Hey, I hear my name!  But yeh, with a bit of a hacky solution it's actually possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send2;to=NLNico;bcc=NLNico;message=test%0Anewline;subject=test%20subjecthttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send2;to=NLNico;bcc=NLNico;message=test%0Anewline;subject=test%20subject - You can use either "to" (username) or "u" (id) - As example I included "bcc" and "subject" too, obviously you can change/remove that - Use "%0A" for newline - Use "%20" for space - It is hacky because it actually links to the "second send page", but since there is a protection (so you cannot trick people into sending a message), you get a "session expired" error. But it technically works for your purpose |
|
|
|
I would hope not... if they use that Mersenne Twister generator, it's actually the players who can take advantage of this weak random generator and cheat the site. It's in a dice site's best interest to generate cryptographically secure random seeds. At this point I am not sure if you are trolling or just slow in understanding. But if you are not trolling, you should really read a bit more about provably fair ( https://dicesites.com/provably-fair and actually just the posts in this thread.) But I guess you are just trolling since you do no effort in trying to understand the provably fair concept and just keep saying pretty dumb things. |
|
|
|
|
- SatoshiDice cold addresses changed, thanks for tip.
- BitDice ETH added (and DASH finally removed lol)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, I calculated the same winner yesterday.
|
|
|
|
TBH I am pretty sure I calculated a different result yesterday, but I didn't have much time and it was late, so I might have made some silly mistake. Will see what Ryan comes up with :X |
|
|
|
Lol. Quote from video contest: BetKing has BTC3,000+ invested (most of it here - used to be even 5k) and has been around for years (under name "PRC") with BTC281k wagered. If he is unable to pay this BTC2 prizepool, we have bigger problems than lost prizes (so escrow seems not needed  ) (that contest is already finished and paid out btw) Seriously, escrow is obviously not needed and will actually make the risk higher in this specific situation (see Master-P / ore-mine - although in that specific situation escrow was still better beforehand.) |
|
|
|
|
For security reasons all sites, including this one, have a limited hot wallet for instant withdrawals. So for relative big withdrawals or if others withdrawn a lot, you might have some delay. Afaik owner dean does this fairly well though, should be within hours most times.
But normally it's instant though (automatically like 2 mins after.)
|
|
|
|
Seems this guy was right back in December: Could anybody look on way btc moved from cryptsy old wallet? https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/Cryptsy.com-old?page=51732014.02 cryptsy wallet balance is around 10k btc, then one day there are 7 withdraw for 1k btc each. All moving on 1A5rrPcb6SWR6nnpEDq8jkJrhvHGZ8CL2s wallet. Could it be cryptsy cold wallet? https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/0c07e0bec1002bd21A5rrPcb6SWR6nnpEDq8jkJrhvHGZ8CL2s and several more wallets with 500+ deposites in 2013 from cryptsy. with sum around 11k btc in 2014.07 were moved to 18E3AWaadnUPQ1aMpfEoyTXN49NYAZzbpD [25866d65e9] 1000. BTC unspent 1DSxcqygQ69MxRc8oW94kQjWHzMb4BYsnG [94c06339d5] 1000. BTC unspent 1LwZYCt8dDhZDMd6uXGMwVsmWPXW9eX9Ww [84e18ed8db] 1000. BTC unspent 13nAJw8jw7BiYKLnad9YGdPxybK9mgPkM6 [1aa1f09b2f] 1000. BTC unspent 1DqCNwUffFTxULH8crehynw53TwrHnrv1c [ed057b062e] 1000. BTC unspent 1AWdxqABYiDxcY1sxzPzEotvjFjq8NUY8Z [5bb630218a] 1000. BTC unspent 18nb1NQCeoZLucMdrNdu2wb7jcyDvSgr3Y [f319cc9d39] 0.0961 BTC unspent 13QxkdrhfeQ6aCF4TBWg8knQGBmiwL2rpV [71450cbe75] 1000. BTC unspent 17nmFFPSANbPGgdtoEEuc6xbHoaP1n6ZBb [a0206f6681] 1000. BTC unspent 14nzbWNMPjmvwy96uuFVXtj6VgChJtHvU9 [c139549e61] 1000. BTC unspent 1315LzDFcBLDBKgVAr4ZhCkcT5GXivpiuj [2c53331f1a] 1000. BTC unspent 1KBy6MvcBb2qQRS5fQT92o2c5Dq2W6ygx4 [b16b6dbcdb] 1325. BTC unspent All unspend so far, coins still on that wallets. Or this 11k btc is someone else own? This coins were never moved back to cryptsy... and cryptsy wallet never restored after it.. |
|
|
|
|
Forwarding address is like a private deposit address. If you need that, it will be indeed generated on the server and Ryan has control over it. Just like all gambling sites with private deposit addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
The random seed is not even used in the roll result.
How about you actually do some reading before making these useless idiotic posts?
|
|
|
|
Cool, own forum  IMO start without any subforums. And look after 1 month which type of threads there are. So if after 1 month there are a lot of alt-coin threads > make new subforum for that. If a lot of threads about mining > make one for mining. Lot's of Cebuano topics > regional. Etc. Otherwise we might have a "marketplace" forum without anyone posting? (note: it would be great to finally buy some stuff here locally for BTC, but gotta see the supply first :p) Also SCI, coins.ph, etc should already get some representative here with their own topics. Live-forum-support etc |
|
|
|
... the fact remains, that the operator can see your bid, and yet hes the one that generating "random" and "encrypted" seed there after. You dont see anything strange with that? That the "random" seed is generated only after you place a bid, while he knows your exact bid and the ammount!
That is wrong. The random seed is generated before you place your bet. It is part of the hash that you get in advance. There is no way for Rollin to modify this seed without you noticing (if you verify your bets.) |
|
|
|
The reason I didn't add negative trust yet is because coldblooded doesn't seem like a good source. For example in this posts he describes in an idiotic way why provably fair doesn't work according to him: On proveably fair...
OK, so lets pretend you and I are going to make a wager. I'll be the house, you can call me money jacker. that's the name of my casino.
We'll do it in person so it's more legit that way.
Before you bet, I'll write down on a piece of paper what the outcome is.
Here's your piece of paper, now don't look yet, it's in invisible ink and only my special marker will work.
OK, give me your money.
Aww, you lose. Now look at the paper, here is the marker. What does it say, it says.. "You lose" !
See it's provably fair.
I told you that you were gonna lose, and you did. Super fair.
Or how about this.
I have 2 invisible ink pens. On your paper, if you use 1 pen, it tells you that bets over X will win. If you use the other pen, it tells you that bets under X will win.
I decide which pen to give you after you place your bet.
See provably fair. Your super smart. .. Provably fair is the bullshit they tell people who get cheated to absolve them of culpability.
Stupid sheep. I find it hard to take his " I will report diggit to the cyberpolice" posts from him really serious. The other current open issue seems to be from cruisinthrutime. Realistically that is a newbie account so that seems to be less credible/trustworthy too. No offense btw, it seems to be a legit user who simply didn't have an account here yet, so I definitely hope he still gets his money. But IMO adding negative trust needs some legit complaints from several (trustworthy/credible) people, before "ruining" someones reputation. However, since these issues/posts have been here in this topic for awhile now (while CryptoFuture had the time to reply), I will add negative trust again. I will be happy to remove it again, if the issues are solved. Although I hope there can be some transparency about the lack/delay of responses this time too. |
|
|
|
|
They cannot just change the random_seed, because the SHA-256 server_seed_hash that you got before the game would be different. The probability of them changing the random_seed to a new one with the same hash (hash collision) is practically impossible. Also, that random_seed is not even used for the result calculation, so there is no point in changing that lol? If they change the random_seed, the result will be still the same (and the hash will be different = error on verifying.)
Only changing the server_seed would give a different result, but again, they cannot change that either without changing the hash (and therefor cheating in such way would be detectable if the user takes the time to verify the hash - that's exactly what provably fair is about.)
If it would be possible to change the server_seed to something else (while keeping the same hash), then all provably fair methods on all sites would be broken. Actually I am pretty sure at that point some parts of bitcoin and the internet will be broken too, so yeh..
Still, I don't really see any point of using that extra random_seed since the server_seed itself is already too difficult to brute force anyway. Like I said, I expect it's from being "overprotective" when building their implementation and looking at implementations that used server_roll instead of server_seed at that time. But it is not shady and there site is equally provably fair with or without that random seed.
|
|
|
|
In advance you get " server_hash" which is a combination of " server_seed + random_seed". The result is generated by the server_seed and the client_seed (latter is generated in the browser.) You can check that the server_seed was not changed after making the bet, by verifying the hash in combination with the random_seed. They don't know your client_seed in advance so they cannot calculate the end result before you bet. This makes Rollin provably fair. There is no way for Rollin to cheat without you noticing (if you verify the hash.) Why not just use server_seed without random_seed? I am guessing it is like an extra protection against brute-forcing the server_seed. Originally that comes from systems that don't give a server_seed but a server_roll_number (which would be easily brute-forced without extra random_seed.) But since their server_seed is long enough, I am pretty sure they could remove the random_seed indeed. However, currently the site is just as well provably fair. Ideally they would use the "nonce-method" too, because in theory for perfect provably-fair-usage, currently you should copy hash, change client_seed, verify, etc after each bet. But technically their implementation is fine for a "per roll" implementation (correctly generates random client_seed in browser, etc.) I BTW made a verifier for Rollin here: https://dicesites.com/rollin/verifier and an article about provably fair for those who want to learn the basics here: https://dicesites.com/provably-fair |
|
|
|
|
Well... they probably had some... downtime.
|
|
|
|
The connection between berserkerbarrage and the others is that berserkerbarrage bumped the quantumDice thread here which is run by IronMarvel, and that is his only post in Gambling, and 90%+ of his other posts are in Digital Goods and/or are in an account related thread. Hah nice one. sifter was the first to reply in that topic and in his last ~165 posts he only posted 8 posts in Gambling - all in quantumDice topic. Just an extra link to "sifter". edit: made new post so I can link to it in above overview. |
|
|
|
Quick overview at this moment: Use this list as a starting point to see if you can find other links between them. Do not use my list as absolute proof. It is very common for two users to use the same IP at one point or another; 364 users have used the same IP as master-p, and the vast majority of them are not the same person.
Some of them seem to trade in the same goods (CS:GO skins, steam stuff, bitcointalk/reddit/etc accounts) and frequently trust "each other" - so I am sure there are much more "links" then the above listed ones. Obviously not every "link" is proof though. Be free to quote/update/etc. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
