If anyone is missing a refund, contact me ASAP

If I don't hear from anyone, I will be releasing all escrowed funds in 24 hours to betbase. So if anyone has any complaints, please raise them now, as after I release the escrow funds all my involvement will be over and I will be unable to assist in any way 

Nice!


Quick question, looking at the code, it seems like you've modified game result generator to take a new argument "houseEdge"

https://github.com/bitshook/bustabit-gameserver/blob/dffe12a55e44ec4b7f36b4a9bd63f99908135210/server/lib.js#L74


which appears to be loaded from a file ('/usr/local/src/btc-settings.json').

So when users want to validate the game results, what value are they supposed to use? And if it can change at any time, how are people supposed validate the game? A core aspect of provably fair, is that the house edge is baked into the algorithm itself. You need people to be able to verify that.

Also it seems like you didn't do your own seeding event, and are using bustabit's client seed? However that doesn't really work too well, because you theoretically could've picked a "bad" hash chain so that client seed would give good results for the casino.


(BTW, i didn't check but I hope you customized the server seed when generating your hash chain or someone will be able to predict it)

In the current code I have, it's 10%. But you get a little back, so it's always <= 10%

So if you want to invest 100 BTC, what happens is 10 BTC gets taken from that and you invest as if you invested 90 BTC. And then the 10 BTC gets given to all investors (including yourself).  The reason I do it that way, is to prevent it abuse (otherwise investors would be incentivized to make lots of tiny investments, instead of just investing at once).

My thoughts is to also have a grace period, if you invest in the first couple of days or something, you don't need to pay dilution fees at all.

So just a bit of update, the good news is bustabit v2 is coming along nicely. There will be very little impact to players (all accounts and balances will be carried over, so there's no need to worry). I'm hoping within a month there will be an open beta for everyone to play around with.

The main features are:
  * Rewritten server from scratch, designed for much better security characteristics and better performance
  * Leveraged investments. Basically a straight rip off of just-dice.com (sorry dooglus, but it's too well designed to ignore) including only 10% commission on profit
  * Dilution compensation where new investors need to pay old investors to compensate them for being diluted
  * A reward system for gamblers (that should roughly give them 50% of their house edge back)
  * An investor gambling incentive system (that should incentivize investors to gamble themself, or effectively pay gamblers to do so on their behalf)


Note: everything is still up in the air, including timeline. But it's coming along well 

This will be my last reply, please update your website or post on that hater reddit in the future.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but this would make great material to publish on your website.



Why would I pay your scam victim to come here? (In fact, she doesn't have a bitcointalk account but sent me a full copy of the emails which I could validate for authenticity and also validate that it was tied to the email address you sent in bustabit chat). In fact, your own stories are inconsistent. In one of them, you tell you never sent the bitcoin because you were charged-back before you had a chance to send them. Yet your conversation logs have you trying to convince her to remove the charge back, because "why did you do a chargeback when i sent you the bits? i use coinbase they take a few to confirm" which is clearly false, as the timestamps have hours elapsing and no bitcoin transaction was ever made.



You might be better using your time to .... get a job?


Actually, I believe that domain was already purchased by a domain scalper who was trying to sell it to me for 1 bitcoin so it didn't fall into "scammers hands". I'm sure he'd be happy to sell it to you for the same price.

Perfect. That site seems like a great place for documenting it. I'd also recommend crossposting to: https://www.reddit.com/r/RyanisScum/  for maximum exposure.

Well that progressed quickly.

So apparently you're an established paypal scammer. Going through the bustabit chat logs I can connect you to at least one paypal scam done against jessica43 using your paypal gainonlinemoneyprofits@gmail.com, as well as a bit of a betcoin referral spammer. I'm not sure it matters as your bitcointalk account is a throw away, but I'll leave you negative trust for being a scammer anyway.

It's rather unprofessional of me to say, but I'm rather glad you lost money. I hope it hurt and is a memory that you can reflect on it to learn some empathy for some of your scam victims and perhaps grow up to become a decent human being.

---


On a lighter note, we've just hit 660k bitcoin wagered. Hopefully 2017 will see us as the most popular bitcoin gambling site, I hope =)

As I've explained, I've carefully gone over the logs and the server behaved exactly as expected. While I'd love to have the margins to hand out money, bustabit operates on one of (or the?) lowest margins in the business and it simply isn't economically viable for me to refund losing bets. That is unfortunately non-negotiable and final, even if it means I get a bad review here and reddit.

Ah, I see. I some how got the mistaken impression that you were going to leave a bad review/feedback if I didn't give you money. Sorry about the confusion.

You will find I don't respond well to blackmail. But I'm happy to go through that song and dance if you want to waste both of our time.

Hehe, yeah. You'll never be able to win that fight.  I remember once I put the commissions to 0%, and had both app owners and investors complaining to me at the same time they were getting the short end of the stick.  I guess you know when you've struck a good compromise is when both sides are equally unhappy  

Thanks! Just confirming that bitsquare.bet did buy a license. I'll update the license.txt shortly


Best of luck with your site!

Hey,
That's strange, I must've not seen your email. Could you please resend it (from the email you bought the source code with) and I'll happily add you to bustabit.com/license.txt

Good luck with every thing!

No, that's from the example code    (We provided the example code before the client seed was even known, so we couldn't use the real client seed).


The actual client seed is the blockhash of block height: 339300 i.e. 000000000000000007a9a31ff7f07463d91af6b5454241d5faf282e5e0fe1b3a

^ Yeah, what Dooglus said.

Basically the "client seed" is a single value which is used throughout the whole chain. It's there to prevent against an attack in which I unfairly picked a hash chain (as no one knows how I seeded the hash chain). In order to come up with a client seed, we had have a few options. One obvious option would be used a trusted third party (e.g. random.org) but we can do better, by using the bitcoin blockchain itself.

The way it was done (see: the start of this thread) was preannounce that what ever hash block 339300 is going to be, would be our client seed. As we conducted this well in advance of block 339300, there was absolutely no way I (or anyone) could have known what that hash would be.

Typically when you use bitcoin block hashes, you need to be careful against what is known as a "discarding attack" where a bitcoin miner can look at the hash and decide to not publish the block. However in this case, the attack isn't relevant because the low chance of conducting it (what ever hash power I control), and the cost of conducting would've been 25 BTC, and to significantly bias the results would take at least millions (or billions) of attempts.

So I think we can be quite confident that the seed was fairly picked and there's no issues with it =)

Here's the thread for the provably fair: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0

which (imo) does a good job of explaining how it works.


Also it does not use the hash from the most recently found bitcoin block, as that would be subject to a whole host of problems (timing issues, forks, difficult to verify, etc.). So the "client seed" is always the exact same bitcoin block (which was decided before we started the provably fair, but after we had already committed to a particular hash chain). You can treat it as a hardcoded constant, and check the "seeding event" to see how we fairly came upon it.

They seem perfectly aware of what "wagered" means, because they use the correct definition for site-wide and player-wide stats. It's the sum of the amount you have bet. They only use the twisted definition for unlocking bonuses.

Actually, it doesn't really protect them. I'd say why, but I'll let xinzark have his fun first 

On a related note, because bustabit has a variable house edge of 0-1%, I don't rank or show people by "wagered" because it would be very unfair and easy to game (just bet lots at a low edge). So instead, I use "gross profit" to rank players which is a proxy for the multiple of the win probability and the amount of money the person has attempted to win. (The reason I can't use it directly is because bustabit is real time, so if the game busts I will never know what they "would've" cashed out).


I guess my point is (other than to shill) is sometimes using "wagered" is not a very good metric (for casinos with variable edges) but instead of redefining the word it's probably best to just come up with a new term

Interesting, I wasn't aware of anyone that did this.

Is it because their house edge is variable?  (i.e. if i bet 1 bitcoin @ 2x,  or 1 bitcoin @ 1.1x  does the house have a higher expected earnings on the 2x bet?)  Or is it just an easy way to pay less money to affiliates?


Because for instance, on casinos with flat house edges (e.g. dice sites) it's a lot better for the casino if there's low-risk bets

Yeah, it's just the sum of what was bet. So in this case 100 BTC. I don't believe I've ever heard a different definition.



A more blurry case is if someone bets 1 BTC in a game like plinko, but the worst possible outcome is 0.2x. i.e. they can never lose more than 0.8 BTC in that bet.


So have they wagered 1 BTC, or have they wagered 0.8 BTC?  When you work with it from a maths perspective it makes more sense to normalize it, and treat it as a 0.8 BTC wager, but colloquial most people would call it a 1 BTC bet.