I just noticed on http://kingco.in/history.php your verify links are using the bitZino verifier directly, rather than your own. I don't know whether that's cool (using a 3rd party to verify your results makes the verification more believable) or rude (did you ask their permission?). Probably it's both...  For the record, it's definitely cool with us The proliferation of provably fair games is good for bitcoin and it just good in general, so I'm all for it! |
|
|
|
It would be nice to have an option for whether the 2-factor auth is required only for withdrawal and changing security settings, or for every login. For me, having an attacker lose my balance to the house would be just as upsetting as having them withdraw it to their own address.
We've added the option to require 2-factor auth when logging in. Thanks for the feedback! |
|
|
|
Every once in a while I get a little chuckle out of this thread. I love your attitude, lib. I'm constantly amazed that you haven't lost your cool yet.
Thanks  Frankly, I'm constantly amazed at how supportive the bitcoin community is. That's something I wasn't really expecting when we first launched, but it has proved to be an incredible asset. Everyone here believes in the transformation power of bitcoin, which I think really helps create a positive environment. Every once in a while I get a little chuckle out of this thread. I love your attitude, lib. I'm constantly amazed that you haven't lost your cool yet.
Yeah, surely by now you want to start telling me that my girlfriend is imaginary and banning me and all my friends from playing at your site even though I've never broken any of your terms and conditions. That seems like the obvious thing to do. I'm amazed you can take so much free constructive criticism from me without flying off the handle in a drunken rage. It's almost as if you're running a professional operation or something. I'm going to stay out of this, but I will say that I respect you both highly, and I really do hope you can resolve your differences. I was just playing with the 2-factor authentification. It works well, but I can still log in and lose my balance with just my regular password. It would be nice to have an option for whether the 2-factor auth is required only for withdrawal and changing security settings, or for every login. For me, having an attacker lose my balance to the house would be just as upsetting as having them withdraw it to their own address.
We hadn't really considered the possibility of your attacker just being spiteful when we first built this You raise a good point though - we'll add an extra option to require the OTP for logging in as well. Bug report -
I was playing blackjack for 100 millibitcoins per hand and was dealt an 11 vs dealer's 9 (I think?). I doubled, hit 21 and won the hand. I clicked cashout and it would not let me cash out. So I bet 1 millibitcoin and lost the next hand and it let me cash out.
I believe this was a temporary issue that we introduced, and should be fixed now. Sorry about that! What's your bitZino account name? I'll comp you some BTC to make up for this. I also think your craps game was rolling two hands at once or doing something crazy. It happened fast, but it looked like I won my don't pass odds bet as well as the bet I had an don't come at the same time. I could be wrong because the animations were happening pretty fast.
Hmm, I doubt that it was actually playing 2 hands at once, because our backend system would completely disallow that. However, it may have been an animation glitch. We'll keep an eye out for this! Also please let me know if you find a way to replicate it |
|
|
|
Incidentally, piuk made it pretty easy to offer this where you don't need to add the private key to your own wallet, ... simply supply the destination address in an API call:
Oh, good to know! In general, I prefer things that don't rely on any centralized third-parties, but this may be a good solution to get this out the door before bitcoind 0.8 is released. We'll look into this. |
|
|
|
Anxiously awaiting two-factor auth (e.g., Google Authenticator) for withdrawals.
We have officially launched support for 2-Factor Auth for withdrawals! We utilize Google Authenticator, and allow you to set up your account to require an OTP before every withdrawal request. and redeem private key (w/ button for scan QR code) to add funds.
Unfortunately, we have back-burnered this feature (again). Sorry about getting your hopes up before, but there just isn't a good option here implementation-wise. We thought the new API calls on 0.7 would make this more do-able, but it turns out they still require you to basically store the entire blockchain, or rescan it for each import. We're hoping that 0.8 with ultraprune has some new API calls that make sweeping private keys an easier process. |
|
|
|
In roulette, I often hit 'double bets', and then can't be sure whether I clicked properly or not. It feels like there's not enough visual feedback that the click was received. I know the bet amounts double, but they're in a pretty small font. I'm wondering whether changing the button to "doubling" for a fraction of a second would be useful. Or something like that.
+1 more confirmation on placing last bet and doubling buttons
Thanks for the advice! We've updated Roulette so that it temporarily changes the "Double Bets" button to say "Doubling..." after it's clicked. This should hopefully provide good feedback that it has been clicked. I believe that the "Repeat last" and "Clear bets" buttons should also provide good feedback, because, like most other buttons on the site, they get disabled immediately after they've been clicked. Also - we've updated our Blackjack game to let you know when you could Double Down or Split, but they are disabled because you are you are short on funds. The buttons will now say "Add funds to double" and "Add funds to split". This hopefully helps avoid any confusion about not being able to split when you think you should be able to. Thanks for the feedback everyone, keep it coming! |
|
|
|
Just one comment: I don't like all the 'update' buttons. I set 2 options in different sections, then clicked one of the update buttons, and it reverted the setting from the other section back to before I changed it.
I'd either have no update buttons, and have the settings automatically update when I changed them using some kind of onClick AJAX magic (preferred) or a single 'update' button at the top and/or bottom of the whole page. Or if you could have the update buttons work 'in place' without refreshing the whole page and losing other changed-but-not-saved settings, that could work too.
This is a good point - there are way too many "Update" buttons on that page now. We'll look into AJAX-ifying it. Off and On for Craps
I have been enjoying your craps game immensely! Thank you.
Minor suggestion. I play "come" almost every roll and one thing dealers do is what is called "off and on". If a come number hits and I have a come bet down the correct amount of winnings are placed as odds and the remainder given to the player. This might speed up play a bit as I would not have to keep adding my come odds manually. Rather than make it a global option, maybe you could make it specific to craps.
Anyway, great work on the interface, I really love BitZino!
Thanks for the feedback! We tried to shy away from adding options to our games. But, Craps is a complicated game with a lot of different play styles, so we'll look into this. My account is set to use uBTC so everything I see is in uBTC until I go to withdraw - then I have to type a value in whole BTC. Is that intentional?
Yes, this is intentional. Since you're cashing out back into the bitcoin network, and since most bitcoin clients display values in whole bitcoins, it makes the most sense to display whole bitcoins on our withdrawal page as well. I believe this issue came up before, and we looked into displaying your currency in both your "Base Currency" as well as whole bitcoins on the withdrawal page. We ultimately decided that this made the page too busy and confusing. Ultimately, we want to make the withdrawal page as straight-forward as possible, so that users don't have any surprises when their balance gets sent to them. |
|
|
|
sent a message from the email my account belongs to most places offer a reset / recovery button and an automatic email - makes it easy for guys like me who make up random passes for new sites, then forget what it was *edit* thanks for getting me sorted out I'm glad we could help you out! For the record, we don't offer a standard password reset feature, because it is rather insecure. Email is an insecure medium, so it's not wise to allow password resets over it. If you do lose your password though, we can help you out as long as you can sign a message using the private key from the source of all of your deposits. Ultimately though, your best bet is just not to lose your password! Also, we have launched our support for 4-color decks and custom animation speeds. We also now support user-set timezones. |
|
|
|
Any way to get the 4 colors card deck in video poker ?
We're about to push out a change that has options for 4-color decks in poker, changing and disabling animations, and modifying your timezone. This should go live within the next few hours. |
|
|
|
How do I recover/reset my password?
Send an email to support@bitzino.com, and we'll get it sorted out. |
|
|
|
One issue this brought up for me was that the timestamp on the deposits is in UTC. I thought UTC was 8 hours ahead of here, which would have made the 0.25 deposit just about 61 minutes ago, in which case I was wondering why you hadn't posted about it. But I guess UTC is only 7 hours ahead of here, and you had made the 0.25 BTC deposit into my account before composing your post here. What I'm trying to say is I'd like to see all timestamps in localtime, not UTC. Maybe let me pick a timezone, or maybe trust that my browser knows what timezone I'm in, I don't really care which.
Good idea. Customizable per-user timezones shouldn't be too hard to implement, and would really improve the user experience. i think that is fine, I guess what is throwing me off is that the button for DOUBLE is not enabled because of my insufficient balance. If I'm new, I might think the game isn't allowing me to double down.
Perhaps the button should be enabled but if I click on it, it displays a message telling me that I need to click Buy In to add more funds in order to double down.
That's a great idea! I think another option could be to use a different styling for the Double and Split buttons when they should be enabled, perhaps with an "Add Funds" overlay. Either way, we'll definitely take a look at this. I also added a quarter-BTC to your account to thank you for all the feedback you've been providing. Thanks! You don't consider card counting cheating? That's awesome! How many decks of cards are used in each game of blackjack?
Someone's read the TOS As Dooglus said though, card counting won't give you much of an edge (if any) since we shuffle before every hand. The main point we wanted to express is that we absolutely don't consider playing strategically to be cheating. You're free to use any information we provide to you to the maximum benefit. This is important to us, since that's half the fun of gambling (we think). |
|
|
|
Provably fair multi-player games are hard! There are a class of cryptography techniques called Mental Poker if you're interested in reading more. The basic technique is that each player encrypts the deck of cards (encrypting each card separately) and then reshuffles it. Then whenever a new card is dealt, each player provides their encryption key for that card to only the players that should see the card. One problem with this technique for real-time games is that it is very high latency. The biggest problem I see though is that if one player drops their connection, the game is completely ruined until that player reconnects (or ruined forever if the player never reconnects). This is not only an inconvenience, but it could actually allow adversarial players to basically cheat, by just dropping out (or getting a colluding friend to drop out) whenever they're about to lose. As long as the last cards can't be dealt, they can never truly lose. |
|
|
|
We just pushed a bunch of fixes for all the issues you've been bringing up Dooglus. I also added another 0.25 BTC to your account to thank you for all the help you've provided us. This offer stands for anyone else too! Fixes include: - Correctly calculate min-bet in Roulette - Preserve bet per click in Roulette between page refreshes - Fix annoyance with changing bet values in Roulette and Craps (Re: #msg1291626) We're also keeping an eye out for issues with the deposit address not showing up and the page not correctly refreshing on browser restart in Chrom[e|ium]. We haven't been able to replicate these, but we will likely fix the deposit address issue when we roll out our redesigned Buy-in window UI. We're also working on adding additional varieties of Video Poker and adding Three Card Poker. Thanks for the feedback, everyone! |
|
|
|
This reminds me of an almost-certainly-unrelated issue, in which I thought my balance was incorrectly reported.
Almost a week ago when I was playing around with the bug that caused the buttons to become active a second or so after they visually appear to be active, my balance had been around 1230000, and I worked it up to 1280000 or so, but after experimenting with placing 5 of 6 "sixline" bets and a few "red" bets, my balance was back at 1230000. I thought I was carefully using martingale betting, which means my balance will only go up, until I lose it all. I tried reloading, but I still had 1230k chips.
I'm not sure where the 5k chips went. It's probably operator error on my part, and so I was thinking I'd like to be able to request a history of my bets. Maybe a simple text file download of all the bets I made between 2 specified date/time points would suffice. Then I'd be able to see what I did wrong, or maybe that there's a bug on your end.
We are indeed planning on exposing an interface for downloading your hand history. In the meantime, you can email support, and we'll provide you with your history over a certain period of time. It looks better in roulette now:
Good What's going on here? "Your bitcoin deposit address: Available balance".  It doesn't tell me my deposit address. Clicking "Or play with play money" then "play with bitcoins" fixed the problem. Thant is a strange one! I've never seen that happen before, but we'll be sure to keep an eye out for it and fix it if we can. Also, let me know if you find a way to replicate it. |
|
|
|
Keep up the great work Thanks Here's what I'm seeing: a 1200 bet on 3rd 12 reduces my max bet on 36:
But the same bet on 1st row doesn't:
Is that something you know about and intend to happen? That's what seems odd to me.
Ah, thanks for your persistence in describing this! I have been able to replicate it now. This is indeed is a bug, which we'll fix shortly. We are treating the "[1st|2nd|3rd] 12" bets as other wages in that you can bet up to 10 BTC on them - however, we are erroneously counting bets on them against the individual number bets, which shouldn't be happening. ...
Notice the balance now shows the 0.25 BTC you gave me, and the in game balance is as I expected. The 'bet per click' has been reset to 1 though. It surprised me that the 'bet per click' could survive a cold boot without getting reset, but not a page refresh.
In summary, I was surprised to see the outdated numbers when I rebooted my laptop.
We are aware that the 'bet per click' value doesn't correctly persist on page reloads, and we're actually in the process of fixing that now. However, the other numbers you saw are much more strange. I suspect that this has to do with how Chromium handles restoring pages after a restart. We make use of AJAX page updates, so it's possible that Chromium simply restores that page without accounting for the AJAX updates that occurred. I suspect that if you had tried to place a bet when it was in this state, our page would have showed you and "Out of Sync" alert, and forced a page refresh. Nonetheless, I'll definitely be looking into this further. It would be ideal if we could get Chromium (and I'm sure Chrome) to behave more correctly when it restarts. |
|
|
|
I see bitZino ads in the signature line by another forum member, in the format of
bitzino.com/c/xxxxxx
Does bitZino have an affiliate program now?
You're very observant  We don't have an affiliate program yet - those users are just being paid a flat fee to help endorse us. Up until a few days ago, we hadn't done any marketing, and yet we continued to see steady growth. At this point though, we've officially started to experiment with some marketing. Our main focus will continue to be on building the best product possible though! |
|
|
|
My initial reaction is one of surprise. I would *never* have guessed at the maximum bet formula you just described given the description. There's literally no way the user could come up with the conceptt you just explained from the description you make available to him, especially not the wrinkle that outer wagers don't count at all towards the amounts wagered on numbers but every other bet does.
In particular the simple 2 line description of "max bets" leads me to believe that you have a simple way of determining the max bets, whereas in fact it's pretty complex. Players probably never think of putting 1.8 BTC on a 1,2 Split as being the same as putting 0.9 on 1 and 0.9 on 2 although mathematically it is equivalent. And even if they do, then I don't see why they wouldn't similarly think of putting 1.8 BTC on red as being the same as putting 0.1 on each red number...
The intention here is to give the user an accurate summary of the maximum bet, without overwhelming them with all the details of the complicated formula. I agree though, that a link out to a full description is actually pretty important for discerning players. It seems weird to me that betting on '1st row' (betting on the 12 multiples of 3) doesn't count as a bet on number 3, but betting on '1st 12' *does* count as a bet on number 3. They're both 12-number bets. I guess you're not counting '1st 12' as an outer wager, whereas '1st row' is an outer wager?
This is not actually the case. The "Outer Wagers" includes both the row bets and the [1st|2nd|3rd] 12 bets. I would like to see a link ('details'?) in the 'max bets' info which pops up a description much like what you just posted, so I can know what's really going on. I think changing the first line of the text to "max total bet per number" would go some way to helping the user guess at your formula - at least that clues her in that multiple bets are being added in some way for each number, but I still don't think it's clear enough without the extra link to the actual details.
Having the max bet show up in the popup when I'm making a bet goes some way to solving the problem, but doesn't help when the max bet is more than I currently have available to bet. In that instance I just see my current balance, when I want to know what the maximum really is - so I can decide how much more I need to deposit.
Maybe all it needs is a 'rules' page which lists all these details for each of the games, so you can keep the uncluttered game interface, but still have these details available somewhere.
Yeah, it's high time that we made a rules page for all of our games, and this would be the perfect spot to put a full description of this formula. I also do like your idea to change the summary to "max total bet per number" - we've made this change. One of the 21600's won, winning 129600. The win was displayed in a tiny almost-impossible-to-read font size:
You probably don't want to make the text too big in the case that there are other winning bets nearby, but when only one bet wins maybe you can afford to make the text bigger?
Good call! We've updated the style so that large wins and large wagers will be slightly wider and use a larger font. This is what we started doing in craps, but we hadn't adopted it to Roulette yet, so thanks for the heads-up! It turns out that there's about a 1 second delay each time between the 'Repeat last' button changing from grey to white text and the button actually becoming clickable. During that 1 second, the mouse cursor is an arrow when hovering over the button. After the 1 second delay the mouse cursor changes to a hand with a pointy index finger, like it does on all other active buttons.
I didn't notice this delay when playing single red/black bets. Although I just checked and it is happening there now as well, whether I win or lose the button goes white a short while before it goes active. Maybe it's not a whole second, but it's long enough that I always seem to click before it's listening for clicks.
Another good catch! This is actually a bug we recently introduced, which is probably why you didn't notice it before. We added an invisible div over the board while it is spinning in order to prevent interaction with the board while it's in an active changing state. Unfortunately, we had the timing slightly off, which resulted in the weird behaviour you were experiencing. We've went ahead and fixed the timing. As always, thank you so much Dooglus! I've added another 0.25 BTC to your account to thank you for constantly helping to make bitZino a better site. We are planning on allowing users to opt to require an email confirmation before withdrawing any funds, changing the email address, or changing their password.
That still doesn't protect the person whose computer used for withdrawing is compromised, but it does at least provide more security than simple username and password. With the ability to play on unconfirmed deposits, there is no need to hold a large balance in the account. Thus this proposed e-mail based secondary authentication step will probably be sufficient for most. I've been thinking about this since you brought it up, and I think we're just gonna go all the way and implement true 2-factor auth using time based one-time-passwords, as specified by RFC 6238 (which is supported by Google Authenticator). It isn't much more complicated to implement or use, and it will offer much better security for people that are dealing with large amount of bitcoins. best site so far for roulette and craps etc.
Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words, I'm glad you're enjoying it |
|
|
|
I just checked the 'max bets' in the top left corner of the roulette game. It tells me the max bet per number, and the "max overall bet" which I presume is the most I can bet per spin in total. But I don't see the max I can bet on any of the other bets. What's the max I can bet on a 50/50 bet like red or even? Are you counting that as a "number"? I think most places will allow you to bet higher on the bets which have a lower return. As I remember it, the world's #1 Bitcoin Casino (lol, jk) has a higher limit when you're betting on groups of 6 or more numbers than when you're betting on less than 6 (like 4, 3, 2, or a single number). Either way, I think the "max bets" section should be made clearer. I'm open to suggestions to improvements, but I do think the current wording is actually pretty good, considering the actual complicated formula for determining the maximum: The overall max is always 10 BTC. This means you can bet 10 BTC on red itself, as long as you have no other wagers. If instead you bet 1 BTC on anything else, then you can bet up to 9 BTC on red. For individual numbers, the maximum you can bet is more complicated. Basically, the maximum stake you can have in any single number is 1 BTC. So, you can bet up to 2 BTC on the 1,2 Split, and up to 4 BTC on the 1,2,4,5 Corner. This calculation can get somewhat complicated at times: for example, if you have a 0.1 BTC wager on 1 Straight, then you can only wager up to 1.8 BTC on the 1,2 Split - because any more would give you too much stake in the 1. Note though, that we don't count "outer wagers" toward individual numbers in this formula. This means you can wager 1 BTC on Odd, and still wager up to a full 1 BTC on the 1 (even though you technically already have 1/18th BTC stake on the 1). This formula is complicated, but ideal in that it allows users to bet the maximum while still keeping the house variance within a specifically controlled level. (It's not actually perfectly ideal, since variance isn't actually a linear relationship with regard to risk - but it is a pretty good approximation for these values (also, our "outer wager" exception is non-perfect)). In order to make this simple for the user, the maximum bet for any specific wager is dynamically calculated and shown in the popup that appears up when you click on the wager. So, now that you know the nitty-gritty details of the formula, can you think of a better summary? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
