I don't think MP were claiming to be solvent are they? If they were solvent they wouldn't need to issue a debt token; they could just pay people back.
If you read their announcement carefully, it seems like they are trying to weasel out of their debt by not honoring some of it (i.e. rubies) and then making the rest owed by "moneypot legacy" (which presumedly refers to the old owners?). I really hope it's not the case, as transferring/selling all the assets of a company and then leaving the liabilities now owned a now empty shell company, is a pretty text-book example of corporate fraud. So it would be nice if MoneyPot would actually provide some real confirmation on what is going on, and it's commitment to honor it's obligations. |
|
|
|
The idea that it's better to get in while the site is negative is a fallacy.
I'm going to disagree slightly. While the site certainly isn't more or less likely to make money, there is an extremely strong correlation with higher volumes. When players win money, they tend to be pretty happy and willing to put churn that money pretty heavily. And as an investor, the bankroll turn over is the primary thing you really care about. But yeah, I wouldn't really use it as a signal to invest on bustabit if for nothing other than the 10% dilution fee on bustabit means it's only a sensible long term investing option. So even if you expect higher than usual turn over in the next few days, it doesn't change much. |
|
|
|
I guess it would also be interesting to know which of you has access to the server, who knows the root of the SHA chain, who holds the BTC, whether the wallet is multisig, etc.
Daniel has exclusive access to the server, hash chain, hot wallet. For the cold wallet, we decided to just re-use the one we had already setup for bustadice, so the cold funds are already there. |
|
|
|
So I am presume you are Daniel that the announcement states who the site was sold too?
I got it all wrong then as I thought Ryan was no longer the owner of the site so this makes you manager of the site instead of owner, correct?
The only part which is clear to me thus far is Ryan still is investor of the site such as he said his title was for bustadice.
Alittle more than confusing about the new title owner of the site is.
Daniel is now the new owner and operator of bustabit. I have a long history with bustabit, and developed the majority of the code that is deployed now -- so I plan on at least hanging around and helping out (and have been made a chat moderator), as well I have joined as an investor  |
|
|
|
|
Thanks everyone!
@Pif You can "invest" by going to the "bankroll" tab, and adding money to the casinos bankroll. That way you own a part of the bankroll (which rises and falls according to how much people lose/make)
|
|
|
|
|
As most of you know, I've been the owner/operator of bustabit for the last 3+ years. In that time it's grown to have become without a doubt the most wagered-at crypto gambling game (see: dicesites.com/bustabit).
It's been both a rewarding and stressing journey, but the time has come for it to end. I have sold the site to Daniel, who you likely know from bustadice.com to give me the time and energy to do some more meaningful things with my life (away from bitcoin gambling) =)
I'll still be around on the site to chat, and be an investor in v2.
We used the opportunity to launch v2 at the same time as the new ownership (hence generating a new hash chain, and deposit addresses), so things will probably be a bit rough for the first week or two, but I'm confident (almost) everyone will be happy.
I'll let Daniel create a thread for v2, but I'd encourage you to check it out. It's a bit rough, but a bunch of pretty cool features (like investing! and a crazy awesome deposit/withdrawal system)
|
|
|
|
|
Bustabitv2 has been launched (under new ownership)!
The original hash for v1 provably fair was "ac4b6c46171daa0189b679bd7523c7bab6410f7155a21635b7e0ecdf370a9000" if anyone wants to check future games
|
|
|
|
Why would you care about the hashes of any of the games which were never played?
Do you realize that all the games which have been played can already be verified?
It might make sense to look at future games, to check if that's the motivation for the new hash chain (or the timing of the release of it). I honestly have never looked "at the future" (although I can't prove that) so I don't know what the games are like -- but to answer @vadoff's question: I have no problems releasing the first generated hash to let everyone view the chain in it's entirety. It won't be the first thing I do after the launch of v2, but once I have a free 20 minutes I'll be happy to post it here =) |
|
|
|
Waiting...
If everything goes according to plan, it should be launched in < 24 hours =) |
|
|
|
|
Block 505750 has been mined, so we have our client seed: 0000000000000000004d6ec16dafe9d8370958664c1dc422f452892264c59526
|
|
|
|
Quite the coincidence, but the gambler's unfortunate downfall has brought the sites profits almost exactly in line to its expected value  |
|
|
|
Thanks everyone! (Especially dooglus for embedding the hash in the blockchain!) So, house edge is fixed now at 1%
And 0.99x busts are present
Almost! The last line: Math.max(1, result / 100)
Guarantees no bust is less than 1 (but 1.01x will be the min cash out) |
|
|
|
To prevent editing of the OP, I have taken an archived snapshot of the page: http://archive.is/18raj and ask that people quote and save the original post (and confirm that block 505750 is still not mined). |
|
|
|
In a few days I will be releasing version 2 of bustabit. The principle of our provably fair system remains the same, but the algorithm that converts game hashes to game results has changed. Therefore I'm holding a new seeding event. Starting with a secret I've generated a chain of 10,000,000 SHA256 hashes. Each element is the hash of the lowercase, hexadecimal string representation of the previous hash. The hash of the chain's last element is 86728f5fc3bd99db94d3cdaf105d67788194e9701bf95d049ad0e1ee3d004277. Every game maps to a hash in the chain: The 10,000,000th element of the chain is the hash of game #1 and the first element in the chain is the hash of game #10,000,000. To verify that a hash belongs to a game #n, simply hash it n times and compare the result with the terminating hash. To calculate a game's result from its hash: const crypto = require("crypto")
function gameResult(seed, salt) {
const nBits = 52 // number of most significant bits to use
// 1. HMAC_SHA256(key=salt, message=seed)
const hmac = crypto.createHmac("sha256", salt)
hmac.update(seed)
seed = hmac.digest("hex")
// 2. r = 52 most significant bits
seed = seed.slice(0, nBits/4)
const r = parseInt(seed, 16)
// 3. X = r / 2^52
let X = r / Math.pow(2, nBits) // uniformly distributed in [0; 1)
// 4. X = 99 / (1-X)
X = 99 / (1 - X)
// 5. return max(trunc(X), 100)
const result = Math.floor(X)
return Math.max(1, result / 100)
}
Before being used to calculate the corresponding result, each game hash is salted with the lowercase, hexadecimal string representation of the hash of bitcoin block 505750. This block has not been mined yet, proving that I have not deliberately picked a chain that is unfavorable for players. |
|
|
|
Ryan, do you plan to make something with transaction fee, e.g. "multiple output for more players", as you mentioned sometime ago ? At least now, could you please lowering the fee into some more reasonable level? E.g. 600-700 bits ? I think 900 bits is "more than enough" now (and anyway, my last withdrawal went out with 511 bits fee in fact, so the 600-700 level would be enough, I believe). Thanks!
Yup, in less than a week we should have a totally overhauled withdrawal system that gives users better choice and works far better in general =D |
|
|
|
Probably misusing the word ironic, but... I find your reply to be ironic.
Anyways, we're both looking to end our points. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.
Take care.
I think I'm missing something, as this makes no sense. So let me get this straight: you scam people with rubies and then drop a vague accusation that I am to blame? And this is with the awareness that I have never owned, bought, sold, held, traded, advertised, discouraged or otherwise had anything to do with it?  If you're going to accuse me of any wrong-doing, I think you very much should at least articulate what I did wrong. |
|
|
|
I wasn't going to respond, but I can't leave this hanging: You of all people shouldn't be making all these outlandish claims. I believe you contributed more than anyone in how this has all played out. I have plenty more to say, but the day will come.
Pray tell us, how am I remotely responsible? I'm really trying to see it, but I can't come up with anything. Don't hold back |
|
|
|
I understand your point. I agree with it, but I think you're failing to see mine.
Honestly, I don't. You promised a price floor for rubies, and then broke your promise; tacitly scamming some pretty serious money... It was more attractive to bet bitcoin with the rubies bet-mining, but at the same time, people were betting Rubies instead rather than Bitcoin. The Rubies betting volume that could have been Bitcoin betting was enormous. It was doing multiples of the bitcoin wagering daily for quite a while.
In other words, you directly profited from the effects of the price floor. The fact that people were also using rubies for gambling in a way that you didn't make any money is pretty irrelevant. Just because something bad happens, doesn't mean you just give up on it. You have to adjust and work towards making it great. I understand that's what led us here, but the thought was that it was the better choice than just simply letting rubies, Betterbets, and us by indirect association taking on major damage that threatens its standing. It all happened quite early into the takeover with a big team and no clear order. We took what was dealt to us and tried to do the best with it as we could. lol? You did pull the rug on everyone. It's easy to talk and come up with excuses (see: Josh Garza) for why you aren't doing what you promised. If you had an iota of integrity you would've held the price floor. And you have already irrevocably damaged Rubies, your and MoneyPot's reputation.... You act like scamming people protected it, or something??? A custodial bitcoin site is only as good as the value of it's promise, and you've established yours as having 0 value. I guarantee it'll be the death of MoneyPot. I hope your little scam was worth it. Anyway, this will be my last post as I've spoken my mind and don't have anything new to add. P.S. How's the search for a neutral third party who is willing to say what you did isn't scammy going? lol |
|
|
|
Moneypot never profited off of Rubies betting. Moneypot never owned any of the Rubies income and had no part in its house bankroll at any time.
You're intentionally missing the point. Rubies were given as a reward for bitcoin betting. You were making money through bitcoin betting (in apparently multiple ways). The higher the value of rubies, the more attractive the bitcoin betting was. Hence you directly stood to benefit from the value of rubies being higher. We disliked Rubies betting altogether because they'd be betting on Moneypot where Moneypot receives no commission and no part of the betting action.
This is why it was quite upsetting learning of Rubies and the program in the first place.
Rubies were so upsetting to you, that you announced that rubies not only would it be the first altcoin backed by MoneyPot but that MoneyPot would be establishing a price floor on it (and by your own admission, driving the price up). |
|
|
|
edit; Having said that however, the plans remain the same to deliver debt tokens and using a percentage of income to buy through the order book with it and then burning the coins once collected.
That actually sounds more reasonable than it was made to seem. So when MoneyPot (under the new ownership) makes money, it will be buying back the debt tokens? That seems like a fair way for it to work |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
