Scared? Of what, or of whom?

I would be more scared of an ever-growing DefaultTrust network than a few specific members. Just try to manage that shit when we get thousands of DT2 members.

What if they're just too busy posting their Twitter reports to answer a bunch of questions? After all, bounty hunters do have their other 41 accounts to attend to in the day... they can't spend all their time actually contributing to a forum! That would be like pretending that Bitcointalk isn't just a job! After all, we all know that this is the perfect place to earn money, right? Super secure positions here, guaranteed.

No, no, you're wrong! It doesn't cross the arbitrary threshold of merits that counts as multi-account abuse! Who cares about what you say, anyway? You're just another multi account! Go away, alts! Anyone who disagrees with me is the same person, for I have no concept of other minds!

I do know that. I also do know that not knowing whether my money was wagered fairly or not means that cynicism and skepticism should be the default. We don't automatically assume the best of others in hypotheticals, do we? That would be an incredibly silly way to operate!

We have bots for that, but regardless just because a minority of players actually care that their bets are verifiable doesn't mean that it's not important.

---

Remember, I'm not complaining about Stake at all. I'm complaining about these providers. That's an important distinction.

Did you read that these are all from bounty campaigns, where you can probably find most of them in the Bounties (Altcoin) section on-forum? They are publicly available, and the bounty hunters don't give a shit.

Hell, they signed up for it! Willingly providing the details to a public spreadsheet.

---

I'm pretty unpopular, then, huh? Out of the cool club

Lucky number 37, if you would.

Thanks for the opportunity, MJ!

It's a horrible ideology if you simply assume that reputable sites are incapable of scamming users. Imagine someone plays poker, assuming that the better player won't bluff! You've created an exploitable strategy in your decision-making process: if a site does end up scamming or ripping of a user, then what happens? We still lack the true information, but you have already assumed a conclusion.

I give users the benefit of the doubt. If the casino doesn't respond to an accusation, that's a problem. Even trite accusations deserve some recognition just so that people can rationally dismiss them - a lack of skepticism can easily lead to scams.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

Call me cynical, but I'm never one to always default to trusting the casino... especially considering some of the ToS policies they slap on.

It doesn't matter if the screenshot is real or fake because the topic has moved since this point. If you want more information from elsewhere, go check out this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5261196.0

---

If you generate the server seed after I send my desired client seed, then it allows you the opportunity to change the results to better favor you, even if you have a nonce system. Because the space of hashes in their process is far greater than the space of results (modulo 10000) you can have many, many series of results that make it so that a player is not getting optimal fairness, especially if one determines the betting strategy/patterns that a player adopts.

Yes, but how would an unfamiliar player know that they weren't provably fair? Could easily build the association between Stake and provably fairness, rather than with Stake's original games and provably fairness.

I understand this, but it still doesn't mean I can't rag on the providers for a lack of provable fairness. Just because they are reputable does not mean that they cannot cheat in some form: that would be a huge logic gap that is massively exploitable.

Well said. Watching this thread for more details to come out. Hopefully @sportsbet.io would like to answer.

I only came from this thread regarding WixiPlay, but I already made several observations about the casino before and after their 'provably fair' changes.

I can vouch for the mismatch between server seeds reported and the server seeds of the bets before their nonce change. This already makes it a full-on scam. To then change the provable fairness to include nonces would have been great, had they provided the server seed hash prior to generation.

Trying to say that this type of fairness verification is legitimate is like trying to pass off a fake signature with a Sartre quote.

A disclaimer would be nice.

Either something to the ends of "this is a third-party game provider and is not provably fair" or just explicitly stating that you can't verify their bets. The worst part, really, is that the whole process is not difficult to create for many of the games that have been added: slots being a huge part of the pool, and those already have predetermined results which could have easily been generated with various provably fair systems.

This 'original screenshot' still doesn't make any sense... where are you all getting these from?

How is it possible to get any profit at all if the win count is at 0?

---

Regardless, it has moved past the whole image situation. The system is not provably fair: whether the screenshot has been modified or not does not change that fact.

Wrong. The server seed changes upon a client seed change. This is not provably fair.

If I were to generate a new server seed upon knowing your client seed, there would be at least one corresponding pair (even with nonces) that can be created to manipulate the bets in some way. If a user is betting in a predictable fashion, this can be abused. Suppose the probability of winning is never above 50%. Then, bets that have a result around 5000 create a much higher house edge than typical random generation.

You need to show the next server seed hash.

Don't forget... this is from OpenAI. https://github.com/openai/gpt-2

---

I know I have seen many websites form up as alternatives to talktotransformer, which was not even the best way to generate text.

I remember addressing this in an earlier thread: Artificial Text Generation

This was nearly a year ago! How far have we advanced, now? (in my example, I didn't even help the program write with human assistance)

... what? You are still changing the server seed without having the player knowing the result. If this is the case, then there is still no affirmation that a player is going to get a pairing that is as fair as possible. One could implement the nonce-client-server seed system but if they're not going to use it properly, then they might as well not use it at all.

C, if you please.

Thanks for the opportunity!

What is going on? Has it turned into a shitpost now, or are you reading into things way more deeply than needed? No problem with altcoins, but the bounty section is absolutely terrible and plagued with scams and spam. Do you disagree?

All the useless reports, authentication posts, and other egregious uses of bandwidth... :/

Most of these are for report services in a bounty. I suppose you could say something to the tune of, "poor bounty hunters," but really this is not unexpected. Many signature campaign spreadsheets are open to the public and users can easily harvest the links between users and their addresses, along with whatever additional details they provide for the spreadsheet. If you really have a problem with this, perhaps you want to start a revolution in the Bounties section... then again, staying away from that fetid mess is your best call.

Let's not forget about those fallen bounty warriors that had to give up their KYC just so they could claim their $5 worth of shit tokens when they spent months advertising for a scam that the owners were going to dump as soon as they hit the exchanges.