I have scanned for viruses.. nothing...

I have only 1 tab opened and this happens only on bitzino when I "Roll"... It increases only when I hit Roll and and when i refresh the bitzino page it goes back to normal. When I start rolling again it increases. It is possible that it is something on my side... I will investigate further... for the time being I just refresh from time to time. If I have something I will report back.

Hello there!

I play since yesterday and bet a lot but there is memory leaks and CPU leaks!

50% CPU sometimes... memory goes up to 880MB ram... maybe that is all i have available...

Browser: Opera, Firefox, Chrome... with all of them is the same....

here is video... http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/836/zinrgshbkfytqazobxkqcm.mp4/

Is there something wrong with deposits I deposited 1.48042982 BTC and after 5 confirmations still nothing in my account ?  I sent you a pm with details and contacted support.  Really want to get this resolved.

What's your highest bet ever placed on Roulette?

This site is scam, 47 times without getting the second dozen in the roullete... Its IMPOSIBLE.

I have lost round about $100 @ bitzino in the last month. Mostly all from my own stupid mistakes. Love the site though

regarding the roulette game, how does having the client seed and hash(secret) prove that it is a provably fair game?

thanks

Quik Q:
minimum bet for Video Poker?

Any comments on this, libertaad:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

Creator of bitZino here. Thanks for writing this post, TrevorXavier! I firmly believe that the best cryptography is that which is practiced in the open, with honest and open discussion about any possible weaknesses or avenues of attack.

I've read through your entire post, and I believe that at the core, you are discussing two main issues you see with our provably fair system:

The first issue is that of "stalling". In the rare event that our servers do fail to respond (either due to internet connectivity issues, or downtime on our end), this problem can easily be mitigated by a player by simply ensuring the `Hash(secret)` has not changed, and then re-entering the same `client_seed` after reloading the page.

The second issue is that of tainting the javascript that is being executed on the player's browser (Cold Deck, Hot Reading, Mutation, and Controlled Secret all fall under this). I do agree that if we managed to slip dirty code past our users, these are potentially viable attacks. However. these are all very high-risk frauds to perpetrate, because if we were caught doing this, even once, we would completely sacrifice our reputation and future earnings potential.

Furthermore, these attacks are all relatively easy for a savvy user to detect. Since modern browsers come with built-in network analysis tools, it is easy for anyone to see all data being sent down the wire. These tools would make it very easy to detect if we tried to sneak javascript partials into ajax requests.

Ultimately though, a player can be protected from all of these attacks by running a client-side greasemonkey script which generates the client_seed (rather than relying on any code sent from our servers). And, in fact, this is already possible today due to the nature of our app being in HTML5. We have already seen a handful of our players doing this on their own (we can detect it because the client_seeds they send are formatted differently than the ones our javascript generates). Additionally, if a player just edits the client_seed by hand before they play, they are also protected from any of the attacks you listed.

At the end of the day, we still haven't fully solved the trust issue of browser-based cryptography. But, our system still accomplishes its goal - it forces us to either be honest, or take a large risk. We simply have no way to manipulate the outcome of any wagers made on bitZino without taking a risk of being caught. That's why our system is indeed provably fair: it allows savvy players to ensure the house isn't cheating them.

Thanks again for the insightful post!

To get to those potential extra hands, though, the initial hands in the shoe would have been advantageous.  If, on average a shoe gives a full table say, 6 hands, then a table that reaches the 8th hand most likely had more advantageous cards during the hands that came before it.  There was just no way of knowing it at the time.  I think it is accurate to say that there is no known advantage at the beginning of a shoe.  But, without counting cards (but counting hands), one can assume that an 8th, 9th, 10th, etc. hand at a table that averages 6/shoe is less advantageous than an average first hand.  But it is so only because the initial hands were more advantageous.

That is right. But those three rounds that are rich in 10s are already reflected in the Basic Strategy (no cut-card) EV. That is, without a cut-card we are going to some rounds which are rich in 10s, and some which are lean. The average of all of these is reflected in the BS expectation.

Here is a though experiment which may help clarify. Imagine two players Me (M) and my Shadow(S) betting on the same spot. S is basically making "over-the-shoulder" bets on my box. The hands are played in accordance with BS and we both must put up more money when we split and double.

Suppose the games is dealt with the cut-card listed above. M flat-bets on all the rounds. S bets the same on the first three rounds, but never plays a 4th round. Now S's EV should be that of Basic Strategy (full-deck). My EV is clearly less than S. The only difference between us is the money I lose on those negative 4th rounds. So M is worse off with the cut-card.

Now when there is a 4th round, the first 3 rounds are favorable to M. But they are also favorable to S. S gets all the benefits of those, but doesn't actually bet the negative 4th round.

but the bad hand or two at the end seems like it wouldn't negate the advantage from all the good hands the player saw in the rest of the shoe.

Where am I going wrong here?

If there's a cut-card 70% of the way through the deck, 30% of cards are unplayed.

If those unplayed cards are rich in low cards:
 * the played cards are rich in high cards
 * so hands use relatively few cards (players don't hit much)
 * so relatively many hands are played per shoe
 * and players do well (high cards are good for player)

Conversely, if the unplayed cards are rich in high cards:
 * the played cards are rich in low cards
 * so hands use relatively many cards (players hit more with low cards)
 * so relatively few hands are played per shoe
 * and players do badly (low cards are bad for player)

So the players with see many good hands, or few bad hands per shoe.

That sounds like on average players will do better with a cut-card than if you shuffle every hand, since they'll see more good than bad hands.

The wizard's simulation shows exactly the opposite to be true.  So where am I going wrong here?

In this set of circumstances, if you deal to a cut card you may get five, six or seven rounds depending on the cards. This is because the player and dealer can have hands of two cards or many cards. If there are many high cards (e.g. tens) dealt, we will end up with two- and three-card hands. If there are small cards dealt, we will end up with hands with many cards. So, if we are dealing to a fixed point, and we are dealt a lot of large cards, then we will use fewer cards per round and get an extra round or two. The problem is that these extra rounds will be dealt from a deck with fewer high cards because they have been used up. And we know that a deck with few high cards left is bad for the player.

I can't agree with that statement.  When playing through to a cut-card, the player gets into this situation if the cards near the cut-card are rich in small cards.  That's just as likely to be the case as the top of the deck being rich in small cards.  The only difference is that when playing through the shoe the player can count the number of hands he's played, and if it's too high he can know that he's in a bad situation, and so he can lower his bet accordingly, or walk away.  When playing with a freshly shuffled deck he's just as likely to be in this bad low-card situation, but has no way of knowing it.

However if the dealer deals out much more than the average number of hands in a cut card game the last hands tend to be very bad for the player. This is because in the early hands the players and dealer didn't hit much, which in turn is because lots of large cards came out, leaving more small cards for later in the shoe.

Answer me this how are the cards dealt in blackjack on bitzino?  Is it a new deck of 52 cards every deal? 

Correction, I was dealt 5 in a row.  How can you call that fair?  Probably not fair.  Props to you my man, you're getting rich!

I received 5 blackjacks in a row.  3 in a row is a statistical improbability let alone 5.  I'm done playing here.

The site went down for me in the middle of a craps round WHILE the dice were rolling.

Yea, it's down for me too

I was about to upload a video that i'm not lieing Happy to help in fiding an issue And my username is Ignas .