|
Trezor is a great product. But one of the reasons it's great, is because you can still easily send your money to other addresses. Therefor it shouldn't really help your problem unless you get some discipline to stop depositing to gambling sites.
|
|
|
|
|
Impossible. There are no magic algorithms to make profit when gambling. There is a house edge and your expected results as a player are losses. Nothing you can do to change that. The only way to "earn" money with gambling is to be lucky.
These are the options:
- OP is delusional.
- OP will try to sell this magic method and therefor scam.
- OP will give us a virus.
|
|
|
|
Just a few notes: - 1, 2 or even 3 coins will be not enough for a good and trusted developer. You might find a developer, but IMO expect bad results, a developer who will cheat you or/and a very insecure site that can be easily hacked. 10% profit sounds fun, but as a developer I can easily just make this site for myself and make 100% of the profit. - Sounds like you also need a designer, this also costs money. - On-chain is possible, but I think with the increasing blocksize, you probably should look into off-chain games. IMO those site that you mentioned, should also consider switching. - You should have a max profit per bet of 0.5-1% of your bankroll. If you have 2 BTC as bankroll, the max profit per bet should be max 0.02 and adjust dynamically with every bet. This is based on math (search "Kelly criterion".) If you offer a bigger max bet, you have way too much risk to lose all your money and I am fairly sure your expected results are even losses in that situation. - That's why MoneyPot (MP) can be indeed an option. There are even some basic free open-source scripts like: https://github.com/untitled-dice/untitled-dice.github.io to get started. You will be able to have your own domain/hosting, but the wallets/seeds/bet-calculations/max-profit/etc go through MP. This is also much better for security (if you get a cheap developer) and your budget. You will need to trust MP though, obviously. Although from the player's perspective, MP is probably more trusted than you. - Still there are already many (more trusted/interesting/fun) gambling sites. You will need a budget for promos/ads/etc too. The full 3 BTC is even limited for advertising IMO. Especially with a non-unique concept/game. - If you do get a popular site, the hosting costs might be disappointing too. Plenty of gambling sites spend 1-3 BTC a month on hosting. Best of luck though. I just think people highly underestimate the budgets/time/effort to make and run a good gambling site. |
|
|
|
Yeh, just add some fees. For PD (and other sites) withdrawals, it could be interesting to have a "high priority" checkbox. So default is 0.00015, then with checkbox for example 0.0003 (paid by user.) I am sure some bigger players would pay bigger. And I also assume some people don't care waiting a day (if you don't need the funds right away), so lower fee should be fine for them. Other idea: how much space (and therefor fees) would be saved if withdrawals are in batches? Could be optional, every x hours, for those who are not in hurry. Could give lower fee to player too. But depends if it really saves space this way and if people are interested in it. Of course the doubling should work fine too and is easier  Obviously we can also just hope that most transactions are real spam (which should stop eventually or if "we" just outbid them), but realistically the increase (well SegWit) will be really used in May I believe? So imo interesting to think about other options too. |
|
|
|
|
He bet some more few hours ago. By now his total profit is BTC114.66.
|
|
|
|
this seems to be a pretty good service for gamblers. It gives a lot more security to the gambler funds. This way the funds are always on the control of the player and not the sites
Actually the funds are in control of MoneyPot, so you will have to trust MoneyPot with the funds. (I also do like the MP concept though, but I guess it's important to realize that. If you want control over your money, you need a real wallet where you are the only one with the private keys.) |
|
|
|
Okay, I noticed the following: You will notice that the "salt" parameter is optional. The reason for this is that during a live roll generation, the salt is derived from a millisecond-accurate system clock time which is enough to randomize it as an input. So I had to have a look. Basically: you should never use time within a provably fair implementation. It automatically makes the provably fair implementation 100% not provably fair The reason is simple: it's extremely easy for you, as site, to do this: - If winning bet > add millisecond. There is no way for the player to know if a millisecond has been added or not. Therefor it's extremely easy for you to cheat players and therefor the Rubies bet provably fair implementation is not provably fair. Of course I am not claiming you are doing this and I personally would trust you guys. But provably fair is all about not having to trust the site owners. (The "bitcoin provably fair implementation" is basically just questionable. RHavar and I had a discussion about it before and he finds it very unlikely to be really exploitable by the site and I kinda agree with that. But the Rubies provably fair implementation is really just wrong.)Sure, I will PM my skype name. |
|
|
|
Yeh, if I see the script, it should be understandable  Still a description with some information should probably be somewhere but script works for me. Yeah, I'll add a description to our FAQ. Actually, the reason it was done server-side is that it actually calls the live roll-generation code with the parameters supplied by the verification page. I opted for this method in order to make 100% that there are no divergences between actual betting and verification code. So given the above, I'd prefer to actually keep it server-side. Do you see a problem with this as long as I supply the exact method used to calculate the bet outcome so you can verify that it's correct and (optionally) implement this verification on your site? Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem doing this client side, but I think there's a certain charm (code-wise) when the verifier calls the actual code which is used during live-betting. I understand what you mean, but disagree. The thing is, obviously we use provably fair so we don't need to "trust" the site. You give us bet results, and with provably fair we can verify if that's correct. For the verification script, IMO it means we can verify the bets without having to trust you. By making it server-side, we still have to trust you. In theory if you are rigging it (of course you are not but example) then you would easily return the server-side results as verified too. By making it client-side, this trust would be less. Of course in theory we still have to trust that your JS script is legit, but at least we can check that (if you have the knowledge.) Actually that's why an external script (even if it's a site-made JSFiddle!) is much better. That being said. I still disagree with some fundamentals as discussed a long time ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1065847.msg12015013#msg12015013 (basically: needs to generate the clientseed between every bet in the browser with cryptographically secure method.) I don't think you guys changed that yet (to for example RHavar's solution.) I also discussed it a bit at Rollin thread - they did change it after few days: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=687571.msg12122724#msg12122724 IMO the provably fair implementation is barely provably fair at this moment. So TBH I think that verification script isn't a high priority compared to that. Obviously I don't think you are doing anything malicious or whatever, but the provably fair method can have some improvements. I also realize you have been busy and I can see the amount of time the Rubies addition must have cost, so I am glad you guys keep improving. Still I think that provably fair implementation should be "fixed" too Anyway, thanks for adding the FAQ text, I will have a closer look at the Rubies bet algorithm if I got a time |
|
|
|
Yeh, if I see the script, it should be understandable Still a description with some information should probably be somewhere but script works for me. |
|
|
|
|
What algorithm is used for the Rubies provably fair implementation?
I was checking the verify script, but apparently it's server-side verification (would be better client-side.)
|
|
|
|
So actual bet history ( bold = in screenshot): #98146261 - nonce #2495 - BTC0.016 (win)... 466 bets with 0 amount ?? (I am too lazy to run my script to get those ) ... #98189833 - nonce #2960 - BTC0 (loss) #98189843 - nonce #2961 - BTC0 (loss) #98189847 - nonce #2962 - BTC0.001 (loss)#98189852 - nonce #2963 - BTC0 (loss) #98189864 - nonce #2964 - BTC0 (loss) #98189875 - nonce #2965 - BTC0 (loss) #98189886 - nonce #2966 - BTC0.002 (loss)#98189887 - nonce #2967 - BTC0 (loss) #98189896 - nonce #2968 - BTC0.004 (loss)#98189899 - nonce #2969 - BTC0 (loss) #98189910 - nonce #2970 - BTC0 (loss) #98189921 - nonce #2971 - BTC0 (win) #98189932 - nonce #2972 - BTC0 (loss) #98189943 - nonce #2973 - BTC0 (win) #98189954 - nonce #2974 - BTC0 (loss) #98189962 - nonce #2975 - BTC0 (loss) #98189973 - nonce #2976 - BTC0 (loss) #98189981 - nonce #2977 - BTC0 (win) #98189989 - nonce #2978 - BTC0 (win) #98189998 - nonce #2979 - BTC0 (loss) #98190005 - nonce #2980 - BTC0 (loss) #98190015 - nonce #2981 - BTC0 (loss) #98190022 - nonce #2982 - BTC0.008 (loss)#98190028 - nonce #2983 - BTC0 (loss) #98190036 - nonce #2984 - BTC0.016 (loss)#98190037 - nonce #2985 - BTC0 (loss) #98190044 - nonce #2986 - BTC0.032 (loss)#98190048 - nonce #2987 - BTC0 (win) #98190055 - nonce #2988 - BTC0 (win) #98190065 - nonce #2989 - BTC0.064 (loss)#98190067 - nonce #2990 - BTC0 (loss) #98190074 - nonce #2991 - BTC0.128 (loss)#98190075 - nonce #2992 - BTC0 (loss) #98190081 - nonce #2993 - BTC0.256 (loss)#98190085 - nonce #2994 - BTC0 (win) #98190091 - nonce #2995 - BTC0 (loss) #98190100 - nonce #2996 - BTC0 (loss) #98190110 - nonce #2997 - BTC0 (loss) #98190119 - nonce #2998 - BTC0 (win) #98190125 - nonce #2999 - BTC0 (win) #98190136 - nonce #3000 - BTC0 (loss) #98190143 - nonce #3001 - BTC0 (win) #98190153 - nonce #3002 - BTC0 (loss) #98190162 - nonce #3003 - BTC0 (loss) #98190169 - nonce #3004 - BTC0 (win) #98190179 - nonce #3005 - BTC0 (loss) #98190188 - nonce #3006 - BTC0 (win) #98190195 - nonce #3007 - BTC0 (loss) #98190205 - nonce #3008 - BTC0 (loss) #98190215 - nonce #3009 - BTC0 (win) #98190223 - nonce #3010 - BTC0 (loss) #98190230 - nonce #3011 - BTC0 (win) #98190242 - nonce #3012 - BTC0 (loss) #98190249 - nonce #3013 - BTC0 (loss) #98190260 - nonce #3014 - BTC0 (loss) #98190266 - nonce #3015 - BTC0 (win) #98190275 - nonce #3016 - BTC0 (loss) #98190286 - nonce #3017 - BTC0 (loss) #98190294 - nonce #3018 - BTC0 (loss) #98190304 - nonce #3019 - BTC0 (loss) #98190312 - nonce #3020 - BTC0 (win) #98190323 - nonce #3021 - BTC0 (win) #98190331 - nonce #3022 - BTC0 (win) #98190339 - nonce #3023 - BTC0 (loss) #98190346 - nonce #3024 - BTC0 (loss) #98190356 - nonce #3025 - BTC0 (loss) #98190366 - nonce #3026 - BTC0 (win) #98190376 - nonce #3027 - BTC0 (win) #98190387 - nonce #3028 - BTC0 (loss) #98190396 - nonce #3029 - BTC0 (win) #98190403 - nonce #3030 - BTC0.512 (loss)Seems plenty of bets were 0 amount (way more than 30.) Note: if you refresh the page on SafeDice, the 0 amount bets are actually not shown in bet history. Player's fault?The most logical explanation is that player made 0 amount bets, which are not shown after you refresh the page. But OP claims he doesn't make 0 amount bets. It does make me curious why between that last win and first lose, there are 466 bets with 0 amount. I find it hard to imagine that OP clicked 466 times without getting any bet result. But if it's really true that his nonce-counter says "3000" but his real last bet nonce is at "3030", then there is probably at least some server-side problem. (In theory that screenshot could have been made in between though, but I assume SafeDice can check this.) Rigging?I was going to give multiple reasons why I do not think it's "rigging". But 1 reason seems enough: from nonce #2960 to nonce #2970 (including), he would have a losing streak of 11 bets. While this actual losing streak is only 10 bets. So if it's rigged, they are not very good at it :XD Overall to me it implies much more some server-side issue that results in 0 amount bets, but I have no idea what/how. Basically I do hope/expect another explanation from SafeDice. Just my 2 satoshis. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a public cold wallet yet too?
|
|
|
|
Yes, been busy, but I will definitely add that |
|
|
|
@lottery248: - lottery248.github.io, for now this site is not popular enough (needs at least couple thousand wagered and some constant activity.) In addition I am a bit hesitant to add those "default open-source dice script" sites to my site. But if one of those really becomes 1 of the most popular ones, I probably would. @safi71: - fastdice, I am monitoring those newer sites, but I think they don't show statistics of total wagered amount? @dodgecharger: - dustdice, technically they are on my site on: https://dicesites.com/moneypot I get the stats from all MP apps already and add those who are really most popular. I like the concept of dustdice, but they aren't really one of most popular dice sites. Will monitor in future. - betcoin.tm, they have a shady reputation and therefor it's tough to trust their statistics. - betcoin.ag, they don't seem to show statistics, so I cannot add them. @BitBatFan: - dicecoin.io, they had an issue once where they couldn't pay a "big winner" (was like 86 coins.) They offered to pay 2 coins a day (while offering like 5 max profit bets?), that's already unacceptable IMO. Then they made a "deal" to only pay less than half (40 coins.) See reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=463273.msg10350215#msg10350215 Even if the player agreed to that "deal", I think that's some serious wrongdoing by dicecoin.io. It makes it very questionable if they can afford to payout winners. Therefor I won't add them to my site. - crypto-games.net, see last page. Honestly if they weren't an investor-based site, I would probably add them. But being investor-based, I take issues like the prior discussed one very seriously. I will still consider in the future though. - pocketdice.io, I don't think they solved this provably fair issue: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077905.0 Ideally they can solve that, because right now they are technically not provably fair. - peerbet.org, I agree. When I made the site, I added some dice sites and included peerbet since they are one of the oldest dice site (my site says 2013, but it's actually 2012 - probably current dice game was added in 2013 or something ?) However, even with their limited bankroll, they should definitely add public cold wallet. I asked them once, but just after that, they tried to sell peerbet, so I figured I would ask the next owners again. But yeh, I will ask them again to show some public cold wallet and definitely consider to remove them if not. @MICRO: I tried to fix it, but seems pretty strange issue tbh  Will try some more. @auswalk: great suggestion. I plan to make a separate page for gamblers/players "soon". I will probably add that information too @all others who like my site, thanks  |
|
|
|
Okay, can remove Bench from that list I guess Also be aware, that even with those "physical stores/restaurants", it's always better to call/ask first if they really accept bitcoin. Sometimes they stop accepting it if no one used it in many months |
|
|
|
I think these categories make more sense.. be free to change/add/etc Buy BTC:Sell BTC:* note: even if they focus on remittance, you as local can obviously also use it. Just compare all sites for best prices in my opinion Real exchanges:P2P trading:BTC ATMsPay BillsBuy load:Other servicesOnline shops:Physical shops/restaurants:Information/wallet:* note: it is highly recommended to not use a site like that as wallet. Better use a real bitcoin wallet so you are in control of your own money (so you cannot lose your money in a MtGox situation.) List of wallets: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-walletBuy bitcoins with Smart or Sun Load:PH communities |
|
|
|
The only troll here is you clown.
This only proves my point you dont know what your talking about, apperently YOU NEVER even visted the site, yet you bashing with this "provably fair" garbage. 1. I made the article I referred you to many times already: https://dicesites.com/provably-fair unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the 5 minutes to read it. I also made a provably fair verifier for Rollin: https://dicesites.com/rollin/verifier which shows that I certainly did look at their provably fair implementation. Probably a lot better than you did. 2. Actually I looked at their implementation so properly, that I "discovered" a potential issue in their implementation, see my post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=687571.msg12122724#msg12122724 (many months ago.) They very quickly replied and fixed the issue. After they fixed that, I am 100% confident that their implementation is really provably fair - if you, as the player, take the effort to verify the bets. Both rollin and fortunejack use "mersenne twister" well apparently you know something they dont.......
Correct me if im wrong, but the seed is generated "cryptographically" by using an algorithm which is set by the operator and NOT the player.
Well.. I made a verifier for it, so I know very well that they use the Mersenne Twister generator. However, your question was: Is this the algorithm code used to generate the seed? The answer is: no, probably not. Because if they do generate the serverseed with that "random" generator, then YOU as the player can hack/cheat them by "cracking the seed". The clientseed is generated in the browser with a cryptographically-secure random generator. If you take the time to actually go through the Javascript source, you can figure this out yourself. The clientseed is the relevant part here. If they can "crack the clientseed", then they indeed could cheat in theory. But since this isn't the case, they cannot cheat. You can check this yourself in the Javascript source. If you don't have the knowledge to do that and you still don't trust it, you can change the clientseed yourself every time before you make a bet. This way you can be 100% sure that you cannot be cheated. If you read my article: https://dicesites.com/provably-fair and try to understand the provably fair mechanism, you can understand why. So when is that Mersenne Twister generator used? Well they use the seeds (server and client seeds) as "input seed" for the Mersenne Twister generator and get the result from that. Since the "input seed" is generated in a cryptographically-secure way, there is no way that the site or you can cheat. The last pic does not do justice with out the actual live recording, it was pretty fucking obvious. No. What would make it obvious, is if you can show the provably fair calculations and show that you calculate a different result than them. Ps, I helped many users with verifying their bet results on a lot of different sites. If anyone ever has a issue with verifying and thinks he might be cheated, you can definitely PM me. I don't care if it is a big or small site, if there really is a issue, I will be happy to check that and vouch for proof etc. But in your situation, it looks like you don't want to take the time to even understand the provably fair mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
In PHP.
Server: Apache/2.4.7 (Ubuntu)
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.5.9-1ubuntu4.14
(@fastdice: can't hurt to hide those headers btw, easy apache+php setting.)
|
|
|
|
Yeh, CrossOver ($39.95) is paid version of Wine (developed by same guys but probably works better than Wine.) SWC doesn't work on Wine, but perhaps it does on CrossOver (on linux - obviously it does on OS X.) I am a bit lazy to try the trial, but would be nice if someone tries VirtualBox (free) + Windows works too. In theory can get free legal Windows: There are also other free 100% legal Windows versions including XP here, but these expire after 90 days (so have to re-install all including SWC each 90 days - you will lose files too afaik.) TBH I do think it's pretty cool Microsoft offers these VM images for free (officially it's to test websites in different IE/OS versions.) (Make sure to have "bridged adapter" in network settings of VM.) But it takes some effort and is not good for old computers. I know tspacepilot knows the above, but just so zeaderza knows about that possibility  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
