107

Economy / Micro Earnings / Re: bitvisitor scam?

on: December 03, 2013, 10:18:07 PM

it said get 9.6uBTC the u doesn't mean anything right? It means "micro" in the SI sense. 1/1000 metre = 1 millimetre (1mm) 1/1000 Bitcoin = 1 milliBitcoin (1mBTC) 1/1000 000 metre = 1 micrometre (1um) 1/1000 000 Bitcoin = 1 microBitcoin (1uBTC) It should actually be a Greek "mu," but that's hard to type.



109

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: JustDice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

on: November 30, 2013, 05:00:08 PM

Please don't link to the jsfiddle verifiers  as I understand it those are verifying using the old (pre 145 million rolls) algorithm. Some guy is threatening to sue JD after losing a bunch on a martingale sequence, and claims that he wouldn't have played if he knew the roll algorithm had changed... He has hit 'randomize' multiple times since it changed, so it's not like the change could possibly have changed his chance of winning, but I'd still rather avoid issues like that. Was there any forum discussion about the change; if so would you please link me to it?



110

Alternate cryptocurrencies / Service Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: JustDice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

on: November 30, 2013, 07:19:16 AM

I am wondering if someone can help me make sense of the algorithm used to constuct a given roll. For definiteness, lets' use the following bet: https://justdice.com/roll/307724627I initially construct the two strings: s1 = 1496:'server seed':1496 s2 = 1496:'client seed':1496 The instructions then become ambiguous because it is not clear how these two strings should be concatenated before hashing with the SHA512 function. I've tried a couple combinations and none give me the desired roll (once I take the first 5 characters from the hashed value and convert them to an integer). Someone in the chat room suggested: 1496:'server seed''client seed':1496 But this didn't work either. Anybody have a clue? Just look at the source for one of the verifiers. http://jsfiddle.net/Zq8tL/82/bitcoinmaniac.com/justdice/



111

Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Questions (and concerns) about BTC

on: November 30, 2013, 03:03:13 AM

The last year is ~2140, you won't live to see that day, don't worry about it.
Actually the year will be much sooner with the rapid increase in mining power. Also 99% of the coins will be mined much sooner than 2030. Like a function with an asymptote of y = 21 000 000? Close. However Bitcoins are not infinitely divisible, so eventually the reward will halve from 0.00000001 to 0.000000005, which will be rounded down to 0. Thus it's not an asymptotic function because after the final halving, the function can be described with a constant (f(x)=c).



115

Economy / Gambling / Re: Probably Fair vs. Independent Auditing

on: November 28, 2013, 03:28:03 PM

Provably fair casinos are not supposed to predict a player's actions. You can ensure the results are random by using a client seed.
That's pretty much become the point of this whole thread: The issue with that is that there is no user input involved, you're free to always generate a key that results in the right card being the winning one if you check that the new players always pick the left card. The user must always contribute to the process, and it must be done after the server picked whatever seeds it wanted to pick.



117

Economy / Gambling / Re: Probably Fair vs. Independent Auditing

on: November 27, 2013, 08:10:37 PM

Again, we're talking about a hypothetically dishonest game that claims to be random but is actually employing some sort of statistical method (like the RPS AI uses) to win more than 50% of the games. Just as the RPS AI wins more than 1/3 of its games (putting the chance of a loss for a person standing at the AI's table >33%), and we say the person, since he or she doesn't make random decisions, has less than 33% chance to win, a leftorrightcard AI could win more than 50% of its games. Then a RNG would still have a 50% chance of winning, but a person would have less than 50% chance of winning.
But why/how does the rockpaperscissors AI win more than 1/3 of its games? It does it by studying what many many players do against it. That doesn't say to me people are not random as much as it says they often employ predictable strategies. This is a joke, right? "Predictable" necessarily implies "not random." I'm not going to respond to the rest of your quote either, because it's clear you've never taken a statistics course.



119

Economy / Gambling / Re: Probably Fair vs. Independent Auditing

on: November 27, 2013, 06:27:08 PM

Oh geez, I didn't realize your volume was that small.
Alright, let's pause for a year or so.
Yeah, I only relaunched a few days ago and haven't done any advertising. But I don't see why it's necessary to have game stats (any amount) for you to tell me if you're standing at my table why you'd have a greater or less than 50% chance to win. Again, we're talking about a hypothetically dishonest game that claims to be random but is actually employing some sort of statistical method (like the RPS AI uses) to win more than 50% of the games. Just as the RPS AI wins more than 1/3 of its games (putting the chance of a loss for a person standing at the AI's table >33%), and we say the person, since he or she doesn't make random decisions, has less than 33% chance to win, a leftorrightcard AI could win more than 50% of its games. Then a RNG would still have a 50% chance of winning, but a person would have less than 50% chance of winning.



