We should maket it clear that the vast majority of the bitcoin community utterly condemns the initiation of violence.
Absolutely. I utterly condemn the initiation of violence. But feel free to talk about it  |
|
|
|
Something funny? The fact that you assume mybitcoin.com will send it  |
|
|
|
I was thinking that too. The more you played it the more you'd be able to find out which 20 numbers or whatever were the ones in play. In that case, you could actually screw over the op pretty easily. Good times.
The only way I can think of to prove all 38 are included would be to present the player with 38 buttons, each with a hash of a string which included the number, then have the player choose one of the 38 buttons, and that would be the winning number for the roulette bets. Sounds complicated, but I'm not sure if there's simpler way for absolute proof. perhaps you could use the principle of inverse to solve this problem. 38 numbers, you choose 1. Instead of the computer actually playing the number(s) selected, it would play every number BUT that one. That way, if it actually lands on the spot where nothing is placed, it knows to pay out the user. Wait...I'm not sure that made sense at all. hah I didn't quite understand, no. Also, when I said 38 buttons, I meant in addition to the roulette betting table, not as a replacement for it. Too impractical an idea anyway. |
|
|
|
That is disturbing.
It would make a good background for a geocities page. |
|
|
|
I was thinking that too. The more you played it the more you'd be able to find out which 20 numbers or whatever were the ones in play. In that case, you could actually screw over the op pretty easily. Good times.
The only way I can think of to prove all 38 are included would be to present the player with 38 buttons, each with a hash of a string which included the number, then have the player choose one of the 38 buttons, and that would be the winning number for the roulette bets. Sounds complicated, but I'm not sure if there's simpler way for absolute proof. |
|
|
|
violent speech
Unless you're taking a megaphone to someone eardrum, I don't believe there exists such a thing. |
|
|
|
I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk I agree he's a jerk
 |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be easy for the game op to rig the table to have a extremely low winning ratio for a game like this? =/
Indeed. This means whoever creates it has a very good chance of making a significant amount of BTC. The players, not so much. Not really. You'd just need to show an MD5 hash of the game outcome, before the bets are placed. Spoils the fun a bit of 'spinning' the wheel, but it's all digital anyway; no reason the random number can't be chosen in advance. hmm pardon my ignorance but how would this effect the control an op has over the win/lose ratio? Because if the random number is chosen *before* bets are placed, and an MD5 hash of that number displayed, then the operator doesn't know what bets will be placed and whether or not the player is going to win or not. 1. System generates random number, 1-38 (or 37). 2. Page displays some kind of hash, based on this number. 3. Player places bets and submits 4. System checks what they have won and shows the player exactly how the MD5 hash was generated so that the player can verify the number was chosen before bets were placed. But if the op puts only 20 numbers in the random generation, he has decreased the win ratio and yet it still appears as if it's a random hash based on 38 numbers. I suppose there would need to be some way to display previous rolls...but even then...it seems so easy to put the odds in the op's favor. You could make it so that your data string contains all numbers, and the winning number is the first one... so you scramble the 38 numbers and hash the following string: 9,8,2,1,5,4,12,3,15... etc, etc etc (all 38 numbers) The winning number is 9... after the game, you can show the player the md5 and also show them the data string which has 9 coming first. You could still fake it so that 17 for example never came first, but over time I'm sure people would start to notice that 17 never wins. |
|
|
|
Really? Censorship disgusts you more than calls for murder? I guess that sums up your character.
Pretty much. I can't think of anything more vile. I think people should be free to call for murder any time, any place... it's just speech, not violence. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be easy for the game op to rig the table to have a extremely low winning ratio for a game like this? =/
Indeed. This means whoever creates it has a very good chance of making a significant amount of BTC. The players, not so much. Not really. You'd just need to show an MD5 hash of the game outcome, before the bets are placed. Spoils the fun a bit of 'spinning' the wheel, but it's all digital anyway; no reason the random number can't be chosen in advance. hmm pardon my ignorance but how would this effect the control an op has over the win/lose ratio? Because if the random number is chosen *before* bets are placed, and an MD5 hash of that number displayed, then the operator doesn't know what bets will be placed and whether or not the player is going to win or not. 1. System generates random number, 1-38 (or 37). 2. Page displays some kind of hash, based on this number. 3. Player places bets and submits 4. System checks what they have won and shows the player exactly how the MD5 hash was generated so that the player can verify the number was chosen before bets were placed. |
|
|
|
Can a moderator please delete the teenager " assassination market" posts?
in the grown-up world we're disgusted.
Can a mod delete the facist censorship posts? In the free world, it's censorship that disgusts us most. (And yes I do see the irony in this post) |
|
|
|
Some of the solutions these people post took a lot of trail and error to learn.
You mean errors like 'trail'? Heh, sorry. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be easy for the game op to rig the table to have a extremely low winning ratio for a game like this? =/
Indeed. This means whoever creates it has a very good chance of making a significant amount of BTC. The players, not so much. Not really. You'd just need to show an MD5 hash of the game outcome, before the bets are placed. Spoils the fun a bit of 'spinning' the wheel, but it's all digital anyway; no reason the random number can't be chosen in advance. |
|
|
|
Hi Everyone I have here a free Bitcoin Ebook so you'll be familiarized with it. Just PM me so I can send it to you Take care guys! Didn't you have 22 posts yesterday? And today you have 14? |
|
|
|
Yeah, cheap enough for bitcoin.com, bitcoin.org filings etc... but... not cheap enough to want to go after every silly name with bitcoin in it.
IF you think 5k is pretty damn cheap, you should have enough to be able to at least mount a decent defense then.
Yeah, I guess my issue is that although I don't necessarily have quality (bitcoin.com), I sure do have quantity (bitcoinbabes.com, bitcoindouble.com, bitcoinbalance.com, bitcoinsafety.com, bitcoinsecurity.com, etc, etc.). I tried to buy bitcoinblackjack.com but the current owner is holding out for $5000+ which I couldn't justify at the time. I wonder if she's reading this thread. Again, sorry to hijack the main issue which is not just about domain names... |
|
|
|
What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.
Yes, the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder. It is however not a cheap process for them. What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either. Have not checked if it has changed but last I looked it was a 5k fee. Never said it would be cheap for you. Well I guess it's all relative. 5k sounds pretty damn cheap to me, considering bitcoin.de and bitcoins.de sold for around 30,000 EUR. |
|
|
|
Nevermind, I thought you were saying xyz owned that one. My mistake. |
|
|
|
What I'm wondering is if this will put at risk .com domain names that contain the word 'bitcoin'.
Most of mine were registered before his 'first use' date, but a few of them more recently.
Yes, the default under the arbitration rules is a win for a tm holder. It is however not a cheap process for them. What do you mean by 'not cheap'? Surely it wouldn't be cheap for me to defend either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
