The source is here:
https://github.com/Stenlan/BaBSS


What ever you see on the branch "gh-pages" is what github actually puts up. But if you want to be absolutely sure the site doesn't steal your strategy, best to use firefox and open a new private browsing window, go to the site, then turn on "Work offline". When you finish, close the private browsing window (which will clear any local storage) and it'll be safe to go back online

Really cool simulator developed by GenericUsername here:

https://stenlan.github.io/BaBSS/


Here's an example result when Dexon tried out his random betting strategy:

What happened to bustabit? Not sure I get the reference

Just a piece of friendly advise: I would strongly reconsider charging a fee per bet. One of the beauties of offering a PvP game is that you don't have any risk yourself, so you can sanely afford to offer a 100% return-to-player. That's something no vs the house game can or will ever be able to realistically do. Instead you could charge, a 1-30% fee on all profit a player makes. I think that model would be quite fair to players and the house, and allow you to offer something quite unique.


Anyway, good luck! I always enjoy checking out new and unique sites.

Actually pretty cool, I like that you've done something quite unique. A couple of suggestions:

* Include full information about how the provably fair works, giving a hash without telling people how it works doesn't really help.

Actually as it seems to be completely single player, I'd recommend using a nonce based provably fair akin to something that the major dice sites do.


* Be careful in your marketing. By saying "where you always win" people will instantly think it's some sort of scam. While I understand what you mean (you always win at least some of your wager back) it's not very clear and gives people the wrong first impression

* Find a native English speaker to help you out, as unfortunately unless it reads very professionally people will be very hesitant to trust it.



Good luck!

Why's that? If everyone is leveraged at 10x, it should mean that (rational) investors are storing a lot less on site then they otherwise would -- and thus achieving the goal of exposing investors to less counter party risk.

Of course there will be some "gambling investor" who are over leveraged -- but if they wish to gamble like that, that's their prerogative. They might do super well, but on the whole they should expect to lose their money and be outperformed by the people who didn't over leverage their position.

That answer is absolute nonsense. The blockchain is working and operating as designed. The transactions with the most fees (per byte) are getting mined first. If you put 80 satoshi/byte of fees, you can reasonably the transaction will be mined next block (~10 minutes). My bitcoin node is relaying any transactions with fees above 10 satoshi/byte, so if the transaction has above that it would be expected to propagate to a meaningful amount of the network.

Withdrawals absolutely should not be affected by this, it just means their software is configured incorrectly. They just need to put a proper amount of fees on them.

That's not correct. It's the sending parties responsibility to ensure that enough transaction are getting confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. If the transaction fees are too high, they should increase the fees they charge players in order to support it. If a transaction gets stuck, they can do what I do and repriortize it by pulling from the change address (CPFP).


FWIW, these issues will exist even with segwit and something all bitcoin services and wallets need to start handling.

I think there's a slight terminology confusion: a company going public, or a public company actually refers to it's shares being freely tradable on exchanges and all the surrounding regulation. i.e. Facebook went public in 2012 (before being a public company, it was a private one).

While BitDice is not a public company, it is to my knowledge was the first bitcoin casino to incorporate.  

Good question. I'm not really familiar with how bitvest works, but has anyone calculated if they're operating at above the risk recommended by kelly criterion?  If they're allowing their normal investors to be subjected to more than a kelly of risk, I'd say they're not properly managing it. If they're letting their normal investors be subject to more than 2x kelly, I'd say they're being negligent.

However, if it's just their leveraged investors who are at above a sane level of risk, then it's really their own fault. At that point you're not really investing, you're just +EV gambling with a mathematical guarantee that if you do it long enough you will bust.

Speaking of which, I assume when this site invests they're not using leverage? As if they're using the leverage options, it's effectively gambling and it's not really a fair comparison as pure random luck will make a lot more difference than any differences in the sites.  

The app owner is always given the token. And besides, the app doesn't even need the users token in order to access the money. (It can directly access it itself). Only put what you are willing to trust in an app (as it's clear by the warnings)

Although the important thing to note, is if you put X in an app, the app can steal up to X. But it can never undetectably do so. i.e. It can never rig the bets. But it can bet without you authorizing it to. And it can transfer without you authorizing it to.  However, if it does nasty stuff like that, at least you'll know it. (But you'll still lose your money).

Congratulations to Alexy for breaking into our exclusive >100 BTC profit club!

So the root of the problem is this transaction:

005f09205bc0792b8397469994b16a1bce6422d688103b31b254c1d3c782dd92


The wallet is using a static fee, which is actually enough in the normal case. However that's based on their only being 1 input, and this transaction has two. It's now actually confirmed so the rest of the chain should get processed pretty soon (I believe).

BTW what ever wallet that is, is doing a pretty spectacularly bad job. Both from privacy (reusing the same address) and by using P2SH their transactions are like >50% bigger than they need to be

Was this a deposit or withdrawal to bitsler? If it was a deposit, then it's not their responsibility. If it is a withdrawal, then it is.



I looked at the transaction, and it's part of a *very* long chain of unconfirmed transactions. All the transactions in the chain seem to have a reasonable amount of fees, and didn't see any of them doing anything stupid that would make them be non-standard. So I suspect it will resolve itself, or by easy to push through with rebroadcasting them (especially if done with a CPFP to speed it up).

You do realize, you can actually prove these games were pre-determined from a fair distribution. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0  for technical details of how it works. And here's a simple jsfiddle you can run in your browser:  https://jsfiddle.net/1L1uqcgv/6/embedded/result ....and here's even a script you can run to verify game in real time:  https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f23130eef44559acbd37



You're welcome. So just to be clear, you're at a net profit, had no problems with deposits or withdrawals being honored and haven't checked how the site proves the games were predetermined, but still feel cheated?

Looks like quite an opportunity. I echo the sentiments that using an escrow would be stupid and only serve to expose investors to additional risk.

I do however have a couple quick questions:




So just to be clear, from a traditional finance reading this sounds very much like you are you are selling 100% of the company. Is this intentional, or did you mean to say that you will personally own those remaining 70% shares?



To help me understand this, could you work through a concrete example? Lets say you raise exactly 2000 BTC and then found a potential buyer who bought sold the site for 3000 BTC the very next day. How much money would would the original investors expect to see back?

When they talk about an ICO (initial coin offering), what they're actually doing is really just creating shares. Each coin just represents a % of the sites ownership / future profits. So in effect he's selling part of his company in exchange for money (in bitcoin) to expand/market/what ever.

This is quite different to altcoins, like say, ethereum which are designed to "compete" with bitcoin as a means of value.

I'm not aware of any altcoin that actually can or does impose restrictions on what the coin is used for. So any casino can generally offer gambling in any altcoin they see a market for.

Based on what I've seen though, most altcoin gambling sites have quite a bit of trouble getting traction and most altcoin users are either also bitcoin users, or have no problems converting back and forth. So you probably don't lose a huge amount of the market by purely accepting bitcoin.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying,  but the house edge has nothing to do with the win chance. And I'm not sure where you got the 90.09% from, or why you'd try correct me without first checking.

The expect value for the house is the sum of all probabilities * their profit. Thus:

1*0.901 - 9*0.099 = 0.01

i.e. the expected value is 0.01 on a 1 BTC bet. AKA 1% house edge..

So for a 10x payout with a house edge of 1% the chance of the casino winning is 90.1%

Let's say a player has 1 BTC, and the casino has 1000 BTC. With a 0 house edge, the casino has a 99.9% chance of bankrupting the player. And the player has a 0.1% chance of bankrupting the casino. (Number slightly rounded).  In other words, the casino is risking absolutely everything for no expected profit and negative expected bankroll growth (given enough time, someone will get lucky and bust the house).

I don't expect that a rational casino, that understand the risks will ever do this. 0% house edge gaming has potential, but I think strictly within a pvp setting.