Read through everything... I still don't believe it is provably fair for investors, but it seems more like layering.
Layers help, but they don't make it mathematically fair for investors still. I suppose it does make it fair for you though?
Yeah, you're right. I believe from my perspective it's completely provably fair, and I'm an investor. And running the audit server doesn't allow me to cheat, so no one needs to trust me. But if someone trusts me, they can trust that I verified the games. And if they don't trust me (which i think should be the default position) it's the same as a normal investment scheme anyway. But the real cool thing is the security guarantees it offers. The security disaster that happened today on bustabit, couldn't have have happened on bustadice cause of the system. As even a total compromise of the server-seed isn't enough to predict rolls (Unless I was the attacker... ) |
|
|
|
@JollyGood, you literally created like 4 threads to complain about BetKing. Please don't turn this into a 5th. Good thing that you able to spot it out directly and hopefully that vulnerability didnt cause any loss amount into its investors.When this thing do happen?
Looking at: https://dicesites.com/bustabit it looks like a hit of ~119 bitcoin in the last day. Assuming this was the result of a security problem, Daniels has already promised to cover this out of his own pocket, so investors should be pretty relieved. Fortunately 119 bitcoin is pretty manageable compared to the site's bankroll, or profits (for both investors and commissions). But going forward I think I'd like to see a more explicit outline between Daniel and investors about how security issues like this are dealt with. The site bankroll is a massive 3.2k bitcoin at the moment, so that represents a pretty huge liability (e.g. imagine if a lucky whale won half, then turns out they weren't actually lucky) so I think it's worth dealing with. |
|
|
|
That was a private conversation between someone I have spoken with frequently for 5 years and he thinks it's OK to just post things in a public forum. I have 5 years of chat logs with lots of personal info he has said to me in confidence. I would never dream of posting that here.
I'm sorry, but you were the first one to quote me out of context to justify pirating software -- to both the Crypto Gambling Foundation. You also repeatedly tried to push me into buying significant amounts of BKB right before canceling the buyback promise (the only thing giving them real value) right before promising you would not. and the whole nonsense about stealing Bustabit. Note it was removed a few days after they started attacking
The way you acted there was disgusting. You were repeatedly told and asked that you were not allowed to use the code in a production (and commercial) site without paying the license fee (2 btc). Yet you ignored, deflected and did it anyway and then you decided to run it for a few more days to see how popular it would be before buying (something that was repeatedly were told was not allowed by the license). But worse than that, (copyright violation is not that big of a deal in my books) you started lying about it. And then obfuscating the code and claiming it was a total rewrite. WTF? That's how a broke 14 year old runs a business. And to the best of my knowledge you still have never apologized and paid Daniel his 2 bitcoin. Businesses fail every day. It doesn't make them scams.
I was the biggest investor in this that lost, I put over $1 million of my own money into the business.
Businesses change models or pivot all the time, especially if the old model didn't work which clearly it didn't here.
It's obvious to me that the majority of people are in fact in support of the changes and I feel that this way will be far more profitable. For a start, traffic and profit is actually increasing now.
You're trying to pretend people are blaming you for running a failed business. You are blamed because you promised to personally buy back tokens for the purpose of exposing yourself to BTC. You were more than happy when it was going your way, but the second turns around you just cancel it for "business reasons". If we cut the bullshit, you had a moral obligation to buy back those tokens until the point of your personal bankruptcy. Use some logic. If I was a scammer, why would I still be running the site?
Dunno. Maybe it helps you feel better about the millions you scammed? We both know your site has zero potential left, casinos live and die on trust. After screwing investors, canceling promotions, no rational person will play on your site (assuming they even find it buried under the listings for betking.com in the SERP) |
|
|
|
When the hash-chain is created, an accompanying salt is also created. Rocket's game logic creates the salt. The hash-chain is finite so sooner or later it will be depleted. Then a new hash-chain will be created with the salt which no one can guess its creation time.  So in other words, it's not provably fair as we need to trust you picked a salt fairly... I guess it doesn't matter much, but can you confirm the salt doesn't change until the hash-chain is ended? |
|
|
|
As we have mentioned before, we do not and cannot have salt under our control.
So how was the salt determined? Who picked it? And under what circumstances does it change? |
|
|
|
Ps Rhavar can you get someone to lock most of these threads but the main BK and leave Jolly one of these threads rather than him pumping all 5 several times throughout the day. I have emailed plenty of mods they don't care what I think.
I don't have any special privileges, but I have suggested several times that I think game-protect should be banned (almost all his posts are thinly veiled ads or links to a scam service) and that all-but-one of JollyGood's threads locked or merged (actually: hopefully JollyGood can do that voluntarily, as it serves no one by having discussion split up like that). This is where a interesting conversation starts. I was a ico investor and I have received no special treatment. My 1st reaction was anger. As for Dean being frugal you must have not been around when he was doing daily tournaments and freerolls with overlay day after day in poker tournaments. Also is reported that pro gamblers were crushing the sportsbook due to the favorable odds.
Fair enough. I know Dean has run a lot of pretty generous promotions. Something I think is a bad idea, as you attract edge-hunters, and not gamblers. According to what I have heard is that Dean was buying back tokens from people who were unhappy with the ico (did not know this was occurring). So some investors were able to exit without a loss and even a profit from BKB investment on site.
The reason those investors were unhappy was because the BKB token was pegged to USD, but BTC was going through the roof. So they thought it was unfair that Dean makes a ( personal) profit at their expense (compared to if they just kept the BTC, and never invested). I always defending Dean, because this was the terms and Dean repeatedly said that had price gone down, he would've personally compensated investors out of pocket. Is renegging on a promise a scam? That is a question that I think each person can define differently. Now if intent was good but methodology was bad is it a outright scam? Do you think Dean intent was for this to occur?
No, of course not. I'm sure it was his intentions that bitcoin price went and stayed high, and then he would've made a huge personal profit and none of the mess happened. But bitcoin price did drop. And those BKB tokens represent a debt he had to people. If Dean was an honest person who treated his obligations seriously, he would've put every effort to honor his debt (up until the point of bankruptcy). He made a bet bitcoin price would go and stay up. He got it wrong, and he owes money for that. It's just not fair or honest to be like "lolz sorry, turns out I bet wrong. Let's just ignore that and pretend it never happened". And let's also not pretend Dean doesn't have the resources to actually repay his investors he screwed. He's no doubt netted a few million from his little ICO scam, and if memory serves (I might be wrong, I'd need to check) I was in talks with him to sell him my site for 10M dollars. He's only motivation here is unabridged greed. |
|
|
|
I don't appreciate you abusing the Trust/merit system, if you look at your trust system we can see that you have given almost a hundred people a bad rating in a short time. Abuse of the system can be harmful to the community. I have expressed my concern to the moderators several times. I can only hope others will see your abuse and express their concerns.
I don't think you can really abuse the trust system. It's basically a glorified comment section. No one really looks at it, or pays attention -- I wouldn't worry about it. (Although I agree about the multiple threads, it's a bit annoying). That said, I find your support of betking a bit perplexing. I looked through your post history, and you're clearly a reasonable person. You've been aggressively promoting beking for 3(?) years (with even your profile link to "betking.io"), but your only affiliation you say is that you're an investor? So did you invest in the ICO? And if so, did you get the same treatment as other investors? Because honestly, I don't think a single reasonable person can conclude it was fair. Doing my best to not sensationalize: The ostensible purpose of the ICO was to raise funds for bankroll and site development/software. Despite raising several million, the bankroll remains paltry and does (or did?) even require additional bankroll investors. And for software costs, Dean has been remarkably frugal. Even going as far as ripping Daniel off for 2 btc to save on costs (even despite knowing it would greatly harm his reputation, which is what casinos live and die on) Dean personally profited by the terms of the ICO when the price of bitcoin went up (by pegging the token to USD, while holding btc). I agreed it was fair, because under the same terms Dean would personally lose if the price of bitcoin went down. When I inquired about how that is possible, and at what price bitcoin would need to drop to make that untenable, he said "even at $1" he could do it, because he has system in place to automatically sell bitcoin and would always honor the buy backs. If you have the time, I'd appreciate some insight on how you think this is not just outright scamming? -- On a more subjective note, I re-read through my conversations with Dean and am 99% sure that Dean tried to use his reputation (just before canceling the buybacks) to scam me out of a ~million dollars. He made up some story about having fiat denominated debts (poker debts, he told me), and having bitcoin. And needed a loan. Right from the very start, I told him I am happy to do so but I have a hard-requirement of not exposing myself to counterparty risk (e.g. i'd want him to escrow some bitcoin as collateral). Each time he would come up with new terms they would not meet the requirements and leave me vulnerable to being scammed. Then he finally agreed to preliminary terms, I went to the trouble of securing some highly respected and well-known people who could escrow. And then he changed his mind and wanted to self-escrow. Or then he agreed to collateral conditions, but wanted to use BKB (and once again promised that buy-back would never stop). Also all the while he was offering insane interest rates. There's no way this was done in good faith. But I do agree that my accusation is "he tried to scam" is extremely weak, so I'd rather if you could (since Dean refuses to give a proper response) to how you think what he did do to ICO investors was anything but scamming. |
|
|
|
We provide the verification tools at https://rocket.run/#fairnessThe salt value used in each game with hash is from uuidv4, and its creation time is the same as the hash-chain, meaning we cannot predict when the salt value will be created as well. The current approach may not look provably fair since there is no intervention with your choice of salt. However, we are planning to adapt to use the user's choice of salt in the near future to make it more acceptable by our users. I hope this makes sense to you. Unfortunately that's not provably fair. I would strongly encourage you to stop calling it provably far until it actually is. I'd be more than happy to review any pre-release provably fair logic you come up with to make sure it's actually provably fair (totally free of charge). I do find it a bit strange that you cloned pretty much everything from bustabit (even their 'bust' terminology) and almost all the provably fair technique, except then making it not provably fair.  Anyway, good luck with your project. |
|
|
|
The game is 100% provably fair and you can actually verify it yourself by looking at the provably fair page in our page!
Except it's not. Your provably fair page has a certificate for a "Random Number Generator Certificate" done by iTech, which is totally meaningless for players and done by a rather useless company. And then you have the provably fair code, but it's not actually provably fair when you don't explain where `salt` comes from, and avoided my question: However, I'm curious as to how you actually verify games? I can see you're using bustabit's hash-chain approach, but you're also mixing in an unspecified "salt" which you haven't specified how it's generated/used. At best that nullifies the point of using a salt, and at worst makes the entire approach not provably fair.
|
|
|
|
Now this seems a highly attractive feature. Has any website used anything like this before?
Not that I'm aware of. Although I'll add it's only suitable for some games. For instance it'd never work in bustabit, because the server needs to know the game outcome (bust) before players are finished making decisions (e.g. they can cashout in real time). But if I ever got back into gambling (which I have no intention of...) there's no way I'd do it without such a system. The piece of mind knowing wins are legitimate is huge. |
|
|
|
There is no way for a game to be guaranteed or provable fair to investors.
I don't understand why you would put yourself in such a sticky spot on purpose?
Important: There is no guarantee to investors on provably fair sites because the owner can still play within the rules and "beat you fairly". These sites are only proveably fair to players... NOT investors, it isn't possible to prove. Unless I'm outside on something new.
Actually there is, and bustadice has it implemented! I made a high-level overview of how it works here: https://gist.github.com/RHavar/285c295f7906e03369cd66580a1b5f45 and you can check bustadice for the actual nitty details. But the tldr; version is that there's two server seeds. I know one, Daniel knows one. He can't "play against the house" because he doesn't know the seed I'm using. I do think you're right about putting myself in a sticky spot though. But more due to me being one of the 2-of-3 key holders for BaD's cold storage. I originally did this because as I can audit the game results, I could check and see if there was any funny business, I can refuse to process transactions from cold storage. But after thinking a bit more about attack vectors, I realize there's something I didn't think of earlier: Daniel could fake a bank-run. Maybe intentionally get some bad publicity, then act like almost all investors have divested (e.g. 90%) and then he tells me to sign the transaction, because he needs to pay investors back. Since I can only audit game results, and there's no cheating on the game results there's nothing I can say. And then instead of paying investors, he just puts it in his pocket and exit scams. So I believe I can state with a high amount of certainty that the stats on bustadice.com are legitimate and importantly all big investor wins are totally legitimate. And while there's a lot of benefit in Daniel not being able to undetectably rip off investors, the cool thing is actually the guarantees I provide Daniel. Let's say I got hacked, there's nothing I can really do (by design). And if Daniel got hacked ... just knowing Daniel's server-seed is not enough to predict games, so the attacker would not be able to undetectably cheat. Which I think is a huge deal. I remember always my biggest fear running a casino is that my system got compromised and someone was able to feign being lucky whale(s) and just draining the site dry. Anyway, it's a super cool system. I've even considered offering it as a service (auditor-as-a-service) but I've been a bit busy to build such a thing. |
|
|
|
CMIIW, does this mean it's better to use a wallet that can produce the same signature for the same message?
I would generally prefer wallets that do that. If a wallet screws up the picking of k (most classically: using the same k, for different messages) it leaks your private key. A wallet that uses a deterministic k is far less likely to screw it up (as it's so much easier to test, and has no dependency on a good random-number-generator). What I do like about random k's though, is that by generating a different signature every time -- it helps developers realize there's no canonical signature. (although using a deterministic k does generate a canonical signature, it's not possible for someone to verify that it is in fact the canonical one, without leaking the private key) |
|
|
|
I'm pretty impressed by the visualization you guys developed, looks pretty engaging! However, I'm curious as to how you actually verify games? I can see you're using bustabit's hash-chain approach, but you're also mixing in an unspecified "salt" which you haven't specified how it's generated/used. At best that nullifies the point of using a salt, and at worst makes the entire approach not provably fair. P.S. I'm not sure if you guys know or it's just part of the marketing, but the first time a rocket-themed bustabit was done was late 2014, a few month after bustabit was created.  That site then shutdown pretty soon after in an exit-scam, then in (2015?) it was done again (tothemoon.me) which was visualized as rocket ship trying to get to the moon. If memory serves, I believe that site then shut down after getting hacked? |
|
|
|
Or a competitor spreading bullshit.
Nah, it's very unlikely. If it was a competitor spreading bullshit, they'd just make up an outright lie (e.g. "I tried to withdraw 3 btc, so the admin just deleted my account and won't respond to my messages!") and turn it into a confusing mess. I think most likely the person was playing and hit some really bad luck. Possibly crazy bad luck. When it happens to you, it's pretty hard to believe and it's pretty natural to think you're getting cheated. It's happened to me before, like martingaling and hit like 7 loses in a row. wtf? Stop and make some dust bets and everything looks normal, and continue and just get punished again. Fortunately I know enough about crypto and maths to be able to verify bets and check if I was unlucky or cheated, but I realize that very few people do so (or are able to). So @zaketej I'd recommend sending a message to support (bustadice.com/support) and ask for help with how to verify your bets (although to robustly do so, you'll need to have recorded the server-seed-hash/your-client-seed before starting). It won't help get your money back, but it might give you some peace of mind knowing you weren't cheated. (Disclaimer: I'm currently acting an auditor of bustadice, and can cryptographically verify the bet-results. However it's only really got decent guarantees for investors, for players they are much better off verifying their own bets. It's also only a useful service if you believe I'm independent from Daniel, which while true, I wouldn't blame anyone for doubting... But fortunately players can trustlessly verify their own bets ) |
|
|
|
And no, people who are just unhappy with business decisions or that they didn't make huge profit from ICO do not count either. That does not equal a scam.
How do you draw the line between 'business decision' and scamming? Like say you issued and sold a shit load tokens that were fixed to a USD price that was guaranteed by you personally, and thus derive their value from that promise. And then say you cancel that promise (and thus complete the wealth transfer from investors to your personal pockets), would you consider that a scam or just a good business decision? |
|
|
|
it is true what you are saying, but my question is really simple, it doesn't matter if I have a 50% stake or a 0.002% stake, if the sites PROFITS goes from 2k to 2.2k (example) this means my investment also grew 10%
No, it makes all the difference. If the site profit goes from 2k to 2.2k ... it means the site made 200 BTC in profit. So if you have a 50% stake, your investment would've increased by 100 BTC (50% of 200 BTC). If you had a 0.002% stake then your investment would go up by 0.004 BTC. How much in % increases that was, will depend on how big the bankroll is... and I have a more personal question for you RHVAR, do you use the offsite system at all? because if you only use the onsite system you are exposed to a 1.5Kelly, but that dosnt mean you will eventually loose your entire bankroll, this only happens if you use the offsite system exposing yourself to more than 1.5Kelly.
Yeah, I'm currently using the offsite system. But mainly because I have invested in both bustabit and bustadice. So by using the offsite system, I can limit my total counter-party risk and I can easily rebalance by moving money between the two. I also use it extremely conservatively (right now I have 3:1 onsite:offsite ratio on bustabit). For most investors, I advise strongly advise against using it due to its potential to backfire if you don't really understand what you're getting into. While pure onsite is more "set and forget" which is probably more suitable. |
|
|
|
I mean isn't it obvious that investment increases by faster with more investors than the profits, profits are still something that helps you grow your money of course but its not as fast as investors who see this as an opportunity. Depositing is quite easy as well so it takes no time and a good idea to be supporting a system that is designed to make you money.
I'm not sure it is. There's a 2% dilution which I think represents a pretty significant discouragement for new investors. Meanwhile site profits have been rather amazing (eyeballing it: https://dicesites.com/bustabit and daily average volume seems to be 600 BTC? or so). So I bet the vast majority of recent bankroll growth is from profits (although at the start it would've been all due to new investors) It is great that Rhavar is always here helping answering questions of people but haven't you handed this off to devans ? I always wandered about the relations you three have, who owns bustabit and whats the relation between you and devans and you and bustabit and devans and bustabit, it is all a bit like a love triangle at this moment  . I'm just answering here on the forum as I have nothing better to do  (I've got a modest investment myself in the bankroll (under the exact same system/terms as any other investor) so I like to keep an eye on what's happening). [And full disclosure: I also have mod-privs on the chat, so I can mute people. But I rarely am on the chat these days] oh okay now I understand, but what what I really was referring to is the sites PROFITS, if the sites profit goes from 100 BTC to 110 BTC or from 2k BTC to 2.2K BTC does that mean my investment in the bankroll also grows 10% if all of the if there if the investment and divesting remains the same?
Close again, but not quite. When you invest, your stake is based on how much the bankroll is (regardless of how much of that is profit). But then *after* you invested, all you care is about profits. So imagine the bankroll was 100 BTC, you put in another 100. Then you'd own ~50% of the bankroll. Now you'd get ~50% of the site profits/loses |
|
|
|
but when the bankroll grows or decreases my stake in the bankroll also changes, so you are telling me that if I had invested when the bankroll was at 100 btc profit and now it is 2.2k btc profit I would have 22x my investment?
No. You're confusing a few concepts. If you were invested in the bankroll when it was 100 BTC, and then it grew to 2.2k BTC purely by profits -- then you would've made 22x. But that's not really what's happened. It's best to look at it individually: * A player loses X btc: The bankroll will increase by (0.9975*X), but all investors will have the same % ownership (stake) as they did. (e.g. They own the same amount of a bankroll that just increased). Note: how the bankroll increased by slightly less than the player lost (that's cause Daniel is pocketing some money as commissions) * A player wins X btc with a bet of Y: The bankroll will decrease by (X + 0.0025*Y), but all investors will have the same % ownership (stake) as they did. (e.g. They own the same amount of a bankroll that just shrunk) * An investors divests X btc: The investor is given X btc. The bankroll decreases by X btc. Each investor's stake is adjusted such that (stake*bankroll) is exactly equivalent to before the divestment (e.g. So they now own more of a smaller bankroll) with the exception of the investor who divested, whose (stake*bankroll) will be X less than before. * An investor invests X btc: The investor loses X btc from their balance. The bankroll goes up by 0.98*X btc. The person who invested stake is adjusted such that (stake*bankroll) is 0.98*X higher than it was before. All other investors have their stake adjusted such that (stake*bankroll) is the same before. After this process is completed, the bankroll is increased another 0.02*X. (this process is known as the "dilution fee" and is basically new investors paying the old investors (and themselves) compensation for lowering their stake |
|
|
|
Hello guys I have some questions,
can someone tell me if I invest on the bankroll with no leverage (only investing with onsite) what Kelly am I exposed to and how can I calculate it? also what is the Kelly if I where to use the offsite system as leverage?
So the house edge is 1%, investors always pay Dan 0.25% commissions (regardless of outcome) which means from investors point of view the edge is 0.75%. Now according to: https://www.bustabit.com/faq/how-does-the-bankroll-workThe max a single player can win in a round is 0.75% -- so that means if there was a single player in the game and he was aiming for the max-profit ... investors would be at a 1x kelly. However it's possible for multiple players to be playing at the same time, so there's a secondary cap at: Each round can only win 1.125 % of the bankroll which means if that happened (e.g. multiple whales at once) investors would be at a 1.5x kelly ( which is not ideal, but still +expected bankroll growth). I couldn't find in the FAQ the current offsite limit, but what ever it is should be easy to calculate the kelly if you use it as a means to leverage (which I'd advise against) and also if the bankroll increases 10% does that mean that my investment also grows 10%?
Yeah, when you "invest" you get own % (stake) of the bankroll. So when the bankroll grows or decreases, your stake stays the same. So if the bankroll doubled your investment would double. If the bankroll halved, your investment would halve. (Note: stakes are readjusted when people invest or divest, so you only make money when the bankroll gains money from gamblers) |
|
|
|
|
I really like Timetwister's idea of a wagering contest, but I think it needs it to be done smartly. The simple "Who ever wagers most between X and Y wins Z" I think is not really effective, as it's only interesting to a tiny amount of whales -- and the smart strategy is to wait till the last moment before wagering. So it's kind of boring in terms of events.
So my proposal is this:
Every ~24 hours you calculate how much people have wagered since last time. For every 200 bit they wagered in that period, they are awarded 1 silver. And at the same time you also snapshot and publish how much silver every player has.
The person who has the most silver for 7 consecutive snapshots in a row wins. The winner is awarded 1 bit for every 1 silver the #2nd highest person has at the time of the final snapshot.
And the interesting part: You can freely transfer and trade your silver. So even if you know you're not going to be able win the wager contest, you can still be involved by selling your silver (or even speculate and market make etc.). I think the mechanics of "needing to be #1 for 7 days in a row" could create a pretty interesting "dollar auction" sort of mechanic.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
