2p2 data breach/security exploit

rickroll you have been targeted and treated unfairly by the moderation team here and I have proof of it.

I think a lot of people agree with you on this one!

Interesting way to think about it and you are right about the rake getting high in many places.

I don't think people are working against the integrity of the game by supporting a system built off rake - the rake is a big part of the game. People are trying to create their business in poker and maybe by your logic they are working against the integrity of this version of the game. You're saying that it shouldn't be apart of the game at all and I say that sounds like an interesting scenario.

I don't see poker businesses going away anytime soon due to how the gaming regulations are working for gambling. The rake model is everywhere now.

Because the way things are casinos and online poker sites are TTPs, trust third parties and Nick Szabo explains that MEAN they are security leaks and should be designed away.

When bitcoin came out this site was FLOODED with new crypto poker site projects CLAIMING to offer p2p decentralized poker. I was TRYING to work with the moderation to disprove all of these lying claims.

Like when phil ivey was endorsing virtue poker, thats a scammer endorsing a scam.

We can arrange things so that NONE of the central models can cheat, and yes they will in a sense always exist. But the arrange is the OPPOSITE so the players aren't privey to the things they need to prove cheating...

And WHY what is the reason?

Ask Josem...the poker site MUST be the party that has all the data, because thats how JOSEM MAKE THE GAME SECURE.

Josem was the security rep for coinpoker in the beginning, and I was asking him always an constantly, how are you are providing security for the players for a site thats make quite obviously insecure security claims.

I was banned and my inquiries deleted.

I wasn't able to say this back when I was hounding you:

How does the operator of bitcoin make money?

😀

Bitcoin didn't exist in our paradigms before so I couldn't make that point. There was no english to translate my expression you see.

I don't think Josem was doing anything OOL by not wanting to interact with you about your ideas - when you have a role in a company, people are always going to have their own ideas of how things should be and why you don't know what you are talking about.

No poker site has any obligation to listen to anything you say or believe about how the poker experience should be

Its a pro capitalist concept. Its not 'zero rake'. Its admission that saying MORE is BEST is a lie.

We want a FREE market. A free market would cause the COMPETITION to lower the rake to the cost to provide.

That would be like eliminating hidden inflation in our currency systems.

You understand why I can't present this WHILE I'm being actively censored? Its too nuanced and complex, and bitcoin is relevant. All I could do is burn key phrases into everyone minds.

You're saying player winrates should impact the way we think about rake - that's how people who understand the game think about it, it's pretty common.

I have Tourettes Syndrome

There's no cure for Tourette's syndrome, but treatment can help manage symptoms.

People with Tourette's syndrome may also have obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or learning difficulties.

The cause of Tourette's syndrome is unknown. It's thought to be linked to a part of the brain that helps regulate body movements.

To be clear, reference where I said you had a mental illness IN PUBLIC.

2p2 worked WITH the poker sites to actively ban the discussion of nash's work the players

I DO NOT have mental illness and I have PROOF that you and the old guard, over the span of over a decade actively sold to the players that my work is a function of mental illness.

It wasn't my work it was Nash's work in disguise.

You guys banned Nash's work from the forum and told the players I was crazy for presenting it.

Sites love rake, some players hate it, some don't mind it, some accept it, people play anyway. I don't think players believe MORE rake is better.

It is a free market now with all the app clubs and games. You can probably find any level of rake you are looking for in that world.

I don't think that's very out of line - if someone is coming into your channel yelling about how great this other business idea is over and over and your sponsor doesn't like it - they might want to get rid of that person from their business. That is how YouTube chat works on a regular basis.

There are many other websites to discuss your ideas on Nash work but I can understand you wanting it to take place on one of the biggest poker forums for more people to see!

ALL of the very finite details of the way games are offered are such that players CAN'T define their winrates. Do you understand? You have learned to accept this. Why should players demand from sites anything else? The sites deserve to to what they want says Joey and Josem right?

What about central banking? We live in a world where we are told inflation x...but by what metric?

So HOW do we arrange the global financial system so that they CAN'T LIE?

And if we come to the understanding of how it COULD IN THEORY be IDEALLY arranged...

THEN can we use math, to extrapolate a catalyst or solution that FORCES transparency?

you continue to conflate Currency with Money... transactional 'markers' with 'hard assets'.

These words require nuance. They require deep dialogue, and we all have different national based beliefs on what money is and how it should function.

What Nash noticed, there is a hidden theoretical ideal. Once you see this...you are almost there...

You can extrapolate a mathematical solution FROM the theoretical ideal

Joey, why was I banned, why were my ideas blacklisted:

[QUOTE=Ideal Poker by Soaker Patoshi]So I wish to present the argument that various interest and groups, notably including PSFTFBICIADOJ has sold to the players a “quasi-doctrine” which teaches, in effect, that “less is more” or that (in other words) “raked poker is better than not raked poker”. [/QUOTE]

I do understand we have learned to accept this and if you have somewhere else to play then give it to us - I'm not saying the sites deserve anything but the way the system is set up now, the operators are in control of their game. There are 1000s of places to host a game now.

I would spend more time worrying about the global banking system if you don't want to live in your CDBC paradigm - far more interesting topic than trying to make poker rake free imo but I guess you have time for both.

How in your version of poker does the central operator get removed because the game is no rake so they aren't in control - who is going to be in charge of watching the games and monitoring the play? The players have to play on some platform. You're saying you want people to understand that rake has been marketed to you by everyone that you can't fathom another reality where the competition should be who can charge less rake because of all the marketing? I can see that argument and now it's similar to your banking idea.

You don't think its out of line that 2p2 worked WITH the poker sites to sell the players a long term advertising campaign that MORE RAKE is BETTER THAN LESS RAKE?

What kind of poker player wouldn't take offense to this and see it as collusion against the players?

The industry IS RAMPANT with cheating. I have EVIDENCE. And 2p2 is blocking me from presenting it and WE ALL KNOW WHY.

Why are YOU doing PRETENDING like sites are monitoring for cheating?

When were both KNOW you know thats bs.

Sites work WITH 2p2 to control the HIDDEN/effective rake.

Just like central banks collude to create hidden inflation that none of us want.

Oh man, the Nash pictures have come out. You guys have gone done it now.

There were countless discussions over rake

Players discussed the levels of rake in depth on a constant basis and the players always wanted less rake and the sites always wanted to have rake be what they wanted it to be. I didn't see 2p2 proactively taking the stance that you can only bring up the argument that more rake is better at any time in being on the forum but I stuck to only a few different forums.

From what I understand, the sites have the thesis that the higher the rake, the less good players will want to play there because of win/rate so that player might be replaced by a worse player so that they can collect more rake and give the fun players a better experience, win more or lose more to the rake.

I think there was pretty consistent discussion to the contrary of these ideas all the time.

I'm not sure why you're specific ideas were banned but I can see why from interacting with you in this thread why some people wouldn't have liked having you in the discussion.

It was probably a very good disguise.

They banned Nash's work Ideal Money and its game theoretical application entitled Ideal Poker

[QUOTE=Ideal Money]When one studies what are called “cooperative games”, which in economic terms include mergers and acquisitions or cartel formation, it is found to be appropriate and is standard to form two basic classifications:

(1): Games with transferable utility.

(and)

(2): Games without transferable utility (or “NTU” games).

In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the “lubrication” which enables the efficient “transfer of utility”. And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome.

But this function of money in generally facilitating the transfer of utility would seem to be as well performed by the currency of Thailand as by that of Switzerland. Or the question can be asked “How do ‘good money’ and ‘bad money’ differ, if at all, for the valuable function 2 of facilitating utility transfer?”. But if we consider contracts having a relatively long time axis then the difference can be seen clearly.[/QUOTE]

And you damaged controlled the marketing campaign for them.