Well, it turns out I can post outside the newbie thread today so I'll comment on my play yesterday. It was my fist time playing on your site besides a few minutes of play money BJ. I've read through the thread but not sure if anything is redundant.
Thanks for the extensive feedback! I've added a comp to your account to thank you for taking the time and effort to provide us with this valuable input. 1. The site is slick and game play is very quick. This is both good and bad. Early on, especially, I made numerous mistakes. The non-face cards look very much alike. I had a hard time telling the difference between them and would hit when the dealer was showing a 6 among other stupid errors. I should note I also had alcohol in my system too so that didn't help. Maybe work on the styling of these to make them a little more distinctive. Also, the actual table takes up a limited part of the screen which also made it hard to read the cards. Maybe some sort of fullscreen feature would help. Also, maybe a warning button if one tries to hit a hard 17 or above. Other than that the game play is pretty impressive however frictionless is not always best as our minds don't work in the same manner.
Thanks! We spend a lot of time making sure every single detail of the game-play runs as smoothly as possible. Regarding the confusion about card values: We do try to make it as easy as possible for you to know your total by showing you the hand value at all times so that you don't even have to do any math. But, I also like your suggestion of the warning button - we'll look into adding this option. I also like your idea for a fullscreen option. One similar feature we've been considering is an "enlarge" button, which would just make the table 1.5x-2x in size. This might alleviate many of the problems you were facing. In the meantime, you can use your browser's "zoom" functionality to make the table size larger. 2. I saw where you are going to add a rewards program. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to keep it simple both in receiving and the rules involved. A lot of people don't like the huge percentage bonuses and the attached rules. I never take them because of the limits attached to them and the rules that can complicate withdrawals. In other words, I would rather have a clean 20% bonus rather than a complicated 50 bonus. You can do things like have different games could count more or less for play through though. You want to avoid bonus hunters. Other rewards such as no deposit bonuses are good as well. Sometimes somebody just has terrible luck and the rtp is very low, figure out a way to give a bonus if they ask.
Getting the incentives right is indeed very difficult, which we're seeing as we plan our rewards program. Our current plan is basically offer a cash-back program, where the more you play the more you earn. We likely won't include straight-up deposit bonuses, because these are easily abused with bitcoins since it is nearly impossible to determine if the same person is the one making all deposits. Overall, we've got some really exciting and innovative ideas - the rewards program is going to be awesome! 3. Add a chat room, well maybe. I got banned from a casino, 3dice, because of personality conflicts with manager. But if you are doing 24 hour customer service it could make it a little easier. You can do other things with it as well.
In the long term, we are looking to include multi-player functionality, which will include features like a chat room. But for now, we are staying focused on creating the best single-player experience possible. We don't want to spread ourselves too thin and allow the product experience to degrade in any way. 4. I saw where you are going to add games. Typically in a casino, I play mostly play Pai Gow but don't that often on online ones. If you could add Vegas solitaire that would be neat. It's the only reason I miss 3dice besides the slots. If you are going to add slots, do a lot of homework and put a lot of effort into aesthetics. I also like 3-card poker. Back to Pai Gow though, I like the bonus Pai Gow that's available on MG casinos. Might be too much for now.
Right now we're actively working on Slots, which is likely going to launch in the next week or so. I appreciate the advice regarding the aesthetics - this is definitely an area we're putting a lot of focus on. We will be working on Three Card Poker following slots. We have also been working on Pai Gow for a while now, but we haven't heard a lot of demand for it - so it's good to know you'd be interested in it! 5. that's it for now, Anything else, I'll post.
Thanks again! Please do post any more feedback. The more feedback, the better! |
|
|
|
Good catch! They didn't quite look right. I was able to make them look a little better by tweaking the sizes by a few pixels. They still don't look perfect, but it seems this may just be a trade-off to using an image instead of an HTML table.
They're a lot better now, but still a few dots aren't square. The QR code is 145x145 pixels. It has a 12 pixel white border around it. The data area is 121x121 pixels. There are 41x41 dots, so almost all dots are 3x3, but two rows and two columns are only 2 pixels tall/wide. Make the whole image 2 pixels wider and taller and it should look good, since 123 is a multiple of 41. Thanks for the deep analysis! I've corrected the size to match this formula. It does look much better. Do I have to type the leading zeroes?
And, yes, you do have to type in the leading zeros. I just withdrew using a 5 digit OTP "96786", so if you thought you were checking for leading zeroes... you're not. I stand corrected. I guess it doesn't really make a difference in terms of brute-forcing anyway, but the leading zeros are indeed optional. |
|
|
|
We have improved the method we use for generating QR codes - we now generate an image instead of relying on HTML.
It still doesn't look great. Take a look at what I see when I zoom in on my deposit QR code: The 'pixels' are all different shapes and sizes. Even at 100% zoom it looks rough. The concentric squares in the corners are meant to be symmetrical aren't they? I wonder if you're using some non-integer pixel size, and we're seeing the effects of anti-aliasing? Good catch! They didn't quite look right. I was able to make them look a little better by tweaking the sizes by a few pixels. They still don't look perfect, but it seems this may just be a trade-off to using an image instead of an HTML table. Most importantly, all the QR codes do scan, and they work properly even when zooming. |
|
|
|
The QR code is squished on the left - compare the square in the top left with the one in the top right; it's taller than it is wide, which isn't a desirable property of squares.
As a result I can't scan the code.
If I change the zoom factor (in Chromium) then it fixes itself, but at certain zoom factors I'm not able to scan it.
Thanks for the bug report! It looks like this was an issue with all of our QR codes due to the way we were generating them. We were using an HTML table, and styling the table with CSS - however, this doesn't work that well when you use the browser's resize feature. We have improved the method we use for generating QR codes - we now generate an image instead of relying on HTML. Thanks, as always for the bug report Dooglus! You'll find another quarter BTC in your account  |
|
|
|
Good catch! This was indeed an issue with the way we implemented 2-factor auth. Although it would have been very difficult for an attacker to exploit this, it was definitely still worth fixing promptly. We have remedied this issue, so now OTP's are truly one-time use. I've also comped your account with another quarter-BTC bonus. Keep the bug reports coming!
Thanks for the bonus. I just tried logging in with a OTP and saw the following:  My 6 digit code was only 4 digits: 7709 Do I have to type the leading zeroes? Oh, I tried again with a 6 digit code, but get the same error code. I'm now completely unable to log in. I saw the errors coming in. It should be fixed now - sorry about that! And, yes, you do have to type in the leading zeros. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure, but I think you're accepting the same code twice. So if an attacker is logging my keystrokes and is quick enough (ie. within the same 30 second window), he can use the same OTP as I just used to log in to my account. You should make sure an OTP can only be used One Time.... Good catch! This was indeed an issue with the way we implemented 2-factor auth. Although it would have been very difficult for an attacker to exploit this, it was definitely still worth fixing promptly. We have remedied this issue, so now OTP's are truly one-time use. I've also comped your account with another quarter-BTC bonus. Keep the bug reports coming! Yup! We have a rewards program in the works which I'm really excited about. We've got a lot of long-time loyal players, and we want to make sure to reward you all for playing with us.
Any update on this? I'm glad your excited about the reward program! We're working hard on it, but we want to make sure we do it right. It can get quite complicated to make sure the right players get rewarded, while also not attracting bonus-abusers. The rough timeline as of now, is that we'll be launching another game shortly, and then be launching the rewards program after that. |
|
|
|
|
We have raised the limits across our games once again!
We have made a large adjustment to Roulette, and now support wagers up to 100 BTC in total per spin, with a limit of 5 BTC per-number per-spin.
We have also made smaller adjustments to Blackjack and Craps: Blackjack now supports wagers up to 25 BTC per hand, and Craps now supports wagers up to 5 BTC per-bet-type per-roll.
We've kept video poker as-is with a maximum wager of 2 BTC per hand.
We've had a lot of requests for higher stakes action, so hopefully this should help quell that demand! As always though, we will keep our stakes low enough such that the house's risk-of-ruin is infinitesimal.
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much for the bug report! I've added a quarter-BTC to your account to show our appreciation.
You're welcome, and thanks. Thanks for the link! I don't think 4000 spins is really an adequate sample size for roulette. In our risk-of-ruin simulations, we found that we had to simulate 1.5 million spins per round in order to adequately ensure that we were ahead at the end of the round. Anything less than this, and we hadn't actually hit the "long-run" yet.
I'd also be happy to do a deeper dive into his specific spins. I'll follow up with him on the reddit thread.
I was wondering in particular if there's any way that network a network timeout on a spin could cause bitZino to repeat the previous spin somehow. That's what he seems to be suggesting is happening, which would be an exploitable bug. Ah, I see. The system is designed to be resilient to networking issues. So, a given initial_shuffle will only ever be served once, and once the results of a wager are shown to a user, that shuffle will never be used again, even in the event of networking issues. That said, bugs certainly are possible, so I wouldn't want to dismiss anything. We always keep a close eye on all our stats, and haven't seen deviations in yet. We'll definitely continue to keep an eye out though! |
|
|
|
I have a zero bitcoin balance. When I go to bitzino.com, I see the 'welcome to craps!' popup, with a 'or, play with play money' link in its lower left corner. I click that link, nothing happens for 3 seconds, then the popup fades out and fades back in again, and I'm back where I started.
The same thing happens for all 4 games; I'm unable to play for play money at all.
Yikes! It looks like this was a regression we introduced a few days ago in how we handle play money tables. It looks like we only properly tested it for logged-out users. This is now fixed, and we'll add some automated tests for logged-in users so that it doesn't happen again. Thanks so much for the bug report! I've added a quarter-BTC to your account to show our appreciation. Thanks for the link! I don't think 4000 spins is really an adequate sample size for roulette. In our risk-of-ruin simulations, we found that we had to simulate 1.5 million spins per round in order to adequately ensure that we were ahead at the end of the round. Anything less than this, and we hadn't actually hit the "long-run" yet. I'd also be happy to do a deeper dive into his specific spins. I'll follow up with him on the reddit thread. |
|
|
|
the site is broken now ...
cannot connect !!!
Sorry for the problems! We were having intermittent connectivity issues for the past few hours, but everything should be working now. |
|
|
|
I would be interested to see information about bet sizes. I understand you probably don't want to reveal it, or you would have done. I'm interested to see if there are really people playing for 20 BTC per hand, or whether the majority of the action is in the microcoin area (where I tend to play).
Jon Matonis just published a great article where we reveal some of our numbers in more depth: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/01/22/bitcoin-casinos-release-2012-earnings/. It may answer some of your questions! An hour well wasted! Congrats on the Royal! That's the 5th Royal Flush we've seen in Jacks Or Better. (Deuces Wild has already seen 51 Royals!, but only 1 Natural Royal). |
|
|
|
We're happy to announce that we have re-enabled instant deposits in bitZino! Huge thanks to retep and Mike Hearn for their responsible disclosure and their help getting this resolved. We have tipped each of them 5 BTC to show our appreciation. While almost all deposits to our site will now be eligible for instant credited, it's still possible that your deposit may have to wait for one confirmation. Basically, we are now doing a series of anti-fraud checks in order to ensure our risk of a double spend is minimal. The absolute best way to ensure your deposit is instantly credited is by using a Green Address for your deposit (currently from either Mt. Gox of Deepbit). Green Address deposits will always be instantly credited. Barring the use of a green address, you can help make sure your transaction is instantly credited by ensuring that all inputs for your transaction have at least one confirmation. If you're using bitcoin-qt it will do this for you automatically. Thanks again to retep and Mike Hearn, as well as the entire bitcoin development team! |
|
|
|
|
We had temporarily disabled zero-confirmation deposits at bitZino, but we have now re-enabled them thanks to Mike Hearn's help. We've also added a series of additional anti-fraud checks in order to ensure our risk from a double-spend attack is minimal. As always, we only allow withdrawals back out of our site after a deposit has received multiple confirmations.
I'd really like to thank retep and Mike for their responsible disclosure and help in getting this issues resolved. We've tipped each of you 5 BTC as a way to say thanks from bitZino for helping us operate our business in a secure manner.
|
|
|
|
We have temporarily started requiring at least 1 confirmation on your deposits before you can put your bitcoins into play. This is due to the potential security vulnerability in bitcoin that was announced here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=135985.0. As part of this change, we also are accepting instant deposits from known green addresses. The only operational green addresses that we could find were from Mt. Gox and Deepbit. If you operate a service that has green address functionality, or if you know of one, please let us know so we can add it to the list of known green addresses. I'm looking forward to finding out more information about this vulnerability, so that we can go back to providing instant deposits. |
|
|
|
I would be interested to see information about bet sizes. I understand you probably don't want to reveal it, or you would have done. I'm interested to see if there are really people playing for 20 BTC per hand, or whether the majority of the action is in the microcoin area (where I tend to play).
We definitely do have some players betting the maximum in all our games. While the majority of players are indeed betting small amounts, the majority of wager volume is coming from players that bet more than 1 BTC per hand. I can definitely say the cards play different at different times of the day
Sorry that you lost  I can tell you that it would be computationally impossible for us to change the outcome of the cards based on the time of day, due to the nature of how we deal the cards in a provably fair manner. Edit: Is it possible to see my win:loss ratio?
Send us an email to support@bitzino.com, and we'd be happy to provide that info to you! |
|
|
|
Congrats! I just added a line below your entry on betwithbtc.com that links to that page. Very impressive. Awesome, thanks I like your site! Very nice. Thanks for publishing that.
Sure thing! I'm glad to share Wow, that's pretty amazing for 7 months of being open. I didn't realize you guys got so much action.
Yeah, I think gambling is the next great growth sector for bitcoin. I really do hope our prediction of "at least one 'traditional' online casino is going to wake up to the obvious benefits of bitcoin, and start accepting bitcoin in 2013" comes true. This would be huge for bitcoin as it would introduce a very large new section of the population to the amazing properties of bitcoin. Wow, really nice! You can clearly see how the hands played increased after roulette was introduced to the site but it's becoming a bit less popular and blackjack seems to be the most popular game now..
Yeah, I was surprised how incredibly Roulette took off when if first launched. But, it does seem that Roulette popularity is more volatile. Whereas, Blackjack has been more stable, and steadily growing in popularity. Congrats,impressive numbers and statistic.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
