What if I deposit without opting in, wait 20 minutes without getting a confirmation and change my mind about opting in. Can I at that point opt in and instantly get 99% of the deposited amount in my balance? Or do I have to decide before I make the transaction whether I want to pay the 1% fee or not?
You actually decide after depositing. The way it works is you make a deposit like normal, and then get a notification in bustabit that there's a pending deposit. If you go to the detail page, it shows up as a "pending deposit" and next to that there's a button you can push to have precredited (and then confirm the fee). At that point the code does a bunch of checks (fee rate, bip125, check unconfirmed parents, checks total site risk, checks if the site has been defrauded before), and if everything is good you get 99% of your money instantly added. |
|
|
|
I am working on a SatoshiMines bot that is completely random. Now as most people know SatoshiMines is completely random and you can't accurately pick the next box that won't have a mine in it.
If you are randomizing your picks, then it doesn't really matter if they are randomizing theirs (and vice versa). There appears to be a kink in satoshimines provably fair in that it doesn't prove the mines are randomly placed, just proves they are predetermined. If they weren't randomly placed, you could conceivably take advantage of it, however since you're randomizing your picks you're going to be guarantee have have an expected loss of what ever their house edge is * how much you wager. And I can assure you they do have a house edge  |
|
|
|
How big of a whale would someone have to be to get their fees waived?
It'll depend on how well it works in practice (i.e. how easily people can or can defraud the system). The easier it is the defraud, the more restrictive I'll have to be about who I whitelist etc. If it works out well, ideally almost everyone will be able to use the feature free of charge for their typical size deposits (for them). |
|
|
|
3200 bit as fee? Is this for real? That is 0.032 btc just to get 0.32 confirmation of this? This fee is really huge. Changing the fee higher will just make people complain more and more. And this thing will sure affect many players.
Did I miss this "pre creditted" things? May be I little bit confuse here
It's strictly an opt-in feature on a deposit-to-deposit basis and very explicit about the fees. If you don't want to use it (as we expect most users won't) then absolutely nothing will change.  Basically the idea is if you're impatient and want your money before it confirms, you'll be able to pay to get it instantly. Over time (assuming miners don't switch to full-RBF) I'll like to extend the feature to most gamblers completely for free. But if you don't use it, it'll be like it is now (no fee, but you need to wait till your money confirms before you get it) |
|
|
|
Seems you are so interested in escrow?
But the problem is How can I trust escrow？
We will sign a message with our cold storage address.
Awesome! Yeah, don't use escrow. Just sign a message like: "bankroll for gooddice.us Jan-25-2017" from an address that has the money, and it should be sufficient =) |
|
|
|
THIS IS TRUST ABUSE.
There's almost no such thing here, effectively anyone can leave anyone feedback. In your account settings you can change whose feedback you want to show up by default. It's a pretty primitive and crappy system, but for the most parts seems to work out well. Anyway, the productive way to dealing with this would be to prove your claim true by signing proof of funds. It would go a long way to establishing credibility, and clear up any doubts about it. (And would function as good marketing). If you have reservations about doing it publicly, I'm sure you won't have any issue in having someone privately verify proof of funds. I know dooglus has done so for betking in the past. |
|
|
|
Interesting. It seems like a Chinese site translated to English (there's a few untranslated strings like: "余额不足!"). I've always wondered what the Chinese-bitcoin-gambling market is like (and how big it is). Anyway, if you want people to take your site seriously you'll need to sign a message from a well funded bitcoin address, so people can verify you really have such an incredible amount of funds for your bankroll |
|
|
|
I assume the precredit fee will got to investors, to cover possible losses from double spenders? (assuming that's still happening)
At least for now, I will personally cover any double-spending loss and collect any precredit fees. The double-spending risk/return is pretty hard to quantify, so I don't really want to put that on investors. Ideally it's not going to be a profit-source (or sink) just a nice polished feature for impatient gamblers Any rough ETA for when bustabit v2 will be out?
Today was the first day I have had a whole end-to-end experience working with bustabit v2 (deposit, play, withdraw). It's currently rough as hell, but I it's getting pretty close to public-beta stage. It'll probably be in public-beta stage for a month+ until I'm confident there's no regressions over what we have now Even with the measures in place, it still seems quite risky. Someone might pay a fee just low enough to be accepted, do a quick bet and double spend with a very high fee on loss.
Yeah, there's an extensive amount of work that has gone into it to make it reasonably safe. It looks at things like the transactions, their parents, if they've had time to propagate, etc any conflicts etc. If there's not enough reason for me to be confident the transaction will confirm, or is safe from double-spending it won't be eligible for precrediting. It also has max-risk thresholds, (e.g. only X bitcoin is eligible for precrediting at once, so the max loss for the site could only be X) along with a kill switch when ever it detects a successful defraud (for me to investigate, and further tune). |
|
|
|
Whats the downside to accepting unconfirmed transactions, if you can't cash out or transfer them before they confirm? I.e. what's this fee doing that simply limiting withdraws and transfers wouldn't?
Disabling withdrawals until funds confirm isn't actually very effective, it only stops a rather simple type of attack Imagine this case: Someone deposits 1 bitcoin. They gamble it (say @ 2x). If they win, they let the deposit confirm, and all is good. If they lose, they attempt to double-spend it. If they they are successful in double-spending 1% of the time, this is enough to make a profit (betting 1 BTC @ 2x in bustabit only has a 0.5% house edge). |
|
|
|
Interesting feature. Seems like it would be open to abuse though. User pays a 3,200 bit fee to have 320,000 bits precredited, withdrawals/tips them and doublespends the transaction. I don't think charging a fee makes it any safer to accept unconfirmed funds unless you have some other mechanism in place to prevent abuse ( such as limiting tipping / withdrawals until confirmation )
Charging a fee makes it safer, because it adds a cost to failure (i.e. if you can double-spend with a probability of 1 in a 1000, but if you have to pay a 1% fee it's going to be unprofitable)  One of the biggest reasons though for me charging a fee, is to stop it being over-used and only used for time-sensitive deposits. There's also a huge amount of heuristics that go into if I can accepting it (e.g. there's a max total risk for the site at any point, a kill switch if it gets abused, heuristics about the transaction itself (e.g. if it's bip125, it's ancestral fee / ancestral size etc). Only transactions that pass those heuristics are eligible for "precrediting". Over time, I want to tweak it though to be more reputational. My long term goal with it is for someone who is obviously a gambler, depositing a normal amount of money for them in a non-replaceable transaction that has enough fees to confirm will just be able to get their money instantly without having to wait (or pay any extra). That's definitely the experience I'd want on another casino, so I hope I'm able to bring it to bustabit |
|
|
|
I think the problem is also that it's tough to really qualify which casinos requires ID. I am considering to make a list that simply mentions KYC in TOS. But then again, there might be sites that list KYC in their TOS just to cover themselves (from potential law enforcements), while not requiring this from (practically all)/normal players. Of course I could test sites (like OP), but that is still just 1 experience and might be different with other amounts.
Yeah, for sure. It's tricky. There's also sites like bitstarz that use KYC as a way to hope people would rather preserve their privacy than their money. I tried asking them about their policy, but they just ignored me. One of my players there was complaining he won 0.2 BTC profit on bitstarz (and has never used fiat on their site) and they would not let him do any withdrawals unless he provided extensive id and what not (which he ended up reluctantly doing, to get his money). Of course if you lose, or even don't win; there's no id required. |
|
|
|
bustabit v2 teaser:  Thanks to @cowbay for the idea. The ability to "precredit" deposits for a small fee so you don't need to wait on confirmations. And I'll probably extend free-precredits as a VIP feature for established players |
|
|
|
Interesting! Looks good. Quoting to prevent editing. And also archived it here: https://archive.is/9w0SFflinch.io is an upcoming Bitcoin game that will be introduced within the next few weeks. Our provably fair system is based on the excellent work of blockage, dooglus, espringe and RHavar. It requires picking a public salt that I demonstrably cannot know yet, which I'll do in this post. If you'd like to help me out, please quote the text after the break. Thanks!
Starting with a secret value I have generated a chain of 15,000,000 SHA256 hashes. Each element is the hash of the binary 256-bit value of the previous hash, not of its hex-encoded string representation. The hash of the final element in the chain is 90b299d1122020f324bdfd62d680d74d2bb90c0679e1503fd97a2c1a475aae18. Every game maps to a hash in the chain: The 15,000,000th element of the chain is the hash of game #1 and the first element in the chain is the hash of game #15,000,000. To verify that a hash belongs to a game #n, simply hash it n times and compare the result with the terminating hash. Each game's result is determined by its hash: // GameResult calculates the corresponding crash point for a game hash and salt.
//
// Crash points have two decimal places, so a result of 1234 is interpreted as
// 12.34x. The largest possible result is 6966505673588736.
func GameResult(seed, salt []byte) uint64 {
const nBits = 46 // number of most significant bits to use
// 1. HMAC_SHA256(key=salt, message=seed
hmacHash := hmac.New(sha256.New, salt)
hmacHash.Write(seed)
seed = hmacHash.Sum(nil)
// 2. r = 46 most significant bits
seedInt := new(big.Int).SetBytes(seed)
seedInt.Rsh(seedInt, sha256.Size*8-nBits)
r := seedInt.Uint64()
// 3. X = r / 2^46
X := float64(r) / math.Pow(2, 46) // uniformly distributed in [0; 1)
// 4. X = 99 / (1-X)
X = 99 / (1 - X)
// 5. return max(trunc(X), 100)
result := uint64(X)
if result == 99 {
return 100
}
return result
}
Since JavaScript is more widespread than Go, I've also created a Node.js version of the reference function. Before being used to calculate its game's result, each game hash is salted with the hash of Bitcoin block ( #450,719) in its binary form. This block has not been mined yet, which proves that I could not have deliberately picked a hash chain that is unfavorable for players. |
|
|
|
|
Nice list.
It's pretty common to see people put together stuff like this, and then end up losing interest or alternatively start to promote the sites that pay the most either directly or through affiliate programs.
I wonder if there's a market for a sort of unbiased "bitcoin gambling wiki" ?
|
|
|
|
What was SparkedDev's role in bitvest? A developer/admin? Note: The above message from SparkedDev is being posted due to us refusing to pay an extortion demand of 2.5 BTC!
So your proof of existence looks valid, that was a clever thing to prepare. It does not make SparkedDev look good as either: a) He is extorting b) He is willing to cover up for money However, I guess most of us in the peanut gallery are more interested in if his claims are true or not Anyway, an obvious way for Bitvest to get on top of this is to switch to something like what bustabit/moneypot (and probably a lot more?) do and always debit accounts for withdrawals even if there's not enough money to process it right away. Then when there is enough funds, they get sent out. |
|
|
|
Ryan, any updates on when you plan to allow bankroll investment?
This should be available in the next release, I'm getting pretty close to releasing a (public) beta soon, which will use the bitcoin testnet. After that there will probably be a few weeks of testing/playing/on going work, and then it being deployed on the real bustabit |
|
|
|
I need something to show the cashout amounts since i would like to make a script based on this.
Thanks!
Good question. This really should be exposed better. So when a player cashes out, it only actually says who cashed out and what they cashed out at. So in order to know their original bet, we'll need to look it up. This can be done like this: engine.on('cashed_out', function(resp) {
console.log(engine.getEngine().playerInfo[resp.username].bet);
});
|
|
|
|
hi there , someone can help me i want to get Curent ODDS at any time on gameplaying , i tried data.stopped_at AND
engine.getCurrentPayout() but both depends on any user cashed out before Thanks in advance. What do you mean by "current odds"? The engine.getCurrentPayout() will give you the current multiplier, and from that you can turn it into a probability, if that's what you're after |
|
|
|
In addition to the IP, to prevent abuse just have more captchas. Solve one captcha for the first claim, two for the second claim...five for the fifth claim.
haha. I love this idea, it's rather genius. Time for me to update some code |
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, when Bustabit was still called MoneyPot, it had a faucet? Why did they remove this feature? I was very active on this site, and the faucet helped to fund the experiment. I might confuse this with some other site, but I can remember something like this?
The few Satoshi's being handed to people via this faucet, cannot bankrupt a site?
Yeah, we used to have a faucet and it was no doubt instrumental in making bustabit take off. However right now, bustabit has 408 players online and AFAIK is currently doing the most volume of any bitcoin site (see: https://thebitcoinstrip.com/leaderboard.html) so I'm not really hurting for business. I think when I did have a faucet, faucters took up a disproportionate (80%? amount of support tickets, normally because they would create a whole ton of accounts to use the faucet, and then need help recovering passwords (and even usernames!) or complaining about getting muted in chat for asking for money, or complaining that they can't withdraw for free etc. So even if the faucter made business sense and would end up making more money, I'd rather have a bit of a less stressful life and leave it out. I also believe a lot of the fun of gambling is risking money. That said, I'm going to re-add the faucet for trial purposes, so someone can come to the site and see how it works before they decide if they want to bother depositing or not. The way I plan on doing that is through a faucet-claim limit per ip address, the ends up permanently blocking that ip address from the faucet. Understandably there are a lot of people who want to purely use a faucet and gamble without any risks, and the great thing about the bitcoin scene is there are whole bunch of reputable sites that offer generous faucets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
