HufflePuff was a guy who won a huge amount from PrimeDice using an exploit he found. Apparently there was some way of discovering your server seed, and so you could know exactly what numbers were going to come up and in what order.

He wasn't paid out automatically I'm sure. The site checked his rolls for cheating but couldn't find any proof of it until after they had processed his withdrawals.

I'm sure every casino owner worries about possible cheating whenever a player hits a big win, but you really have to think about how it affects the winning player to be made to feel like he's a potential cheat. If you delay paying your big winners too long you'll piss them off and they'll go play somewhere else.


I think you are mistaken on that point.

I see you fixed one of the bugs I pointed out, even though you said it was fake:



You've changed the 30 seconds to 10 seconds, matching how the game actually plays. Good job!

Unfortunately you've made the "provably fair" system even less provable than before. Now as well as your unverifiable transaction selection you have added in a millisecond timestamp. You can easily adjust the timestamp by a few milliseconds in either direction to get the result you want.

This is the third different failed attempt to make the site provably fair. It's good that you're trying, I guess, but you really ought to take some advice from someone who knows what they are doing. You are only making it worse.


Where can I set the client seed? I haven't noticed that feature.

Even with a client seed, the game isn't provably fair if *you* get to pick the *last* piece of data that affects the result.

The usual flow for provably fair is:

  1) site commits to a server seed by publishing its hash
  2) player picks a client seed
  3) game plays using the two seeds
  4) site reveals server seed

Note that the site's influence on the result happens only in step 1, and the player's influence happens after that, in step 2. That prevents the site from cheating.

On your site the flow is:

  1) players buy tickets (and possibly pick client seeds?)
  2) site picks a txid
  3) site picks a timestamp
  4) result depends on 1, 2, and 3

The site's inputs happen after the player inputs and so can account for them.

Note that in a multiplayer game it isn't good enough even if the client seeds were selected between steps 3 and 4, because we have no way of knowing whether the house is also a player.

I would refer you back to the pevpot thread if you want to see an example of how to make a lottery game provably fair such that even a player who is working with the house is unable to cheat.

I already have too much power around CLAM. JD stakes the majority of the CLAMs, I contribute to the CLAM client code, I post here a lot.

I think somebody else should make a site about the petitions, and how to support petitions, and explain some of the more popular petitions. It can include instructions for voting on Just-Dice, and I can improve the interface on Just-Dice too. I don't like the idea of checkboxes, because it means I either have to manually decide which petitions to include checkboxes for (which is a chore I'd rather not take on), or have it automatically list them all, including "dog humping its own mouth" (which would obviously be abused).

I would happily link to such a site from Just-Dice. I don't want to leave myself open to accusations of pushing through my own agenda, and so would rather somebody else took on the job of raising awareness of the CLAMour system.

I checked the market depth for NET on cryptopia. Selling 20 million NET would get you 0.20913306 BTC. There's no demand for it apparently.

I tried the same on cryptsy, but something's wrong there - selling 89k NET would get me MINUS 0.15 BTC?



I can't see how to find the total buy depth, but it isn't very much.

The next withdrawal from stakeminers could bankrupt them.

Not if he's using long-term investor funds to make short-term investors whole.

People don't complain about Ponzi schemes until they can no longer hide their insolvency.

It appears that stakeminers still has around 33% of the coins they need to pay their liabilities. You'll see the complaints start when that number reaches 0%.

I just signed up at stakeminers to get access to the wallet details for myself.

I saw this:



There's no price for NET, but that seems to be the only coin held by stakeminers worth a significant amount.

According to coinmarketcap, NET is only traded on one exchange (if you don't count cryptsy, which seems reasonable): https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Exchange - its price there is 90 satoshis.

According to my calculations then:


Total holdings = 36 BTC.

If instead we use the cryptsy price for NET (https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/NET_BTC = 0.00000108) then the netcoin holdings are worth:

22581657 * 0.00000108 = 24.38818956 BTC, and the total holdings are worth 40.29092645 BTC.

This is much closer to suchmoon's findings than the official stateminers' valuation.

Note that I took the balances and prices from the stakeminers page and didn't attempt to verify any of them with actual reality.

It would be useful if the stakeminers page could be updated to include a calculation of the current value of the holdings, and an explanation of the difference between the actual and claimed investment values.

I don't know Mycelium well enough to answer, but you could make a new account on your Android device (in settings -> users), switch to the new user, and run Mycelium as that user. It will be like running Mycelium for the first time so you can import your old seed.

It's kind of a sledgehammer solution but it should work.

I edited my post as you were replying to it. I see the 'gotcha' now. His argument seems to be that since prices change we shouldn't use prices to determine the value of things and instead can arbitrarily claim that our holdings are worth whatever we want them to be worth.

It's worrying that someone responsible for other people's money can think like that.

The price went up by about 10% from 103 satoshis to 113 satoshis while the number of coins barely changed.

Of course that results in a higher BTC value.

Was it a trick question or did you really not know the answer?

Edit: having read the rest of this thread it appears that you are confused. It looks like your investors gave you ~120 BTC, you used them to buy altcoins which have since reduced in value to ~40 BTC, but you're claiming that you still have ~120 BTC invested.

Any reasonable person would say that your investors have lost 80 BTC.

You seem to be saying that they didn't lose anything because the altcoin prices might go back up again? If so, that's silly. The current price is the current price. Currently your holdings are worth closer to 40 BTC than 120 BTC. Wouldn't you agree?

Your whole selling point seems to be that you can stake faster than solo-stakers can. But you still can't stake faster enough to keep up with the fall in value of the altcoins you own.

The biggest problem is that you are allowing people to withdraw their initial investment even though the coins you bought with their deposit have lost 66% of their value. Where is the shortfall coming from, if not from the other investors? What happens if someone withdraws 40 BTC of the remaining 120 BTC? Wouldn't you have to sell all your remaining altcoins yet still have 80 BTC of outstanding liabilities?

These are the things that are making people "libel" you I think. Can you clear them up and show us how you aren't really insolvent?

Seriously?

I reported them in this thread, as you presumably already saw. I've tried my best to help but the site owner is an ignorant asshole so I'm out.

It would be, for sure.

Check the link in the post immediately before yours.

You're welcome.

Here's a link to the post.

I just updated it again, and do so about once a week if I remember.

You misunderstand his "30%". He is talking about betting with a 30% chance of winning. Such a bet typically pays out 3.3x, 2.3x of which is profit. So his bet of 0.004 will give him a profit of 0.004 * 3.3 = 0.0132 0.004 * 2.3 = 0.0092 if he wins it, which will cover his 0.005 loss and then some.

So you aren't doubling, you're multiplying by two?

Sigh.

Good luck with your site. You are going to need it.

You could try verifying these bug reports for yourself. They are real. Your site is broken in multiple ways.

Maybe his developer will see my bug reports and fix the bugs, idk.

Here's a series of screenshots from a 15 second game. I had a clock running in the corner to make the timing clear:

18:23:13 - nobody played yet



18:23:15 - the first ticket is bought



18:23:18 - same guy buys another ticket



18:23:19 - someone else joins in



18:23:29 - ten seconds later and nothing has changed



18:23:30 - the game ends, just 15 seconds after the first ticket was sold



Edit: but the FAQ says the hash which is used is the one after 30 seconds:

I found another possible bug.

The site says "But the final lucky number of each round is the one after 30-second is up" on the main page, and "The final lucky number is the one after 30-second is up" on the FAQ. But I just saw a game that ended less than 17 seconds after the first player bought a ticket.

Maybe it's just a bug in the text, and the 30 second rule is no longer in effect.

But either way you should fix it, and be explicit about which txid is actually used.