|
This question might be better posted on stackoverflow than here, but yes it's possible. So when you encrypt something, most libraries are going to expose is as an array of bytes. So your real question actually distills down to an encoding/decoding one. But to get you started, what you'll want to do is encode the first X of the value in base A and then display them. Then then next Y of the value in base B and then display them. And then repeat. It's definitely going to be a lot trickier than just hex-encoding, so I'd think hard about if you really need it
|
|
|
|
Using bot to bet is actually one of the reason why the house would know your betting fashion and create a seed to overly win against you
That's only true if you don't set your own client seed (after you know the hash of the server seed). |
|
|
|
Direct Dice - the Dice betting game of DirectBet
[snip wall of spam]
Please tell me you have a bot for posting this crap, as it's kind of sad to imagine someone trawling the threads looking for copy&paste opportunities |
|
|
|
|
Just a reminder sites like: events-bustabit.com/ (WARNING: scam site) are not part of bustabit and unrelated phising sites. If it was part of bustabit, it would be: events.bustabit.com -- having the hyphen makes it a totally unrelated domain. The person who's been making these sites has probably made 10+ variations of it (e.g. bonuses) and probably will continue making them as long as they're profitable. If you get URLs like this from email, chat, private message etc. you're just being (attempted) scammed. This applies to all websites, so keep an eye out for it. (e.g. bonuses-primedice.com would be a scam site, but bonuses.primedice.com would be legit).
Also another thing to be careful of is URLS like: verysecureloginsat.com/secure-login.bustabit.com/login.html
|
|
|
|
which is why it is always recommended to change your seed anytime before you do a roll
No it's not. As long as you set your own client seed after the server has committed to a seed (by providing you a hash of it), there's no point in updating your seed each time. That's the whole point of the nonce system. The only caveat would be that if you're playing in a predictable fashion, the server could "look into the future" and know how you are going to perform, and possibly take action |
|
|
|
Hi We launched a new community dice game, Social Dice, at https://betking.io a couple weeks ago and it was pointed out by RHarver that it wasn't actually provably fair. He kindly said we could use the same method he uses at Bustabit to ensure our multiplayer game is provably fair. We only changed it a little. You can read more about it in his thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0It works like so: 1) We generated a chain of 5 million sha512 hashes starting with a server seed that we randomly generated. So we take the sha512 of our server seed and then we take the sha512 of this hash and so on 5 million times. The sha512 of the final hash is: A86FE6011E456DDEF66FCAD16A16EA063746A718D7542B5C50C362D1D9792F4C458E4C71DD8F87D F5F8BB4679304671AC9B1E60FC089F4CA745437AEB897646F Posting it here means we can't pick a different chain in the future. 2) The final hash will be the hash of the first server seed used to generate a roll in the Social Dice game. We will then use the previous hash in the chain for the next round and keep playing through these hashes in reverse order. 3) So far we have only generated a chain of server seeds and that could allow us to choose a chain that favours a certain outcome so to make sure we can't do that we also add a client seed that we don't have any control over. The client seed will be the block hash of a Bitcoin block that is not yet mined, block 420731. This server seed and client seed are fed into the exact same roll calculation method that the regular dice game uses. I will update the provably fair help page on BetKing to detail this change and give code you can use to verify your results. Thanks again to RHarver for giving permission to use and to Dooglus, Eric and Steve for their work developing the method which is detailed here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709185.msg8528454#msg8528454Looks good, although before block 420731 could you clarify if the client-seed based on the block hash will be in uppercase or lowercase. (e.g. ...1fc.. or ...1FC). |
|
|
|
Is this another one of the "pay us to get a review" sites? Have you, or do you accept money for reviews or listings? It's a bit odd that your highest reviewed site(s) use betsoft and with your #1 site even having negative trust on bitcointalk. Also you're missing bustabit, which is probably the second most popular bitcoin gambling site (by wagered)  |
|
|
|
Ok so house edge is basicallynthe profits the house pulls in. But I wonder...
Due to the nature of people and gambling do you still think people will lose more then win and the casino will still make money ? Do you think people will keep being greedy till everything is lost or do you think it will be equal to both player and house ?
I ran a lot of simulations (i think I posted them in an older post?) but the result is there's no possible gambler behavior that could allow the house can justify being exposed to unbounded risk for no expected returns. The only way it's feasible imo, is p2p games where people win from each other and the house doesn't take all that risk. |
|
|
|
it is not a sin in my opinion and it is not even a sin in my religion although that doesn't stop it from being legal according to the law. the government and the law seems to think differently about gambling than regular people do.
Yeah, it's weird. My guess is that most cases outside of muslim countries, is the result of crony capitalism. I mean, look at Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson who pours tens of millions of dollars into anti online gambling initiatives. Does anyone seriously think he cares about protecting gamblers, and not his empire? |
|
|
|
But the bible does mention gluttony and greed. Often it speaks of it. It does speak of gambling as well. The one story (forgot the name) the man give his eldest son money and not the younger. The elder son gambles and buys gifts and has partied till he has none left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son ? |
|
|
|
Thats okay, but i know moneypot are working hard on add multi-currency to,:) and 40 coins? in my brian its sound as wast of time when you support 40 coin types there not are converet to coin, and you need to have a multi wallet's hosted as your self, its will cost a lot of server support but i hope you get big, its sound intresseting but take care, coins are not for fun and go after 40 coins sound expeis to hold synced on all orther nodes,  Not really, they just use coinpayments.net for processing deposits and withdrawals, which gives them 40+ altcoins support. It's a clever approach, but the coinpayments fee (0.5%?) risks making it uncompetitive with casinos that process transactions for nothing (other than a nominal withdraw fee). I guess the more pressing issue is if/when coinpayments bans the account for unlicensed/unregulated gambling, they'll have a huge mess with no obvious solution. Anyway, I wish them luck -- it'll be an interesting experiment to watch. |
|
|
|
BTW there seems to be some confusion on how you use %. % means "per hundred", 0.10% isn't equivalent to "1 in 10". The best way to think of % is "divide by hundred". So for instance your "10% kelly" actually means 0.1x kelly, but what you are trying to convey is "10x kelly" or "1000% kelly" (if you insist on using %) Cryptosdice uses a 1% house edge and investors get 50% of the house wins or losses. This means a 0.5% Expected Value (EV) that is shared by the investors.
I'm going to assume you mean 50% of the EV (not 0.5%) is shared by investors, but it's not clear exactly how you do that. From the explanation, it sounds like if a gambler places a single bet and wins 10 BTC, investors only lose 5 BTC (half the loses)? And gamblers places a single bet and wins 10 BTC, investors only make 5 BTC (half the wins)? So from the sounds of it, you're privately bankrolling exactly half of the bankroll and not charging a commission to investors? |
|
|
|
BTW there's a serious (UI) bug in your provably fair. When someone sets their client seed, the next-hash it shows is actually the current one. So if someone goes to then use that to verify the games, it's not going to work. (apparently I'm the only one who still verifies games  ) Can you take ss of that . I cant replicate it. Try go through the process of verifying a game. So I set my own client seed: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/rmczv2tqcr196vz/uwl_sx_g.png...(taking note of the hash: 4c4...) and then play.... and now when I check: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/spa/rmczv2tqcr196vz/4ee6_1ns.pngThe hash is actually not what it told me in screen 1. The bug is that in the first screen, it's not showing the next hash, it's showing the current one |
|
|
|
BTW there's a serious (UI) bug in your provably fair. When someone sets their client seed, the next-hash it shows is actually the current one. So if someone goes to then use that to verify the games, it's not going to work. (apparently I'm the only one who still verifies games ) |
|
|
|
Hi Ryan! Having a good night?
Not really, I already have a hang-over. How can you tell? Yes, it implies to all 5 of our Provably Fair Games, not just the feature P2P Game we developed.
I'm not sure what that means. Your feature game is not provably fair... so are you suggesting people don't play it?  |
|
|
|
-snip-
I don't get why people choose to play on these junky games that have such high house edges.
-snip-
It's the aggressive affiliate model they all use. "Tell everyone how awesome we are and you get 20-40% of their losses for life" Google Bitcoin Casino for thousands of shitty affiliate sites that rank casinos on their page by nothing other than which sites are giving them the biggest cut. (there are a few that do put admirable effort into protecting the player, but they are rare) House edge is not even available for the majority of games. Twitchy... There must be some seriously ill-informed affiliates out there, we are giving out 0.3% of all HANDLE, not losses... Imagine the payback there! Source: https://bitcoinrush.io/affiliates lol, seriously? You know what's worse than not showing the house edge? Misrepresenting it. Last year you seemed to imply you were going to change the misleading marketing for you 1% rake game from "zero house edge", but nope. Hint: If you're skimming 1% on each game, it's not really fair to call it 0 edge.... And secondly, based on my visceral reactions to the site layout -- I suspect an affiliate would make more promoting a site even if it gave a tenth the commission.. Folks...
Solid lesson here: Provably Fair, or don't play at all.
Does that also apply to your namesake game, or just other peoples? |
|
|
|
Many smaller casinos (like Betcoin.ag) have progressive Jackpots advertised worth over 5,000 BTC in total, and have ignored requests to prove these funds are in tact.
Two things that have always made me run away from casinos is giant jackpots (which almost certainly don't exist, and if they do, not get paid out) and shady "bonuses" or "free X" (e.g deposit bonus) which are just traps that you're better off not claiming |
|
|
|
Good point. Do you know of a way to make the multiplayer aspect provably fair as well ass the jackpot?
The most obvious solution is to give the jackpot to *everyone* who wins, that way players can't be impacted by a house player. But understandably as the house you wouldn't want to do that, but one alternative would be make the jackpot criteria slightly different for every player, that way there's negligible chance of two players winning it at the same time. Or perhaps even a user could pick their own "lucky jackpot number" (and they're the only ones who can pick that number), and if their number comes up they win ? |
|
|
|
The social dice method isn't close to provably fair, because it would mean that ever player needs to trust every player to not collude with the house. For instance if the house wanted to cheat, it could have a bot who enters the game when a whale would win (and his uid would change the client seed, and thus the outcome). The very possibility of the house to trivially cheat by definition makes it not provably fair Bustabit uses a pretty robust provably fair system for multiplayer games, feel free to use it if you want =) |
|
|
|
|
BTW cool idea about social dice, it's definitely cool to have everyone seeing the same thing and add some context to the game. I guess the real tricky part will be having a critical mass of people playing at any time
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
