To be honest I don't really understand what he is saying in that reply.

But just in case someone doesn't understand it. These are the hashes:

Your site	Archived site
8eaf55f805d3d051dfc5151073ac9efd 3509c457c164d3a813c833cb9f62a990 f43d368fb63b177a65fb65c511d74962 a85492b89a34cfd7dbedc7f8c91c16e1 4dfd43d2da6e1a0b65802721a6f3babf      b9119f5f3fbdfdccc1ac3c5f22361626      eb5c6ed29f8559b68bf4aa75adb13560      896ae32161795e8901d72977d1eb9e71 9e88dfe532d59e30b9b78d845b4c0e59  87b1dd267ff439349095cc9c961e3cd6	8eaf55f805d3d051dfc5151073ac9efd fe3b7dee0cf7cb7ea552995675306786      f43d368fb63b177a65fb65c511d74962      a85492b89a34cfd7dbedc7f8c91c16e1      4dfd43d2da6e1a0b65802721a6f3babf      b9119f5f3fbdfdccc1ac3c5f22361626      eb5c6ed29f8559b68bf4aa75adb13560 896ae32161795e8901d72977d1eb9e71      9e88dfe532d59e30b9b78d845b4c0e59      87b1dd267ff439349095cc9c961e3cd6

Clearly 1 hash was changed. The archived site is on the well-known site archive.org, which is not a screenshot and cannot be "photoshopped". Also some of the unused hashes are still the same today so that "day changed" BS doesn't make sense either.

Added negative trust.

People should realize that their "provably fair" implementation is already not provably fair anyway. They could literally show 10000s of hashes where the string is "Lose:......" and claim it's provably fair because the hash is the same. That is not how provably fair works.

Somehow, with such a crappy bad non-"provably fair" implementation, they still managed to cheat it extra - by changing the hash. That is like almost impressive.

Please ignore such sites.

AFAIK both being lucky in-game and trading on steam and/or "skin exchanges". I still don't fully understand it either, probably someone could give a specific site where you can buy those skins.

I did notice lately that this "skin gambling" is actually pretty damn big. There are sources that claim it's bigger than "cryptocurrency gambling" (and by looking at "self-claimed $ stats" of some sites, they do look pretty big.) BTW, most sites also claim to be provably fair, but actually aren't (typical 30 second P2P raffle, "here is a hash so it's provably fair".. "meanwhile we add a winning house player".) I still don't know if there is like a central forum where all those players/sites communicate.. pretty much still a mystery for me how that skin gambling community works



Anyway, getting bit off-topic here.. but IMO it just shows once again that bitcoin gambling is still relatively small and has so much potential for the future

That can be all automated.

Of course that would only make sense if the prize if big enough, but yeh, even CAPTCHA can be solved automatically (either with script if weak CAPTCHA or with a service that pays humans a very small amount for solving the CAPTCHAs you give them.)

Even faucets on sites like PrimeDice and bustabit are being abused by scripts like that. So if someone could win some serious money on your game, for sure people will make a script like that.



edit: just to be clear... I like new ideas Just that almost all "skill games" will be easily abused

Sorry, but this will not work. I could make a script in a few minutes that would automate such action ("pressing a button every x minutes") and win all teh prizes.

This is just not true. They claimed to hold more than 90% of invested coins themselves so they could easily prove that 90% of coins without disclosing anything about the "investors".


Anyway, personally not interested to discuss this site again since every argument has been pretty much written already and they are gone so no point in discussing.

BTW, I made an "Ignore threads" user script 2 weeks ago. People could probably use both scripts at same time, but if you want to copy my script into BT++ that's fine too (although I was lazy and used jQuery, but should be easy to convert.) I noticed that you already had a "ignored threads" input val, but the UI is not as easy as my script, so might be better to merge that.

My topic is here (with screenshots): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1451483.0 Source here: https://github.com/NLNicoo/itob/

Nice, BTC 30 profit on that account and BTC 3 bonus on top


Cool promo

I am 99% sure that all of those new accounts complaining about the provably fair mechanism are the same idiot guy, but just in case you are not:



If you are interested in Provably fair, read my article at: https://dicesites.com/provably-fair You might have been cheated by PD, but luckily you can verify it by the provably fair mechanism, so you can know for a fact if you have been cheated or not No need to trust any gambling site when it comes to bet results. To make it more easy, I have a specific verifier for PD too: https://dicesites.com/primedice/verifier

To be honest, I don't know what normal rates are, but it doesn't sound too insane - especially if these are really "top" researchers. Although I am not sure what he means with packages (I would assume penetration test is just all kind of vulnerability tests on the whole target/site.)

The risk with such audit is that you don't know what results there will be. In theory the report could say "all good, nothing found" although that's an extreme example Because of that, a (public) bug bounty program is obviously "attractive" too, as you just pay for actual results/bugs (in theory starting such program is free.) But then there is no guarantee that experienced researchers will have a look at it and there is no real "report" for stakeholders/users. Also I would assume that with an audit you can trust the security company a bit more and give a bit more clues/information about the infrastructure and the researchers could be allowed to use tools that are normally not allowed within bounty programs.

So in the end up to you and the company you work for hehe.





But if you do happen to offer a bug bounty program (either after or without the audit), do let me know hehe.

Sounds good. Negative trust removed.

Other photo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=723647.msg8176149#msg8176149
Soundcloud (I think?): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857195.msg10380715#msg10380715

But I have no idea if that kind of proof if sufficient, normally not of course (will be easy to buy same t-shirt and get high profile accounts), but this seems like an unique situation.



Either way I (temporarily) added negative trust to that account so it cannot be used for scamming (assuming you are correct.)

Simple math shows it's unsustainable. You cannot make $102,400 from only $100 in 40 days. If you do have a magic money tree like that, you would not need "investors". I do not need your dust money either. The way a ponzi operates is by "showing it works" for the first few deposits and steal the rest.



Anyway: I repeat, people should stop giving any money to ponzi scammers like this.

Let's say you double your money after 4 days with your legitimate investment magic trick.

If you start with $100. You will have: 100*2^(40/4) = $102,400 after just 40 days. If you could make $102,400 from only $100 within 40 days.. I am sure you don't need any "investors".




Seriously, people should NOT even send ANY satoshi to scams like this. Do not support ponzi scams like this!

Any estimate of when your stats will be merged again? I could obviously do it in my end, but if you will merge it soon, it would be double work for me.

Some pretty cool bets earlier including a BTC68.48 bet:

Mm yes.. my reply right after that post explains why it was more than 10%? Basically it is because they had a dynamic house edge which could be relatively high up to 10%. Other sites do not have this. In theory that's nice, because you can allow players to bet bigger while the investors have a bigger edge. But afterwards it was way too risky. With the 10x kelly option, this meant the max profit of 1 bet could become a very big part of the bankroll (up to 100% lol.)

For what it's worth: the max HE and max kelly are both lowered now.

Out of interest.. what amount you were trying to withdraw?

It is possible if the site makes their profit from advertisements (or potentially other sources.)

I think it generally would be too risky for a game vs the house, since they would need to risk their bankroll and could be easily screwed because of variance. So I don't think you will see zero/negative house edge often.

But it makes more sense for a game which isn't vs the house but vs other players (so also no negative house edge, but break-even/profitable edge for players.) A clear example would be PevPot, which had advertisements and provided a EV+ game for players. Still this game didn't really become popular (and stopped) so it shows players don't really care about their edge.