One of the great classic threads on this blog.
blog How about no. |
|
|
|
I have a couple questions about the investing option (sorry if they are answered elsewhere, but it's a big thread):
any minimum investing amount?
the house edge of 1%, what does that mean in practice? does that mean if I invest 1 BTC and there are 1 BTC of bets for any given period, I would be "expected" to make 90% of 1% of 1 BTC?
thanks
Yes, if you're the only investor. |
|
|
|
|
Faster confirms my ass. BitPay doesn't need any confirmations for good transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Client is enforcing a 0.0005 BTC fee on outputs less than 0.01 BTC even with "Custom Send." Please change this.
|
|
|
|
it said get 9.6uBTC the u doesn't mean anything right?  It means "micro" in the SI sense. 1/1000 metre = 1 millimetre (1mm) 1/1000 Bitcoin = 1 milliBitcoin (1mBTC) 1/1000 000 metre = 1 micrometre (1um) 1/1000 000 Bitcoin = 1 microBitcoin (1uBTC) It should actually be a Greek "mu," but that's hard to type. |
|
|
|
Just a starting point, thanks. Edit: it was pointed out in chat that this change is pointless I was going to point that out, or take special interest in your newfound HMAC-SHA512 vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Please don't link to the jsfiddle verifiers - as I understand it those are verifying using the old (pre 145 million rolls) algorithm. Some guy is threatening to sue JD after losing a bunch on a martingale sequence, and claims that he wouldn't have played if he knew the roll algorithm had changed... He has hit 'randomize' multiple times since it changed, so it's not like the change could possibly have changed his chance of winning, but I'd still rather avoid issues like that. Was there any forum discussion about the change; if so would you please link me to it? |
|
|
|
I am wondering if someone can help me make sense of the algorithm used to constuct a given roll. For definiteness, lets' use the following bet: https://just-dice.com/roll/307724627I initially construct the two strings: s1 = 1496:'server seed':1496 s2 = 1496:'client seed':1496 The instructions then become ambiguous because it is not clear how these two strings should be concatenated before hashing with the SHA-512 function. I've tried a couple combinations and none give me the desired roll (once I take the first 5 characters from the hashed value and convert them to an integer). Someone in the chat room suggested: 1496:'server seed'-'client seed':1496 But this didn't work either. Anybody have a clue? Just look at the source for one of the verifiers. http://jsfiddle.net/Zq8tL/82/bitcoinmaniac.com/justdice/ |
|
|
|
The last year is ~2140, you won't live to see that day, don't worry about it.
Actually the year will be much sooner with the rapid increase in mining power. Also 99% of the coins will be mined much sooner than 2030. Like a function with an asymptote of y = 21 000 000? Close. However Bitcoins are not infinitely divisible, so eventually the reward will halve from 0.00000001 to 0.000000005, which will be rounded down to 0. Thus it's not an asymptotic function because after the final halving, the function can be described with a constant (f(x)=c). |
|
|
|
|
I use a soft (unvoiced) 'th' and rhyme the vowels with "may most"
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure someone had this idea before... and then someone ELSE had the idea to copy it and use Bitcoin. It didn't take off. |
|
|
|
|
Booya! Passed Zimbabwe!
What's a Zimbabwe dollar? 1 satoshi or so?
|
|
|
|
Provably fair casinos are not supposed to predict a player's actions. You can ensure the results are random by using a client seed.
That's pretty much become the point of this whole thread: The issue with that is that there is no user input involved, you're free to always generate a key that results in the right card being the winning one if you check that the new players always pick the left card. The user must always contribute to the process, and it must be done after the server picked whatever seeds it wanted to pick.
|
|
|
|
Firstbits is broken? Searching for "1Nimda" and "1nimda" report "Firstbits not found", but the link to my address works just fine. Firstbits has been disabled temporarily to reduce database load. At the moment I am not sure when it will be available again.
Ah, missed that, sorry. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Again, we're talking about a hypothetically dishonest game that claims to be random but is actually employing some sort of statistical method (like the RPS AI uses) to win more than 50% of the games. Just as the RPS AI wins more than 1/3 of its games (putting the chance of a loss for a person standing at the AI's table >33%), and we say the person, since he or she doesn't make random decisions, has less than 33% chance to win, a left-or-right-card AI could win more than 50% of its games. Then a RNG would still have a 50% chance of winning, but a person would have less than 50% chance of winning.
But why/how does the rock-paper-scissors AI win more than 1/3 of its games? It does it by studying what many many players do against it. That doesn't say to me people are not random as much as it says they often employ predictable strategies. This is a joke, right? "Predictable" necessarily implies "not random." I'm not going to respond to the rest of your quote either, because it's clear you've never taken a statistics course. |
|
|
|
Firstbits is broken? Searching for "1Nimda" and "1nimda" report "Firstbits not found", but the link to my address works just fine. |
|
|
|
Oh geez, I didn't realize your volume was that small.
Alright, let's pause for a year or so.
Yeah, I only re-launched a few days ago and haven't done any advertising. But I don't see why it's necessary to have game stats (any amount) for you to tell me if you're standing at my table why you'd have a greater or less than 50% chance to win. Again, we're talking about a hypothetically dishonest game that claims to be random but is actually employing some sort of statistical method (like the RPS AI uses) to win more than 50% of the games. Just as the RPS AI wins more than 1/3 of its games (putting the chance of a loss for a person standing at the AI's table >33%), and we say the person, since he or she doesn't make random decisions, has less than 33% chance to win, a left-or-right-card AI could win more than 50% of its games. Then a RNG would still have a 50% chance of winning, but a person would have less than 50% chance of winning. |
|
|
|
|
Oh geez, I didn't realize your volume was that small.
Alright, let's pause for a year or so.
|
|
|
|
Okay, so if you're standing there at my table and don't have a 50/50 chance, what percentage chance to win do you have?
If you would just post the stats (do you need help with bash or Python or R?) then we wouldn't need to be having this circular hypothetical discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
