Please check your PMs, I'm very interested, depending on the rake structure.

Oh wow, I think that conclusively proves Dean hasn't changed his ways.   I almost wonder if he's just trolling, as surely he knows it's pretty hard to scam people multiple times, he might be a scammer but he's not an idiot

Are you trying to say that because you've made absolutely zero changes to the bustabit source, so you don't need to follow the clause of the AGPLv3 to make your changes available?

This is clearly not the case, because at the very least you've made some minor changes (homepage change, background color change, you've changed "bustabit" to "bustafish"). It doesn't matter how minor your changes are, the AGPLv3 requires you to follow the license.

And I'm also going to quote you on this:

So you've obviously made changes to the script, and the AGPLv3 requires you must prominently offer all users the new source code.

To add to what GamblingSiteFinder wrote, I'd also point out that in the ol' days public stats were the norm, while these days they're the exception. Also you might want to weight the bet by the USD price at the time, a lot of the old stats were when bitcoin price was a fraction of what it is now. And thirdly, I'd completely ignore the raw "bet count" as 99.999% of all bets are just dust bets by bots and often is uncorrelated with actual activity.

tldr; Dean systematically scammed everyone who trusted him. First tried ripping off Daniel by not paying the software license fee (and then after called out, pretended he rewrote the software in like a week, lol). Then he scammed his ICO investors by refusing the honor his "buy back price" scheme which was part of the deal and repeatedly promised (which made the tokens worth pennies on the dollar). And then that basically killed off his casino and he had almost zero volume, and then suddenly "whoops, we got hacked" and finally bankroll investors and players lost their money too.

I'm not sure what Dean is trying to do now. It's not clear to me what if he's just trying to "clear" his name by making it look like he's paying people back and it was all an accident. Or he actually is delusional enough to think people will trust him again? My guess is the former, he must know. His casino operated with pretty much zero volume for a long time due to his terrible reputation until the "hack". I suspect he's just sick of when people google "Dean Nolan" they see his history and he wants to muddy the waters.

Hey! Just wanted to give you props for being in business and honest for so long. I've always been really harsh on review sites, as they as a rule always end up going around asking for money or realize it's profitable to promote bullshit. So thought I'd congratulate you on bucking the industry trend, and give you a link in my signature (partly because I have nothing better to do with my signature, partly because I think your site is the best resource for someone to get an idea of what sites to play at)

I was involved in creation the system that bustabit & bustadice uses for withdrawals and fees. The way its system works is insanely efficient (vastly more than any others). Users deposits go into a hot wallet, those funds are used by the bespoke coinselection algorithm to make change-less withdrawals. Amounts that can't be used for a long time are scheduled in an ultra-low priority consolidation transactions.

But the interesting about the bustadice/bustabit system, is that the fees users pay is exactly the costs of running the system for how the user uses it. e.g. On other sites you might get banned for making lots of small deposits. On bustabit/bustadice, you can deposit 1000 bits of dust and no one cares. On other sites they have withdrawal restrictions (e.g. max per time period, wager reqs) while on bustabit/bustadice you can do 1000 in a day and no one will care.

Obviously a little biased, but I think the no-bullshit style of bustabit/bustadice is the absolute best way for a casino to run their withdrawal system.

lmao. I'm not sure what's more shocking, that 154 bitcoin is now 9 million USD?! or that people are happy paying over 80% commission.

But seriously, Daniel has really struck gold. iirc when Dooglus started the whole casino bankrolling he charged investors 10% commission. Pretty funny compared to where we are now  

It should work, because I believe dicesites is showing the post-commissions investor profit.


But anyway, I wouldn't worry about it too much. With hindsight, there's probably a million good investments you could've made. Beating yourself up over missing one is probably not overly productive.

I'm glad you're using the bustadice style multiplier, it's clearly a better design imo. But just skimming your site, I really struggled to find a single reason someone would want to use your site over the half a dozen other sites that offer essentially the same service. And worse than that, your site is clearly not ready (half the links don't work, or give a "coming soon"). It's really a terrible idea to launch a half-finished product into a crowded market, all you will do is burn-out the subset of "early adopter" style people.

No offence or anything, but if I were you'd I'd probably just take down the site and really think of how you can really drive some value-add. Then get the site polished and ready, and launch it and really push that value-add that you have that no one else does.

I'm not quite sure that's a problem. It's just that under the current set of rules bitcoin is running at "full" capacity. So if miners included zero-fee transactions (which they can) they would be doing it at a direct cost to themselves (as they could've included transactions with fee).

One way to solve this would be change the block-limit from a static 4M weight, to one that varied depending on how many "coin days destroyed" for instance. This might work in theory, if you were careful to design the rules to not encourage backchannels for transaction creators to pay miners out-of-band,  but in practice it would never work:

a) You'd never get consensus on such a change
b) It potentially makes coin selection & fee selection for transaction creators a complex bitch
c) It makes transaction selection for miners more complex

I've spent a lot of time on it, and honestly bitcoin core's algorithm is actually quite good. There's little things you can do to improve it, but it's probably not worth it.


Often it looks stupidly high, but let's say you are using the default conservative estimate, (a 95% confidence?) -- it implicitly takes into consideration occurrences like "What if there's no blocks for the next 30 minutes, and everyone is out bidding each other". If that doesn't happen, your fee will indeed be stupidly high. But otherwise, it would've ended up stuck


If you want to save money on fees, there's a few good things you can do (both are annoying and a bit of a PITA though):


1) Batching
2) Low-Ball the fee (target a long-range with economical) and keep bumpfee it until it ends up confirmed
3) Cap the (initial) fee rate you're paying, so you're never too early in the mempool. If you're doing 2) you can bump it later as required, but you don't want to ever really be one of the highest fee rate transactions if you can avoid it

I'd like to claim it was some higher-order humor to obfuscate the word obfuscate, but the truth is I never learned the English very well and my browsers spell checker is set to another language. Anyway, thank you for the correction -- I hope I won't make the same spelling mistake again.

The idea of the "special drawing rights" is that it's like a stable version of "fiat money". Right now 1 XDR is (0.58252 USD + 0.38671 EUR + 1.0174 CNY + 11.9 JPY + 0.085946 GBP). Picking a single currency would be simpler, but less stable.



I don't think it is Daniel intention is to obsfucate how it works, like on the "bankroll" page (which you use to invest/divest), it pretty prominently shows:



and he has made a lot of stats available as an .csv which makes it pretty simple for anyone who can use excel to work with

I guess the part I struggle with, is assuming stake (incorrectly) allowed you to gamble again ... does that really make them responsible for the (direct) course of actions that happened after (i.e. you losing your money)?

I honestly don't know, I feel like I can make a strong argument both ways. But I don't really think a public forum is an ideal way to solve an issue like this. I notice in Stake's Terms of Service they offer the option to seek arbitration with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.  If you can't reach an amicable solution, it seems like it might be best to let a 3rd party decide?

Is that a problem? If they make permanent bans/self-exclusions actually permanent, then there's nothing to exploit.


While it sounds like stake probably never should've unbanned the account -- if we're being realistic had stake not unbanned the account -- I am pretty the OP would've found a way to gamble either at stake on a new account, or at another casino.

Gambling addictions are no joke, I really hope the OP takes it seriously and gets the help he needs.  

I think it's pretty clear all the stats are faked. You can jump back 1 day in the game history and see here:


https://bitcrasha.com/game/1024633 <-- no one playing
https://bitcrasha.com/game/1024634 <-- mistries starts playing, and never stops
https://bitcrasha.com/game/1024636 <-- genie starts playing, and never stops
https://bitcrasha.com/game/1024637 <-- soldier starts playing and never stops
https://bitcrasha.com/game/1024638 <-- pokemon starts playing, and never stops
...etc...

None of the data looks remotely legitimate.


I kind of understand the desire to "fake it until you make it", but with trust being such a critical part of casinos -- being anything but a 100% straight shooter seems like shooting your own foot

Oh wow, thanks for that. That's actually really helpful.

Also if anyone needs an easy way to format it, you can copy&paste it into google spreadsheets or even gist.github.com: https://gist.github.com/RHavar/b915276d257175172369e3c8648f051b

which makes it a bit easier to read 

Yeah, exactly. I think of it as the investor is first investing 98% of his funds  ... and everyone's stake gets adjusted according to that. And THEN the 2% gets added to the bankroll (without affecting anyones stake)

Imagine the existing bankroll is 1 BTC, and you are going to invest 1 BTC.

You are given a stake of:

($yourInvestment * 0.98) / ($bankroll + ($yourInvestment * 0.98))
= 0.98 / 1.98
= 49.49%

But the bankroll increases by 1 BTC (AKA the new bankroll is 2 BTC)


So your stake is worth 0.98989 BTC.  (AKA you only lost ~1% even though the dilution fee was 2%)


---

The high-level reasoning behind it is that if you didn't recoup some of your own dilution fee, it would incentivize people to "fragment" their large investment into tiny ones (possibly over multiple accounts?).  So the dilution fee is split amongst all investors (including yourself), so that the smart way to invest a lot of money is just simply invest a lot of money.