What I'm wondering is when is the commission charged? I haven't noticed it going out of my investment each time someone bets, but maybe it does.
I just played about with this to see how it works. I made notes about what happened, and bolded the 4 things that seemed weird or wrong: I referred myself, deposited 0.0099 on the new account ("Player-470"), and played a little. At first I divested fully on my main account so I could see the effect of just the referral payments. I noticed that bets of 1k satoshis earned me nothing. 0.5% of 1k is 5 satoshis, and 10% of that is 0.5 satoshis. I made 10 separate bets of 1k satoshis on the referred account and earned nothing at all for them on the main account. I guess payments are rounded, rather than having the sub-satoshi payments build up. I made 4 bets of 2k satoshis and 3 bets of 4k satoshis. The main account earned a total of 10 satoshis for those bets, as expected. (4*2k + 3*4k = 20k; 0.5% of 20k is 100; 10% of 100 is 10). One thing that struck me as odd is that the affiliate payments were added to the main accounts 'invested' figure, not its balance. Even though the invested figure was zero and the balance wasn't. I would expect the affiliate payments to go into the balance, not the bankroll. Then I invested on the main account. I worked out how much I needed to invest to become exactly 10% of the site's bankroll, and invested that amount, to make the calculations easier. I was invested 2.47165911 BTC and the site bankroll was 24.71659104 BTC. I was "10.00000002% of the total site investment". The referred account bet 2k satoshis and lost; 0.5% of 2k is 10 satoshis; the commission and affiliate payment should both be 1 satoshi, and the 10% investor should get 200 satoshis. On the main account I see my investment change twice: 2.47165911 -> 2.47166110 -> 2.47166111 The first change adds 199 satoshis, the 2nd adds 1 satoshi. It seems the commission was taken off first, and the affiliate payment was added later. Then the referred account bet 10k satoshis and lost again; commission and affiliate payments should be 5 satoshis, and 10% investor should get 1k satoshis. This time I only see my investment change once: 2.47166111 -> 2.47167116 It has added on 1005 satoshis. That's 10% of the new site profit, and the affiliate payment. It looks like no commission was charged. That's probably a bug?The referred account made one final bet of 20k satoshis and won 20k satoshis. Commission and affiliate payment should be 10 satoshis, the investor should lost 2k satoshis. My investment changes once again: 2.47167116 -> 2.47165125 I have lost 1991 satoshis. I'm not sure why - I should have lost 2000. Maybe since I'm a fraction over 10% of the bankroll, the loss cost me 2001 satoshis, then the affiliate payment of 10 was added, and the commission was forgotten again? That would make 1991 total. |
|
|
|
What was the attack on PD? Was it the guy who flat bet many bets and won.?
Apparently somebody was able to gain access to their server seed, so they could know what their rolls would be before they rolled. As I remember, he won over 100 max bets in a row at 49.5%, and was able to withdraw 40 BTC before being caught. There are screenshots on the PD thread - go back a couple of weeks I guess. Edit: |
|
|
|
We give all of the commission to the referrer up to 0.1% of wagered amount (it should be 0.1% instead of 0.01%).
So I'll update my guess: We take 10% of (house_edge) of every bet directly from the bankroll as commission.
If the bet was made by a player who was referred, we take 10% of min(1%, house_edge) of the bet amount out of our commission and give it to the person who referred him.
In other words, your commission that you charge investors is 10% of (house edge)% of the amount wagered, rather than 10% of actual profit, and the referral fees you pay are the same as the commission for bets with a house edge of 1% or less, and less than the commission for bets with a higher house edge - so if every player has been referred and nobody ever plays with a house edge over 1%, the referral fees are exactly the same as the commission. Is it right now? Some examples: house edge: 0.5% commission: 0.05% affiliate: 0.05% house edge: 1% commission: 0.1% affiliate: 0.1% house edge: 1.5% commission: 0.15% affiliate: 0.1% house edge: 2% commission: 0.2% affiliate: 0.1% house edge: 10% commission: 1% affiliate: 0.1% My concern is that almost every bet is going to have a house edge of 1% or less, and most big players are going to make sure they have been referred by themselves or by a friend. So how does the house cover expenses when it is giving all its commission away to affiliates? Edit: I notice profit and investment are both up this morning. Profit is positive for the first time in a while, and investment is over 25 BTC. Nice work.  |
|
|
|
Will the affiliate program affect current investors?
I don't see how it could. The site was apparently always taking 10% of the house edge as commission, only now they have decided to give some of it to their affiliates. What they do with their commission is up to them, and doesn't affect the investors, since the investors were going to be paying it anyway. What I'm wondering is when is the commission charged? I haven't noticed it going out of my investment each time someone bets, but maybe it does. |
|
|
|
didn't upgrade clam for a while, it crashed at some points. Today I updated and it appears to get stuck at block 173217.
Should I go head to remove all the blocks and rerun ? or there's a better way.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147.msg9365391#msg9365391 for a recent bootstrap.dat. Edit: but maybe wait a day or two for the new client version before using it. Edit2: here's a more recent post about the bootstrap.dat file, in case the old date on the above post put you off: I just ported my 'dumpbootstrap' RPC command to the new version of the client, dumped a new bootstrap.dat file, and uploaded it to Amazon S3. I updated my old post about it: I'll post a torrent link once it's done.
Here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dooglus/bootstrap.dat?torrentand here, if you want a direct link, rather than a torrent: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dooglus/bootstrap.datDownload that, copy it to your clam folder (where the wallet.dat lives) and restart the CLAM client. It will notice the bootstrap.dat file, and import the blockchain up to block 176750 219000 from it. Then it will connect to peers and carry on from there. To check, see if the sha256 hash matches mine:
$ sha256sum /tmp/bootstrap.dat
3965815c11e4cbdafe99ebb55448c7a4abe730e0e8bd6fc42cf2b031cef32443 /tmp/bootstrap.dat
76d9481ac6bd5ec48fb71f0fd306f9fe9b82c4a9a957f64ffa05226e5abe1abe /tmp/bootstrap.dat
Edit: I ran: clamd dumpbootstrap /tmp/bootstrap.dat 219000 If someone is willing to run the same command after rebuilding with my patch and verify that the sha256 hash is the same, that would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Doog's explanation is correct except that we reduce / don't take every commission. When the players is referred, those 0.05% will goes to the referrer. This ensure that for every bet the commission will not be higher than 10% of the H.E. Our next step is to create a thorough explanation about this on the site (as well as Variable H.E. system). First we have to separate our role as investor and operator: - As an investor, the site takes 10% of H.E. as commission / ref payments. It is only 10% of the expected profit, so it should be ok.
- As an operator, we remove ourselves from variance, we focus on the wagering amount (which is good).
Those ref payments are taken from the role as an investor, directly from the bankroll. So, as an operator, we are very safe, we shouldn't worry about variance. In a way, the system is actually similar with taking fee from winning bets. Remember that when investing in a gambling business, our profit from one bet is used to cover the loss of another bet, we only wish that total profit is higher than total loss. It's hard to follow you exactly. Can I take a guess at what you're saying, and you correct me? My guess: We take 10% of the house edge of every bet directly from the bankroll as commission. If the bet was made by a player who was referred, we give 20% of that 10% to the person who referred him.
In other words, your commission that you charge investors is 10% of (house edge)% of the amount wagered, rather than 10% of actual profit, and the referral fees you pay at 2% of (house edge)% of the amount wagered - so if every player has been referred, the referral fees are exactly one fifth of the commission. Is that right? If so, referral payments aren't "up to 0.01%" as you wrote, they are "from 0.01% to 0.2%". Imagine everyone bets at the maximum house edge of 10%. Your commission is 1%, and the referral fees are 20% of that, or 0.2% of the amount wagered. So maybe I got something wrong, or maybe you did. I notice that the 'Copy' button next to my referrer link doesn't light up when I hover over it like all the other active buttons do.
Works fine for me (firefox). We will check on that again, this copy feature is quite tricky to be implemented in cross-browser environment. The copy feature works for me. The button just doesn't change colour when I hover over it. Most buttons do. |
|
|
|
I notice that the 'Copy' button next to my referrer link doesn't light up when I hover over it like all the other active buttons do.
Works fine for me (firefox). I figured they must have quickly fixed it, but it's still not working for me in Chromium. |
|
|
|
Get up to 0.01% of total wager of players that you refer. Is this correct? Are you paying on amount wagered, not on player's loss? How does this work from your perspective? If all the site's income comes from players' losses, aren't you concerned that with that system it could kill your profitability? [/quote] It's possible for a player to wager huge amounts and break even or even make a profit. In such cases I would expect the house to be unable to pay the referral fees. But in general the site expects payers to lose 0.5% of their wagered amount. They take 10% of that in commission (I guess - I don't know that I've seen that written anywhere), meaning they expect to get 0.05% of the wagered amount. And so they're giving 20% of their expected commission to the referring player. I notice that the 'Copy' button next to my referrer link doesn't light up when I hover over it like all the other active buttons do. |
|
|
|
Wasn't the attacker on PD only able to withdraw 40 btc before his misbehavior was noticed and all his other withdrawals were blocked?
On the account where he was obvious about it, sure. I wonder if he had other accounts that he used before that, where he won a bunch in a less obvious way? |
|
|
|
Auto rolling feature is also available now, check it out guys! Interesting simple design - just two boxes. Seems to work pretty well. |
|
|
|
That's really unlucky but at least you can be sure that the site didn't cheat you. Simply verify the rolls by - oh, wait... Scratch that, they refused to make it provably fair. So maybe they did cheat you. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Banks? What to serve?  I can imagine a Bitcoin bank being useful for lots of people. They'd charge you high fees, and protect your balance by looking for "unusual" transactions, limiting daily withdrawals, refunding you in the event of theft, and all those other services that banks already provide. Most people don't want to be concerned with any kind of security. If a keylogger gets my banking details, the bank resets my password for me. If I lose my credit card, I can easily cancel it and get another one. Security is "someone else's problem" - a role the banks will take on, for a fee. |
|
|
|
He probably still has most of the 1000 BTC he took from primedice...  Sounds if this is sort of a suggestion on who it is. Did you recently learn linear regression? Lol, no. I used to play with it on my old Casino programmable calculator in school, but not since. I figure that there have been two clever attacks on Bitcoin gambling sites very recently, and figure it's not all that unlikely that the same person is behind them both. |
|
|
|
I'm still seeing weird lag on balance updates.
I place a bet, see the result, then my balance updates sometimes twice *after* I see the bet result.
I wound expect the message that sends the bet result to also update my balance, and get it right. I don't really understand why it jumps around as much as it does - it's kind of confusing at times.
Ah, found what caused this..  It has been fixed now, thank you so much for reporting this again doog! It seems better now, but the problem still occurs for the site profit. I win a bet, and I see the site profit drop accordingly, then go back up, and a second later drop back to the correct value again. ie. it is changing three times sometimes when I bet once. Nobody else is playing. The long streak thing is kind of a continuum. The lower the chance people play at, the longer streaks they see. The screenshot shows a roll of 52, but he's playing >54 so it's a loss, where it would have been a win at 2x. |
|
|
|
I'm really impressed by the person who abused this bug. Not only due to the complexity of the exploit, but the fact he only took 5 of the 25 BTC in the hot wallet. He likely could have slowly abused the bug leading the eventual shutdown of MP, but instead was a class act. I'm really thankful for that and working on better security measures so I won't need to rely on the kindness of strangers as much.
He probably still has most of the 1000 BTC he took from primedice... |
|
|
|
How is the code exploitive? I am new to this like a lot of others too.
It requires quite an in-depth understanding of moneypot source to understand. But the high level of it is that money pot's game_end event was leaking information (or more precisely the lack of money pot's game_end event) which could be abused by taking advantage of dynamically moving the autocashout amounts (something that is now disabled). Because it was so timing sensitive, the code had to be rather complex taking into consideration network latency to decide how and when to act. Let me see if I can explain it differently. As a round progresses, the server sends regular 'tick' messages to the client, saying: "1.10x and the game didn't crash yet", "1.20x and the game didn't crash yet", etc. and the client fills in the gaps in between, making the number count up smoothly, animating the chart, etc. The exploit code would set the auto-cashout at 1.11x, and wait for a short time. Just before the "1.20x and ..." message was due, it would update its auto-cashout to 1.21x, and so on. It was changing the auto-cashout just before each 'tick' was due, changing the auto-cashout to just after the next tick's multiplier. When the game eventually crashed (at 1.27x, say), the server would check the auto-cashout, see that foo had his set to 1.21x, and pay him accordingly. The problem is that the server only checks for auto-cashout points at each tick. If you have one set at 1.11x, it doesn't get paid out until the next tick (because there is really nothing between the ticks - the steady payout multiplier increase is an illusion presented by the client), at 1.20x. So you could move it up to 1.21x just before that tick. The fix is to prevent players from changing their auto-cashout point. That's not a problem because the feature was never published anyway. You would never have even known there was the possibility of changing your auto-cashout point mid game unless you had read the source code. |
|
|
|
told ya if you kept playing you'd lose it back, you might aswell just share the system and quit while ahead before it gets ugly.
He already shared it: he uses the built-in martingale bot. |
|
|
|
I see, i'l see what I can do. You can checkout the post now that I approved your reviews and it reflects in the overall score. I have it set to user reviews influencing the overall score 70%, But am thinking I may increase it. I signed up for your site using a long secure password. Then it sent a copy of the password to me in a plain text email! I think, that you are mistaken. There is no emailing yet. This thread is now about http://bitcoingambling.reviews/ |
|
|
|
Apart from the Excel, is there any way to even create a system that would be +EV for the gambler?
No. As wikipedia puts it: In most casino games, the expected value of any individual bet is negative, so the sum of lots of negative numbers is also always going to be negative. |
|
|
|
Since you're all talk and you claim to have created a +EV system lets do this, 1 BTC wager on each side. I put up 1 BTC you do the same. Dooglus or any trusted escrow holds them. Dooglus, the dice and gaming expert looks at your code and posts his findings. If true you win my coin and a big ego. Otherwise we prove you had nothing to sell, we're lying about you're offering and thus in essense...a scammer.
Let's go OP, put your money where your mouth is.
I'm afraid I wouldn't be a good candidate to escrow that bet. Because I would want to take part in it too. No way has OP created a +EV betting system in Excel. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
