not to do anything with said pool until the issue is resolved.

I am not right now expecting you to accept my point of view unequivocally, only to accept that those not happy with where you are on this right now are not 'making a fuss' but have a case that needs at least to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. If you take this money from SD you need to understand others see this not as 'repayment of a loan' but as taking the money from SD. I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to or use of this money but let's get the basis on which this money is being removed (e.g. as an equivalent of a 'director's loan' or as repayment of your 'loan' to the business) first. If it is established it is yours then you should not need to pay out of your own pocket to replenish it at all. However if it is the business's then if taken at all it needs at some point to be repaid in full. What I'm saying is we should establish what is what before such a transaction should take place.



Given that there was no list of liabilities and assets there is no indisputable proof that the pool was an asset. Neither is there indisputable proof that it was there as a loan. We can all regret it was not made clear but what neither you nor any of us can legitimately do is to retrospectively and without agreement say 'this is what should have been written in the documentation and I shall therefore act accordingly'.



It is not that anyone is trying to take this money from you. But if I am not alone having made the assumption the betting pool belonged to the business then this will have formed part of people's assessment of the value of the stock at the time of purchase. What I'm saying is you already sold the same proportion of that sum as you did the rest of the assets and future profits to stockholders and that this asset was already reflected in the popularity and price of the stock. From this perspective you sold the asset therefore can not subsequently claim it's yours to have back.



My case is simply that a betting pool is as essential to a gambling business as widgets are to a widget seller - in fact more so because you can simply stop selling widgets when you've run out of stock whereas a gambling business always needs the means to pay out on a run of consecutive big wins. It is therefore not unreasonable to have assumed the betting pool was an asset owned by the business and consequently sold as part of the business.



You might have been lucky from day 1 but it would have been ludicrous to have started the business depending on a run of losing bets in order to pay out on the wins. You provided a betting pool and increased it in accordance with probable requirements whilst the business was entirely yours and you were free to see that as part of the assets of the business or as a loan. Only if you decided to separate business money from your own and maybe use a separate bank account or set up a limited company would you have to decide one way or the other. What happened when you brought a partner on board? You are not obliged to tell us given it was a private agreement but it might help if we knew how ownership of the money making up the pool was determined at that juncture.



Quote from: evoorhees on June 13, 2013, 03:28:06 AM I absolutely should have disclosed that there was a betting pool...

You didn't need to. Not only did we know there was a betting pool from the discussions regarding its size and associated risk of losing the bank but it also goes without saying a gambling business has to have the means to pay prizes. The serious omission if you wanted it form part of the arrangement, was stating that this money did not belong to the business and was therefore not part of what was being sold.



Quote from: evoorhees on June 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM Nowhere was it ever mentioned by me that SD owned a big pile of bitcoins.

But we knew the amount of the betting pool - the business's operating capital - and nowhere was it ever mentioned that that money was not SD's.



Quote from: evoorhees on June 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM My mistake for letting the site use my coins since the beginning.

I can see you see it as 'letting the site use your coins' but when people set up a business requiring assets, such as stock or a betting pool, this is the capital investment made. You can't seriously regret using your coins given that SD would have fallen at the first big win had you not?



I think the following analogy illustrates how you have been failing to understand this:



Quote from: evoorhees on June 12, 2013, 06:44:50 PM It's like if I had been letting SD use my personal hosting account for free, and then one day said, "he guys, we need to get a hosting account for SD because I don't want it using mine anymore."



I believe a better analogy would be had you bought a server to host the site yourself then when selling the business, retained ownership of the server whilst assuming the buyers would somehow guess the server is not part of the deal* only to say a few months down the line: "btw, that server is mine and I am on the company's behalf using company money in the form of this month's profits to buy it from me". Can you see how shareholders might take exception to this?



I understand this is not what you are proposing to do at the moment and appreciate given the way you are seeing this that you are 'giving up' your monthly dividend...



Quote from: evoorhees on June 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM In effect, this won't change things much from the current situation. I'll bear the whole cost of the betting pool, it'll just be smaller now.



But my primary concern is that the betting pool not be lessened. If anything that should be increasing slightly over time. If the amount of the betting pool represents the acceptable risk of the business running out of funds and that is sometimes less then there is an increased risk of running out of funds meaning a means of increasing or replenishing the pool needs to be established in the longer term. As has been pointed out part of the MPEX agreement is that it not come out of the dividend so whether or not you are taking a part or the whole of the current pool this is something which will need addressing. But in the meantime if you were to take the money without planning to replace it full then to the extent it is short is not only the taking of an amount some believe is not yours to take but is also an increased risk of the business being caught short in terms of payouts.



I hope this is not coming across in an accusatory manor. It is not my intention to lay blame nor to imply wrongdoing on your part. But we do have a fundamental disagreement here which I'd like you first and foremost to acknowledge is an issue and secondly to suggest how you would like to see it resolved.





* - which incidentally would have been obvious had you been charging the business for its use (or in the case of the loan, had been charging interest) Until today I've had no time in the last few weeks to see if there was a reason for the falling SD stock price and have only now caught up with this thread over the last few days ( from here ).Erik,I have much respect for you but disagree fundamentally with the way you appear to be seeing this situation with the 'loan', my thinking being more aligned with Pale Phoenix, ThickAsThieves and Peter Lambert.My claim is that the betting pool belongs to the business and was sold as part of the assets of the business. Your starting point appears to be that it was a loan and that you may withdraw that loan at any time without consultation. And though you have moved from this in what you are currently proposing you appear still not to have shifted from the belief that it was and is a loan.I strongly request you:I am not right now expecting you to accept my point of view unequivocally, only to accept that those not happy with where you are on this right now are not 'making a fuss' but have a case that needs at least to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. If you take this money from SD you need to understand others see this not as 'repayment of a loan' but as taking the money from SD. I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to or use of this money but let's get the basis on which this money is being removed (e.g. as an equivalent of a 'director's loan' or as repayment of your 'loan' to the business) first. If it is established it is yours then you should not need to pay out of your own pocket to replenish it at all. However if it is the business's then if taken at all it needs at some point to be repaid in full. What I'm saying is we should establish what is whatsuch a transaction should take place.Given that there was no list of liabilities and assets there is no indisputable proof that the pool was an asset. Neither is there indisputable proof that it was there as a loan. We can all regret it was not made clear but what neither you nor any of us can legitimately do is to retrospectively and without agreement say 'this is what should have been written in the documentation and I shall therefore act accordingly'.It is not that anyone is trying to take this money from you. But if I am not alone having made the assumption the betting pool belonged to the business then this will have formed part of people's assessment of the value of the stock at the time of purchase. What I'm saying is you already sold the same proportion of that sum as you did the rest of the assets and future profits to stockholders and that. From this perspective you sold the asset therefore can not subsequently claim it's yours to have back.My case is simply that a betting pool is as essential to a gambling business as widgets are to a widget seller - in fact more so because you can simply stop selling widgets when you've run out of stock whereas a gambling business always needs the means to pay out on a run of consecutive big wins. It is therefore not unreasonable to have assumed the betting pool was an asset owned by the business and consequently sold as part of the business.You might have been lucky from day 1 but it would have been ludicrous to have started the business depending on a run of losing bets in order to pay out on the wins. You provided a betting pool and increased it in accordance with probable requirements whilst the business was entirely yours and you were free to see that as part of the assets of the business or as a loan. Only if you decided to separate business money from your own and maybe use a separate bank account or set up a limited company would you have to decide one way or the other. What happened when you brought a partner on board? You are not obliged to tell us given it was a private agreement but it might help if we knew how ownership of the money making up the pool was determined at that juncture.You didn't need to. Not only did we know there was a betting pool from the discussions regarding its size and associated risk of losing the bank but it also goes without saying a gambling business has to have the means to pay prizes. The serious omission if you wanted it form part of the arrangement, was stating that this moneybelong to the business and was therefore not part of what was being sold.But we knew the amount of the betting pool - the business's operating capital - and nowhere was it ever mentioned that that money was not SD's.I can see you see it as 'letting the site use your coins' but when people set up a business requiring assets, such as stock or a betting pool, this is the capital investment made. You can't seriously regret using your coins given that SD would have fallen at the first big win had you not?I think the following analogy illustrates how you have been failing to understand this:I believe a better analogy would be had you bought a server to host the site yourself then when selling the business, retained ownership of the server whilst assuming the buyers would somehow guess the server is not part of the deal* only to say a few months down the line: "btw, that server is mine and I am on the company's behalf using company money in the form of this month's profits to buy it from me". Can you see how shareholders might take exception to this?I understand this is not what you are proposing to do at the moment and appreciate given the way you are seeing this that you are 'giving up' your monthly dividend...But my primary concern is that the betting pool not be lessened. If anything that should be increasing slightly over time. If the amount of the betting pool represents the acceptable risk of the business running out of funds and that is sometimes less then there is an increased risk of running out of funds meaning a means of increasing or replenishing the pool needs to be established in the longer term. As has been pointed out part of the MPEX agreement is that it not come out of the dividend so whether or not you are taking a part or the whole of the current pool this is something which will need addressing. But in the meantime if you were to take the money without planning to replace it full then to the extent it is short is not only the taking of an amount some believe is not yours to take but is also an increased risk of the business being caught short in terms of payouts.I hope this is not coming across in an accusatory manor. It is not my intention to lay blame nor to imply wrongdoing on your part. But we do have a fundamental disagreement here which I'd like you first and foremost to acknowledge is an issue and secondly to suggest how you would like to see it resolved.* - which incidentally would have been obvious had you been charging the business for its use (or in the case of the loan, had been charging interest) Please disregard Litecoin and Zcash badges to the left. I have just gathered they are an April fool's joke!

RationalSpeculator



Offline



Activity: 294

Merit: 250



This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!







Sr. MemberActivity: 294Merit: 250This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight! Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 16, 2013, 05:33:50 PM #1806 Quote from: madmax_ger on June 16, 2013, 02:49:40 PM Quote from: Rampion on June 15, 2013, 09:41:06 PM No one is reading your brain farts, do you realize that, bro?



I did. I would not recommend to overload SD but I'd also like to hear something from the owner in response to the ideas from abu22.

They aren't bad at all.



I did. I would not recommend to overload SD but I'd also like to hear something from the owner in response to the ideas from abu22.They aren't bad at all.

I think you might have missed something. The sometimes good content of his posts serves to excuse his rudeness, obnoxiousness, invasiveness, scepticism and false accusations, none of which are 'being critical'. If it would be just the bad without some good, it wouldn't work on anyone.



He's acting out from what I see and is dumping chit on others. Try to avoid it.



Also people who quote him do make me see his posts again. I think you might have missed something. The sometimes good content of his posts serves to excuse his rudeness, obnoxiousness, invasiveness, scepticism and false accusations, none of which are 'being critical'. If it would be just the bad without some good, it wouldn't work on anyone.He's acting out from what I see and is dumping chit on others. Try to avoid it.Also people who quote him do make me see his posts again.

RationalSpeculator



Offline



Activity: 294

Merit: 250



This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!







Sr. MemberActivity: 294Merit: 250This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight! Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 16, 2013, 05:41:59 PM

Last edit: June 17, 2013, 02:08:01 AM by RationalSpeculator #1807 Quote from: thoughtfan on June 16, 2013, 05:29:15 PM



Erik,



I have much respect for you but disagree fundamentally with the way you appear to be seeing this situation with the 'loan', my thinking being more aligned with Pale Phoenix, ThickAsThieves and Peter Lambert.



My claim is that the betting pool belongs to the business and was sold as part of the assets of the business. Your starting point appears to be that it was a loan and that you may withdraw that loan at any time without consultation. And though you have moved from this in what you are currently proposing you appear still not to have shifted from the belief that it was and is a loan.



I strongly request you:



accept given there was no documentation of this that the situation is not as clear cut as you have portrayed it;

accept given you do not own the company 100% that you do not have legitimate authority to decide on this and act on this unilaterally;

look to a means of resolving this with shareholders, whether debating here, arbitration or whatever;

agree not to do anything with said pool until the issue is resolved.

I am not right now expecting you to accept my point of view unequivocally, only to accept that those not happy with where you are on this right now are not 'making a fuss' but have a case that needs at least to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. If you take this money from SD you need to understand others see this not as 'repayment of a loan' but as taking the money from SD. I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to or use of this money but let's get the basis on which this money is being removed (e.g. as an equivalent of a 'director's loan' or as repayment of your 'loan' to the business) first. If it is established it is yours then you should not need to pay out of your own pocket to replenish it at all. However if it is the business's then if taken at all it needs at some point to be repaid in full. What I'm saying is we should establish what is what before such a transaction should take place.



Given that there was no list of liabilities and assets there is no indisputable proof that the pool was an asset. Neither is there indisputable proof that it was there as a loan. We can all regret it was not made clear but what neither you nor any of us can legitimately do is to retrospectively and without agreement say 'this is what should have been written in the documentation and I shall therefore act accordingly'.



It is not that anyone is trying to take this money from you. But if I am not alone having made the assumption the betting pool belonged to the business then this will have formed part of people's assessment of the value of the stock at the time of purchase. What I'm saying is you already sold the same proportion of that sum as you did the rest of the assets and future profits to stockholders and that this asset was already reflected in the popularity and price of the stock. From this perspective you sold the asset therefore can not subsequently claim it's yours to have back.



My case is simply that a betting pool is as essential to a gambling business as widgets are to a widget seller - in fact more so because you can simply stop selling widgets when you've run out of stock whereas a gambling business always needs the means to pay out on a run of consecutive big wins. It is therefore not unreasonable to have assumed the betting pool was an asset owned by the business and consequently sold as part of the business.



You might have been lucky from day 1 but it would have been ludicrous to have started the business depending on a run of losing bets in order to pay out on the wins. You provided a betting pool and increased it in accordance with probable requirements whilst the business was entirely yours and you were free to see that as part of the assets of the business or as a loan. Only if you decided to separate business money from your own and maybe use a separate bank account or set up a limited company would you have to decide one way or the other. What happened when you brought a partner on board? You are not obliged to tell us given it was a private agreement but it might help if we knew how ownership of the money making up the pool was determined at that juncture.



But my primary concern is that the betting pool not be lessened. If anything that should be increasing slightly over time. If the amount of the betting pool represents the acceptable risk of the business running out of funds and that is sometimes less then there is an increased risk of running out of funds meaning a means of increasing or replenishing the pool needs to be established in the longer term. As has been pointed out part of the MPEX agreement is that it not come out of the dividend so whether or not you are taking a part or the whole of the current pool this is something which will need addressing. But in the meantime if you were to take the money without planning to replace it full then to the extent it is short is not only the taking of an amount some believe is not yours to take but is also an increased risk of the business being caught short in terms of payouts.



I hope this is not coming across in an accusatory manor. It is not my intention to lay blame nor to imply wrongdoing on your part. But we do have a fundamental disagreement here which I'd like you first and foremost to acknowledge is an issue and secondly to suggest how you would like to see it resolved.





* - which incidentally would have been obvious had you been charging the business for its use (or in the case of the loan, had been charging interest)

Until today I've had no time in the last few weeks to see if there was a reason for the falling SD stock price and have only now caught up with this thread over the last few days ( from here ).Erik,I have much respect for you but disagree fundamentally with the way you appear to be seeing this situation with the 'loan', my thinking being more aligned with Pale Phoenix, ThickAsThieves and Peter Lambert.My claim is that the betting pool belongs to the business and was sold as part of the assets of the business. Your starting point appears to be that it was a loan and that you may withdraw that loan at any time without consultation. And though you have moved from this in what you are currently proposing you appear still not to have shifted from the belief that it was and is a loan.I strongly request you:I am not right now expecting you to accept my point of view unequivocally, only to accept that those not happy with where you are on this right now are not 'making a fuss' but have a case that needs at least to be taken seriously and not dismissed out of hand. If you take this money from SD you need to understand others see this not as 'repayment of a loan' but as taking the money from SD. I'm not saying you shouldn't have access to or use of this money but let's get the basis on which this money is being removed (e.g. as an equivalent of a 'director's loan' or as repayment of your 'loan' to the business) first. If it is established it is yours then you should not need to pay out of your own pocket to replenish it at all. However if it is the business's then if taken at all it needs at some point to be repaid in full. What I'm saying is we should establish what is whatsuch a transaction should take place.Given that there was no list of liabilities and assets there is no indisputable proof that the pool was an asset. Neither is there indisputable proof that it was there as a loan. We can all regret it was not made clear but what neither you nor any of us can legitimately do is to retrospectively and without agreement say 'this is what should have been written in the documentation and I shall therefore act accordingly'.It is not that anyone is trying to take this money from you. But if I am not alone having made the assumption the betting pool belonged to the business then this will have formed part of people's assessment of the value of the stock at the time of purchase. What I'm saying is you already sold the same proportion of that sum as you did the rest of the assets and future profits to stockholders and that. From this perspective you sold the asset therefore can not subsequently claim it's yours to have back.My case is simply that a betting pool is as essential to a gambling business as widgets are to a widget seller - in fact more so because you can simply stop selling widgets when you've run out of stock whereas a gambling business always needs the means to pay out on a run of consecutive big wins. It is therefore not unreasonable to have assumed the betting pool was an asset owned by the business and consequently sold as part of the business.You might have been lucky from day 1 but it would have been ludicrous to have started the business depending on a run of losing bets in order to pay out on the wins. You provided a betting pool and increased it in accordance with probable requirements whilst the business was entirely yours and you were free to see that as part of the assets of the business or as a loan. Only if you decided to separate business money from your own and maybe use a separate bank account or set up a limited company would you have to decide one way or the other. What happened when you brought a partner on board? You are not obliged to tell us given it was a private agreement but it might help if we knew how ownership of the money making up the pool was determined at that juncture.But my primary concern is that the betting pool not be lessened. If anything that should be increasing slightly over time. If the amount of the betting pool represents the acceptable risk of the business running out of funds and that is sometimes less then there is an increased risk of running out of funds meaning a means of increasing or replenishing the pool needs to be established in the longer term. As has been pointed out part of the MPEX agreement is that it not come out of the dividend so whether or not you are taking a part or the whole of the current pool this is something which will need addressing. But in the meantime if you were to take the money without planning to replace it full then to the extent it is short is not only the taking of an amount some believe is not yours to take but is also an increased risk of the business being caught short in terms of payouts.I hope this is not coming across in an accusatory manor. It is not my intention to lay blame nor to imply wrongdoing on your part. But we do have a fundamental disagreement here which I'd like you first and foremost to acknowledge is an issue and secondly to suggest how you would like to see it resolved.* - which incidentally would have been obvious had you been charging the business for its use (or in the case of the loan, had been charging interest)



Great post. I agree with your argument. Thanks for sharing. Great post. I agree with your argument. Thanks for sharing.

ThickAsThieves



Offline



Activity: 518

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 518Merit: 500 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 16, 2013, 08:53:25 PM #1809 Quote from: romerun on June 16, 2013, 06:33:45 PM you know what none of this does matter if sdice release new games or make noticeably improvement on the service.



Oh, you still have hopes that this company will actually try to move forward and progress?



In the time that sdice has dropped fart after fart on shareholders, people like CoinRoll.it, and even Dooglus (not to mention many others surely), have managed to innovate in this area without the backing of IPO funds.



I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'll be too sore to feel good about it anyway. This is the sound of a sinking ship, no?







Oh, you still have hopes that this company will actually try to move forward and progress?In the time that sdice has dropped fart after fart on shareholders, people like CoinRoll.it, and even Dooglus (not to mention many others surely), have managed to innovate in this area without the backing of IPO funds.I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I'll be too sore to feel good about it anyway. This is the sound of a sinking ship, no?

Abu22



Offline



Activity: 80

Merit: 10









MemberActivity: 80Merit: 10 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 17, 2013, 02:11:44 AM

Last edit: June 17, 2013, 03:58:03 AM by Abu22 #1810 @madmax_ger

Thank you and I agree, overloading it would be a mistake...But adding many of these prospects to the todo list and developing over time would give everyone at least some hope SD's engines are still working and that we're not simply dead in the water.



@ThickAsThieves,

Exactly. This is why it is in Erik's best interest to make mention in detail of what developments are being made and what level of progress they're at.



@thoughtfan

A well thought out post, your contributions are appreciated.



@RationalSpeculator (who has me on ignore thanks to their willing ignorance)

1: Fuck you. There is NO NEED to quote a long post in full (on the same page) just to give a +1 thumbs up. It slides the page unnecessarily.

2: Fuck you. Your accusations of my apparent "rudeness, obnoxiousness, invasiveness, scepticism and false accusations, none of which are 'being critical'." are just that, baseless accusations. Pull your head out of your arse and try construct a post with some actual content. Skimming through your posts, you're the worst kind of forum member. All you do is bloat everything with irrelevant or unnecessary posts.

3. Fuck you. I know I can be rude. I reserve it for those no longer deserving of common politeness.



@Rampion

Bro? Bro.. Bro..Shut Up. People who want to read my posts can and do. Don't speak for everyone, thinking that because your 3rd grade reading and comprehension level prohibits you from understanding what's being discussed that that all somehow applies to everyone here. Go be useless somewhere else.



---

I think it's unacceptable that Erik presents himself here so little, and his PR even less. Of course usually there wouldn't be this much demand from him to make comments but the past few months have just been him giving drive-by bombshells.. "by the way nothing is yours I'm taking the money cya bye!"

zebedee

Hero Member



Offline



Activity: 668

Merit: 500









DonatorHero MemberActivity: 668Merit: 500 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 17, 2013, 01:01:30 PM #1812 The poorly thought out MPEX contract is already revealing its problems.



100 % of profits are paid to shareholders. Absolutely zero room for reinvestment. Basic probability theory says it's guaranteed SD will exhaust its pool eventually. What then? Who bails it out? On what terms?



The likelihood of this happening rises enormously with raised limits or lower house edge. A competitor can come along with deep pockets and improve either of those.



Worst it would seem this contract straitjacket cannot be changed. How then can SD compete and survive?



Quite unfortunate. There should have been made room for the "representatives" to decide monthly on potentially reinvesting up to say 10% of earnings. I suspect hubris is what prevented such a common sense clause from being written, along with the other issues like lack of transparent balance sheet.

kokojie



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1001 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 17, 2013, 03:49:06 PM #1814 Quote from: zebedee on June 17, 2013, 01:01:30 PM The poorly thought out MPEX contract is already revealing its problems.



100 % of profits are paid to shareholders. Absolutely zero room for reinvestment. Basic probability theory says it's guaranteed SD will exhaust its pool eventually. What then? Who bails it out? On what terms?



The likelihood of this happening rises enormously with raised limits or lower house edge. A competitor can come along with deep pockets and improve either of those.



Worst it would seem this contract straitjacket cannot be changed. How then can SD compete and survive?



Quite unfortunate. There should have been made room for the "representatives" to decide monthly on potentially reinvesting up to say 10% of earnings. I suspect hubris is what prevented such a common sense clause from being written, along with the other issues like lack of transparent balance sheet.



Erik's personal profits are backing the pool, it's extremely unlikely SDice can exhaust the pool. Erik's personal profits are backing the pool, it's extremely unlikely SDice can exhaust the pool. btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6

GeoRW



Offline



Activity: 350

Merit: 257





Trust No One







Sr. MemberActivity: 350Merit: 257Trust No One Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 17, 2013, 04:14:33 PM #1815 Quote from: zebedee on June 17, 2013, 01:01:30 PM The poorly thought out MPEX contract is already revealing its problems.



100 % of profits are paid to shareholders. Absolutely zero room for reinvestment. Basic probability theory says it's guaranteed SD will exhaust its pool eventually. What then? Who bails it out? On what terms?



The likelihood of this happening rises enormously with raised limits or lower house edge. A competitor can come along with deep pockets and improve either of those.



Worst it would seem this contract straitjacket cannot be changed. How then can SD compete and survive?



Quite unfortunate. There should have been made room for the "representatives" to decide monthly on potentially reinvesting up to say 10% of earnings. I suspect hubris is what prevented such a common sense clause from being written, along with the other issues like lack of transparent balance sheet.



Erik is not allowed to sell more than 50% of company shares. So it is in his best interest to make it profitable. On the other hand, his latests moves point out that he wants to leave S.DICE or that something bad is going to happen. Anytime a lawyer is involved in a bitcoin world this happens. Erik is not allowed to sell more than 50% of company shares. So it is in his best interest to make it profitable. On the other hand, his latests moves point out that he wants to leave S.DICE or that something bad is going to happen. Anytime a lawyer is involved in a bitcoin world this happens.

nimda



Offline



Activity: 784

Merit: 1000





0xFB0D8D1534241423







Hero MemberActivity: 784Merit: 10000xFB0D8D1534241423 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 17, 2013, 09:12:45 PM #1816 Again, not a shareholder, but S.DICE holders might wish to know:



Eric stated that the betting pool was 6100 BTC.

The lessthan 64 bet has a payout of 999.429x and a max bet of 6.4100 BTC.

999.429 * 6.4100 = 6406.33989



6406.33989 > 6100



That is all. Draw your own conclusions. I am not a laywer or broker, and this is not financial advice. I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.

kokojie



Offline



Activity: 1764

Merit: 1001









LegendaryActivity: 1764Merit: 1001 Re: S.DICE - SatoshiDICE 100% Dividend-Paying Asset on MPEx June 18, 2013, 01:07:14 AM #1817 Quote from: nimda on June 17, 2013, 09:12:45 PM Again, not a shareholder, but S.DICE holders might wish to know:



Eric stated that the betting pool was 6100 BTC.

The lessthan 64 bet has a payout of 999.429x and a max bet of 6.4100 BTC.

999.429 * 6.4100 = 6406.33989



6406.33989 > 6100



That is all. Draw your own conclusions. I am not a laywer or broker, and this is not financial advice.



If you are betting 6.4 BTC on the lessthan 64 bet, by all means, go ahead, SDice shareholders will thank you. By the time you actually win, the betting pool would look something like 12k BTC at least. Unless of course you are extremely lucky and win in a few play. If you are betting 6.4 BTC on the lessthan 64 bet, by all means, go ahead, SDice shareholders will thank you. By the time you actually win, the betting pool would look something like 12k BTC at least. Unless of course you are extremely lucky and win in a few play. btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6