I'm not sure that really helps.


a) It's just holding it in memory and not exposing it to outside processes -- so not something you could consider "storing"
b) That's for blocks, not transactions

So are they gambling on an equal footing as all the other players? i.e. using real money, without knowledge of the outcome of the games and jackpots? Like team-member "Godmode" has gambled ~44 BTC in less than 24 hours ... seems pretty excessive for testing?

Congratulations on the launch. This is pretty much the most impressive bustabit clone I've seen to date.

So the jackpot stuff is interesting, it should be +EV to play for a player as long as the total wagered in a round is under X. I haven't had time to calculate what that is exactly, anyone know?


Some other thoughts:

* Can you confirm/deny if you're using house-bots to play? The player data doesn't look organic for a newly launched site. And while the use of house-bots is generally regarded as unethical, I think with a bonus jackpot scheme like you have now, it is drastically worse.

* 50% commissions on investing seems pretty steep. I'd be interested in investing once I can see what the bankroll turnover looks like, but 50% seems pretty high compared to what other bankroll investing schemes in the past. (Bustabit only charges 25%, and that was high compared to just-dice who pioneered bankroll investing with 10% comission).

Anyway, nice job. Cool to see a new site.

Hm? From a 30 second look at the code, I don't think it actually does record the node that gave it a transaction. As in, a mapping from transaction to the peer that gave it.


blockcypher is connected to a pretty significant portion of the network, actually. A couple years ago, I searched for bitcoin transactions it believed were first relayed by my node. Can't remember the exact stat, but it probably had the majority of transactions that I actually made, and quite a lot of false positive's too. [Ever since then, I wrote a small hacky patch to core to increase privacy of transactions that were coming from my node by only sending to a random single outbound peer and then sleeping until it ends up fully propagated]

I'd recommend recreating this thread not as a self-moderated thread. The whole point of doing the seed event on bitcointalk is that it's a neutral 3rd party place to host it. If it's a self-moderated thread, it kinda detracts from that a lot.


Edit: Nevermind, realized the block is already mined 

I think you're kind of missing the point.

So after the 2018 Christmas promo he canceled the prizes and rolled back bets because of unspecified "abuse" (which I believe means he didn't want to lose so much money). This was obviously unethical behavior that absolutely no semi-respectable casino would ever have done. So that's a perfect example of something you can correctly point out.

However, speculating on the hypotheticals and intentions (like what he would've done, if someone won the jackpot) is not productive and makes people not take you seriously. It's like accusing someone of child-abuse because they're such a bad person that if they ever had children he'd abuse them. Well. Maybe? Better to just focus on the things that make you think they're a bad person..

When people talk about house edges, what they mean is the average amount a player would lose if they made the bet a lot of times. So let's say we flip a coin, and if you get it right you double your money -- otherwise you lose it. We'd say that has a 0 house edge, because if you played a lot of times the amount of wins would be pretty much the same as the amount loses.

But all bets in bustabit are slightly worse than that. So if you want to x2 your money, you'll only win 49.5% of the time. So if you played a lot of games, the amount you'd lose is 1% of the amount you bet.

So to answer your question, the 1% edge is taken because the distribution of busts was predetermined from a distribution such that that property holds. i.e. It only goes to >= 10x an average of 9.9% of the time. But if there was no edge at all, it'd be 10% of the time.

I don't want to defend BetKing, because Dean Nolan is obviously a scammer. But I think the focus on the jackpot is extremely misplaced


What's wrong with offering a hard to win jackpot, unless you are dishonest about how hard it is to win?


I don't think there's anything wrong with offering a jackpot, and then removing it. It's not like he promised it'd run forever.



Dean's stolen enough bitcoin that he could easily have paid it if he wanted. But no one won it, so we'll never know what Dean would've done. So it's a bit silly to worry about.

A bit of a shame about the bankroll investing, although I think I would've done the same in YOLODice's shoes too. Not many honest operators taking bankroll investments anymore :' (

The search term you're looking for is "phone farming", type that into google.

However, I'd strongly encourage you to reconsider. You only live one life, don't waste it away doing something so meaningless that just sucks out value from society. And on a practical note, you're probably going to make a lot more per/hour by doing any real job even if it's a low-paid and low-skill one.  

I think it's the exact same system




I don't know about amount of deposits/withdrawals, but I'd assume bustabit is *way* more popular than bustadice based on the volume stats:

https://dicesites.com/bustabit
https://dicesites.com/bustadice

but I think just bustadice has a bit more of a presence on bitcointalk cause of the sig campaign. If on bustadice you're consistently getting queued withdrawals in < 12 hours, it either means you're really lucky (them getting sent while 'low priority' or Daniel has changed the mechanics of how it works). *shrug*



FWIW bustabit actually came first, and bustadice was created as a "bustabit-inspired dice experience" and they're both owned and operated by the same person (devans on bitcointalk) but run independently.

It's likely the logic has since been changed, but I authored the original version which resulted in queued withdrawals generally being sent about 12 hours after you requested them. It's a pretty advanced system, but basically if you queue a withdrawal it starts off as "low priority" which means it is only processed when it's advantageous for bustabit to process it. The main trigger for this is bustabit needs to creating a change output of X amount. So if there's a subset of the queued withdrawals that adds up to ~X, then instead of creating change, bustabit will just process those queued withdrawals.

However, generally that doesn't happen, so after 12 hours the priority of your queued withdrawal gets bumped to attaching queued withdrawals to all transactions, unless it would otherwise cause some measure of harm. So almost all the time, that means it'll be processed a few minutes after the 12 hours elapses (and someone else triggers it).

So I believe 99% of the time, queued withdrawals are sent < 13 hours. But I know Daniel has made several improvements (such as allowing you to canceled queued withdrawals if you're sick of waiting) so my summary might be a bit outdated.

But of course, if you're impatient you can just cough up the extra money and have it sent immediately

Awesome project. I think the most useful for me are the estimate{smart|raw}fee, although they currently don't look whitelisted

FWIW, bustabit has never had a problem with people using VPNs or multiple accounts (unless it's done for obnoxious reasons, like getting around chat mutes), so there is nothing shady or to "catch". It really makes no difference to the casino or investors if you create a new account each time you play, or use the same account.

As an investor, I think this is a bit silly.

If there was a hack (or scam), investors would be hemorrhaging money. But in fact, the exact opposite is happening:

Investor profit over 1 day: -4.056 BTC
Investor profit over 3 days: 13.60 BTC
Investor profit over 7 days: 127.81 BTC
Investor profit over 30 days: 322.39 BTC
Investor profit over 6 months: 1578.59 BTC
Investor profit over 1 year: 3070.17 BTC


You'll see investors have done way better than expected.  And that's on top of the money that Daniel paid out of pocket to compensate for the attack API bug that allowed a person to know the outcome of the current game.

So right from the start there looks nothing suspicious.


So of course some players win, and some players lose. And some of those players that win is like WTF and some of the players that lose are like WTF.



The connection wasn't "compromised" there was just a bug in the API that allowed the client to trick the server into giving out the current game result. Note: You have something like 5 seconds between the GAME_START event and GAME_STARTED to place. So the obvious way the attack worked is when the game went into GAME_START the person abused the bug to know the game result, and decided to bet or not.  Anyway, that's long been patched and all investors were made whole.



That's really nothing. They could win 10x that, and it wouldn't be that much of a statistical anomaly considering the size of bustabit's bankroll and action it's received.

If you're going to scam -- you really should put in a bit more effort. No one's going to fall for "I have a super secret exploit that can make hundreds of bitcoin. Instead of using it myself I'm going to risk it being exposed for the low price of 0.46 btc".

I guarantee if you actually had a such an exploit, you could easily sell (responsibly disclose) to Daniel for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is no case. Game-Protect is just an online troll with no skills or experience. There's a reason you have absolutely no contact details of any real person or lawyer.


Earlier you said you paid 5% of your claim in advance. Could you please post the transaction id, and the full email (preferably with headers) of where game-protect confirms you sent him the money.

I believe the standard license is a one-time fee of 2 bitcoin. FWIW, I don't think it's actually too big of a deal -- all things considered -- copyright violation is pretty minor. Had Dean just said: "I don't believe in copyright law, so I have no intention of following it"  -- I'd probably think it's a reasonable enough position.

However, the whole thing revealed that Dean has absolutely no problems in blatantly and provably lying just to save 2 btc (after supposedly raising millions in an ICO).

And actually, it's how the mini-feud between me and him started. Previously I was on good terms with him, and helped him out with things numerous times. He told me he was using the bustabit code on both the server and client. I recommended to him that he should just follow the AGPLv3 license  (as it's pretty reasonable, and free!) or just pay Daniel for a license. I also said something in confidence like: "if Daniel doesn't realize, you can probably get away it" (although I did emphasis it's best to do things legitimately).

Then Dean went behind my back, and misrepresented what I said and lied about me telling him he "can do it". (something that even if wasn't a lie, I wouldn't have the rights to do anyway).

That's when I realized something was _seriously_ wrong. He had no problems provably lying and burning personal relationships just to save a couple bitcoin. A casino is built on a trust, and Dean has proven (now several times over) that he can't be relied on to always be honest or do the right thing. It's no wonder his casino has virtually zero volume left; all the smart money knows to stay far away.

You need to look at it in terms of operations you need to support. If you're doing your own validation, you need to be able to lookup any unspent utxo by (txid,vout). You also need to be sure it was only spent once.


There's probably a dozen decent ways to do this, so it's hard to advise you. One thing I'll mention though, that makes it tricky is you generally need to handle "reorgs" where the blockchain literally shifts under your feet.

Generally I've found the easiest way to work with something like the blockchain, is an append-only immutable database. And then you just  put indexes for all queries you need to do, to make it fast.

(And the one exception to "immutable" I like to make, is adding a field `isBest` for each block I have, which represents if it's in the most-proof-of-work chain, which makes queries a lot easier and faster)

wtf?! Why does a browser (tested with chrome and firefox) even display a domain like this ?


I found this: https://wiki.mozilla.org/IDN_Display_Algorithm

but it ends on a rather unhelpful note:


God. What a trash fire.