I'm pretty sure that Dooglus would have refunded a loss due to an exploit.
I'm glad I never had to decide about that. The 1300 BTC error with nakowa was bad enough, and luckily didn't end up costing me much; I'm left with 8 investor accounts with negative balances totalling a little over 2 BTC after I rolled back the nakowa bets: -0.97780326 2376 -0.52177427 33234 -0.26096498 33842 -0.14724078 346 -0.05864094 22140 -0.02801511 3262 -0.00672428 3039 -0.00048667 1904 These represent investors who withdrew their profits from nakowa losing his 'fake' 1300 BTC and never redeposited to clear the debt. |
|
|
|
"We are not a ponzi"
if you are truly not a ponzi there's no need to state that.
I think it is because as you can see above many people still say that we are ponzi. Regards, Brian How do you make your huge guaranteed returns? |
|
|
|
This is another HYIP? Who received them with coins?
This is a LYIP. You send him $700 and he keeps it.  |
|
|
|
So basically every dice site that has an investment option, if you win or find a flaw in THEIR PROGRAMMING they reverse the bets and you lose. Just look at PRC. Look at that other one that ran off with 250+ BTC.
Simply put, as a player if you win big, you don't win big. They cancel your bets or find some way to say they were wrong and you 100% definitely knew you had an edge (you can't just be lucky) and thus you lose all you're winnings.
SO THUS, DONT play on sites with house investments.
Why would you say such things? Just-Dice ran for over a year and saw some players win huge amounts. Just-Dice never reversed a single bet other than the ones made by nakowa with coins that we accidentally left in his account after he made a manual withdrawal. Players get lucky all the time, and a reputable site won't reverse their bets when they do. It's true that it seems like very few sites are capable of making a working copy of the Just-Dice model, but that doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed. Whether or not a site has an "invest" feature, it's pretty likely the site has investors. Do you think coinroll is bankrolled entirely by its owner? Coinroll almost certainly has "investors" providing the bankroll, to whom the site owners are accountable. Just because they don't offer the opportunity to the public doesn't mean they don't have investors to keep happy, so I don't see why you would make this distinction. A better rule of thumb would be "don't trust untrustworthy sites" - but that's much trickier to apply. Edit: Oh and I'd say Just-Dice would be the way to go, however they shut down. But at least every payout was immediate or at least semi-immediate and there was no reversing rolls (except the one situation...)
I just read your 2nd post. It contradicts your first post. Why say "don't play on sites with 'invest' feature" and then go on to say "JD is the way to go", when JD has the 'invest' feature, and in fact invented it? |
|
|
|
I'll have my people talk to his people about licensing that algorithm. I've been looking for a new income stream of late.  Why don't you sell JD then? Didn't you have offers for it in the past? Or relaunch it from a tropical island? I'm just kidding. The JD algorithm is in the public domain. |
|
|
|
One FUCKING POST ARE YOU THAT HARD UP FOR ATTENTION?  !!!!!!, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT GO BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR KIDS IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO MAKE THIS WORLD A SHIT PLACE. I HOPE YOU COME INTO MONEY AND LOSE THAT TOO. RETARDED FUCKING IDIOT, BLAME YOURSELF. MORON! Dude, though I agree OP is the one to be blamed, you should calm yourself down. He STARTED OFF OK BUT THEN IT ALL GOT TOO MUCH!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Dean indicated on the chat that he's now copied the JD algorithm -- will be back to work soon.
I'll have my people talk to his people about licensing that algorithm. I've been looking for a new income stream of late. |
|
|
|
Very true. It took me several days to figure out how to handle that situation, and that was a lot more clear cut than this case. |
|
|
|
It scares me that apparently Dean didn't even verify that his rolls were evenly distributed. Generating rolls with the flawed algorithm and just binning by integer should reveal the flawed distribution pretty quickly wouldn't it?
People tell me my distrust of Microsoft is misplaced. Maybe that's the case. But for anyone who shares my impression that Microsoft's security leaves something to be desired, it turns out that PRCdice is written in .NET, which I guess means it runs on an MS system. I wouldn't trust my coins on a Windows machine, and wouldn't recommend others do so either. But maybe I'm just jaded by years being forced to run Windows at various jobs whereas in fact Microsoft do in fact produce stable secure software after all. |
|
|
|
It scares me that apparently Dean didn't even verify that his rolls were evenly distributed. Generating rolls with the flawed algorithm and just binning by integer should reveal the flawed distribution pretty quickly wouldn't it?
Yes. That's exactly how I found the issue (binning by roll/10): 9593 0
9505 1
9723 2
10285 3
10196 4
10194 5
10049 6
10198 7
10090 8
10167 9
|
|
|
|
So not only someone like sjess who has his/her winnings locked up, investors who have lost money with this but anyone who has ever bet LO was being cheated ~5% of the time when they where betting slow.
So pretty much anyone how has played here or invested here should see partial refund from Dean's personal assets, and sjess should be paid from Dean's personal assets.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say they were cheated ~5% of the time they bet lo. Because maybe they still won some of those bets. But they will have lost more bets than they should have if they played much, yes. I played a bit, both for BTC and for DOGE, and always roll 'hi'. I ended up with a small profit both times. That could look suspicious - I know how to read code, I admit to having read the code before I played, and then I only ever bet 'hi'. How is Dean meant to decide which players were taking unfair advantage of the system deliberately, and which were doing it unwittingly? |
|
|
|
If the flaw was with the coding/or wasnt looked at. Then I guess sjess should be paid.
If it is decided that bets will be rolled back. Then people who lost money should be paid back.
As if they were betting under 50. then odds were less from what was promised.
The coding was doing exactly what the text description said it would do. I looked through it myself when I first heard about PRCdice and noticed that they were doing it differently than JD. I wondered why, and thought it wasn't necessary, because even taking the hash 5 characters at a time there's an incredibly tiny chance that you will ever run out of the 128 character sha-512 hash. But it didn't occur to me to go further and consider what re-using known "too high" characters would do to the distribution. And I'm kind of kicking myself for that. It was pretty obvious, but I missed it. Anyone betting "low" was getting worse odds than advertised, whether they were betting "less than 50" or any other chance. It could be argued that the ones whose number was determined by just the first 5 characters of the sha-512 hash got a fair roll, and the rest (which will be around 4.6% of all "lo" bets) weren't fair. >>> 100*(1 - 1e6/16**5) 4.632568359375 |
|
|
|
For those who care about the details of the "issue" at PRCdice: https://prcdice.eu/home/provablyfair says: How does it work?
5. Sometimes the first 5 characters will not result in a number we can use and so we loop through characters 2-6, 3-7 etc until we find one So it looks at the first 5 hex characters. That gives a number between 0 and 16^5-1 = 1048575 If that number is less than 1 million, it is used as the rolled number. But if it isn't, they use characters 2 through 6. Since the first 5 characters are 1 million or more, the new number will be at least: >>> (1e6 - 0xF0000) * 16 271360 so (1000000/1048575) = 95.4% of the time, the rolled number will be randomly distributed between 0 and 100, but the remaining 4.6% of the time it will be guaranteed to be over 27.136. So playing "over 27.14%" is a winning strategy. The question is, what to do about this... If you read the description of how provably fair numbers are generated, noticed that numbers over 27.4% come up a little more than they would if picked at random, and decided to bet on >27.4, is that cheating? There's no bug in the coding - it does exactly what it says it does in the description on the site. If it is cheating, which bets do you roll back? Maybe some guy figured it out, but decided to bet ">49.5" to avoid detection. Betting ">27.4" kind of suggests you know exactly what you're doing. But even then maybe some of the people doing it were just copying the big winner's strategy because it was "lucky" for him. And maybe the big winner was just copying someone else. Wow, I'm glad I don't run a dice site! |
|
|
|
I am surprised that they pause betting today because some guy had a lucky streak and causes a loss of 10BTC to the casino.
I hadn't heard about that, but it's interesting given our recent discussion about cheating: Doog, I'm curious how big of a concern this should be in your opinion. (people gaining access to the server seed, etc.) Do you see any security issues with PRC? Or is it just a risk for any site of this nature? How secure did you feel just-dice was? I do recall reading some of your posts where it seemed you felt there was always a risk even on just-dice.
I don't think it's ever possible to be 100% secure. It's really hard to say how lucky JD was not to get compromised during the year it ran. Running the site I got nervous every time anyone got lucky. There's always that nagging doubt "are they somehow cheating?" As doog says, no system can be 100% secure and there is always a risk, Just look at the recent Heartbleed incident. Saying that there are various techniques and tools we can use to minimise this risk a lot.
|
|
|
|
the premise was the initial deposit is ours and we can take it anytime we're just renting hash power
That's the bit that's hardest to understand. When you rent something you're exchanging money for the use of that something. You don't get to take the rent money back. So you give Cryptory some BTC in exchange for them mining for you. They mine for you, give you the coins they mined, but then you get to take the money back too? So they effectively were mining for you for free. Why would they do that? Do they even attempt to explain that anywhere? |
|
|
|
|
I don't get the reports because I never joined cryptory. I just got sick of seeing shills spam about it all over the forum so came to check it out.
|
|
|
|
P.S. Arbitrary non-btc related data is stored in the blockchain Yes, there's all kinds of stuff encoded into the blockchain, including some quite unpleasant links to stuff on the dark web. But none of that is related to the "public note" stuff that blockchain.info shows. The public notes aren't even *in* the blockchain - they are only in blockchain.info's private database. |
|
|
|
I just want my fucking coins  I wish you luck. Maybe the Ponzi will run for some time to come and you'll get your payout. |
|
|
|
Oh but you actually might be able to do that via the CB API, but if not blockchain allows this AND so does bitcoind. In bitcoind's API you can programatically set fields on the transaction:
memo: UTF-8 encoded, plain-text (no formatting) note that should be displayed to the customer, explaining what this PaymentRequest is for.
The API description you posted is the payment request API. That's not what causes a transaction to be broadcast. The 'memo' doesn't end up showing up on blockchain.info unless the transaction is made by a blockchain.info wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
