As the subsidy goes away having a backlog is important to keeping hashrate up ... otherwise miners would have to turn off and stop mining as soon as a block is found and wait for there to be enough transactions to keep mining.
Hmm. I'm probably missing something obvious, but I don't see why that is a problem? I can even see some upsides if that happens (reduced block variance, higher block density during peak times...) The case I'd be worried about is if it became more profitable to re-mine the best-block to get those txfees, than try move the chain forward. |
|
|
|
Anyone who tried to sue me, slate me in public or tried to make it impossible for other investors to recover will be way at the back of the line or not have tokens bought at all. What a stand-up guy  |
|
|
|
Ok, what happens if several players make a bet in total more than the maximum allowable win at the moment?
There's also a separate max-profit per round, which applies to the sum of everyones win. If that ever gets hit, everyone gets cashed out. So it basically acts as a stop-loss for the house. In bustabit v1 there was actually only this limit (no separate per-player one, as exists now) and it used to annoy the crap out of everyone. But now it basically never gets triggered as it more or less requires at least 2 whales playing at the same time. |
|
|
|
What happens if someone puts a large amount, like this 100,000 with a cashout for 1000x, the owner makes the payment or the game will freeze like this?
There's a max-profit, which people can't attempt to win more than. So the site never really has to worry about stuff like that. |
|
|
|
So if 50-100 people post about them getting their funds and 0 post about not getting them are you going to tag every single one of them as an alt of me (even though you can clearly see they are not mine)?
I think the thing that gives away that they're shill accounts, is they have no post history. Even if you create 50 to 100 accounts of people saying they got their money, it's still not going to look legitimate. But if we see some established members (even just like that billy guy), it might look a bit different |
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is a good idea. The motivation for a lot of the dust is to encourage you to spend the coins, so you spend link it with other addresses you own.
If you use a wallet with hardened deriv (e.g. bitcoin core) or a wallet with randomly generated addresses -- I suggest the best thing to do with dust is actually anonymously pastebin your private key (after you are very sure you no longer need it) and let someone else spend it, to provide the ultimate confusion for coin analysis.
|
|
|
|
What country is bustabit run from and does it have whatever licenses etc are required to run an online gambling enterprise?
In the bottom-right of the homepage it has some info about license/incorporation in Curacao |
|
|
|
Hey JPR, how are you doing?
I recently visited Moneypot and it says that site is in private alpha
It's actually an unrelated product, from an unrelated business: The moneypot.com domain was aquired from monsterbyte.io and will be used for an exciting new crypto wallet. |
|
|
|
The problem with rock paper scissors (and poker for that matter) is that you don't know if the person you are playing against is another human (or bot) or are you playing against the house who can see your hand. You don't know if your hand is known to other person or not, it is not provably fair at all so at the end of the day you are not sure if you are being scammed or not.
Sorry for getting off-topic, but RPS is very easy to make provably fair. In fact I do it all the time. Here's a good example of me playing in a provably fair way (for both of us) just using this forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1588904.0 and includes a lot of explanation of how it works Disclaimer: I'm down like 15 BTC net  Fuck RPS |
|
|
|
And just curious...if bots were the problem why not just disable the scripting system?
It'd be a good solution if it worked. But in reality i think it'd be be a nightmare. Disabling the scripting system itself would really do nothing (advanced bot writers can easily hookin without an official API easily). So you'd basically have to constantly be finding bots and banning them. It'd be an arms race that you'd always be on the losing end of, I think. At least personally, I prefer the idea of games where you say "do what ever you want, there's no such thing as cheating". Although I know poker sites have a cheatable game, and most of the popular ones seem to do a good job at policing it. I do think there's a big market for a very pvp oriented version of bustabit. At least that way players would no longer be ignoring the bonuses, so bots wouldn't have such an easy time raking it in. |
|
|
|
Ryan,
Are there any bustabit clones out there still using the original bonus system?
I had a bot or two back a couple years ago that did quite well sniping bonuses, at least until others caught on. Sad to see the current bustabit has dropped the bonus system.
No high volume ones, i don't think. I'd just check out bustabit.com/license.txt and go through sites listed there and see if any of them look interesting. The bonus system was kind of neat, but the state-of-the-art bonus-bots just became so good, that it was really impossible for a casual player (or coder!) to really compete against. -- On a side note, it sounds pretty lame -- but one thing I think could be fun for pvp gambling would be large series of rock-paper-scissors against a single opponent. The only non-exploitable strategy in rock-paper-scissors is by playing purely randomly, but that is guaranteed to have no expected profit for either player. (So if someone is being lame and playing randomly, you could detect that and stop playing with them after a while). I think it could potentially be a fun pvp game, where the complexity is such it's be accessible both people and bots. (Although really hard to know without having built such a thing to try it out) |
|
|
|
|
The short answer is there are no decent white label crypto casino solutions. If you look at the top 5 existing crypto casinos, you'll see they're all using their own bespoke software. I have trouble believing anyone would be able to get a foothold against them using some crap like softwiss.
There's probably a good business opportunity in providing a half-decent white label crypto casino though...
|
|
|
|
You started a year and a half long smear campaign against me and BetKing 3 weeks after I fired the SEO company that was working with us. Conveniently ALL your posts are written with SEO intent and made more for Google than human readers. It's why you constantly post my name along with serial scammer, every single time. You have tried to use this forums domain rating to get that search term at the top of Google. You know it can take 6-18 months for Google to rank keywords on front page.
Very convenient that as soon as it was ranking that the same SEO company wouldn't stop calling me to suddenly help clean the rankings up.
Keep in mind you started before we had stopped the BKB buybacks. 6 months before there was any issues with BetKing. No one had posted scam claims at all.
So what was your motive there? Also posting multiple times a day for over a year had to have been financially motivated because there's no one that sad to do it for free.
You hoped I would re-hire your team to help get rid of the bad rep obviously.
Quoted, as this is gold. "You kept calling me a scammer 6 months before I started scamming. Therefore there must be a conspiracy against me"
.  |
|
|
|
I think the saddest part of this whole thing is that Dean who can't even be bothered to update the betking.io page with a little note of how he took their money, and how to contact him etc. It's kind of like his final fuck-you to anyone who trusted him. ---- While on other crypto gambling site (not your former one) there was a user who had the name theymos  and they were doing just this. Betting 1 bitcoin per roll. There were several of the support people saying this was indeed theymos and I even think the site owner mentioned he believes it was him as he had an account opened since the site was unveiled several years ago. I remember this. But I'm pretty sure theymos said it wasn't him. Which I'd believe, as it wouldn't make sense for theymos to both use an account called "theymos" while denying it being him. |
|
|
|
Why do you need to "track him down"?
If there is a case against him the police will do everything themselves. Serial scammer Dean Nolan does not need to be tracked down for any reason at all except if a criminal case for fraud and theft fails, in that case a civil case against him would be the route.
Investors should stop believing him about getting their funds back and should get together to report him to the UK Police because he is a compulsive liar.
The problem is you can't prosecute someone for criminal actions, only the state can. And as Dean has calculated, the chance of prosecution is going to be pretty low. While reporting the crime is a good first step, in the past with similar situations absolutely nothing has come of it. On the other hand, a civil case is something you can actually do yourself and pretty much guaranteed to win. The burden of proof is much lower, and there's no way Dean's going to waste his scammed funds on a lawyer, he'll just pay out that/those particular people and save himself the trouble. So the only real issue is just to start a civil case, you need to serve him. I'm not sure about UK law, but generally you need to physically serve the documents to the person. Hence "tracking down" the person to serve them. (So while it's a great idea, also be very very careful about pre-paying someone online to do it. You don't want to get scammed again...) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin price currently skyrocketing.
This is either a really good time to do maintenance, or a really bad time.
I can't decide, what do you guys think?
Or maybe with bustabit down, people had to use bitcoin-itself to play bustabit? |
|
|
|
I know that an each bet does not depend on another, but there are statistics and you can not argue with it. If an event (in this case, a bust at 90x) does not occur during the time during it usually took place, then the chance that the event will occur will increases. The chance of winning becomes higher than placing a bet at any moment which is not dependent on anything.
Ok, let's just assume you're right. I can see it theoretically being possible if there's a significant flaw in sha256 creating such biases. But even so, how does hiding gamblers usernames help? The game outcomes purely depend on the provably fair hash chain. You can reproduce all previous busts with a simple formula (of which player-bet-data is literally not even part of) |
|
|
|
Did your investors agree to have their funds used to experiment on non Betking brands or am I missing something?
It seems like all the money that was lost wasn't yours to lose.
And even worse than that, is he's not even processing normal withdrawals. The entire point of even having a bankroll is prevent shit like that from possibly being able to happen. |
|
|
|
Yeah opting out of bip143 really does add a difficulty.
I'm not sure if this is a typo, or a misunderstanding. The correct bip is bip125. I might have to run a retest on double spending non rbf transactions to see how far I can stretch it by devoting some hashing power to it last time I was just using two nodes to double spend rbf txs and didn't put much effort into not spending the non rbf tx...
If you have >2% of the global bitcoin hash power, you will be able to double-spend against bustabit profitably. Accepting just one confirmation is still pretty risky in some cases (when the fees are higher) especially since a new tx with a higher fee can push the one crediting you down further. This is negated if you have something running cpfp though (as I've seen a few sites do).
I don't think you've thought that through. Assuming 100% of miners are acting honestly, abusing 1 confirmation is exceedingly hard. You basically require a block-race in which the blocks abusably diverge, and then from the receivers point of view it reorgs. But for something like bustabit, that's super easy to prevent. You can just give people their money after 1 confirmation, but prevent them withdrawing anything derived from that money until the deposit has N confirmations. At that point, it's just not even worth trying to abuse. |
|
|
|
You are obsessed with this false notion of me having money. I have none. I have debt.
I guess I just find it more plausible you didn't lose/spend millions of dollars in such a short period of time. But hey, I guess anything is possible. So what's the story behind that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
