we’re going to accept your challenge in disproving the all-encompassing necessity of Provably Fair
I don't think anyone is claiming it is necessary to prove that your games are fair. But when it's free to do so why wouldn't you, unless you want to be able to cheat when luck goes against you?
The Provably Fair algorithm in laymen’s terms is an application great for calculating the randomness of dice rolls - those little cubes with only six sides. Its hash identifier and algorithm is easy for the player to wrap his/her head around because there are only two dice, or six-squared possibilities, equaling 36.
People use provable fairness in all kinds of games, and in all kinds of ways. To talk about "THE provably fair algorithm" makes it sound like you think there is only one of them.
If you have a slot with 5 reels, and 50 symbols of each reel, that's 50^5 = 312500000 = 2^28.2 different combinations. sha512 produces 512 unpredictable output bits. You only need 28.2 bits of entropy for the 5*50 slot.
A hash is a long stream of letters and numbers that is a mathematical problem with a solution that is otherwise very difficult to find, but once the solution is presented, it’s easier to reverse the solution to define an actual outcome. The solution to a hash is a piece of data that applies to the roll. With dice, these outcomes happen more often, giving the player more data to compare, thus proving each roll is random and not rigged. When the same system is applied to greater variables, such as card decks or slots, no provable results have been obtained.
You seem very confused. I don't know where to start with that paragraph. A hash function is a function which takes an input string of arbitrary length and returns a output number within a fixed range. There's no way of reversing the function to get from the output number to the input string uniquely, and with a good hash function it's impossible to find any suitable input that hashes to a given output. You kind of used those words, but in a way that makes it sound like you don't really understand the concept.
If you think there aren't any provably fair card or slot games out there, you haven't researched the market you're in very well.
Applying the provably fair system to a deck of 52 cards is nearly impossible, and casino card games are something we at 4Grinz know a lot about.
Not at all. You can shuffle a deck using a seeded pseudo-random number generator. There are only 2^226 ways of shuffling a deck of 52 cards. A 512 bit hash has plenty of entropy.
In fact, you’re probably not going to find a team in the Bitcoin casino industry with more knowledge of card games that recognizes the importance of random shuffles and deals. We’ve grown through the evolution of software and hardware companies claiming to guarantee the perfect random shuffle going back to Shuffle Master, Delphi 4, and STL random shuffle methods in live and online casino settings.
"guarantee" is a funny word. It's a bit like "prove" only without the actual proof aspect. If you guarantee perfect randomness but offer no proof of it, how is anyone ever able to check the randomness to call you on your guarantee?
For Provably Fair to perform in only single-deck games, it must calculate exactly 52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48, and so on ……x 3 x 2 to come up with 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 possibilities and then attach a hash to outcomes that can be reversed.
Forget about reversing hashes. It's meant to be impossible. Think of a hash as a one-way function from input to output. That number you came up with is the same as the 2^226 approximation I mentioned above. Only 226 bits of entropy required.
The question becomes, “How do we or Provably Fair create a hash generator that a player or operator can utilize and apply?” We can't, and neither can Provably Fair.
What is a hash generator? Just use a standard hash function. Like sha512.
While the way in which a deck is shuffled is paramount, there are much more important considerations, like who is behind the software, who is managing the casino, whether players are able to withdraw in a timely manner, how revenue is being stored (jackpots, casino revenue, and player funds), backend security protecting everyone from hackers and potential viruses, and the use or possible abuse of players’ personal information.
These things are all important, true. Casinos can be provably fair and still just run away with everyone's money. It has happened before. Provable fairness isn't a silver bullet. It's simply a way (the only way I know of) for a casino to prove that its games aren't rigged.
Flashback to 2008, when three large online poker brands were caught committing fraud. This happened while pro and amateur players were utilizing every possible variation of provably fair software recommended by licensers, created by developers, and sold by a dozen or more commercial providers.
None of those poker sites were in any way provably fair. In the case of AB/UB, potripper was using a backdoor that allowed him to see everyone's hole cards. Even if the game was provably fair that could still have happened. The same with Full Tilt stealing player funds. No provably fair algorithm would have prevented that (although regular proof of solvency proofs could have brought it to light sooner, but that's an argument for a different post).
In the end, it did nothing to protect players and served as a false flag. While so much focus was being placed on the integrity of a deck, other, more sinister, offenses like viewing hole and river cards were being committed. With today’s technology, such behavior is now easy to identify and there are several companies that offer related software.
There was no provable fairness in those cases, and so it was no false flag. Provable fairness is a simple way of letting the player know that you aren't cheating him games of chance. It doesn't solve all problems, but it solves some that need solving, and which no other technique is known to solve.
A card counter makes calculations based on outcomes. Outcomes are determined by the cards you can see with the deduction of those you can’t see. The randomness of the shuffle is only monitored by Provably Fair, and doesn’t actually ensure the integrity of the deck or decks, but only that the order of the cards differ substantially for each hand.
I think you really need to try to understand what provable fairness is, and how it works before you comment further on it. You are way off base here.
This is great, but how do you attach a hash to so many possible outcomes to provide comparisons establishing fairness? We invite anyone to square and cube the above number to determine randomness in dealing blackjack and poker, and challenge them to provide tangible results.
When you play with 6 decks, you don't use all 6 decks. You shuffle after every hand, and so never deal more than the top say 52 cards from the 6 deck shoe. So long as the top 52 cards are randomly selected from the full 6 decks, the game plays exactly the same as if you had shuffled the whole shoe. If you need more than 512 bits of entropy because for some reason you need to shuffle the whole 6 decks, you can simply use multiple hashes. Use sha512(serverseed:clientseed:0) and sha512(serverseed:clientseed:1), etc. Re. tangible results, be careful what you ask for. It sounds like you're asking for someone to implement the games you offer in a provably fair manner, while refusing to do so yourself.
Provably Fair doesn’t claim a fair outcome when applied to one or more decks. Rather, it proves the randomness. While random shuffles are important to online and brick-and-mortar card rooms, what’s happening on the backend is what should concern players. Security has less to do with randomness and more with outcome.
That's exactly what provable fairness promises. And the randomness determines the outcome. The backend is a black box. Provable fairness publishes the inputs and outputs of that black box as well as the algorithm it runs, such that the player can reproduce the steps it takes and verify that it didn't cheat him. Without that, the player has to simply trust that your dealer hit his 21 against the player's 20 by luck and not due to foul play.
The benefit of a provably fair system is its third-party verification and auditing for cards and dice. Again, the shuffle and roll are important and shouldn’t be discounted, but recently, Provably Fair’s major flaw has been it’s susceptibility to unscrupulous players or competitors who make baseless claims against service operators by implying they cheat.
Previous you said it didn't work for cards. Now you say it does?
I've not seen anyone making these baseless claims. Do you have a reference? I see people making baseless claims that "primedice cheat because I lost 10 50% bets in a row". In response the site can tell them to verify their rolls. If they weren't provably fair the player would have no way to distinguish between a run of bad luck and rigged casino.
Most players only familiar with the phrase “provably fair” will take such a claim for its word, believing a casino is creating a larger risk, when Provably Fair was never designed for slots or that purpose.
Most players don't really care about fairness I think. They think of gambling as a way of passing the time and expect to lose. I suspect that the percentage of rolls that are ever actually checked is very low. But the fact that it is possible to check any roll keeps a provably fair casino honest, because they know there's a chance that any cheating will be detected.
While Provably Fair is effective in dice and single-deck blackjack, it’s not an effective tool when applied to multiple decks, shoes, and certainly not slots.
I disagree.
Worse yet, the Provably Fair system and its open-source software is responsible for exposing several operators to hacking attempts. This is why Provably Fair is applied separate from our platform and in conjunction with other testing.
Crappy coders write crappy code. I recommend testing before deployment. Maybe ask someone who knows what they're doing to help. What does "applied separate from our platform" mean? Are your games provably fair or not? Nothing needs to be open source. You don't need to publish any of the code that you run on your server. Simply describe the algorithm.
If your head hasn’t already exploded from all of this information, we challenge you to take the Provably Fair system a step further by applying the hash algorithm to slots. It’s being attempted, but the outcomes mean nothing. Because the hash will most likely never attach itself to the same outcome produced by (oh, let’s say) 36 lines determined by a wheel with (oh, let’s say) 50 identifiers, times (oh, let’s say) five or more wheels on any given spin, giving you a 0% Provably Fair rate, and merely the appearance of fairness. Finally, we challenge anyone to find a central source behind Provably Fair. Go ahead, Google it.
36 lines? You don't spin the lines, you spin the reels. You have 5 reels which each have 50 different positions. That's just 5^50 end positions. Then you check the 36 lines from there. What does it mean for a hash to "attach itself"? What is a "provably fair rate"? What do you mean by "central source"? Does the source of an algorithm matter? I get a strange feeling reading your words. It's like you're using all the right words but in the wrong order. Like you've read a buzzword dictionary but don't understand any of them.
So what is the real solution for players and casino managers hosting more than just dice and blackjack games? Real science, inspections, visual tools, and supervision.
You seem to be trying hard to justify not proving the fairness of your games to your customers. Why is that?
To put all concerns to rest, we’d like to state for the record, 4Grinz does employ Provably Fair, just not directly (for the above security reasons). 4Grinz is powered by CoinGaming.io and scrutinized by Gaming Labs International (GL), and Provably Fair has never been our end-all for establishing fairness - it’s merely an element. We layer our testing to ensure safety, reasonable outcomes, and everyone’s protection from malware and hackers.
What does "not directly" mean? Either you prove the fairness to your players, or you don't.
Fairness in iGaming and slots has also been established by the big-brand software and product providers like Betsoft, Ezugi, Gamearts, Endorphina, Takisto, and Play-N-Go. Just like IGT solicits trusted developers to provide similar software to brick-and-mortar casinos, our online developers are scrutinized by hundreds of casinos and security experts and pass rigorous testing before each of their games can be licensed.
There are many developers out there, but none as closely monitored as the brands and their products that we offer our players. Coingaming.io provides 4Grinz with additional layers of security, and then 4Grinz security experts ensure all standards are being met. More importantly, our outcomes are compared with all of Coingaming.io’s partner sites and their outcomes daily, and visa versa.
In addition, 4Grinz does the following:
1. Research each and every provider on our site and establish clear lines of communication with immediate access to security reports that flag uncommon outcomes.
2. Powered by Coingaming, 4Grinz enjoys another layer of management, scrutiny, and access to algorithms that display real-time statistical data 24 hours a day, seven days a week, on demand and at a glance. At anytime, this data can be shared and compared with the software provider with whom we also have direct contact. 4Grinz, Coingaming.io, and the casino game providers are able to review and collect data from each and every play, a series of plays, while comparing several games over short or long periods of time, and then analyze that data to make a determination. Coingaming.io is one of the largest bitcoin gaming platforms having processed a huge sample size of more than 100 million bets (transactions) on its platform. This affords its team the ability to consistently and accurately analyze the expected house edge from the gaming software providers with actual results to ensure the validity of house percentages.
3. Gaming Labs International (GLI) is our preferred testing lab. Why? Because GLI acquired Technical Systems Testing (TST), established in 1993, and its technology - including Provably Fair. We can assure you, GLI, which has owned TST since the online poker meltdown of 2010, is the world's most experienced gaming test labs and internationally recognized testing facilities offering a full range of testing and consulting services to both the iGaming and land-based markets. It doesn’t get any better than that. Finally, when assessing the total value of a service provider, we prefer to talk to a real person.
That's all very nice, but isn't relevant to the question of why you don't prove the fairness of your games to your customers.
What does that mean for the player? It means that we know and trust the providers, that the providers are tested, that our standards are tested, and that all of this is monitored in ways like never before. We also communicate with other casinos and providers using the same GL Standard games. This allows us to compare outcomes, address possible concerns, and move forward as a gaming community to guarantee GLI performs at the highest standards.
We invite one to visit an actual GLI facility before coming forth as an expert on iGaming fairness and security. Their labs are strategically positioned around the world, with bases in London, Macau, Manila, Netherlands, Vancouver, and Italy. Each lab works closely with industry operators, software suppliers, and manufacturers. Its jurisdictional regulators verify compliance, ensuring GLI upholds superior technical and new world industry standards. Their website is comprehensive and very educational for one wishing to stay up with iGaming security, safety, and fairness issues.
Best part, they are real people.
This humble author and gaming expert has witnessed several developers and testers challenge each other mentally and physically over the years, with a few of those challenges resulting in more than one concussion. Do we discourage such behavior? No. We just get better insurance, because developers and testers challenging each other at escalated levels is exactly what we want for the protection of our company and our players.
So you trust the game providers, and we have to trust you.
That seems like at least two points of failure.
With provable fairness no trust is required. That's why we call it "provable" not "trusted".
