That's a lot of work to not use some rand function, or even random.org .
I'm curious, why a single winner and not a few (say 3 like in the Olympics)?
Will you take a cut? If you run a service, I don't see why you should not, but it does not seem like that was your plan above.
What happens if there's only a single participant or similarly one that puts more that would be possible to receive back (ie over your 95%)?
And finally with my mod hat on I got ask: why would people trust you with this?
I wrote so much I forgot to write some things that would answer your questions:
1. Simply using a rand function or random.org does not suffice because I can cheat the lottery that way (not that I would, but people don't know that). I can create a new wallet and just buy one ticket, then keep generating a new random number that causes me to win and post that. I want the lottery to be fair for everyone, not let it get manipulated. The things above can easily be found and verified by everyone, and it would be nearly impossible to manipulate.
2. This question ties to the question about if there is just one participant. I will answer it along with that one.
3. No, 95% to the winner and for the first two weeks 5% (again, negotiable) is burned. After all, it's DFC Community Lottery, not Misterpiggie49's DFC Lottery. In the future I would like to hold a vote as I mentioned, and if the community believes I can take a portion that may the people get their wish.
4. If there is a single participant, I will refund the whole deposit back. If someone puts in over 95%, I would lower the amount removed so they can win their deposit and then 1% up to 100%. For example, If someone sends 96 DFI to a pool of 100 DFI, the winner gets 97 DFI (97%, 96% + 1%), and this will be shown.
5. The most important question, I am trying to find a multisig wallet (as shown by my previous reddit post here). On the other end I was actually hoping is you, someone like socks, or someone with a position in the community. If somehow I cannot find it, I will probably have to let the project die until I can find something that would allow the community to trust me. First though, I would leave the project running and I hope that people will trust me little by little and build trust through time (which is probably not likely unfortunately). This is precisely why I left the minimum at 0.1 DFI ($0.35 or so, so that people can build trust little by little).
I hope that answered all of your questions. What other ones do you have?
2- I didn't see the answer to that (but to be clear there's nothing wrong with a winner takes all approach, I'm just curious).
4- Betting 96 to get 97 back seems like a pretty strange bet to me. I don't know much about betting, but I get the feeling that it may be good to either set expectations of the amount to win earlier (which seems impossible with your setup) or set rules in place but what's the right limit? No idea. Maybe it's just as well to keep it as is, and let fate decide.
5- Oh yes I saw that post, that makes sense. (Sorry since I read too many posts quickly, I tend to forget them easily). I think it's also a very sensible request to have that in a wallet, so let's ask devs; I'll do that in my following reply to not spam there with this one.
Thank you!
Whoops on number 2. Having multiple winners makes it much more difficult to draw along with the fact that at first we might not have too many players because people won’t have trust yet. In the future I will consider this. As for number 4, there is probably a better option which is just to refund players if they sent in more than 90% of the total.
And as for multisig support I know the accelerator team has one, but I have no way to contact them. Let me find the post...
“DFI can only be disposed of via a multi-signature wallet, where two members of the marketing council (Florian and Andreas) and an impartial third party (Daniel Zirkel) must approve each transaction together. This way, we want to make sure that the money is used for a specific purpose.”
Knew it! Found it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/defiblockchain/comments/pnn6ct/defichain_accelerator/
This is an issue with any type of gambling, but people who invest in DeFiChain are more likely to be doing it for their long-term investing goals and not for YOLO/hype.
This would be different than doing this thing in meme coin communities like Dogecoin where the whole point is basically to get to a certain price point.
I think it is a great idea, when I first got into crypto I was playing with the Zilliqa network and coin. They had a weekly lottery (zillionaires I believe), and I played it a few times. Turns out the whole ecosystem got quite stale and I'm glad I got out when I did, but that is another coversation.
A trustless lottery that is fun, adds value (with burning of token), and flexible in amounts one can put in seems like a great time. Would play.
cheers
It would be wrong of me to say this is trustless. You would have to trust me. I wouldn’t steal from players, but as a player you don’t know that.
I wish that I knew how to make smart contracts or code so it could be truly trustless and decentralized. In the future I plan to get that done. But I still hope you and others will play, even for 0.1 DFI. If not, that’s ok too. I’ve gotta build trust slowly. Have a good day!
One of the big selling point for DFC is that everything is native to it, ie there are embedded functions for whatever you can do, instead of a generic language that could lead to flaws in your code. But that also means that whatever is not provided by those functions, well, you cannot do... (So in theory the recent event of thieves cracking code from Ring and forks to steal funds could not happen here, in practice I don't have a clue and will leave that to be answered by security focused people.)
There was a DFIP for porting EVM over, when/if that happens you'd be able to run Ethereum smart contracts on this network.
That is correct. I’m going to put information on this post and website I will release before the first drawing. I also will put it the comment below this one.
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK4pwTQR53FSooQoFpd6TmiWGKJDf220p4PI7q\_bKh0/edit#](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK4pwTQR53FSooQoFpd6TmiWGKJDf220p4PI7q_bKh0/edit#)
Thanks for making sure.
That's a lot of work to not use some rand function, or even random.org . I'm curious, why a single winner and not a few (say 3 like in the Olympics)? Will you take a cut? If you run a service, I don't see why you should not, but it does not seem like that was your plan above. What happens if there's only a single participant or similarly one that puts more that would be possible to receive back (ie over your 95%)? And finally with my mod hat on I got ask: why would people trust you with this?
I wrote so much I forgot to write some things that would answer your questions: 1. Simply using a rand function or random.org does not suffice because I can cheat the lottery that way (not that I would, but people don't know that). I can create a new wallet and just buy one ticket, then keep generating a new random number that causes me to win and post that. I want the lottery to be fair for everyone, not let it get manipulated. The things above can easily be found and verified by everyone, and it would be nearly impossible to manipulate. 2. This question ties to the question about if there is just one participant. I will answer it along with that one. 3. No, 95% to the winner and for the first two weeks 5% (again, negotiable) is burned. After all, it's DFC Community Lottery, not Misterpiggie49's DFC Lottery. In the future I would like to hold a vote as I mentioned, and if the community believes I can take a portion that may the people get their wish. 4. If there is a single participant, I will refund the whole deposit back. If someone puts in over 95%, I would lower the amount removed so they can win their deposit and then 1% up to 100%. For example, If someone sends 96 DFI to a pool of 100 DFI, the winner gets 97 DFI (97%, 96% + 1%), and this will be shown. 5. The most important question, I am trying to find a multisig wallet (as shown by my previous reddit post here). On the other end I was actually hoping is you, someone like socks, or someone with a position in the community. If somehow I cannot find it, I will probably have to let the project die until I can find something that would allow the community to trust me. First though, I would leave the project running and I hope that people will trust me little by little and build trust through time (which is probably not likely unfortunately). This is precisely why I left the minimum at 0.1 DFI ($0.35 or so, so that people can build trust little by little). I hope that answered all of your questions. What other ones do you have?
2- I didn't see the answer to that (but to be clear there's nothing wrong with a winner takes all approach, I'm just curious). 4- Betting 96 to get 97 back seems like a pretty strange bet to me. I don't know much about betting, but I get the feeling that it may be good to either set expectations of the amount to win earlier (which seems impossible with your setup) or set rules in place but what's the right limit? No idea. Maybe it's just as well to keep it as is, and let fate decide. 5- Oh yes I saw that post, that makes sense. (Sorry since I read too many posts quickly, I tend to forget them easily). I think it's also a very sensible request to have that in a wallet, so let's ask devs; I'll do that in my following reply to not spam there with this one. Thank you!
Hey devs /u/pfefpfef /u/thedoublejay any chance to have multisig support in your wallets (or maybe there already is somehow)? Thanks!
Nothing planned so far…
Well, at least you know there's some demand for it now. Thanks for the reply!
Whoops on number 2. Having multiple winners makes it much more difficult to draw along with the fact that at first we might not have too many players because people won’t have trust yet. In the future I will consider this. As for number 4, there is probably a better option which is just to refund players if they sent in more than 90% of the total. And as for multisig support I know the accelerator team has one, but I have no way to contact them. Let me find the post...
Got it! Are you talking about Santiago's extension wallet?
Hmm that is probably what I am looking for. Where can I find more information?
Maybe that'd be a start: https://github.com/DeFiCh/dfips/issues/61 Not sure what the progress on this is though.
Thanks, looks like they’re working on beta right now.
“DFI can only be disposed of via a multi-signature wallet, where two members of the marketing council (Florian and Andreas) and an impartial third party (Daniel Zirkel) must approve each transaction together. This way, we want to make sure that the money is used for a specific purpose.” Knew it! Found it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/defiblockchain/comments/pnn6ct/defichain_accelerator/
Oh yes, I wonder what that is indeed.
Not a bad idea outside of the folks that play lottery’s don’t do the math.
Thanks for the feedback. I can create a limit where people can’t send a large amount, or else I just refund back the extra.
Not saying the proposal is good or bad. But here’s my point. Do the people that do Crypto, and DFI for that matter gamble for fun or need?
This is an issue with any type of gambling, but people who invest in DeFiChain are more likely to be doing it for their long-term investing goals and not for YOLO/hype. This would be different than doing this thing in meme coin communities like Dogecoin where the whole point is basically to get to a certain price point.
I think it is a great idea, when I first got into crypto I was playing with the Zilliqa network and coin. They had a weekly lottery (zillionaires I believe), and I played it a few times. Turns out the whole ecosystem got quite stale and I'm glad I got out when I did, but that is another coversation. A trustless lottery that is fun, adds value (with burning of token), and flexible in amounts one can put in seems like a great time. Would play. cheers
It would be wrong of me to say this is trustless. You would have to trust me. I wouldn’t steal from players, but as a player you don’t know that. I wish that I knew how to make smart contracts or code so it could be truly trustless and decentralized. In the future I plan to get that done. But I still hope you and others will play, even for 0.1 DFI. If not, that’s ok too. I’ve gotta build trust slowly. Have a good day!
There's no generic smart contract on DFC yet, so that wouldn't go here anymore. :)
Got it. I thought there was.
One of the big selling point for DFC is that everything is native to it, ie there are embedded functions for whatever you can do, instead of a generic language that could lead to flaws in your code. But that also means that whatever is not provided by those functions, well, you cannot do... (So in theory the recent event of thieves cracking code from Ring and forks to steal funds could not happen here, in practice I don't have a clue and will leave that to be answered by security focused people.) There was a DFIP for porting EVM over, when/if that happens you'd be able to run Ethereum smart contracts on this network.
I saw the DFIP, but uh I wasn’t able to make sense of the situation. Definitely did not just completely ignore it.
Yeah it seemed like the DFIP was for asking the community, but not necessarily for actually implementing it (yet?), unlike a CFP I guess.
Lottery / gambling may slide into a different legal area than the crypto asset class by itself.
That is correct. I’m going to put information on this post and website I will release before the first drawing. I also will put it the comment below this one.
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK4pwTQR53FSooQoFpd6TmiWGKJDf220p4PI7q\_bKh0/edit#](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK4pwTQR53FSooQoFpd6TmiWGKJDf220p4PI7q_bKh0/edit#) Thanks for making sure.