Can you back that claim up at all, or is it that just you attacking the operator of a rival roulette game to try to damage his business?  It doesn't seem fair to attack someone publicly like that and then refuse to respond to their attempts to dispute your claim.

I just played a few rolls to see how fast it plays now, and I have to say it's much better.  My Internet speed here is horrible, but I still get my rolls done about as quickly as I can do anything else online.

I read your initial post like that anyway.  I thought when you said "except this time until he wins" that you realised whether he wins or not is entirely within his control.

Someone lost a *lot* overnight.  The whale(s) we've seen over the last couple of days have used just one or two addresses, like you see when people play using the blockchain.info wallet, but this new player uses a bunch of different addresses.  Could it be someone different?

Edit: also the recent whales have been mostly playing <1000, <2000 and <8000, whereas last night's player was playing <32k and <32768...

Edit2: I've made the bet addresses links to the full address to save people having to go to the official website.  Please don't click them if you're in the land of the free.

Is there really any extra risk when a game doesn't have a website?

SatoshiDice could easily operate without a website.  All they need is the blockchain and somewhere to publish their addresses.  A forum thread could work for that.  I don't think a web presence really reduces risk at all.  Pirate had a website.  So did BitcoinMax.

If the operator decides to run off with people's bets, having a website isn't going to stop him.

Yes.  Go to the transaction page on blockchain.info:

  http://blockchain.info/tx/7912da5317d3cf4566c25eddc9cf894a2fdc641955a159847273371ca2e89f9b

Find the output that's placing the bet:

  "1dice97ECuByXAvqXpaYzSaQuPVvrtmz6 (SatoshiDICE 50% ) 330 BTC"

if you don't see (spent) or (unspent) on that line, look at the bottom of the page, and click "Advanced: Enable".  That will make the (spent) link appear.  Click it.  You'll see the transaction which spent the bet.  That will always be the payout transaction (win or lose).  In this case it's a lose:



In this case 1.65 BTC (0.5% of the bet) goes to the address that the bet came from, and the rest is split into two equal sized addresses that SDICE owns.  They often (always?) split losing bets up into two equal smaller amounts, probably so they have a good range of coins in their wallet for paying out winners of other bets.

It still says that?  2^16 = 65536.  It should say 32 not 16.  I reported this error quite some time ago.

To put the last 2 days into perspective, here they are on the same chart as the crazy swings of December and January:

Well, if the odds are in your favour (as they can be if you're good at sports betting) then of course it makes sense to bet as much as you can.  When the house clearly states that they have a 1% edge however I'm not so sure... 

See how crazy the profit line was in December and January?  The last two days are nothing in comparison.  <1000 and <2000 are high variance bets.  When someone starts throwing large amounts of money at them, you're going to see some wiggliness on the profit line.

But if you want conspiracy theories, I heard SDICE recent changed sysadmins.  The previous one probably had access to the secrets.

Ugh.

Your terminology is a little confusing.  Transactions don't sign other transactions.  And if you've used the unconfirmed transaction as an input to KoS's winnings, then it is no longer 'unspent' - since you just spent it.

I think what you mean is that you used an unconfirmed transaction as one of the inputs when paying KoS his winnings.  That's something that you have control of (or at least your Bitcoin client software does).  If you use the reference bitcoin-qt client, it will only use unconfirmed transactions as inputs if there are no confirmed transactions available in your wallet to make the payment with.  So the solution is making sure you have enough funds in your wallet that at least some of them are confirmed at all times for use it paying out winners.

You can make an arrangement with a mining pool if you like, but there's nothing you can do if that unconfirmed transaction you used to pay out a winning bet gets double-spent and the double-spend makes its way into the blockchain.

That's over $10,000 you bet. 

Ah.  Just after editing the cash-in/out fields last night the power went out here, so I didn't know if my edits were saved or not.  I checked again this morning and they were back at min/bet bet, so I thought they hadn't been saved, and made the changes again.  Doesn't it make sense to differentiate between games where you can have an account and games where you can't?


I sorted the spreadsheet into alphabetical order, so it's easier to find the games.

How about when someone enters a new payout address (ie. creates a new address) they have an option:

* complete some kind of a CAPTCHA if they want the bonus 0.0001 BTC

* just click though if they don't

That way you slow the bots down a bit while they figure out how to solve the CAPTCHA automatically (there are services that will solve CAPTCHAs for you in seconds, but they charge per solution - hopefully more than 0.0001 BTC each) without inconveniencing your real customers who just want to deposit and play without bothering with stupid 'prove you're human' tests.


It's pretty impressive that you show a profit despite having such terrible luck!  I guess you got lucky on the bets that mattered.

The site still gives out free BTC.  You just have to deposit first, and then roll a high enough number.   

SD doesn't really have cash-in or cash-out, since it doesn't have accounts.  It has a min and a max bet.  I'll update the spreadsheet so it should be fixed next time mem posts here.

prosperity : the condition of being successful or thriving

or

posterity : all future generations

It was something between an instant messaging app and a collaborative document editor.  It kind of did what google docs does now in a way.


I don't think so, no.

See http://googlereader.blogspot.ca/2013/03/powering-down-google-reader.html by the way for the announcement.

Google stick around, but their services don't.  I'm currently having to find a new RSS reader, since Google Reader is about to be shut down.  Google Wave went the same way, and Google Health, was it?  That disappeared too.

Maybe http://www.deadmansswitch.net/ is more flexible?