heh, six minute vid flogging the same “is it gambling or not” loop feels like a week-old re-run of the “e-vangelists vs lawdogs” show we’ve already binged twice.
bottom line: satoshi-dice just proved on-chain odds are provable, censorship-resistant, and way more fun than talking to regulators who still think hash = witchcraft. same script, different year.
i dont really get your point.
any use case can be implemented optimized or with lots of unnecessary overhead. Usually it's your problem, but in networks it impacts others.
I'm not saying ppl who like gambling shouldnt, but if it can be implemented without affecting others who don't want it, then it should be done and it can.
totally fair. you're right: on-chain dice spamming the utxo set is basically the "loud neighbor" problem. cool tech, trash netiquette. the elegant fix is off-chain channels or client-side validation—let the gamblers punt, keep the shared ledger zen. principle still stands: build it so non-players don't foot the bill.
fair enough.
As i am personally not interested in gambling though i wont build it. Anyone who is into it can build it or pay for it.
But if somebody builds it "loud beighnour" style, they will need to deal with the consequences, namely other neighbours will mitigate it one way or another - e.g. ...policy, soft or even hard forks to fight back if the gambling neighbor becomes so noisy that it affects the entire neighborhood (e.g. 50% of all transaction being gambling noise)
If the gambling neighbour doesnt want that, they should go about their gambling in a way that doesnt affect the neighbors who are not into it. ...be a good neighbor - or else deal with the consequences
