Judging by your logic you seem to be new to Bustabit or not know how it works, You aren't supposed to win everytime we all know that - its a gamble.
HOWEVER in the span of 100 GAMES PLAYED, We aren't talking 5-10 or even 30; We are talking 100 WHOLE GAMES played and to continuously bust every-time is unheard of and far from being 'bad luck'.
First of all, the entire point of the provably fair is so you can check the game busts are legit. I'm getting tired of re-explaining it over and over, so do us both a favor and actually read and understand it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0And then we'll be able to engage in a reasonable discussion about the results, it's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Secondly "100 games busting" is not unusual, rare or weird. The last ~2.8M games have busted, because, well that's how the game works. If you look at the final downfall: https://www.bustabit.com/user/phexYou'll see there were plenty of good games, e.g. https://www.bustabit.com/game/2780718 (which would've allowed him to cashout at 0.27 BTC profit) But the main point is, even if there was a streak so bad (or good) that there was a 1 in a million chance of it happening, it really means nothing. Because over enough game, a 1-in-a-million becomes a certainty. That's why verifying games, and provably fair is important. Did you have a 1 in a million bad luck, or were you cheated? The *only* way to tell the difference is verify the games (e.g. use: https://jsfiddle.net/1L1uqcgv/6/embedded/result/ or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709185.msg10378591#msg10378591) Its obvious that is foul play involved, Others have pointed out the same issue and whenever they discuss it in chat they're silenced.
That's an unadulterated lie. Name one person who's *ever* been muted, banned or otherwise silence for speculating the site is rigged. I've really tried to bend over backwards for the sake of transparency, even the provably fair is hosted on bitcointalk (on an unmoderated thread, like this one) so people can name their concerns there. |
|
|
|
I will let you know some sites once I know what PVP is.  Player-vs-Player Bustabit for instance is a little bit PVP (as the bonuses are 0-sum, and players compete for it each round), and it's possible to overcome the house edge with it but it's not PVP to the same extent as a game purely against other players, like poker |
|
|
|
I notice when I was away, phex (who's always been a helpful member of the bustabit community and script author) has made some pretty strong accusations: http://phex.io/bustabitI suspect it originates from a misunderstanding on how the provably fair works, as it actually definitively rules out the type of attack that phex brings up (it would break the chain). But the point I'd like to address in particular: Whoever notices this and points it out, Ryan either secretly mutes them or even bans them.
Is quite a bizarre accusation, as I have never muted (or banned) a single person for noticing or questioning anything. Phex himself is not, or will not be muted for making accusations (as long as they don't degenerate to troll-level). I've probably engaged a 100+ discussions on explaining why and how the provably fair works, and why it's not rigged. The official provably fair (bustabit.com/faq#fair) is actually a link to bitcointalk, precisely for the express purpose of allowing anyone to comment on it, and read the comments of other people (and as such the thread is not self moderated). |
|
|
|
So the block hash is the only reliable (or most reliable) string in a block that can be used for provably fair?
Well, it's not quite fool proof but it's better. The problem with block nonce for instance, is that miners can just set it to what ever they want (and it has 0 impact on their profitability). The block hash is a bit different, because lets say a miner finds block X and then realize that would make them lose ... they have to decide between losing the bet, or throwing away the block reward (currently >= 25 BTC, soon to be >= 12.5) and having a redraw. So now it's really expensive to do, and only worth it for very large values of money. Pevpot introduced a way to avoid that all together with "hash stretching" which was by applying a (very!) slow computation to the hash, in such a way that is impossible for miners to use it (if they ran the computation before propagating the block, it would take so long they will almost guaranteed to have lost the block race) |
|
|
|
Yea i m not so sure these sites are fair.
It is =) Here's the full technical details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0 as you'll notice from the comments (on a non-self censored thread) there doesn't seem to be any disagreement about it being provably fair It says on the bustabit site that they create a random interger basic on a hash the answer to that is used for the games formula.
Well, not "random" but rather "a deterministic". Given a particular hash, it will always give the exact same bust. You can also look at the exact formula (the function is known as crashPointFromHash in the provably fair) and derive the house edge (0-1%) What I want to know is what happens in between ? Perhaps some sites have a bot that runs that gives a certain percentage chance to increase the chances of losing when going all in. They wouldn't make it a lot it would be like a house edge say like 0.5-2% or so. I don't know but of I was a moralless bastard that's what I would do .
Well, thankfully the provably fair prevents this. Because each hash is part of a chain, where the next hash, when hashed would be the current hash. There is no known way to calculate an alternate chain, which is exactly what proves we don't mess with the numbers. All 10 million games are provably pre-determined from a fair distribution (after 10M games, our chain will end and we'll have to generate and seed a new one) |
|
|
|
Yeah, seems like the same guy. He got a little cute phishing domain: 19:21 DepositBot: [FROM RYAN] GET 20% BONUS FROM YOUR DEPOSIT : BONUS.BUSTABlT.COM
|
|
|
|
I have a fair method for investors – will publish in due time – but currently in talks with another group that wants to license it to be first-to-market.
Either way, it appears likely to be open-sourced.
pevpot had an extremely robust system that would make it provably fair for investors: https://web.archive.org/web/20151213003346/https://www.pevpot.com/provably-fairBut like all on-chain games, is doomed by a poor UX |
|
|
|
I wanted to know your opinion on everything except that part - If satoshinonce accepted investments, is such a risk entirely eliminated?
Disclaimer: I am not a mining expert, so anyone please correct me if I am wrong here.... satoshinonce would not be fair for investors and that site is technically not even provably fair for the player. yeah, wtf? I never heard of this site, but they seem to do it in the worst possible way. As you note, it allows a miner to costlessly cheat the site. (miners can have a fixed nonce, and purely fiddle with the coinbase) and theoretically allow the site to cheat players (I doubt this would happen though, if they were sophisticated to know how to cheat players they would realize players can do the exact same attack against them). Making bets on the last (couple?) digit of the block hash seems a lot smarter, as now miners have to discard blocks in order to cheat, which is rather expensive. |
|
|
|
it is okay to run two account sa bustabit?BTC  You can have multiple accounts, although I'd prefer if you only play with a few at once. A few strategies require using multiple accounts (e.g. 1 account cashes out low to collect the bonus, another account to cash out high to try force other people to stay in the game), but most of the time you're better off just betting 2x as much on 1 account. Anyway, it won't be a problem as there's also a server-enforced limit of 5 accounts playing at once. |
|
|
|
Still never experience to gamble my bitcoins in bustabits but i heard that they are not provably fair.. i just heard it to others .. Thats why i don't try my self to gamble in that site..
The provably fairness in bustabit does not strictly have as strong guarantees as the ones in well designed single-player game (e.g Just-Dice or PrimeDice's), however it would be a mistake to think it's not provably fair. In fact, there's a whole thread on it's provably fairness: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0 and I haven't heard a suggestion that could make it any stronger than it is, I think it's best-in-class for a multiplayer game. But 99.9% of the "complaints" on bustabit are that I'm manipulating the busts to make them lower, which the provably fair disproves. So I don't think you'll have an issue =) |
|
|
|
Never heard of this site, so I'm guessing your post is an attempt at viral marketing?
I didn't post it, but what's funny is bustabit is quite easily the 2nd most popular bitcoin gambling by amount wagered (and probably active players too). For that reason, I haven't needed to spend anything on promotions (and don't have an affiliate program), but maybe this is a sign I should actually spend some money on awareness. I think the only times in the last year I've done something vaguely promotional is when someone wins a big amount (like 50 BTC) and I'm like "shit, I need to get some value for the money i lost" and post a screenshot of their graph after winning, or something like that All these sites saying 'provably fair' - there's never actually a definitive way to prove its legitimacy, when you can hide code behind code behind code behind shiny graphics and a team of PR posters lol "shiny graphics", i'm guessing you've never been to bustabit? And there's quite literally hundreds of people who have made >1 bitcoin in profit you can ask if we pay out, and there is a great provably fair system for a multiplayer game: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0 |
|
|
|
I'm still a bit confused on how would that work exactly, given that I don't have a deep knowledge on how does shuffle-based games work technically.
It's really just a problem with *bad* shuffles. After you shuffle an "initial deck" of cards, a good shuffle will give you a possible 52! arrangements (or as close to it as possible). 52! is a mind boggling big number ( 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 ) but if you're using a shitty shuffle, there will only be 4294967296 possible results, which small enough you can feasibly try them all and see if the initial shuffle is good, bad, great or terrible. |
|
|
|
OK, I follow that. Let's talk practical --- are there really 2^31 outcomes that are good for the house (only) in Blackjack, Roulette, Video Poker?
Yes. For every initial shuffle you try, there will be a ~50% chance, that it is more biased to the house than expected. So it's an extremely practical attack, in that sense. And you could also precompute a bunch of "bad shuffles" which you potentially serve to high-rollers. It's 100% transparent, so that's what makes it insidious. The thing is that it's a weakness of provably fair systems that use this method, so they should simply be fixed. But the impact however, is pretty minor I suspect. I'm guessing that BJ is going to be the most vulnerable game (because it draws so few cards), and I'd honestly be shocked if you can find an initial shuffle that gives the house more than an extra ~0.1% edge. (Although I might be wrong, I'm just pulling a number from my ass) |
|
|
|
I'm still not following: With the user providing a random client seed (which is used for the final shuffle); how can your shufflepuff algorithm predict with precision that it will serve up the rigged deck?
I'm not discounting a site like Bitzino (or even ours) couldn't rig shuffles, as both sites produce the first shuffle and client seed - but if the user changes the client seed (which they are absolutely always encouraged to do, otherwise what's the point of even playing a provably fair game?), how can you predict the final shuffle (with the new, random, client seed) would in fact still be 'rigged'?
I think the original post is very well articulated, far better than I could, so I feel a bit bad trying to repeat it. But the point that some provably fair systems are kind of stupid and only allow 2^32 combinations -- which is small enough you can literally just try them all. If > 2^31 of the final outcomes are good for the house, then the house knows that it'll have an increased house edge by using that initial shuffle. So really it's not a problem with provably fair, just bad ones. Provably fair systems like bustabit already prevent against precomputing a favorable initial seed. For a shuffling one, you just need to use logic that gives a shit load more possible final shuffles. (I recommend the pseudo code in my previous post, which shouldn't reduce the space at all) |
|
|
|
I actually did hit the modulo bias quite often, since I'm searching the entire space. I think it's silly that bitZino even had a modulo bias. It's a casino.  Quick and easy fix: I was just referring to my version, moduloing a random 2^256 number by <a small number> is going to be for all intents and purposes perfectly distributed. Also, I think you're grossly overestimate the risk in releasing your code -- it's not a huge task to write, and I really doubt it's worth the effort to even implement (assuming you were a psychotic casino owner), unless you were running a 0 edge game. (If you assume that user play is loss-constrained, it's **better** for a casino to have a lower edge). That's not an excuse, and casinos should definitely fix it. But it's not like casinos are going to be scrambling to rip off players |
|
|
|
I guess that could work. (Potentially modulo bias though?)
You could probably also loop all 52 cards and assign random numbers to them and sort it from high to low. The random number for each card would be calculated in same like seed/nonce way (with 1 more nonce), so a bit like 52 (unique) dice results.
I don't think that's a great idea. You're better off by creating a random number stream like this: function* randomNumberGeneration(seedShit) {
for (var nonce = 0; true ; ++nonce) {
yield sha256(seedShit + '|' + nonce) % amountOfCardsInADeck; // using bigint maths..
}
}
(i.e. something along the lines of how dice sites currently generate outcomes.) The modulo-bias is so insigificant, that you could run it for a billion years and not hit a case of it. Anyway, instead of assigning a random number to each card and sorting you're better off sticking with a Fisher–Yates shuffle, which is proven to be perfect with no bias. (Which is a fancy way of saying, you loop through the deck of cards and for each card you generate a random index. Then you SWAP the current card, with the one at that index. And continue on your loop. Once you get to the end of the loop, you're guaranteed to have perfectly shuffled it. The psuedo code from wikipedia: -- To shuffle an array a of n elements (indices 0..n-1):
for i from n−1 downto 1 do
j ← random integer such that 0 ≤ j ≤ i
exchange a[j] and a[i]
|
|
|
|
PASSWORD WAS SUPER SECURE.
Do you use the password on multiple sites? Normally what matters a lot more than the strength of the password, is if it's unique. You can check: http://www.leakedsource.com/ and https://haveibeenpwned.com/ and shows sites that might have leaked you password if use are reusing it |
|
|
|
? BTC
(+ ? BTC unconfirmed) I just tried in Chrome, Firefox and Safair and all seem to be working. Do you have an extension that blocks requests that would stop it loading? (Something like noscript or privacybadger or something?) |
|
|
|
There are appears to be (quite literally) a classroom of kids trying to push a phishing site: event - bustabit . com. It's obviously not legitimate, and if you enter your bustabit password there you'll probably lose your account. One person has already lost 0.2 BTC  Instead of completely censoring the domain, in chat it gets suffixed with "[NOTE: SCAM SITE!!!!]" so people get an awareness of the fact there's phising sites out there (as I can't control if they email or send PMs on bitcointalk or what ever). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
