 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
|
|
Bitcoin block 917000 was mined a few hours ago. Our new game salt is: 00000000000000000001e08b7fd44f95e3e950ac65650a8031a6d5e1750e34be.
|
|
|
|
ActuallyFair's Vx service is shutting down, so bustadice will revert to the classic server/client seed provably fair scheme. Here's how it works: 1. You choose (or generate) a client seed. 2. Before each session we publish the SHA-256 hash of our secret server seed. 3. After the session ends we reveal that server seed, allowing anyone to verify their results. What changes for you: - A third-party will no longer verify your games, but you can still do it. - Investors already had to trust that the third-party was independent of bustadice, so their position is largely unchanged. - The only additional theoretical risk is that someone with read access to our database could predict future outcomes. We mitigate this by storing the unrevealed server seed a in database accessible only to the operator. Benefits of the switch: - Faster betting (no external API calls). - No service interruptions if Vx goes down. - Simpler game verification. The change will take effect on October 6. No action is required, but we recommend choosing your own client seed if you want to be sure we don't maliciously pick a bad one for you. |
|
|
|
ActuallyFair's Vx service is shutting down, so bustabit will revert to its previous provably fair scheme on October 6. The primary change is that a third party will no longer participate in the game result generation. Vx used to verify games on behalf of players, contribute to game outcomes, and reassure investors that neither a compromised server nor the house could predict future rolls. While this additional layer of protection disappears, the main guarantee remains: players can still verify every game independently. The casino also gets to run without depending on an external service, so service interruptions disappear. You can read the technical details in our fourth seeding event. |
|
|
|
In February 2024, we integrated a multi-party provably fair scheme that relied on ActuallyFair's Vx service. However, they have announced that the service will shut down. For this reason, we are reverting to the classic scheme that only needs a hash and a salt to generate game results. 1. A chain of 100 million SHA256 hashes was generated in our third seeding event. Each element is the hash of the binary value of the previous hash (i.e. the chain is used in reverse order). The hash of the chain's last element—the one we published back then—is 567a98370fb7545137ddb53687723cf0b8a1f5e93b1f76f4a1da29416930fa59. This remains unchanged, we simply pick up at the next unused hash. You can verify that a hash belongs to our chain with the function below. import { sha256 } from "@noble/hashes/sha256";
import { bytesToHex, hexToBytes } from "@noble/hashes/utils";
const TERMINATING_HASH = "567a98370fb7545137ddb53687723cf0b8a1f5e93b1f76f4a1da29416930fa59";
function verifyInChain(hash: Uint8Array) {
for (let gameId = 1; gameId < 100e6; gameId++) {
hash = sha256(hash);
if (bytesToHex(hash) === TERMINATING_HASH) {
console.log("hash is in the chain. It is game: ", gameId);
return gameId;
}
}
console.error("hash is not in the chain");
}
2. To prove we are not picking a chain that is favorable to the house, we will mix in the lowercase, hexadecimal representation of the hash of a Bitcoin block that has not been mined yet: Bitcoin block 917000. Once that block is mined, we will post the block's hash here, and that will be our new game salt. 3. We take the next unused hash from the chain and use it to determine game results: import { hmac } from "@noble/hashes/hmac";
import { sha256 } from "@noble/hashes/sha256";
import { bytesToHex } from "@noble/hashes/utils";
export function gameResult(salt: Uint8Array, gameHash: Uint8Array) {
const nBits = 52; // number of most significant bits to use
// 1. HMAC_SHA256(key=salt, message=hash)
const hash = bytesToHex(hmac(sha256, salt, gameHash));
// 2. r = 52 most significant bits
const seed = hash.slice(0, nBits / 4);
const r = Number.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); // 1 - X so there's no chance of div-by-zero
// 5. return max(trunc(X), 100)
const result = Math.floor(X);
return Math.max(1, result / 100);
}
For additional reference code, see our open-source verifier, which will be updated to reflect these changes. |
|
|
|
|
PHenry's problem was solved shortly after, but I can see there's still some confusion, so let me clarify. We use geo-blocks to prevent users in forbidden areas from using the website (e.g. Costa Rica), but we don't use IP bans anymore. We tried them last year, but they're unreliable, they can affect other players' access, and are easy to get around. If your IP gets banned, it's because of a security measure. The server blocks IPs that send too many requests in a short time. This protects the server, but it can also happen to players who refresh the website too often, though it's rare.
|
|
|
|
Hello, can someone tell me how do I get all game details (gamenumber + crashnumber) of the last 1.000.000 games? Is this possible?
Not sure if it is what you are looking for but if you play with backtesting tab on bustabit site (you don't even need to log in to see it) you can generate games based on a historical hash : you can flag "historical games" and choose the number of games you desire. I just used it few times so dont know if it can simulate up to 1 million games : try your luck there and let us know if you solved. This is correct, backtesting can be used to generate a CSV report with all previous multipliers. Head to https://bustabit.com/backtesting, enter 1,000,000 or more in "number of games", set a large initial balance, select "historical games", and run Flat Bet, for example. Once the simulation ends, you will be able to download a file with all the information you need. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Max Profit decreased very large in years. In my opinion, This situation is very big problem for whale players.
Because, They can't play for big payout in this situation. What are you thinking about this matter. Thanks and Best Regards.
I'm not too worried about it. Bustabit's wager volume tends to be stable in terms of fiat money, not Bitcoin. This means that a player who used to bet 10 BTC when it was worth $10,000 will only bet 1 BTC today, so they wouldn't need the max-profit that bustabit used to have years ago. To give you another example, the max-profit exactly a year ago was 18.21 BTC, which was worth ~$730,000 at the time, although Bitcoin's price was already increasing. In September 2023, the max-profit was equivalent to ~$600,000. The max-profit today is 5.46 BTC, which is worth ~$530,000. It's not as small as you'd imagine once you look at it in terms of fiat. -snip-
The investing system is designed in a way that naturally incentivizes new investments. For example, a few weeks ago the commission rate was still pretty high (around 70%) partially because Bitcoin's price kept going up, which made it less appealing for investors.
-snip-
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your message but please be so kind to detail more the the bolded red part : how does bitcoin price affect commission rate (assuming it does as I'm understanding from the quoted part of your post)? You aren't misinterpreting it. The commission rate takes into account the value of the bankroll in BTC/XDR (details here: https://bustabit.com/help/investing). The higher Bitcoin's price goes, the higher the commission and the lower the rate of return for investors. With BTC nearly worth $100,000 right now  , it's no surprise that the commission rate was going to incentivize some investors to divest. |
|
|
|
Hey there Leo, noticed bankroll is steadily declining due to divestments ( investor profit is usually quite close to profit ATH) in last months , max bet profit is almost half of what it was around 5/6 months ago : do you think it due to BTC reaching its ATH or maybe the recent KYC thing you introduced for new investment or maybe both?
While the mandatory KYC check for new investments has definitely slowed them down, I believe it's mostly due to the price. At least that's what a couple of investors I spoke with mentioned. When I took over, Bitcoin's price was about half of what it is today. Are you considering lowering commission rate to incentivize investment?
The investing system is designed in a way that naturally incentivizes new investments. For example, a few weeks ago the commission rate was still pretty high (around 70%) partially because Bitcoin's price kept going up, which made it less appealing for investors. But now that ~200 BTC have been divested, the commission rate dropped to 50%, making it considerably more attractive to them once again. Are you considering lowering commission rate to incentivize investment? The recent KYC introduction for the new investments might be a reason why many have divested and new investors are not willing to take part. I would have considered adding in more BTC but after this rule, I am holding on whatever I have already put in and observing how it goes. Till date it has been good with a 20-30% per annum interest and hence I will let it grow on the site. Lowering the commission could be an option, but I think the KYC hits harder than commission. People are crazy about privacy in this sector and they ought to be. I'm sure it puts some people off, and as you said, that's understandable. Despite that, we are still verifying new investors every other day, and the lower commission rate could attract even more investments. For what it's worth, the investors' return since February 26th (the day I took over) has been 36%, even though the commission rate was quite high for most of that time. |
|
|
|
Good news! We've finally added support for the Lightning Network on both bustabit and bustadice  The limits are a bit low right now, but we'll be increasing them slowly over time as we get more comfortable managing our channels' liquidity. |
|
|
|
Was the new rule introduced because you hold a particular passport and nationality which was different to the possessed by Daniel?
Not at all. The new rule was introduced because Daniel and I receive different legal advice. As for only using private information for checking eligibility for bankroll investment, how will the data be protected. I cannot locate GDPR information on the website even though Europe based players must be using the website.
bustabit is required by law to retain records of all transactions in which it participates. Regardless of whether the GDPR is applicable to bustabit, data kept to fulfill legal requirements is exempt under the GDPR. From a technical perspective, this information is stored in a secure database with restricted access. |
|
|
|
Why was this never an issue with Daniel and now is an issue with the new owner?
Hey, we made KYC mandatory based on our lawyers' advice, and Daniel had a different legal team. Rest assured, your personal information is only used to ensure you're eligible to invest in the bankroll and won't be passed on to third parties. |
|
|
|
I was wondering about the the functioning of the bankroll: is it possible to keep track of investments/divestments in/from the bankroll by taking as reference two distinct moments, t1 and t2 for example, and comparing the difference (bankroll_t2 - bankroll_t1) with the difference (investors profit_t2 - investors' profit_t1), in the sense that in the absence of investments-divestments the differences mentioned above should coincide? or are there other variables at play?
Assuming I understand your question right, yes. If there are no investments or divestments, then the change in the bankroll should match the change in investors' profit. For what it's worth and in case you didn't know, you can find detailed information on bustabit’s bankroll balance, investors' profit and more at https://dicesites.com/bustabit. |
|
|
|
Something happened with the actuallyfair.com ?
Sorry about that, there's a problem with actuallyfair where it's having some networking issue when connecting to the server that is privately hosted for bustabit. I have a permeant fix for that, and plan on deploying it today in a few hours Update on this? Is it fixed? Yeah, it was fixed shortly after Hussein posted. If you go to any game page, e.g. https://bustabit.com/game/10297069, and click on "Verify game result", you should be able to verify that game's outcome on ActuallyFair.com. Aditionally, our open-source verifier is also available for you. |
|
|
|
I can give countless facts to state claims but all you need to do is watch the site for a little bit and see what I'm saying. Med is constantly 1.4-1.7. Only time it shows above is when you look at thousands of rolls together.
I'm not going to try to convince you because that's what our provably fair system is for. It offers strong guarantees so that players don't have to blindly trust the operator. Unfortunately, by "watching the site for a little bit" you won't be able to check if you are actually being cheated. What you can (and should) do is verify your games, or if you can't, ask someone you trust. And if you have specific questions, I'm also happy to answer them for you. For the curious ones, with Daniel's seed 8,535,716 hashes were used, and we've already played through approximately 248,000 hashes with the new one. The overall median for both games #1 through #8,535,716, and #10,000,001 through #10,248,000, is 1.97x. However, in the previous seed, 49.97% of all played games were green, whereas currently, we've "only" seen 49.84% greens  |
|
|
|
Actually what I wanted to know is : if I will make several withdrawals from my account will they all be sent from the same address or will the sending address be different each time? And if it's the second case could these addresses be linked each other in some way with chain analysis tools?
When you make multiple withdrawals from your account, the sending addresses will typically be different each time. This is because each withdrawal transaction consumes different unspent outputs (UTXOs) as inputs, and each UTXO is usually associated with a different address. Bustabit generates a new deposit address for each deposit, but if you reuse the old ones you will be more likely to receive transactions associated with those same addresses (which can potentially make it easier for someone to analyze your transaction history). As long as you don't reuse addresses, you should be able to benefit from all of our hot wallet privacy features. |
|
|
|
I need some clarification about withdrawal process: I see you apply a dynamic w/d fee linked to current network fees which is also displayed in w/d interface, that's crystal clear.
But I also see a "unpaid deposit fee " showing me zero ( maybe because I did not make a deposit in a long time now) which I don't understand what it is connected to (perhaps to the network fees at the time the deposit is made) and therefore I can't imagine what order of magnitude it is: is it comparable to the classic w/d fee mentioned above or what?
No, the unpaid deposit fee is generally a lot smaller and depends on 1) how expensive Bitcoin transactions are at the time you withdraw or tip another player, and 2) how many deposits you've made since you last withdrew or tipped someone. For example, say you made 20 deposits and now want to withdraw your profits. You'd have to pay the normal withdrawal fee, and what it costs to consolidate all the deposits you made: total fee = withdrawal fee + (20 * consolidation fee) So, making a lot of deposits will only incur additional costs for you, not for other players (and that's one of the reasons we can offer really cheap withdrawals). Also, if I make different withdrawals do they come from the same address or will a brand new address be used for every transaction?
We wouldn't be able to send from an address that hasn't received funds (i.e. doesn't have any outputs associated with it), but we don't consolidate deposits into a single address, if that's what you mean. |
|
|
|
I never received what I paid for, and I am not happy about it.
I've just replied on the other thread that you also posted to, but can you please contact me on leo@bustabit.com from the email address you purchased a license? As I am unsure of exactly what you bought vs. what you expected to buy, it's difficult for me to try offer a resolution. |
|
|
|
I have spoken to a lawyer, and I've been told that legally I have absolutely nothing, and the original writer of the code has legal rights to require the discontinuation of the code at any time.
Could you please have your lawyer contact me on leo@bustabit.com and reference the details of the sold license? I will happily, free of any additional charges, work with your lawyer to provide all the guarantees you or your broker require (i.e. signing the necessary contracts, permissions, licenses, etc.). |
|
|
|
Right, me, nor you, nor bustabit, nor anyone else has any idea how it is supposed to work because there is no license in existence that would state what it is that I can or can not do.
Bustabit is a big name in crypto gambling, and being licensed by them is a big deal - 2.3+ million bitcoins wagered ... That's why my broker (I've sold 3 Amazon FBA businesses through him) has a buyer that is interested. I'd been going over things with my broker to put it all together in to an offering. I don't have a license to show, and that's my biggest selling point by far.
And yes, BTC is highly valued - And that's why I'm so pissed.
Said more simply if I lost anyone there... (I'm just irate about this situation).
Bustabit was paid for a license. No license was provided. When asked about how to remedy the situation - Bustabit refused to give a refund (even for less than the original purchase amount and not even if I was to surrender my domain to them).
I don't know what planet Bustabit is from saying I should have asked for a license at the time of purchase of my license.. But back here on earth (I get it everyone is trying to go to the moon), at the time of purchase means not only when you pay for something but for the time period leading up to actually taking delivery for the purchase. So, it is still very much at the time of purchase at this very moment in time.
I'm hoping that the crypto gambling foundation will be able to help, because their members are held to high ethical/moral standards as well as transactions with online casinos being provably fair - And this situation is most certainly provably unfair.
The license is directly referenced in the source code, and you can read the terms at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html. Bustabit also provides a written acknowledgment ( https://bustabit.com/license.txt) that serves as documentation of your purchase and proves that your site is exempt from AGPLv3's requirements, allowing you to take your code closed-source. I didn't say you should have asked for a license. I said you should have asked for whatever it is you want to show them. Just to be clear, what exactly is "the product" you believe you didn't receive? |
|
|
|
|
