Just to be clear, OgNasty (or anyone for that matter) has never asked, hinted or ordered me to give negative feedback to you. I did it because I believed and still believe what I wrote in my feedback. But lets not derail the thread here, feel free to PM me about it or post on your thread.

I recall that last year (?) there were issues with the pocketdice provably fair scheme, that wouldn't make it actually provably fair. However, I suspect that it's been fixed as I took a glance at the scheme they use now and it doesn't seem broken.

But as always, make sure to take note of a server seed hash, set your own client seed -- and you'll then be able to verify all the games and know for sure if you were cheated or not.

A few days ago, someone tried to use the data from the forum breach to try extract money from me. The guy was particularly unintelligent and made some pretty cringe-worthy mistakes, which probably means the data from the forum breach has just reached a wide circulation.  (I'm guessing)

Yes there are, bustabit is quite a bit different from pure luck gambling sites in the fact it's possible to play +EV if you go for bonuses. It's very similar to poker in this regard.

As for the OPs strategy, it's *possible* that due to how other players have been playing when he's playing -- playing at 1.1x has been in fact a +EV strategy. I'd need to check his account bonus history to have a better idea. Or maybe he just plays at 1.11x and wants more bonuses himself

The answer is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1499653.msg15091263#msg15091263


(I own bustabit  )

The full details are here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0


It's definitely a bit technical, but if you have any questions or doubts I'm happy to explain   

Depending on game conditions, they can be pretty easy to code. The most simple +EV bots I've seen is when you see someone else doing good, just write your bot to automatically cash out after that person. Quite often you can even play +EV by hand, especially when you have something like a whale who is cashing out very late (then you just cashout early, and most of the time you'll get good bonuses).

But yeah, afaik too no one who has written an advanced bonus-oriented bot has shared/sold it  (as it would make it hard for them to use themselves)

Just a reminder to players, please don't run bots or strategies that scrape/crawl the site (e.g. download player or game pages) -- it trips up the ddos filter and your ip will likely get banned. If this happens to you, please just email me your ip address (rhavar@protonmail.com) and confirm you've turned off any bots that scrape/crawl the site 

Glad you like! And this month being one of our best, pulling in over 28k btc of wagers -- making it the most popular bitcoin gambling game of the month (AFAIK). 

Actually I don't. I *always* charge 300 bits, but use bitcoin core to estimate how much fees to apply, so that it confirms as fast as possible. Sometimes it requires that I pay less than 300 bits, and sometimes it requires I pay more than 300 bits -- but that's irrelevant for the person making the withdrawal.

The issue here seems to be not that MoneyPot has dynamic fees (That's the correct thing to do) but rather that they're paying too low fees, and people aren't getting their withdraw in a timely fashion. I guess my question to them would be "What are you targetting?"

In bustabit, I'm using bitcoin cores 0.12.1 estimation (which is a 95% chance of confirming within 2 blocks) although in practice >99% of all withdrawals confirm in the next block that has transactions.

What I find strange is Lutpin says OgNasty left him negative trust first, and OgNasty says Lutpin left him negative trust first. I have no idea who's telling the truth, but obviously only one of them is. I imagine in the database the trust timestamp is a timestamp and not just a date, so would an admin be so kind as to reveal the liar? 

Well, the first thing I did when I got your message was ask Mitchell to remove me from his trust, because the last thing I wanted was for him to be disadvantaged in any way (even if he stayed in the the default trust). Of course I'd feel bad if my actions (or lack of them) caused any harm to someone who obviously didn't deserve it. I'm just guessing here, but I can imagine that in his role on the forum it's important for him to be out of drama and stay a widely trusted person (which he completely is), so it'd be quite unfair to drag him into this mud.


And I suspect you realized that this would be the most effective deterrent to get what you wanted. It's not exactly like you could give me negative rep (for what? Not wanting to remove a banal trust feedback without evidence?), or excluding me directly would have any use. Instead you promised to do something that amounts to collective punishment (if we want to get all dramatic) unless I helped you make TwitchySeal's account red.


Now, I'm willing to accept I completely misunderstood your intentions, but I'm used to treating things in the form: "Do what I want, or I'll do something I know you won't want" as extortionistic. And I would think that you as an otherwise reasonable person would be able to see why I could have interpreted your message that way, instead of continuing to defend it and try imply I have ulterior motives for spinning it.



Also I note that Stunna had also left twitchyseal positive feedback a couple months after me, specifically related to the betcoin.ag incident:


Did you also go to efforts to have him excluded from your trust network too?

To address this point directly, as it's been brought up a few times. Firstly I never agreed to keep the contents secret, and made an effort to make sure it wasn't taken out of context. I also used discretion and didn't release (or even share with anyone) with the other things you said that it seems you'd rather not be made public.

Also had I *not* shared the PM with context, it would've been far more damaging and dishonest. I could have merely summarized it as "OgNasty threatened me by saying he would remove Mitchells trust unless I helped him make TwitchySeals red". Instead I gave you the courtesy of sharing the exact wording in which allowed people like Quickseller and The Pharmacist to disagree with my interpretation (which very well might be wrong).


And for the record, I find the whole idea of "I won't share the contents of PMS" but "I will summarize them" absolutely hypocritical. You repeatedly accuse TwitchySeals of extortion/threats, but won't share anything that will allow people to make up their own minds as messages are supposedly sacred and confidential. Well either they're confidential and you don't talk about them, or they're not and you can share them.

I never asked you to remove your signature, nor started a thread about you, nor left you any (negative) feedback at all. Perhaps I woeful misread the intention of your message, it just felt to me like:

"Remove your negative trust of TwitchySeal so he gets red trust, or I will try punish you by going after those who trusted you"

but perhaps I woefully misread it, in which case I do apologize.

I would've been willing to do the same, but you didn't exactly present a case for me to look at. You just stated it as fact, and threatened to remove mitchell from your trust network if I did not.

FWIW, I'm still completely open to this. Present me a decent case of why I should remove TwitchySeal and I will do so.



Let's be honest for a second, this isn't about your trust network.  You already gave TwitchySeal negative trust, it's not like you're going to accidentally trust him.  It's rather apparent you only wanted me to remove my trust to make him appear red by default. And you knew threatening to exclude Mitchell is a far stronger deterrent than threatening to exclude me.


And the reason I'm posting it is not a sinister secret as you make it sound. I take issue with your behavior against Lutpin and felt I should support him. And for the record I have never talked to Lutpin or TwitchySeal about any of this, nor have any relationship with them in any form. You're obviously not a scammer or even an untrustworthy person, but you've let your whole vendetta against TwitchySeal completely blind you.

I don't like drama, but I do feel compelled to weigh in.


A while ago (2016-05-19) , I left TwitchySeal some positive feedback:

I honestly forgot why, but it was probably to do with one of his posts around that time.

Anyway, recently I get a PM from OgNasty telling me I should remove my feedback because TwitchySeal is an extortionist. When I asked him for some more information, he basically refused and pressed on with what is arguably thinly veiled extortion of his own:



I never left him negative feedback, as his trade and escrow history gives me the impression he is otherwise an honest guy. But I do take issue with the way he attempted to strong arm me into removing my feedback.

Being open source wouldn't help at all. For one, how could you verify they're using the published source and not with a rigged-version patch?

On the other hand provably fair is robust if you follow these steps:
1) Write down the server-seed hash
2) Pick a new unpredictable seed, write that down too
...play while remembering how you played (e.g. prediction, direction and amounts)
3) Reveal the server seed. Make sure when hashed it is what was on step 1, and the client seed is unchanged. Now use a verification script (like the one on dicesites.com) to make sure the outcomes are exactly the same.


If the provably fair checks out, and your deposits and withdrawals were processed you can be 100% sure that you were not cheated.

To expand on what DarkStar_ said, we need to first make two (very safe) assumptions:

a) sha256 can not be reversed (you can hash things, but you can't unhash them)
b) there's no way to find two things that hash into the same outcome

So what I can do, is pick a result and hash it:

382635c9325bf3273d195ff1b8a44e5b11afd7d97addeb8863ea35feb98c1a07

but this is extremely insecure, because it can be "brute forced". (You can try that yourself, just check all possible outcomes and you'll see what it is). So to prevent it being brute forced, I add some random digits after my result, that makes it impossible to brute force. Now due to assumption a) I know that my opponent can't unhash it and cheat. And due to assumption b) my opponent knows I can't change my pick

Actually he just wanted a way to double his bitcoins with the lowest house edge possible. I first told him he could use one of the betting sequences developed by Dooglus or Blockage ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=939776.0 ) which would allow him to change a 1% house edge to ~0.7%  for this purpose ... but as it's pretty complex I thought I'd give him the chance to do it for 0 house edge with a friendly game of rock paper scissors.


(But since then, boursy hasn't said anything -- and I'm feeling a little guilty about winning)

Shit, I got bad news for you   The outcome was scissors:

Proof:


scissors|f75916d142d536313f7d4206cfacfa99dd4a28420ea5e25c7e4517b2d189da8b