Because you said that a X% house edge means the house has X% more chance of winning than the player. However, that's not quite true in the generic case.


Let's say I want to 10x my money on PrimeDice. I have a 9.9% chance of winning, and the house has a 90.1%. That corresponds to a 1% house edge, even though the house has a +80.2% more win chance.

So it's better to think of house edge as "how much expected profit will the casino make" divided by the size of the player bet.

Sure, but the fact remains that they still haven't fixed it or compensated people for the money they unfairly took.

I like how your last 6 posts have all been defending a quasi scam, I hope you're at least getting paid for it  

Really? I thought he even operates his own casino..

https://games.bitcoin.com

Congratulations on the launch. Is this the first launched betbase casino? (If not, I've missed the others)

Before the thread gets too established, I'd like to strongly encourage you to reconsider the decision of having the thread moderated, and perhaps recreate it as a normal thread. While I realize unmoderated thread often have idiots and spam, the alternative tends to be worse with it being exceedingly difficult to trust a moderated thread, as there's no way to really know if moderation for legitimate purpose or hide legitimate grievances.

You're close, but not quite right either. The house edge is casinos expected profit relative to the size of the wager. i.e. A house edge of 1% simply means the casino would expect to make 1 BTC for every 100 BTC wagered. Obviously there is variance and what not, so the house's actual profits tend to be surprisingly far away from their expected profits.  

I will be acting as escrow for the ICO (initial coin offering) of betbase. My duties will be limited to collecting the funds, at the public address "1CawE1ZomCdCqTmw84vmvEqa5nadXdzxfX" and releasing those funds to betbase, after I am satisfied with:

a) They have issued shares to all (non-dust) participants of the ICO
b) I have conducted an in-depth source code review, that leads me to believe
   they are intending to or capable of operating as a legitimate business if they were so willing.


Any issues, especially security related, will be reported directly to betbase. If I however believe there are concerning systemic issues, I will report that to investors and extend an opportunity to get a refund before the remainder of funds are released to betbase.

I however will not be held liable for any potential bugs/weaknesses/security problems. The review will be done on a best effort basis.

Please note, the review will *ONLY* be conducted if the ICO raises a sum greater than 100 BTC. If your investment is contingent upon this guarantee, do not invest until after the amount sent to the address is >100 BTC.


I expect my review will take in the order of 2 week days, but I reserve the right to take up a week. After this, I will signal my intention to release the funds to betbase. After I signal my intention to release the funds, investors will have 24 hours to contact me (PM here, or email rhavar@protonmail.com) if they have any concerns, wanting refunds, or believe they were not properly issued.

It is vitally important that all investors know how to and are able to sign messages from the address they used to participate in the crowd fund. I will not deal with investors who can not (for security reasons), and any signed message from an address used to participate in the crowd fund I will consider valid instructions, so investors must keep their private keys secure.

Prior to releasing funds, I will process any reasonable request from investors to have a refund, provided
they provided signed message. Any refunds will be sent *from* the escrow address, to make it easy
to keep track of. All signed refund request messages I will make public, to prove I am acting upon instruction.


Once I release funds (the release address provided to me is: 1J5ZyDb44ZKABKzi45BGdBmAfLEk3NDEQu), my involvement will be completely over. After this point I will have no control of the funds, and be no longer able to do anything about anything.



Disclaimery stuff:

* I built and sold moneypot.com, which is very similar to what betbase is. I do
not have any current role or ownership of moneypot or anything I believe would lead
me to being less than objective.

* I am providing this service for 3% of all money raised.

* I am explicitly offering no guarantees or endorsement of the investment.

* I am offering no assurances that shares will actually be worth anything in the future
or that dividends will be paid, or that the company will keep running etc.


* I exclusively control the escrow address: 1CawE1ZomCdCqTmw84vmvEqa5nadXdzxfX

* My "due diligence" will be purely limited to their source code and production setup.
I will not be investigating their past, company/ownership etc.


Message:
The address 1CawE1ZomCdCqTmw84vmvEqa5nadXdzxfX is controlled by rhavar (rhavar@protonmail.com) and is being used for the purpose of escrow for the ICO of BetBase
Signature:
H7Irtqcc09FuIg6zQ3zkPCGWKlLG/UUZpPRH2rYyBSyKLMKnRicrML4ltej/2pWUjVSLExPWSLYd+3m/bEVH8bc=

I strongly doubt you will find a "really trusted" escrow who would risk damaging their reputation to enter a deal where their only responsibility is ensuring you've issued shares (which we all know, offers absolutely no assurances and even if it was a scam would still get issued). If an escrow agent is not able to offer either side any meaningful assurances, it gives a sense of impropriety and increases investors risk.

P.S. While I'm busy making friends, I'd like to offer my services as escrow. I would be willing to act as escrow, where I only release funds after  issuance of all shares and personally conducting a basic due-diligence and security audit of the code.

I would be happy to offer this for a flat 3%, but I would only be able to offer due-diligence/security review if the ICO got > 100 BTC invested. If my findings or opinion is negative, I would offer a period for people to get a refund on their bitcoin (in exchange for shares) before releasing it to betbase. Otherwise I would release funds to betbase, and not further be involved

BTW is this the same people from behind coindice? A while back I volunteered to help someone from bustabit who bought those scripts and had all their money stollen. If I'm not mistaken, this was the same outcome of all people who bought the scripts?

It was a while ago, so my memory is a big foggy -- but I believe that in a less than an hour I found 2 or 3 serious security vulnerabilities. I remember one was that you could use bets to undo the change in balance from a withdrawal (at the start of the bet processing it recorded the persons balance, and then at the end of the bet processing set the balance to  $BALANCE = $OLD_BALANCE + $WIN_OR_LOSS_AMOUNT, which would overwrite all actions in the mean time (e.g. withdrawals). I think enough vulnerability was you could just DDoS the site, until the RPC would fail with  "could not connect to  username:password@host"  or something, leaking the username/password). And I think there was another, but my memory is pretty hazy.


That said, no one is perfect and pretty much everyone fucks up things in one way or another (and that applies to me, I had a very serious screw up of my own). So I won't fault you for it, but I think that I lot can be learnt from how it was all dealt with. I never really followed it much after that, so what ended up happening? Did the script get fixed? And there now coindice sites operating without being hacked? Were people who bought the scripts reimbursed for the hackings, or at least for the money they paid for the scripts? etc.

I don't understand what the role of an escrow agent would be. It sounds like the escrow is supposed to hold all the investment until the shares are issued? Then once the shares are issued, the escrow agent would transfer the sum to betbase?

However, I don't see what that protects against. If betbase were scammers, they would still just issue shares (they would just never have any value) and get the money. So unless I'm missing something, a simple escrow would only serve to increase investors risk?

(That is, unless the escrow agent is expected to hold the money for the long-term and keep track of expenses to try avoid embezzlement)

I think the amount raised is probably legitimate. Here's my thought process:

If the devs had this sort of money themselves, they would've put it into their own site bankroll. But maybe not. There's perhaps a logical reason that they might not want to do that, (AFAICT) the bankroll itself has no protection from a malicious orclize or random.org. And on top their counter party risk, there's always the looming threat of bugs (that exist in all sites, not just vdice). So it's quite understandable to not risk too much bankrolling it.

So if they had that sort of money, but didn't want to put it in their bankroll, the logical thing to do be inflate the profits to make it more attractive for investors. However, if you look at the "total amount won" over the sites history, that's 877 ETH. That should correspond to roughly ~17 ETH profit for the site (they have a 1.9% house edge). Less than a couple hundred bucks.

So if the invested amount is shill-money, it would mean they're a) bad actors and b) have a lot of money. So they logically should've massively bumped up the sites profit, to make it look a lot more profitable than it is.

So my conclusion is that they're probably legitimate investors. I'm guessing there are some unsavvy investors who didn't bother to fact check the site claims and put a little too much money on it, hoping it'd be the next big thing.

TwitchySeal's screenshot was clearly parody, it's not fair to keep accusing of him of it being misleading/fake. (I do think he went a bit overboard on the whole doxing thing though). I also searched his post history, and could find him making no mention of him claiming to be a blockchain expert (like you claimed) but actually found him saying the exact opposite.


So anyway, it seems like you're the only one here making shit up. I've left your trust page another two examples of that.

You guys have certainly done well =) Out of interest, how much wagered in bitcoin have you guys had in  that month timeframe?

Just to join the train of shameless self promotion: You might want to check out bustabit.com, it's not quite a dice site -- but if you squint the right way it basically is. It's probably the 2nd most wagered bitcoin site overall (measuring by USD wagered), and in the recent months probably even #1 by actual amount people are betting (I'm not sure exactly, the site I used to use to compare was thebitcoinstrip, but that seems to not be working).

Just a general remark, but I think "bets per day" is kind of a useless metric. Easily >99.9% of all bets are just dust and worse than just being dust, they're all automatically placed so don't even correlation with user interactions (that applies to all sites, including my own).

Perhaps a slightly more interesting metric would be "real bets per day", where a "real" bet is defined by someone betting more than $1 USD (equiv) for a payout greater than 1x.

Interesting user-generated chart:



(I think the work of MartinG and 01010100b)

Considering you deposited after your ip address had already been banned (by looking up the deposit address with a VPN, for the express purpose of complaining about having money "stuck"), I have no doubt you have no problems using a VPN to withdraw it. If you have a legitimate problem, just contact me (either PM or email) and I'll be happy to help as I would never intentional stop a player having access to their money, no matter of how much an asshole they are.

Anyway, I'm really not sure what you're hoping to achieve by continually wasting my time, but if you do not stop I will leave your bitcointalk account negative trust to reflect the fact.  

Please ignore gamblingbad, as you can see in the previous pages he's just being a troll. Here is a partial-list of accounts he's made, most to try circumvent chat-mutes:

And furthermore, none of his accounts are banned or have any restrictions other than being muted from being able to chat. If he has problems with connecting with his ip address, he's free to use a VPN to do so (as he's proven quite apt at doing) and withdrawing.

I'd appreciate if people just ignore him here, as it's just a big waste of everyones time 

I like games of chicken 

To continue my analogy: pretty much every bank re-ordered transactions at the time (and many still do) to maximize their overdraft fees. That however doesn't make it right.


But seriously, you honestly have absolutely no sympathy for someone who didn't know and made a bet that their software accepted? And then lost all their money ($8k USD in one particular case) for no reason, than a stupid arbitrary rule that their software should be checking (it's literally 1 line of code). But hey, that's fine because you read the thousands of words in their ToS and knew to avoid it.