🌟🎲🌟 MoneyPot.com

[ericwrestle27]

What I want to know is why you two keep referring to the "Scott Hamper bot". His cookie library seems completely benign and as far as I can tell the guy isn't even associated with Bitcoin, let alone JackpotRacer.

listing #1823 lists his site being imspected with the website to scott hamper on top

To be clear not making accusations here just explain what happened and what i thought at the time.

Don't see anything here that you didn't bring up...where's the evidence connecting the two of them?

[1715469280]

1715469280

[1715469280]

1715469280

[1715469280]

1715469280

[1715469280]

1715469280

[Lanzador]

What I want to know is why you two keep referring to the "Scott Hamper bot". His cookie library seems completely benign and as far as I can tell the guy isn't even associated with Bitcoin, let alone JackpotRacer.

listing #1823 lists his site being imspected with the website to scott hamper on top

To be clear not making accusations here just explain what happened and what i thought at the time.

Don't see anything here that you didn't bring up...where's the evidence connecting the two of them?

Nothing that proves anything, especially consider this is open in your own IDE - is this still in their source code?

[dooglus]

Would be pretty easy in theory. Send the bet to moneypot as attempting to win 90 BTC, but present it to the user as attempting to win a 72 BTC jackpot. If win, use the tip API to send 18 BTC to an account that collects the fee.

Then I've misunderstood the model.

I thought one of the points of MoneyPot was that it allows random untrusted strangers to run a casino by proxying the trust of the MoneyPot owner.

I thought it went like this:

I deposit to MoneyPot, the untrusted site places my bet on MoneyPot for me, and my winnings stay in my MoneyPot account, leaving no way for the untrusted site operator to steal any of my winnings.

Where did I get it wrong? I thought the site operator could place bets on my behalf that I hadn't agreed to, or could change the details of my bet before placing them, but I didn't realize they could outright take a portion of my winnings without me knowing it.

Edit: I guess if the untrusted casino site allows me to tip players then there's not much that can be done to prevent this attack other than banning the offending casino(s). It would even be possible for a dodgy casino to show a winning bet as a loss and keep all the winnings for themselves. If the player didn't bother checking the bet (and/or tipping history) on MoneyPot itself he wouldn't even know he was being stolen from.

[dooglus]

listing #1823 lists his site being imspected with the website to scott hamper on top

JPR is using some public cookie handling code written by a third party. That's entirely normal and doesn't suggest any kind of a link between the two entities.

Edit: I wonder if the description "cookie manipulation" is worrying you.

Manipulation doesn't necessarily indicate foul play. It has two definitions:

1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.

The cookie.js description is talking about the first definition.

[ericwrestle27]

What I want to know is why you two keep referring to the "Scott Hamper bot". His cookie library seems completely benign and as far as I can tell the guy isn't even associated with Bitcoin, let alone JackpotRacer.

listing #1823 lists his site being imspected with the website to scott hamper on top

To be clear not making accusations here just explain what happened and what i thought at the time.

Don't see anything here that you didn't bring up...where's the evidence connecting the two of them?

Nothing that proves anything, especially consider this is open in your own IDE - is this still in their source code?

not to sure if it is in his code anymore. i'm pretty much done with the issue just on here trying to clear things up on my end so everyone understands what i thought and the reasoning behind it. i wouldn't go through such lengths for virtually no gain if i didn't believe that there was a issue/ or slightest probability that a website we put money into isn't functioning in a manner it shouldn't. if it dont mean anything then i guess it doesn't. its just what i saw and in my mind a probable cause to bring forth the topic we are discussing today.

[RHavar]

Then I've misunderstood the model.

I thought one of the points of MoneyPot was that it allows random untrusted strangers to run a casino by proxying the trust of the MoneyPot owner.

I thought it went like this:

I deposit to MoneyPot, the untrusted site places my bet on MoneyPot for me, and my winnings stay in my MoneyPot account, leaving no way for the untrusted site operator to steal any of my winnings.

Where did I get it wrong? I thought the site operator could place bets on my behalf that I hadn't agreed to, or could change the details of my bet before placing them, but I didn't realize they could outright take a portion of my winnings without me knowing it.

Hmm, almost. You deposit money into moneypot, and there only you can touch it. You can instantly transfer money to an app, and there an app can do what ever it wants with your money, such as betting or  even stealing it. If you deposit X from MP to an app, you need to explicitly trust the app with X. Until the money is back in your main moneypot balance, it's completely at the mercy of the app itself.

MP also offers a set of APIs for apps, most prominently betting against a bankroll that they do not control. (That way investors don't need to trust apps).

I originally did something more akin to what you were talking about, but it became *way* too complex for end users (configuring the type of bets, how many bets, how much EV etc.) that apps could have permission with. I even had a "refill permission" and audit feature.  But users find it much simpler to just transfer balances between apps, and each app has their own per-user balance.

[ericwrestle27]

listing #1823 lists his site being imspected with the website to scott hamper on top

JPR is using some public cookie handling code written by a third party. That's entirely normal and doesn't suggest any kind of a link between the two entities.

Edit: I wonder if the description "cookie manipulation" is worrying you.

Manipulation doesn't necessarily indicate foul play. It has two definitions:

1. handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
2. control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.

The cookie.js description is talking about the first definition.

It was thats why i brought it up to jp to begin with, the existing hash error, the codes shell recently being accessed from github, & jp not having a dedicated dev. im no dev myself i just wanted to help if there was some issue. through this process ive lost more than i gained. I've have to try to explain exactly how my brain processed the info i saw to alot more computer literate people.(which is probably where the deriding vibes are coming from) ..exhausting!

[3x1t]

Then I've misunderstood the model.

I thought one of the points of MoneyPot was that it allows random untrusted strangers to run a casino by proxying the trust of the MoneyPot owner.

I thought it went like this:

I deposit to MoneyPot, the untrusted site places my bet on MoneyPot for me, and my winnings stay in my MoneyPot account, leaving no way for the untrusted site operator to steal any of my winnings.

Where did I get it wrong? I thought the site operator could place bets on my behalf that I hadn't agreed to, or could change the details of my bet before placing them, but I didn't realize they could outright take a portion of my winnings without me knowing it.

Hmm, almost. You deposit money into moneypot, and there only you can touch it. You can instantly transfer money to an app, and there an app can do what ever it wants with your money, such as betting or  even stealing it. If you deposit X from MP to an app, you need to explicitly trust the app with X. Until the money is back in your main moneypot balance, it's completely at the mercy of the app itself.

MP also offers a set of APIs for apps, most prominently betting against a bankroll that they do not control. (That way investors don't need to trust apps).

I originally did something more akin to what you were talking about, but it became *way* too complex for end users (configuring the type of bets, how many bets, how much EV etc.) that apps could have permission with. I even had a "refill permission" and audit feature.  But users find it much simpler to just transfer balances between apps, and each app has their own per-user balance.

But the app owner can't really control the userfunds like he controls his own funds in his dashboard right ?
The only way he could "control" it is by tipping it to himself or whereever with some malicious code or stealing the token/cookie and gain access to his account, or am I missing something there ?

I was wondering if it would make sense if mp would review the code of a website before its allowed to be published. But even then the code could be changed after + there are thousands of apps, so mp would need people to do this.

[Dexon]

But the app owner can't really control the userfunds like he controls his own funds in his dashboard right ?
The only way he could "control" it is by tipping it to himself or whereever with some malicious code or stealing the token/cookie and gain access to his account, or am I missing something there ?

Yes. Just with the tipping and using the users token https://www.moneypot.com/api-docs#v1-auth-tip-another-user

But the players should be aware of it.

[BoXXoB]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

What's the reason behind this if I may ask? This will make lottery quite pointless now in my opinion. Not such a pleasing jackpot to be won anymore.

[katerniko1]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

What's the reason behind this if I may ask? This will make lottery quite pointless now in my opinion. Not such a pleasing jackpot to be won anymore.

your saying 13,377.00 usd is not a pleasing jackpot? :O
i have to work for a 1-2 years in my country to get that money..
regards.
-Katerniko1

[Naoko]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

What's the reason behind this if I may ask? This will make lottery quite pointless now in my opinion. Not such a pleasing jackpot to be won anymore.

your saying 13,377.00 usd is not a pleasing jackpot? :O
i have to work for a 1-2 years in my country to get that money..
regards.
-Katerniko1

not a pleasing jackpot IMHO if you look on the chance before you hit the jackpot. so it will only be good for very small bets on lottery style games such as jackpotracer's. if a player bets high amount of btc it is not worth it coz its like you will have lower multiplier in the same chance of winning with small amount bets

[Michail1]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

What's the reason behind this if I may ask? This will make lottery quite pointless now in my opinion. Not such a pleasing jackpot to be won anymore.

Not much pleasing?
Are other casinos allowing bets of a half of a penny to win $60k.

Personally, I would still be happy to win $13k on such a small bet.

[BlockChainLottery]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

I understand why you are doing this. When a MoneyPot app charges a high house edge, you can get very large winnings. E.g.:
bankroll = 900 BTC
house edge = 10%
Max profit = 900 x 0.1 = 90 BTC
A very lucky somebody could decimate the bankroll, which isn't good for investors.

But I want to plead for a max cap if the bankroll is small, but a variable one if it gets bigger. E.g.:
small bankroll
500 BTC
house edge = 11%
Max profit = 20BTC => max cap
large bankroll
6000 BTC
house edge = 11%
Max profit = 6000 x 0.01 = 60BTC
In this case it is cap'ed on 20BTC for small bankrolls, but if it get's higher, no matter how high the house edge is, it will be 1% of the bankroll. It allows for higher max profits, when MoneyPot becomes more popular for investors.

[Michail1]

Sorry to drill on this.

I had the impression (thought I read it somewhere) that the max winning bet could only be 5% of the bankroll.
How did the winner get 95BTC since the bankroll was about 1000BTC?

Also, the above mentions 10% and 11% house edge.  Really that high?

[ranlo]

Sorry to drill on this.

I had the impression (thought I read it somewhere) that the max winning bet could only be 5% of the bankroll.
How did the winner get 95BTC since the bankroll was about 1000BTC?

Also, the above mentions 10% and 11% house edge.  Really that high?

Maximum win is based on the house edge being played. JPR's app uses a 9.22% HE so it is eligible to obtain (under the previous rules) a much higher percentage of the BR than sites with, for example, a 1% HE.

In theory, the 9.22% HE means the house will win significantly more than is paid out still, but allows for much bigger swings/variance due to how much is being taken.

[Michail1]

Maximum win is based on the house edge being played. JPR's app uses a 9.22% HE so it is eligible to obtain (under the previous rules) a much higher percentage of the BR than sites with, for example, a 1% HE.

In theory, the 9.22% HE means the house will win significantly more than is paid out still, but allows for much bigger swings/variance due to how much is being taken.

Thanks.

[BTCevo]

20 BTC Max win in a single bet cap will go live today.

I understand why you are doing this. When a MoneyPot app charges a high house edge, you can get very large winnings. E.g.:
bankroll = 900 BTC
house edge = 10%
Max profit = 900 x 0.1 = 90 BTC
A very lucky somebody could decimate the bankroll, which isn't good for investors.

But I want to plead for a max cap if the bankroll is small, but a variable one if it gets bigger. E.g.:
small bankroll
500 BTC
house edge = 11%
Max profit = 20BTC => max cap
large bankroll
6000 BTC
house edge = 11%
Max profit = 6000 x 0.01 = 60BTC
In this case it is cap'ed on 20BTC for small bankrolls, but if it get's higher, no matter how high the house edge is, it will be 1% of the bankroll. It allows for higher max profits, when MoneyPot becomes more popular for investors.

Yeah you got some point there. But do you ever think that how about the investment keep decreasing? Or there will be a lot of winner out there? What are you going to do? Lowering this max winning again? You cant do this all the time though

[3x1t]

Seems someone won like 54 btc... maybe would be better to lower a bit more ? (;

[dogtor]

Seems someone won like 54 btc... maybe would be better to lower a bit more ? (;

The big winner this morning was Molloype who took a commanding lead in the BetterBets wagering contest.  He did about 900 btc volume and won about 54 btc off of auto-betting bets like this (https://www.moneypot.com/bets/584353927) [50% at .927249 btc].

Another big win after this one too. Investors must be loving these losses.