Help with decentralization of poker?

2

Comments

  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    It is difficult to jump in and out of sideways conversations, but I don't mind trying.
    I am assuming that there is no "RANDAO" and that an external decentralized random seed is not available. I do believe it is the most difficult and important advance society could make and so I think we underestimate the power of the most "truest" randomness available. For this I wonder if rather it is another economical problem in that you must combat those that want to corrupt a random pattern and those that have incentive for a "truer" or fair randomness. If this might be true then I think I have some ideas and it might be that poker players for example could be used to "financially" keep together a random system.

    I do agree with much you allude to about using a blockchain for verification, it all seems quite simple and direct (from a non programmer side). As for "colluding", yes its important to separate it from the problem of gameplay because it is not realistically a technical problem in the programming sense-it has its own solution separate from decentralizing the deck.

  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    FrankHold said:

    Maybe we have to split the task. Let ethereum do what it can best – transfer and organize the money flow. And let a poker routine run on a classic server outside of ethereum.

    Its not really acceptable in the spirit of decentralization. Player will want a mental poker process that can be completely secure.
  • innovator256innovator256 Posts: 5Member
    Hello there interesting discussion you've got going on there I have worked on this problem for more than a year now and I have detailed an extensive plan using smart contracts to provide a solution to the mental poker problem. There is also a team working on the project along side a client and a DAO in formation to manage the poker DAPP. I have posted the project as a new discussion , hopefully it gets approved soon. But in the mean time yo can find it here : http://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2wumjj/pokereum_an_ethereumtelehash_based_provably_fair/

    We should all collaborate to make this happen as a community, each person contributing where they can. Also free tokens :) Thanks
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited June 2015
    I didn't fully understand the pokereum project. My understanding that I had plus my understanding of the poker economy and the future of it led me to this:

    https://i1.wp.com/s23.postimg.org/69611n4ff/DPoker_Diagram.png

    And this explanation:

    https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/3194/

    Just posting it all wherever relevant for discussion.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    Another thought I've been pondering:
    We give power of the network to the losing players. This is actual quite interesting and as I understand it NOT Pokereum’s solution.

    Interesting thoughts arise…and we start to wonder if that could possibly be the solution WITHOUT any sort of system of public/private tables etc.

    We think about a certain malicious party trying to lose enough money to take over the network…impossible or favorable for the players in the long run, in order to secure a network that will lose its integrity ultimately anyways.

    A malicious party losing to only its own accounts cannot be a very net loser.

    We can also think about possibilities for bots and bot pools to arise that are “losing players” on average, but receive enough supplemental private game rake (in exchange for acting as a random node) that being a slight loser plus the additional control of the network might be enough secure and equilibrium.

    A winning bot must necessarily PAY for some control of the network.

    A losing player gets a piece of the network and they can sell it.

    You want your poker network/stake to grow or shrink in relation to “domestic deposits” or “lost monies”.

    The incentive to own stake in the network can be collecting “rake” by acting as juror for private games.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    Here's some somewhat organized infor and points. Basically things seem still stuck in design phase, but it seems to me that lightning channels might be quite applicable, and cancel a lot of complexity out:

    A Relevant History of Mental Poker:
    https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/4022/

    A Relevant Overview of Mental Poker Implementations:
    https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/a-relevant-overview-of-mental-poker-implementations/

    Solving Implementation Problems of Mental Poker via Lighting Channels: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/solving-implementation-problems-of-mental-poker-via-lighting-channels/

    I don't understand them perfectly though but I am going to go through the examples soon and relate them to a poker hand the best I can. I am anticipating a possible issue I am not sure we have but it might be a simple algorithm can be set as the final issue of reneging is solved.

    A Possible Solution to Habitual Renegers:
    https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/a-possible-solution-to-habitual-renegers/

    It might be wrong to think but it seems to me simplicity is a hint things are developing in the correct direction. Any thoughts are very welcome!
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    Also this:

    Two Possibly Useful Thoughts for the Implementation of Mental Poker: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/two-possibly-useful-thoughts-for-the-implementation-of-mental-poker/

    I'm just brainstorming. I don't see any implementations, so I am gathering the info and thoughts I can.
  • AFDuldeyAFDuldey Posts: 3Member
    I was working with a team of people to solve the "poker on ethereum" problem. There are a number of teams working on it now. I assume a solution will be available soon. :D
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    Is that promising?
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    I didn't see this before:

    “How to Use Bitcoin to Play Decentralized Poker” proposes a protocol solution whereby any player that refuses to participate for selfish gain forfeits a substantial fee to each player that is playing honestly. This removes any possible economic incentive for such dishonest action.

    http://people.csail.mit.edu/ranjit/papers/poker.pdf

    To me this means the philosophy is complete:

    There is still the difficulty, from the players perspective, in understanding how a P2P environment can police collusion, bots, hud’s, and other types of cheating. A secure implementable P2P mental poker protocol provides the necessary infrastructure and tools for many competing poker sites to arise and to solve these problems. Rake can be paid to these sites to provide any, all, or none of the historical solutions that the centralized server model generally included.

    This suggests a conclusion in this direction still using third parties for realistic implementation, but not for trust in the tradition way:

    The introduction of a secure mental poker protocol which handles security of chips, dealing, gameflow, and cashout/deposits removes the need for a trusted third party. The problem of player collusion is solved removing the barrier to entry to provide a poker site solution thereby fostering a competitive market place for players. The implementation of the protocol is secure, trustworthy, allows effectively instant game flow, and is exponentially cheaper for emerging sites who can now offer a superior product at a reduced cost because of a drastically reduced overhead.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    ^The insight here would be p2p poker would be initiated by a protocol enforced by a contract, and all of the other solutions come from innovation. If Satoshi introduced a p2p money that projects have been developing services for, Poker Satoshi would be offering cards, chips, and game flow, for Poker Sites to build their services around.
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    I'd like to help with this and I have been thinking of a solution for a very long time.
    What I came up with is that poker is better off on a central model. You can come up with a bunch of work arounds for the various issues of online poker or decentr poker but when you consider collusion you'll find that it needs a central body to oversee it.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    I don't know if ur really solving the problem at all by not at all solving it though. Also you are wrong about collusion and I certainly have a solution for that aspect, but I'm getting the impression you aren't interested in reading.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    ah sorry, wait....g416g are you a programmer? maybe you are just not very familiar with the problem. perhaps you are stronger in the language and translation, then we could be helpful to each other.

    But please...don't tell me your solution to decentralization is centralization... we won't get along... :) just allow for the possibility I have insight in this regard
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    Poker is possible decentralized - Is it useful ? No

    I solved the collusion problem myself for about 10 minutes until I found out how to cheat my own solution.

    There are some things that just don't transalate well to a digital world. One of those is poker because there is the issue of cheating. Which can't be addressed unless a man is forced to sit in a titanium box with cameras and microhones and sniffers all around him. Hence it is cheaper to pick up the player via jet and limousine and drive him to a live game.

    Poker needs verified users and a body to oversee the verification and maintain the security which in itself is a full time job. You probably don't know the length to which poker sites go to ensure fair play and even they fail. Pokerstars has been fleeced for millions by russians hackers and organized teams of cheaters, bots etc. You need to solve the cheating problem and it has been tried many times with limited success. Eth brings nothing new to poker except more russian hacks and a faster way to fleece the system.

    Please share your wonderful solution and I'll tell you how/why/where it breaks down.

  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    Thx. Lemme know when ur caught up: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/

    You are starting from a conclusion, and its not correct. Use the search for "collusion" as well. But don't ignore the rest of the material :)
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    I'm not explaining anything unless you show sincerity. Why would I argue with a conclusion?
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    The rest of the material is gibberish as is that wordpress site. Its a nonsense site with broken views and articles put together by someone that isn't going anywhere with poker. Good luck and sorry if that's your site and sorry if that is your source of information.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    it's a sincerity filter.
    Post edited by PokerPlayer on
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    thanks for all sincerity in your replies whatever that means. Say what you have to say and at least advance your case or learn something new. you dropped a link that isn't exactly credible and looks more like a conspiracy theory site. are you looking for cult followers or ideas about poker. I personally think some of the articles are bad. The collusion article tries to justify cheating vs low rake. Rake is a few percent and cheating could be 100%, that just tells me the author has accepted collusion as a fact and is trying to justify it by saying it ain't all that bad.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    From the players perspective if I can offer a more profitable game that is colluded vs one that isn't then I have effectively solved collusion.

    There is nothing else to be solved in that regard. You choose to look at the problem from the wrong perspective. Like saying the Byzantine generals problem is unsolvable, yet here we are: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    Simply higher order solution.

    Spending your time as a skeptic is wasteful.

    ps. btw tell me how it breaks down ;)
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭

    From the players perspective if I can offer a more profitable game that is colluded vs one that isn't then I have effectively solved collusion.

    This is where I lose you. Because I don't believe there is such a thing. If we are talking the poker I'm thinking of then collusion always wins. You have yet to explain a model that I can chew up. All I can say is when cheating is possible or in your case probable, then all you have to do is wait for the right moment to take it all, and the great savings of rake is really no issue at all.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    You side stepped my point, that if i can provide a colluded game that is more profitable than your centralized non-colluded version, I have effectively solved what you suggest cannot be solved. I haven't given my proposal. You need to acknowledge what is obviously and perfectly true (whether you think I can provide it or not).
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    you say "effectively solved" .. which means in your head. I don't mean that to be rude, that is just where your knowledge ends. You can't accuse me of a side stepping a point when the point does not exists. I believe you have solved it, at your level of knowledge, but when you open it to the other thousands of thinkers then you'll see your back to square one.

    So let's assume I believe you and you solved the collusion problem. You are now supposed to put it in play or let others critique it. When that happens you open pandoras box and you'll see you haven't solved anything. That's why I said show your model and let the the rest of us disect it. Nobody wants your source code but eventually you have explain your methds better than the wordpress site.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    I am asking you to acknowledge (or publicly deny), that if I can provide a colluded game in which players profit MORE than a non-colluded game then for all intents and purposes I have dissolved the problem of collusion.

    It's quite a clear and succinct point, I should think we do not need to dance around it. If you can't even understand this small point, how could I get you to understand something more complex?

    (also effectively does not mean "in my head" by any accepted use of the word)
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 2016

    I am asking you to acknowledge (or publicly deny), that if I can provide a colluded game in which players profit MORE than a non-colluded game then for all intents and purposes I have dissolved the problem of collusion.

    This is where it becomes more of a mental problem than a solving an issue.
    I can't take you seriously and its why I laughed at your site. It has the same makings as your comments above. A bunch of unproven nonsense that doesn't or can't exist. I too can come up with a cheaper and better product for just about anything, let's say a car but if you reach 1000km in my car and you die I haven't really succeeded have I.

    There is no such thing as the statement you describe. "A colluded game that is better because its cheaper". Don't argue it here since this is not an eth debate.
    Go and drop your info at 2+2 and a psychology forum and see the laughs you get from poker players and thinkers alike.

    Let's see a big show of hands. Who is going to deposit money and play online poker in a game that's proven to be colluded but the rake is cheaper and the author can't quite explain the model on how this happens.

    All you've done is come up with a bad idea that raises risk for lowering cost but the savings are supposed to be so big that its worth the risk to lose a game or your entire bankroll.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    I'm not moving on whatsoever until you can at least acknowledge what any rational person would. I assert: A colluded game that is PROVABLY more profitable than a "fair" game effectively dissolves the issue.

    If you can't see that, you won't understand going forward. There is not getting around this simple statement.
  • G416GG416G Posts: 601Member ✭✭✭
    I think at this point its fair to say you have a psychological issue and not a poker or problem solving issue. Good luck to you with your discounted rake colluding poker game. I guess there is nothing left for you to do but to implement it.
  • PokerPlayerPokerPlayer Posts: 52Member
    edited March 2016
    That is what I thought. I'd appreciate it if you left this thread alone, thank you. good luck!
Sign In or Register to comment.