Shows once again that licenses and RNG certificates are pretty useless.

Provably fair FTW.

Unfortunately most slot software providers don't implement a provably fair mechanism (yet.)

That is good to hear. I will just assume it was a misunderstanding about the concept of decentralized casinos, so I removed my feedback. Obviously I personally still have a different preference when it comes to bitcoin casinos, but it's up to people themselves to choose where they want to gamble.

"FUN-CASINO considered to be a decentralised as it involves no interference at all in gaming process"

..

"withdrawn within 1 week at maximum"





Are you trolling us?

Deposits go to your site, people play on your site, you update the balance in your database, they can make withdrawals (that apparently you have to approve.) Your site is the central place in a centralized online casino. There is nothing decentralized about it.

In addition 1 week delay for withdrawals are insane for bitcoin casinos. It also proves furthermore that your casino isn't decentralized, since people have to wait for you to approve their withdrawals (perhaps only for "big amounts" but that's still the same.)

What does "no interference" mean anyway? And are you claiming all other bitcoin casinos "interfere in the gambing process"? Since you call yourself "the first decentralized casino".





The trend of "bitcoin casinos" that only use third-party games are pathetic and you are a great example of that. A lot of games are not provably fair (I don't care about some stupid certificate.) No transparency about the house edges and/or public bet lists. Continuously lying about your casino being "decentralized" while you have absolutely no idea what that means. Slow withdrawals (you think "within 1 week" is something to be proud of.. lol.) You steal from player balances if they are inactive. In your TOS you claim that using the martingale system is "fraud" and you will steal the balance of the player when they use that. You will ask player's ID when they win an amount that you consider high (IDK if that's 0.1 BTC or 2 BTC.) Etc. Etc.

Your casino is an example of exactly the opposite of what "bitcoin gambling" represents.

That being said, I normally just ignore casinos like that. It's just that we asked like 10x to change the misleading "decentralized" claim since it's blatantly lying just to get some new players in. That's the only reason why I added negative trust. Like I said: if a site owner is lying so easily, I would not trust them with my money.





Ps, a decentralized casino would be this: no central website, no deposits/withdrawals - just bets straight on the blockchain (sidechain, altcoin, btc or whatever) that runs on many computers (= decentralized), bet results "calculated" on the blockchain (with some random generation hopefully not just by the miner or another central/unfair person), instantly getting your profit after each bet, and obviously no-one to hold your withdrawals for a week. There are some examples of this on Ethereum already, although the "bet result calculation" isn't ideal (yet.) Still those examples are way more "decentralized" than your casino.

Which one? It is supposed to list every site that has at least 10 BTC wagered - which is basically nothing.

They have had very decent wagered for the whole month already.. no complains here but yeh they aren't doing much (anything?) in marketing... still okay atm



The more concerning problem is the frequent downtimes.

When I played a bit on betcoin.ag (while ago), HM2 was working okay-ish.

Or maybe it's the other way around... he had to gain some BTC for his $ value losses?



I don't really know hehe, nice profits either way imo.

Some big bets earlier, here some of them including BTC250 profit in 1 bet - which is probably a new record for BetKing



Brings his total profit to +257 on that account, congrats!

I understand, but I think just offering that platform is already bad, it encourages more loans (and therefor scams.) Even on just BTCJam I see very frequently people who are overall down and they even have extra tools like feedback, social media links, IDs, etc. But up to you Seals perspective that time (and most sites perspective) was just "not our business, your own risk", I think that's better (even though you will obviously have a similar disclaimer.)


Anyway, don't want to only focus on that 1 specific idea. Like I said, I very much like all the other plans

Looks good.

Only thing I wouldn't do is that "gambling loan platform". Gamblers and loans just don't go well together (I actually have been actively loaning on seals in '13 to only very specific people whose identity I knew, but still it's a losing game.) As website I wouldn't actively participate in that. But I can imagine it's just 1 of the many ideas you have.

Not sure if I would personally invest, I always have a bit of a short-term vision when it comes to putting my money into something. But long-term it looks interesting.

Good luck.

I like the idea, but I cannot really test it. If I test the ping between a US server of mine with a dice site that is hosted in US, I will obviously get better results than you in Australia.

In theory I could test it on multiple servers, but still I think a site can be fast/slow at times (depending how busy it is at that moment.) Also sometimes the client-side (JS) can be slow, which is obviously not tested with a "ping test".

So all in all, I don't think I can do this in a reliable way

The new casino site will have 5 games (or at least at this point.) But I believe PD4 and the new casino are separate sites/projects. So I assume this countdown is only for PD4 and not the casino.

That being said, Stunna claimed PD4 will change the way the game 'dice' works, so the expectations still should be high





Relevant quotes:

The house edge of this site is 50%. This has been explained many times by cjmoles now. You must be an idiot to actually play here.

The payout (for a 1% HE) should be: 0.99/(1/16) = 15.84x - not 8x.

That is just false. Almost all popular dice sites use the "nonce implementation". PocketDice is pretty much literally the only dice site with a "complicated provably fair algo" (because with 2 actual dice numbers - it is a little bit more complicated.) I also think it's inappropriate to post a site (which you look affiliated with) in this discussion.

In addition I would still trust PocketDice more than a completely new website, that spams in competitor's topic's, despite of the provably fair implementation.

edit: after looking at your "bitcoinbetting" site, it has a 50% HE. So no, thank you, we don't need scams like that.

Yes, coldblooded seems sometimes like a troll. But he is right here. PocketDice is indeed not really provably fair and this has been known for 1+ year: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077905.0

Easiest example: imagine a player is always playing on "Under 6". For the next bet PocketDice could give you literally the following "initial random numbers":


You obviously cannot win your "Under 6" bet. They shuffle those numbers with your clientseed, but if you only shuffle those 6's, still the result won't be "Under 6". You can also afterwards check the hash and see that it were really those numbers.. but that doesn't really help you much either.

This is an extreme example and the real way would be more subtle (not all the same number lol.)




I still don't think they actually do this, because if the players would find out, the player could actually cheat it too (bet "Under 12" lot of times and then "Over 11" for a nice 35.3x win lol.) But still provably fair is not about "well they probably are fair", it's about having a solid implementation that is completely provably fair. So yes, it is disappointing they didn't fix this after more than a year.

Disclaimer: I am not a mining expert, so anyone please correct me if I am wrong here....



satoshinonce would not be fair for investors and that site is technically not even provably fair for the player.

For player: if satoshinonce is also a miner, they could specify block-nonces (last 1 or 2 digits only) in their mining software which makes the incoming transactions/bets lose (or at least whichever is best for them.) So even if they have 2% mining power, players would most likely lose 2% more often. That's why I think for the player it's better to have TX+VOUT+SECRET like Luckyb.it (and SD before.) Might be tough to change it since.. well.. the site is called "Satoshi Nonce".

For investor: if satoshinonce is also a miner, they could adjust the mining software to only check nonces with 2 specific last digits and include some of those winning 98x transactions in it (and not even broadcast those transactions before finding the block!) Then if they find a correct block, they send it out including those winning transactions. It seems like a guaranteed way to win with no risk. So doesn't help investors much. Would be even worse for investors with TX id though obviously.

Also miners who like to attack/cheat satoshinonce can do this right now BTW. But I assume that adjusting the mining software to only use those specific nonces might take some work and I guess with the low max bet it's not worth it for them.



Ps, hope TrevorXavier doesn't mind we are going a bit off-topic here It's still somewhat on the same topic of faulty provably fair implementations though (:

Yes, that's why I said "fast game"




I agree.

Although in theory in the future there could be true decentralized trust-less gambling/investing with sidechains and investors that run some program to sign transactions/bets on the fly (like JoinMarket.) That would mean all investors have to put their BR in a (own-controlled like their own computer) "hot wallet" though and it's not as fast as dice now. Also I am not sure how the random process would work (either dependent on miner or third-party like most ETH smart contract gambling atm.) So I am not sure how practical it will all be, but sounds like a technical interesting project when the time is there

I am pretty skeptical about that and I still don't think it's possible for a fast game like dice. But yeh, if you don't publish "how" then we cannot check it obviously (:

Betting on sidechains (with 1s blocks) where investors are all part of each multi-sig ("smart contract") transaction(=bet) by running a program like JoinMarket.

Okay, no, currently that is not possible

Logs/code irrelevant tbh.

I once made an audit idea that was discussed again last month (here) but not really worth the effort.

Just want to say that the above is wrong. It's very easy to add any HTTP referer header you like in your program. It's no problem to have some NodeJS/PHP/whatever script to check "Receives" history of your account. Any HTTP request that can be done in your browser by the user, can be done by a script/program too.

Some things that can be difficult:
1. CloudFlare protection (MP needs to whitelist your server's IP)
2. I am not sure if "Receives" show a full history or only last x (for example maybe last 100?)
3. You could just send the cookies to stay logged in, but obviously you might be logged out from time to time. You would need some script to automatically login too. Basically it does take some work to have a robust script that always works.
4. Since it's no official API, any changes on MP will break your script.