4Grinz Bitcoin Casino Official Thread

[4Grinz.com]

There's a great piece by bitZino (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/) posted in reddit nearly two years ago. If Provably Fair was a system that exploited and pressured casinos into utilizing it for other than testing the fairness of dice games and failed then, imagine its inferiority today. We feel the same as this author and believe casinos and casino software should undergo rigorous testing by regulated organizations. They should have to provide tangible results, not theories. We at 4Grinz are well known and well connected in the gaming industry. Our friends and colleagues play on our site because they trust us (and they know where we live). The team at 4Grinz applied successful models to a bitcoin-only site in an effort to introduce cryptocurrencies to others in the industry. So, that's what we did, and we rely on GLI, TST, Coingaming.io, and those testers we know are working with online and brick-and-mortar casinos around the world, because Provably Fair is an assumption of safety and fairness, it applies mostly to dice, not slots, and our players deserve better.

Read bitZino's evaluation of Provably Fair, and you decide. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

Provably Fair is better than anything out there. False.
It is my firm belief that the current implementation of Provably Fair is harmful to players, because it gives players a feeling of security when such security can be easily be compromised without any notification or warning to the player.
We will just release all played hands to show we are fair. This will not work, nor should it appease players. As stated earlier, many of the exploits will still produce Provably Fair data. Any analysis of the hand data can be compromised, because it is generated by the house. Secondly, it distracts the player away from what is really important: is Provably Fair actually provable?
Take for example, roulette. If a house wanted to cheat at roulette - say to produce a string of 15 black - it can do so using one of the exploits. For every switched roll from red to black, the server makes a running count. It can do one of two things at this point: a) cheat another player betting black the same number of times, b) generate fake data and insert reds in equal number to the running count. In any case, it will have to generate fake green plays to maintain the predicted spins. Either way, the plays will offset. There is nothing stopping the house from generating millions of additional "fair" hands to make the probabilities converge to their theoretical, published rates.
Conclusion

These are just a few ways that a house could exploit a player by circumventing the Provably Fair concept. All of the code prior to any exploit is written in a fair and legitimate manner, but is then compromised during the normal course of play using AJAX and HTML partials. None of the initial static files are modified. That's the hidden beauty (if you can call it beauty) in these exploits.
Cryptography is hard. The basic elements of Provably Fair - Mersenne Twister, the Secure Hashing Algorithm (SHA), or any of the pseudorandom number technology - are not compromised. It's the way in which they are structured that is extremely weak. In the words of Bruce Schneier, "And just as it's possible to build a weak structure using strong materials, it's possible to build a weak cryptographic system using strong algorithms and protocols."
The analysis presented here examined a specific implementation of a browser-based "Provably Fair" system. Other implementations of this concept will vary from site to site, and may or may not exhibit similar vulnerabilities.

[tryphe]

^ everything you just posted can still be provably fair by using a nonce value. That way, you can't seek ahead in the number sequence, otherwise the client will know (because their end result was not your result). As for the user picking hi and lo, you could also assign "hi" to black, and "lo" to red. Or, *gasp*, you could let it be at the discretion of the user.

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

[redditisforhippies]

This is what I would like to see more of here. People stepping in and proving these non-provably fair bitcoin casinos are scammers. This (I assume) owner of 4grinz just had a public meltdown and showed his/her true colors. I just wish you dudes were doing this in all the non-provably fair casino topics. The thing is when these kind of casinos want you to win you will win big. When they want you to lose? It can go on for MONTHS or until you are homeless. At least with provably fair you know it's bad luck and bad luck only. The trick is to know when to hit & run these corrupt casinos. Though, many have tried and failed.

These non-provably fair bitcoin casinos are the most greediest and corrupt online casinos i have ever seen. Yes, even more scammy then all the other fiat online casinos i have ever witnessed going back 15+ years. They prey on kids and they finally caught on that there are a lot of kids who are naive and lack experience that are using bitcoin. It took these corrupt sleaze balls a good amount of time to hop on the bitcoin train and i'm afraid they will never leave as long as they have a good flow of new users. If they dare post their corrupt casino on bitcoin talk we can at least save some naive people.

[4Grinz.com]

Yes, the lack of a provable fair system seems to be a barrier in me playing there at this point.   It seems that with all the pressure being put on you to employ one(even having the logic in which one could be created given to you) that it should be a no brainer.   The bitcoin community tends to stray away from the non-provably fair casinos.   Please put a system in place.

It seems you've missed our post in this cumbersome thread. We have a system in place. Actually, several systems. 4Grinz is powered by Coingaming.io, which means it is already certified "Provably Fair," and our games, along with eight other online casinos are hosted on a shared platform. 4Grinz and Coingaming.io took that security a step further with GLI and TST testing. It's not that 4Grinz is not utilizing provably fair systems, it's that any tester will tell you, provably fair systems work best with dice, create terrible and false results for slots, and such games should be tested on several levels and then monitored in real-time. That's what they did. That's what we do. Our security is layered, and not just when it comes to slots, and we monitor and flag any unusual activity.  

On top of that, we don't collect player personal information. We offer two-tier login security with Google Authenticator. Player funds are kept in cold storage and don't linger on the site. Jackpot revenues are kept separate from player and casino revenues. Withdrawals are immediate and in full.

On a lighter note, we're always searching for more cool games and we've found another major-brand provider. We love HD cinematic slots and want to focus on the entertainment experience, ensuring extended play and immersive interaction so players can get to know the hundreds of charming and funny characters, like the ones you meet in WhoSpunit, Mr. Vegas, When Night Falls, Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, and Gypsy Rose to name a few. Every game is different. Each has its own unique quality and story to tell. All must go through regulated testing. All must pass GL Standards, and all will undergo real-time monitoring by gaming experts at 4Grinz.com.

Slots are less about gambling and more about entertainment. Slots are a way to relax and unwind. They provide more than just a gambler's adrenaline rush. They're real games.

That's the future of gaming. That's the future of 4Grinz.com.

[4Grinz.com]

^ everything you just posted can still be provably fair by using a nonce value. That way, you can't seek ahead in the number sequence, otherwise the client will know (because their end result was not your result). As for the user picking hi and lo, you could also assign "hi" to black, and "lo" to red. Or, *gasp*, you could let it be at the discretion of the user.

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

Another straw man. "Don't we want our site to be fair to our user base?"

Creating a false narrative and asking us to argue it is senseless. The insinuation is baseless. For the record, of course we want our site to be fair. That was the mission statement before building 4Grinz. Our site is not only fair, it's proven fair by real experts and software, including the outdated and untrustworthy Provably Fair systems.  

[tryphe]

It seems you've missed our post in this cumbersome thread. We have a system in place. Actually, several systems. 4Grinz is powered by Coingaming.io, which means it is already certified "Provably Fair," and our games, along with eight other online casinos are hosted on a shared platform. 4Grinz and Coingaming.io took that security a step further with GLI and TST testing.

(truncated)

For fucks sake, a certification doesn't account for anything. If I have a certification for something, that means absolutely squat; other than someone printed that piece of paper. What counts is showing your players that you aren't cheating them, not some bullshit certification.

I suppose "numbers and science and Bitcoin are too confusing to be real and secure" too, huh?

[BetterBets.io]

^ everything you just posted can still be provably fair by using a nonce value. That way, you can't seek ahead in the number sequence, otherwise the client will know (because their end result was not your result). As for the user picking hi and lo, you could also assign "hi" to black, and "lo" to red. Or, *gasp*, you could let it be at the discretion of the user.

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

Another straw man. "Don't we want our site to be fair to our user base?"

Creating a false narrative and asking us to argue it is senseless. The insinuation is baseless. For the record, of course we want our site to be fair. That was the mission statement before building 4Grinz. Our site is not only fair, it's proven fair by real experts and software, including the outdated and untrustworthy Provably Fair systems.  

I rarely say anything outside my own business, but calling provably fair outdated is tantamount to blasphemy. Good luck.

[tryphe]

Our site is not only fair, it's proven fair by real experts and software, including the outdated and untrustworthy Provably Fair systems.  

Proven fair how?

You haven't answered this simple question. Yet you keep implying that you can and will. If the players can't reproduce the number series that the game also used, it's not proof.

Also, my insinuation isn't baseless because it's already in your best interest to fudge the numbers to be sleighed towards the house. How do I know you aren't cheating me? Because you act like it hurts you to and you have a pretty certification? Sorry, but it's just a joke.

(yes, even after pages of posts have proven you wrong, note my correct use of the word "prove")

[dooglus]

Now if you would like to talk about the PF stall method I'm all ears.

I'm unfamiliar with the term. Are you referring to this in Trevor Xavier's piece on reddit?

Stalling

The easiest way to compromise a dealt hand is to redo it. After receiving the client seed, if the server does not like the outcome of a particular deal, it can stop responding to the client. Generally, this results in a hang: the roulette wheel will spin indefinitely, cards will not be dealt, and so on. When the user eventually gives up and reloads the page, it will produce a new client seed. The player sees that no bitcoins have been lost, claims no harm, and proceeds with a new deal, giving the house a new round to work with.

If so, that's one of the many problems with old-school provably fairness that is not a problem with the modern systems. If you reload at Just-Dice, PrimeDice, PRCdice, or any other reputable modern provably fair site you will have the same client and server server seeds as before you reloaded. The aim of provable fairness is to make it impossible for the casino to *undetectably* cheat the player. To that end, this "stall method" no longer 'works'.

Otherwise you and Canton can go back to making printed holiday bitcoin wallets.

I don't know who Cantor Becker is. I put clamaddress.org up this morning and immediately received a bug report that it wouldn't work on iOS. I found that a fork of bitaddress.org by Cantor Becker had already fixed the problem so I took his fix, added it to my site, and added his name to the copyright notice, since I had used some of his copyrighted open source code. I very much doubt he is in any way involved with Just-Dice or CLAMs.

Read bitZino's evaluation of Provably Fair, and you decide. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1frm4x/provably_fair_by_bitzino_not_provable_with/

Provably Fair is better than anything out there. False.

What makes you think that evaluation is "bitzino's"? It isn't. It clearly isn't.

It's not clear to me whether you are playing dumb here or not.

You guys are going a little far with this no?

As an outsider looking in I would like to point a "probably unfair" team up of associated board members on this particular thread.
Its fascinating to me that
Dooglas
tryphe
EBK1000
webcris
TigerTatas

I found this thread when someone at Just-Dice drew my attention to it. After having made my first reply, I posted a link to it in the chat there, because I found some of what you were saying astonishing. That's presumably why so many people from the Just-Dice community posted replies here. No conspiracy, just a bunch of people who understand how provable fairness works trying to help you understand. Whether you want to or not.

All coincidentally seem to also be working on the clam client together and obviously have strong dice affiliate associations if not tier 2 direct affiliates

I don't know what "tier 2 direct affiliates" means. Sounds like some kind of unpleasant marketing term to me.

tryphe and Tiger hang out on the JD chat sometimes. I think I've seen a webchris there a couple times. I don't know who EBK is.

[dooglus]

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.

This is what I would like to see more of here. People stepping in and proving these non-provably fair bitcoin casinos are scammers.

Again, we haven't proved any such thing. At worst we've proved that he either doesn't understand provable fairness, or wants to pretend that he doesn't for some reason. Neither is a crime.

The thing is when these kind of casinos want you to win you will win big. When they want you to lose? It can go on for MONTHS or until you are homeless. At least with provably fair you know it's bad luck and bad luck only. The trick is to know when to hit & run these corrupt casinos. Though, many have tried and failed.

It's very hard to tell the difference between a straight house and a rigged one. I know Just-Dice isn't rigged, but we have such runs of good and bad luck that it looks as if it is at times. We had a 6 week period where most big players won their big bets. An outsider looking in could easily think we were doing it on purpose, setting them up for a fall. Then we had a week where the actual site profit was around 9 times the expected site profit for that week. "Variance is a bitch" is the common saying that expresses this phenomenon. It's quite possible that the long winning and losing streaks you see at the non-provably-fair casinos are legit. There's just no way of knowing for sure.

These non-provably fair bitcoin casinos are the most greediest and corrupt online casinos i have ever seen.

I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion that because a site doesn't offer provable fairness it means they have something to hide. It's definitely a possibility, but it seems unfair to assume it to be the case.

[tryphe]

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.

I agree, but the questionable responses are equivalent to "You said I was wrong, but that's not true. But look! A shiny quarter!". He's asserting himself to being correct by leaps and bounds while being quite duplicitous by switching the subject to some unrelated details of his system, and then using that for 95% of rest of the post, while avoiding submitting a valid response to what was quoted. (or not quoted, lol)

[4Grinz.com]

"It's not a great implementation since it uses a new pair of seeds for every spin and puts too much burden on the player..."

Provably fair systems are open source, which puts players and their computers at great risk - especially today. If it's not the best implementation, or even a great implementation, then why are we arguing this? The process is disturbing. It pulls data from a player's browser and computer each and every spin. In also puts the burden on the player. 

[tryphe]

Where are you getting that quote from? Also, (good)working implementations don't use a new server seed for every roll, and let the client choose a new seed for themselves at their discretion. Which in turn, lets you verify a sequence. Which, by the way, you already said was impossible to do in my "casino in the sky".

[4Grinz.com]

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.

I agree, but the questionable responses are equivalent to "You said I was wrong, but that's not true. But look! A shiny quarter!". He's asserting himself to being correct by leaps and bounds while being quite duplicitous by switching the subject to some unrelated details of his system, and then using that for 95% of the post.

We're sticking with GLI - For 25 years, Gaming Laboratories International, LLC has continuously delivered THE best quality land-based and iGaming testing and consulting services with supreme accuracy while reducing time to market. With 21 laboratory locations spread across Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and South America, GLI is the only global organization of its kind to hold U.S. and international accreditations for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025, 17020 and guide 65 standards for technical competence in the gaming, wagering and lottery industries. For more information, visit www.gaminglabs.com.

If you choose not to play on our site, then vote with your web wallet. If you wish to disparage us because we don't use a dice system to measure the fairness of slots, then expect a swift response.

If you'd like to discuss scam sites, then please do so on another thread. This is our official thread meant to answer our player's questions, update them on contest results, and make promotional announcements.

We have gone out of our way to explain that Provably Fair systems were used during initial testing, and they were ineffective when applied to a slots scenario, and for several security reasons, we do not subject our software and platform to systems that put our security and that of our players at risk.

[tryphe]

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.

I agree, but the questionable responses are equivalent to "You said I was wrong, but that's not true. But look! A shiny quarter!". He's asserting himself to being correct by leaps and bounds while being quite duplicitous by switching the subject to some unrelated details of his system, and then using that for 95% of the post.

We're sticking with GLI - For 25 years, Gaming Laboratories International, LLC has continuously delivered THE best quality land-based and iGaming testing and consulting services with supreme accuracy while reducing time to market. With 21 laboratory locations spread across Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and South America, GLI is the only global organization of its kind to hold U.S. and international accreditations for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025, 17020 and guide 65 standards for technical competence in the gaming, wagering and lottery industries. For more information, visit www.gaminglabs.com.

If you choose not to play on our site, then vote with your web wallet. If you wish to disparage us because we don't use a dice system to measure the fairness of slots, then expect a swift response.

If you'd like to discuss scam sites, then please do so on another thread. This is our official thread meant to answer our player's questions, update them on contest results, and make promotional announcements.

We have gone out of our way to explain that Provably Fair systems were used during initial testing, and they were ineffective when applied to a slots scenario, and for several security reasons, we do not subject our software and platform to systems that put our security and that of our players at risk.

In other words, the "institution" that supplies numbers for you and has your players' money in their best interest, is not in your control. There is no proof.

Thanks for clarifying. There was no need to beat around the bush, though.

[dooglus]

Provably fair systems are open source,

Most provably fair sites are closed source. Some aren't. The openness of the source isn't related to whether the events are generated in a provably fair way or not.

which puts players and their computers at great risk -

Is that why Linux is so much less secure that Windows? Oh, wait.

especially today.

What happened today?

If it's not the best implementation, or even a great implementation, then why are we arguing this?

Try to keep up. You said that it was impossible to make a provably fair slots game, so I proved you wrong by showing you a working example of one. You said it many times, even after I posted the link to that one.

The process is disturbing. It pulls data from a player's browser and computer each and every spin. In also puts the burden on the player. 

Sigh. It was showing you (and mostly everyone else) that you were wrong. Their choice of provably fair system is poor, but that isn't what we were discussing. You claimed it was impossible so I showed you that it isn't.

If you choose not to play on our site, then vote with your web wallet.

I already did.

If you wish to disparage us because we don't use a dice system to measure the fairness of slots, then expect a swift response.

"dice system"? What are you talking about. Provable fairness is unrelated to dice. It applies to any single-player game of chance, including slots, as I have already pointed out many times. You are really bad at arguing.

If you'd like to discuss scam sites, then please do so on another thread. This is our official thread meant to answer our player's questions, update them on contest results, and make promotional announcements.

We have gone out of our way to explain that Provably Fair systems were used during initial testing, and they were ineffective when applied to a slots scenario, and for several security reasons, we do not subject our software and platform to systems that put our security and that of our players at risk.

You still don't seem to understand the point of provable fairness. The point is that the casino can prove *to the player* that each and every game event was fairly determined. What you seem to have is some figure in authority which you claim has proved to themselves that your games are fair. That proves nothing to the player, since you could be lying about them having looked at your games, and they could be lying about your games being fair. You could also have changed your games since they looked at them, or change them just for your biggest bettors.

Provable fairness is something that happens while players play, to satisfy the players. It isn't a process you do in secret with some company who gives you a stamp of approval. The difference between these two is the word "proof". (Look it up).

I think the point has been hammered home enough times by now that if you don't understand then you never will, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

[4Grinz.com]

Why are you just insistent on posting relentless garbage? Don't you want your site to be fair to your user base?

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.

I agree, but the questionable responses are equivalent to "You said I was wrong, but that's not true. But look! A shiny quarter!". He's asserting himself to being correct by leaps and bounds while being quite duplicitous by switching the subject to some unrelated details of his system, and then using that for 95% of the post.

We're sticking with GLI - For 25 years, Gaming Laboratories International, LLC has continuously delivered THE best quality land-based and iGaming testing and consulting services with supreme accuracy while reducing time to market. With 21 laboratory locations spread across Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and South America, GLI is the only global organization of its kind to hold U.S. and international accreditations for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025, 17020 and guide 65 standards for technical competence in the gaming, wagering and lottery industries. For more information, visit www.gaminglabs.com.

If you choose not to play on our site, then vote with your web wallet. If you wish to disparage us because we don't use a dice system to measure the fairness of slots, then expect a swift response.

If you'd like to discuss scam sites, then please do so on another thread. This is our official thread meant to answer our player's questions, update them on contest results, and make promotional announcements.

We have gone out of our way to explain that Provably Fair systems were used during initial testing, and they were ineffective when applied to a slots scenario, and for several security reasons, we do not subject our software and platform to systems that put our security and that of our players at risk.

In other words, the "institution" that supplies numbers for you and has your players' money in their best interest, is not in your control. There is no proof.

Thanks for clarifying.

4Grinz pays a fee for each level of testing in order to receive certification. As with any license, that's where the "interest" ends. GLI has no access or interest in players' money. They don't receive any further commissions. Their "interest" is in comparing several platforms, testing games they understand in ways you couldn't possibly (as a dice expert), and publicly reporting those findings to regulators in an effort to elevate standards, not get stuck in old ones. How you would insinuate that GLI receives a stipend from player losses is slanderous. We'll be sure to let our friends at GLI know this. SMH. (Some people will stoop to any levels just to make their point, even when it's pointless.)  

[4Grinz.com]

We're here all night. 

[tryphe]

I'm not insinuating anything. You're the one that said you could prove it was fair. But you still haven't, despite all of this.

You can't. No one can. (apparently)
The money of your players is placed on faith that you've done the right thing, not concrete evidence.

Once again, thanks for clarifying.

[4Grinz.com]

I'm not insinuating anything. You're the one that said you could prove it was fair. But you still haven't, despite all of this.

You can't. No one can. (apparently)
The money of your players is placed on faith that you've done the right thing, not concrete evidence.

Once again, thanks for clarifying.