Bitcoin Forum
March 08, 2021, 04:06:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: How random the last digit of a block hash really is?  (Read 23538 times)
CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
May 31, 2016, 10:20:02 AM
Last edit: September 27, 2019, 06:45:53 PM by CounterEntropy
Merited by joniboini (2), ETFbitcoin (1), MarbleBoss (1)
 #1

I recently noticed a gambling website (www.bitcoinbetting.website https://www.chain-bet.com) is offering 4 times return on correctly guessing the last digit of a block hash. I would like to know, how random is the last digit of a block hash really is? Is there any bias towards numbers or letters?

Update: Lately, they have increased return to 15 times for each winning bet.
1615176397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615176397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615176397
Reply with quote  #2

1615176397
Report to moderator
1615176397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615176397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615176397
Reply with quote  #2

1615176397
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1615176397
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615176397

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1615176397
Reply with quote  #2

1615176397
Report to moderator
dex1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 114



View Profile
May 31, 2016, 11:39:30 AM
Merited by xandry (2), joniboini (2)
 #2

I recently noticed a gambling website (www.bitcoinbetting.website) is offering 4 times return on correctly guessing the last digit of a block hash. I would like to know, how random is the last digit of a block hash really is? Is there any bias towards numbers or letters?



It's a digit in hex format between 0 - F so in decimal between 0-15.
Your chance to guess the right digit is 1 in 16.


2c0de
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 138
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 31, 2016, 12:06:35 PM
 #3

It is random as long miners/pools don't care about the site.

If the bets become bigger than subsidy (25BTC), it gets interesting.

Miners/pools can participate on site, rig future block digit to be zero, and sweep all unsuspecting user's funds who bet on 1.

OH and by the way, I know about system how truly fair betting can be constructed, but it's a secret Smiley

DHjxvnHB9RirtPbvkovSotn1fY2poNffoi
LWeT4wwDVdJ9x49UcXPyS6CznRpbQFM6nx
0x96273C2FD825f0A2745d917bbbfabD6032dC1aDD
CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
May 31, 2016, 10:32:33 PM
 #4

It's a digit in hex format between 0 - F so in decimal between 0-15.
I know. I asked about the randomness of its appearance as the last digit of a block hash. Whether increasing difficulty has any effect on it etc.

Your chance to guess the right digit is 1 in 16.
That's not always true for this specific game as the a player can chose multiple options at a time.

It is random as long miners/pools don't care about the site.

If the bets become bigger than subsidy (25BTC), it gets interesting.

Miners/pools can participate on site, rig future block digit to be zero, and sweep all unsuspecting user's funds who bet on 1.
I doubt if there is slightest truth in the bold part. Mining pools probably can not force the last digit of a block hash to be zero or any digit of their choice. It should depend on the nonce. Otherwise SHA would have been broken.
Delek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


Salí para ver


View Profile WWW
May 31, 2016, 11:39:52 PM
 #5

Mining pools probably can not force the last digit of a block hash to be zero or any digit of their choice. It should depend on the nonce.
BREAKING NEWS: Forcing the hash is changing a nonce.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
-> delek.net <-
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1057


View Profile
June 01, 2016, 12:16:45 AM
 #6

In order for a miner to "pick" the last digit of the hash, they'd have to pass up a block subsidy plus a block's worth of transaction fees should the last digit of a qualifying hash (one that's low enough for the current difficulty) fail to match.

Passing up a chance to get a block subsidy is a pretty big deal.  Block subsidies are 25BTC at present, as someone said.  Soon though it will drop to 12.5BTC and miners may start withholding blocks if it looks like they could make more with the betting.

DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1861



View Profile
June 01, 2016, 02:39:55 AM
 #7

I asked about the randomness of its appearance as the last digit of a block hash.

As long as the miner (or pool) doesn't have a significant incentive to ignore a successful block hash to continue trying additional nonce values for a different hash, it is random.

Whether increasing difficulty has any effect on it etc.

Difficulty has no effect on it.

Your chance to guess the right digit is 1 in 16.
That's not always true for this specific game as the a player can chose multiple options at a time.

You didn't explain what the options were.

You asked "how random is the last digit of a block hash really is".  The chance of guessing a single random last digit is 1 in 16 if miners (or pools) don't have a significant incentive to ignore a winning hash to continue trying additional nonce values for a different hash.

Mining pools probably can not force the last digit of a block hash to be zero or any digit of their choice. It should depend on the nonce. Otherwise SHA would have been broken.

Sure, but if the block reward is only 12.5 BTC (like it will be in about 7 weeks), and the prize for guessing the correct last hash digit is 200 BTC, then it might be worth it to the miner (or pool) to just ignore a successful hash and continue to try additional nonce values to see if the next successful block hash has a winning digit. They might miss out on the 12.5 BTC since they didn't broadcast their block, but 1 out of every 16 times they do it, they have a 6.25% chance of their next successful hash earning them 200 BTC.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 1069


View Profile
June 01, 2016, 02:53:40 PM
 #8

They might miss out on the 12.5 BTC since they didn't broadcast their block

They could always withhold the block until someone else finds a block, at which point they can broadcast their block and hope to win the race. They would still lose sometimes, but sometimes they'd win.

Buy & Hold
fronti
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2706
Merit: 1224



View Profile
June 02, 2016, 02:30:02 PM
 #9

 cat /tmp/hashlist | sed -e 's/\(^.*\)\(.$\)/\2/' | sort | uniq -c  | sort
  25530 9
  25640 5
  25707 8
  25792 4
  25807 b
  25849 a
  25877 6
  25882 0
  25897 f
  25904 e
  25923 d
  26025 7
  26084 3
  26169 c
  26176 1
  26217 2

looks random enough with 414479 blocks..
we need to check again in 100000 Blocks Smiley

If you like to give me a tip:  bc1q8ht32j5hj42us5qfptvu08ug9zeqgvxuhwznzk

"Bankraub ist eine Unternehmung von Dilettanten. Wahre Profis gründen eine Bank." Bertolt Brecht
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1042


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2016, 07:04:20 PM
 #10

cat /tmp/hashlist | sed -e 's/\(^.*\)\(.$\)/\2/' | sort | uniq -c  | sort

Here it is in chart form - definitely random!
bob123
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 2314



View Profile WWW
June 07, 2016, 11:40:53 AM
 #11

cat /tmp/hashlist | sed -e 's/\(^.*\)\(.$\)/\2/' | sort | uniq -c  | sort

Here it is in chart form - definitely random!

Would have been kinda irritating if it wasnt random.
Since its SHA HASHING

CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
June 08, 2016, 09:46:53 PM
 #12

Mining pools probably can not force the last digit of a block hash to be zero or any digit of their choice. It should depend on the nonce.
BREAKING NEWS: Forcing the hash is changing a nonce.
Not sure if u r joking or spamming.

Mining pools probably can not force the last digit of a block hash to be zero or any digit of their choice. It should depend on the nonce. Otherwise SHA would have been broken.

Sure, but if the block reward is only 12.5 BTC (like it will be in about 7 weeks), and the prize for guessing the correct last hash digit is 200 BTC, then it might be worth it to the miner (or pool) to just ignore a successful hash and continue to try additional nonce values to see if the next successful block hash has a winning digit. They might miss out on the 12.5 BTC since they didn't broadcast their block, but 1 out of every 16 times they do it, they have a 6.25% chance of their next successful hash earning them 200 BTC.
Well, I think, there is no chance of this. Because, the highest amount of bet they are accepting against house is 0.1 BTC. So, the best amount that the miner can win for now is 0.8 BTC. No one will withhold 12.5 BTC for 0.8 BTC.
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1861



View Profile
June 08, 2016, 10:00:19 PM
 #13

Well, I think, there is no chance of this. Because, the highest amount of bet they are accepting against house is 0.1 BTC. So, the best amount that the miner can win for now is 0.8 BTC. No one will withhold 12.5 BTC for 0.8 BTC.

Interesting.  I wonder how they verify that a person isn't placing multiple bets (with multiple accounts)?

If the miner could set up 100 accounts and place 100 bets, then they could bet a total of 10 BTC to possibly win 80 BTC.
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1353


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2016, 10:24:11 PM
 #14

They might miss out on the 12.5 BTC since they didn't broadcast their block

They could always withhold the block until someone else finds a block, at which point they can broadcast their block and hope to win the race. They would still lose sometimes, but sometimes they'd win.
They'd always lose if they broadcast it after another pool has found a block unless they were big enough to get two blocks back to back.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 1861



View Profile
June 08, 2016, 10:30:21 PM
 #15

They'd always lose if they broadcast it after another pool has found a block unless they were big enough to get two blocks back to back.

Not necessarily.

It would depend on how well connected they were to other miners and pools, and how well connected the pool that found the block was.

If they received the block directly from the pool that found it, and then immediately broadcast their own block to all the other pools before the competing block had propagated, then they'd have a pretty good chance of winning.
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1353


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2016, 11:41:03 PM
 #16

They'd always lose if they broadcast it after another pool has found a block unless they were big enough to get two blocks back to back.

Not necessarily.

It would depend on how well connected they were to other miners and pools, and how well connected the pool that found the block was.

If they received the block directly from the pool that found it, and then immediately broadcast their own block to all the other pools before the competing block had propagated, then they'd have a pretty good chance of winning.
Anything's possible, sure, but since they have to receive it from the other pool and then broadcast their own, then every other pool may also have received the block. Sure they might be the only pool with a good connection to the one pool that solved the block but there is no magic to make one pool substantially better connected to all pools than all other pools might have. Too many ifs and buts, but yes in this pedantic world, my ALWAYS is indeed wrong. Let's say 99% to not leave any absolutes out there... Either way it's far too risky to likely lose a whole block reward.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel
2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Mandoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 264


Aurox


View Profile
June 09, 2016, 01:54:35 AM
 #17

Normally a standard opinion would say 1 out of 16 but i would rebut in my experience its 1 out 99. But nevermind the hash, and consider this; if you make a certain roll and certain amount to match your roll number to that of the last hash digit then dont do it, theres a less chance youll get it and more btc wasted. But if you have just to guess it without making somebets then go on it doesnt matter if you make a guess as long as you dont lose a significant amount of btc.

Aurox.
 
Designed to make
you money
|Proprietary Indicators
& Signals
|||                  ▄██▄▄▄▄▄
                ▄████████▀█▄▀
            ▄▄██████████▀
           ██████████▀██
          ███████████▄▄ ▄▄
         ██████████████ ▀▀█▄
     ▄▄████████████▀▄█▀   ▀▀
▄▀▀ ███████████▀▀▀ ██▀
▀▄▄▀ ██████▀ ▄▄
      ████▀ ██▀
     ███▀  █▀
     ▄█▌  ▐█▌
     ▀██   ▀▀
██████████████████████████████████████████
.
█████████████   ████

Get Started. FREE!
██   ████   ██████   ████████   ██████████████████████████

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1036



View Profile
June 13, 2016, 09:33:45 PM
 #18

cat /tmp/hashlist | sed -e 's/\(^.*\)\(.$\)/\2/' | sort | uniq -c  | sort

Here it is in chart form - definitely random!

Seems to have a small sine-like wave pattern... Look how it "waves".

Obviously that would be smaller with a bigger sample.
CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
July 07, 2016, 11:51:11 AM
 #19

Normally a standard opinion would say 1 out of 16 but i would rebut in my experience its 1 out 99. But nevermind the hash, and consider this; if you make a certain roll and certain amount to match your roll number to that of the last hash digit then dont do it, theres a less chance youll get it and more btc wasted. But if you have just to guess it without making somebets then go on it doesnt matter if you make a guess as long as you dont lose a significant amount of btc.
They give u the option to bet on multiple options under a certain roll. So, the u have the choice to decide upon your winning probability.
rambeazle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 244
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 11, 2016, 06:47:14 PM
 #20

Hashes are uniformly distributed over the entire number space, so to answer you question, they are as random as they get. Furthermore, such hashes are routinely used in provably fair algorithms in other sites, sort of like an industry best practice.
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1057


View Profile
July 12, 2016, 03:56:28 AM
 #21

To be fair: 

You shouldn't rely on the randomness of the hash if people are betting on it.  Especially not after the hashing.

If you have a miner who stands to make more on the bet than they would on the block subsidy, the economics can favor them getting a hash low enough to make a block, but then withholding it, looking for a hash low enough to make the block *AND* having a final digit that will win them the bet as well.  They risk losing the block subsidy if another miner finds a block first, but they can also instantly release the block they found the first instant they get a whiff of the other miner's block, and then they have a nearly-equal chance of getting the block subsidy anyhow.  Meanwhile, they go on looking to win the bet. 

cr1776
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1157


View Profile
July 12, 2016, 11:30:23 AM
 #22

To be fair: 

You shouldn't rely on the randomness of the hash if people are betting on it.  Especially not after the hashing.

If you have a miner who stands to make more on the bet than they would on the block subsidy, the economics can favor them getting a hash low enough to make a block, but then withholding it, looking for a hash low enough to make the block *AND* having a final digit that will win them the bet as well.  They risk losing the block subsidy if another miner finds a block first, but they can also instantly release the block they found the first instant they get a whiff of the other miner's block, and then they have a nearly-equal chance of getting the block subsidy anyhow.  Meanwhile, they go on looking to win the bet. 



This.

When there is no incentive to mess with the hash, it may be safe to rely on the last digit. But as was said here (and DH above previously) when there is incentive to do so, it is possible to do so.

Using the last digit of the hash of a single block as the sole random value for a sufficiently large prize is asking for problems.

Even looking at all the values showing it looks random is not sufficient if the lottery drawing (for example) happens every 1000 blocks because you only need to do it once to win a massive sum (eg in the US's Powerball drawing the subsidy is minimal in comparison).  In most of the blocks there is no incentive to select a particular hash so even if someone did it successfully 10% of the time (every 10000 blocks in this example)  it would be undetectable in the noise. 



Albert Hamilton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 128
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 20, 2016, 11:08:49 AM
 #23

To be fair: 

You shouldn't rely on the randomness of the hash if people are betting on it.  Especially not after the hashing.

If you have a miner who stands to make more on the bet than they would on the block subsidy, the economics can favor them getting a hash low enough to make a block, but then withholding it, looking for a hash low enough to make the block *AND* having a final digit that will win them the bet as well.  They risk losing the block subsidy if another miner finds a block first, but they can also instantly release the block they found the first instant they get a whiff of the other miner's block, and then they have a nearly-equal chance of getting the block subsidy anyhow.  Meanwhile, they go on looking to win the bet. 


So, according to you, if this game goes big, miners may not publish valid blocks and thereby disrupt bitcoin block generation altogether?
ranochigo
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1945

@ me if you need my response


View Profile
August 20, 2016, 01:12:20 PM
 #24

To be fair:  

You shouldn't rely on the randomness of the hash if people are betting on it.  Especially not after the hashing.

If you have a miner who stands to make more on the bet than they would on the block subsidy, the economics can favor them getting a hash low enough to make a block, but then withholding it, looking for a hash low enough to make the block *AND* having a final digit that will win them the bet as well.  They risk losing the block subsidy if another miner finds a block first, but they can also instantly release the block they found the first instant they get a whiff of the other miner's block, and then they have a nearly-equal chance of getting the block subsidy anyhow.  Meanwhile, they go on looking to win the bet.  


So, according to you, if this game goes big, miners may not publish valid blocks and thereby disrupt bitcoin block generation altogether?
That is if they have sufficient resources to even generate a block. They would probably need a significant hash rate to be able to generate blocks at a reasonable frequency. The miner can always mine the block and start mining on it before publishing it. The miner have a chance to publish two blocks at once and no one else could've solved on it. This theoretically can give them a higher chance of getting the subsequent blocks.

The method mentioned above is quite effective for the attacker and would have a significant chance of succeeding if you have a good amount of hashpower. However, if you do not have a good portion of the network's hash power, your probability of succeeding will be close to insignificant. If someone mined the block when you are withholding it, unless you have a high amount of hash power, more often than not, the block you mined would be orphaned. That obviously depends on which block the miners decided to work on. There is a chance for them to lose both the block reward and the bet altogether.

Miners would have to continue to publish the blocks since the game uses it to determine the results. Bitcoin's block would at the very most be delayed.


Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
August 27, 2016, 07:29:15 PM
 #25

How about the last 2 digits of the block hash? 256 choices / chances.
How about the last 4 digits of the block hash? 65k.

Why not just use the whole block hash, and hash it again. Pair that with another value that is unknown until it is published (but with a SHA256/512 hash) and it's as "provably fair" as it gets. The only one who could cheat is the owner of the site AND if he is a big miner.

Someone else made another site (that has since been gone or sold or something) that computed more hashes for a good half hour (or about 3 blocks worth) on decently powerful hardware so that this eliminated the "miner withholding the block problem", but I think that's overkill and too much work.

My site uses 64 consecutive block hashes, but that's just for following the theme. I could have just use 1 block hash for the same result.

Shockaftermoon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


beatcoin team leader


View Profile WWW
September 06, 2016, 12:11:20 AM
 #26

never seen this b4 http://www.bitcoinbetting.website/

MyBTT
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
September 09, 2016, 05:31:46 AM
 #27

It is random as long miners/pools don't care about the site.

If the bets become bigger than subsidy (25BTC), it gets interesting.

Miners/pools can participate on site, rig future block digit to be zero, and sweep all unsuspecting user's funds who bet on 1.

OH and by the way, I know about system how truly fair betting can be constructed, but it's a secret Smiley

Lol there is no such thing has truly fair betting. You could use random.org, but their numbers are based on results of a physical anomaly, which is not totally fair.

The best thing atm is probably fair, which has been documented many times.


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
September 09, 2016, 01:36:20 PM
 #28

Lol there is no such thing has truly fair betting. You could use random.org, but their numbers are based on results of a physical anomaly, which is not totally fair.

The best thing atm is probably fair, which has been documented many times.

I don't know what you're trying to say. If both the site and the player have no way to determine the result before it is shown, then it is fair. Using random.org is fair, but no one wants to use that because people in this bitcoin world want provably fair.

Probably fair is not something anyone wants. The probabilities are there, but you want it proven beyond doubt.

CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
September 17, 2016, 10:29:13 PM
 #29

Everything has a first time. No?
AOL
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 108
Merit: 3


View Profile
September 30, 2016, 11:31:57 AM
 #30

The best thing atm is probably fair, which has been documented many times.
It is not probably fair. It is provably fair.
Decoded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1024


give me your cryptos


View Profile
September 30, 2016, 12:09:27 PM
 #31

Lol there is no such thing has truly fair betting. You could use random.org, but their numbers are based on results of a physical anomaly, which is not totally fair.

The best thing atm is probably fair, which has been documented many times.

I don't know what you're trying to say. If both the site and the player have no way to determine the result before it is shown, then it is fair. Using random.org is fair, but no one wants to use that because people in this bitcoin world want provably fair.

Probably fair is not something anyone wants. The probabilities are there, but you want it proven beyond doubt.

I think what he's trying to say is not that nothing is probably fair, but nothing is 100% fair and random. A formula will always be restricted by parameters.

looking for a signature campaign, dm me for that
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
September 30, 2016, 02:05:11 PM
 #32

I think what he's trying to say is not that nothing is probably fair, but nothing is 100% fair and random. A formula will always be restricted by parameters.
I know what he tried to say, I'm just being a jerk about it, grammar police, whatever. Smiley

But when you say "restricted by parameters", ... 128, 256, or 512 bit output... Not something to worry about from a practical point of view. You can argue about it academically all day, won't really matter as it's essentially unpredictable and random for all intents and purposes except analyzing it. They are deterministic.

To predict a block hash, or any digit of the hash, you would need ... to actually mine.

Jimmy Wales
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 131
Merit: 17


View Profile
October 04, 2016, 06:53:21 PM
 #33

When there is no incentive to mess with the hash, it may be safe to rely on the last digit. But as was said here (and DH above previously) when there is incentive to do so, it is possible to do so.
Recently, www.bitcoinbetting.website made the following announcement...

Maximum bet amount allowed has been raised from 0.1 BTC to 1 BTC. Anything over this amount will be considered as donation.

So, the winning amount, i.e. 16 BTC, is more than a block reward, i.e. 12.5 BTC. Do u think, miners may hold a block now if they place 1 BTC bet with a wrong choice? Appears impossible to me...
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
October 05, 2016, 03:28:25 AM
 #34

I think the "threshold" for risking losing 99.99% of earning 12.5 BTC is a gamble of how many percent of their hashpower is to the total network of about double or triple. Or 25 BTC. Or more.

No miner in his right mind will give up the current block reward for anything less than double or triple that. I think no miner would give up 12.5 BTC unless the gamble has a higher than 50% chance of earning 25 BTC, or a higher than 75% of earning 50 BTC (if the bet or prize gets that big).

Now if the last digit of a block hash is used in conjunction with a secret, then the website owner would have to collude with a large or strong miner or a pool.

Currently, there is no known single pool or sufficiently large solo miner that has the hashpower to even consider this kind of attack, plus it is a gamble, so why would they do it?

So, the winning amount, i.e. 16 BTC, is more than a block reward, i.e. 12.5 BTC. Do u think, miners may hold a block now if they place 1 BTC bet with a wrong choice? Appears impossible to me...

Nope. Too risky for a winning amount that small. I'd rather take the 12.5 BTC because I have that now. (not even guaranteed).

Rupert Murdoch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 05, 2016, 02:59:27 PM
 #35

Hashes are uniformly distributed over the entire number space, so to answer you question, they are as random as they get. Furthermore, such hashes are routinely used in provably fair algorithms in other sites, sort of like an industry best practice.
Is there any mathematical proof of that or it is just an assumption based on previous data?
Ya-ing
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 119
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 05, 2016, 05:43:57 PM
 #36

As I understand randomness... it is not that anything in the computer world is really random. It is just too complicated to calculate and predict.

Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
November 05, 2016, 07:10:59 PM
 #37

Hashes are uniformly distributed over the entire number space, so to answer you question, they are as random as they get. Furthermore, such hashes are routinely used in provably fair algorithms in other sites, sort of like an industry best practice.
Is there any mathematical proof of that or it is just an assumption based on previous data?

As far as I am aware, there is no "proof", not in the mathematical sense. Try this, make a list of numbers from 1 to 1 billion. Get the SHA256 (or any other) hash of these numbers. You'll see, the hashes are uniformly or evenly distributed. It's not perfect.

You can check the last digit and see if you get close to the expected results.

FruitBucket
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 286
Merit: 250



View Profile
November 05, 2016, 09:04:01 PM
 #38

As per proof-of-work: Miners will need to find a hash which contains the right amount of zeros to match the difficulty. If a miner found the right hash in time but it does not match the hex number that he placed the bet one, than he can choose to not submit the block and instead continues to search for a different nonce/hash. This will likely take him on average twice as long and even then there is still a 15/16 chance that if he found a new hash that it is still not the hex number that he placed the bet on. However, meanwhile the miner risks that someone else finds the correct hash - so he is risking his block reward doing this.

The odds are entirely different if the house allows to place bets exactly until the block is announced. In this case the miner could just place a bet before announcing the block to the network. However, it is unlikely that the house would allow these last-minute bets.

Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
November 06, 2016, 04:05:43 AM
 #39

I don't know how other gambling sites operate, but a way to mitigate or lower the risk for the house (or investors) and for all other players to not have a clue about the winning number is to use a delay, and use a secret. As in, don't allow to bet on the block hash itself. But if the game or site we're talking about does that, ... they're asking for trouble.

betwithbitcoin8668
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 21
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 06, 2016, 05:41:00 AM
 #40

I recently noticed a gambling website (www.bitcoinbetting.website) is offering 4 times return on correctly guessing the last digit of a block hash. I would like to know, how random is the last digit of a block hash really is? Is there any bias towards numbers or letters?

Update: Lately, they have increased return to 16 times for each winning bet.

16 times is too much , that means they didn't make money from it .

And I think people will rarelly play a game with 1/16 chance to win.
RocketSingh
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1626
Merit: 1036


View Profile
November 24, 2016, 04:51:54 PM
 #41

16 times is too much , that means they didn't make money from it .
Too much! LoLz... nothing is too much in gambling, as long as it is balanced with odds, which is pretty much the case here.

And I think people will rarelly play a game with 1/16 chance to win.
Gamblers are not so dumb that they'll place a bet on a single option. By betting on multiple options in a single block, they'll increase their chance of win.
Viceroy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 501


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 09:32:05 PM
 #42

100% random, and most betting sites use this as their system for fair, verifiable game play.
arulbero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1723
Merit: 1776


View Profile
December 07, 2016, 12:40:34 PM
 #43

I have checked the last digit distribution of every block hash (16 possible values and 442034 blocks):

Code:
BLOCKS : from 0 to 442033 (TOT = 442034)
last
digit         fr.         prob.           unif. -->  1/16=0.0625
0           27520   0.0622576543886                    
1           27881   0.0630743336485
2           27952   0.0632349547772       MAX -->  =+0.00073495777 = +1,16%
3           27892   0.0630992186121
4           27543   0.0623096865852
5           27339   0.0618481836239
6           27674   0.062606043879
7           27691   0.0626445024591
8           27428   0.0620495256021
9           27203   0.061540514983        MIN --> -0.000959485 = -1.54%
10 (a)      27594   0.0624250623255
11 (b)      27554   0.0623345715488
12 (c)      27863   0.063033612799
13 (d)      27616   0.0624748322527
14 (e)      27619   0.062481619061
15 (f)      27665   0.0625856834542

I think it's ok.

Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3570
Merit: 1069


View Profile
December 09, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
 #44

I have checked the last digit distribution of every block hash (16 possible values and 442034 blocks):

Code:
BLOCKS : from 0 to 442033 (TOT = 442034)
last
digit         fr.         prob.           unif. -->  1/16=0.0625
0           27520   0.0622576543886                    
1           27881   0.0630743336485
2           27952   0.0632349547772       MAX -->  =+0.00073495777 = +1,16%
3           27892   0.0630992186121
4           27543   0.0623096865852
5           27339   0.0618481836239
6           27674   0.062606043879
7           27691   0.0626445024591
8           27428   0.0620495256021
9           27203   0.061540514983        MIN --> -0.000959485 = -1.54%
10 (a)      27594   0.0624250623255
11 (b)      27554   0.0623345715488
12 (c)      27863   0.063033612799
13 (d)      27616   0.0624748322527
14 (e)      27619   0.062481619061
15 (f)      27665   0.0625856834542

I think it's ok.

It's not enough to check the frequency. For instance, the sequence "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3" has equal frequencies, but is unlikely to be random.

Buy & Hold
cpfreeplz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1040


View Profile
December 09, 2016, 06:27:08 PM
 #45

It's not enough to check the frequency. For instance, the sequence "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3" has equal frequencies, but is unlikely to be random.

If you tried with a few thousand blocks this wouldn't show a more scientific answer rather than "I rolled a die 6x and I got 3 twice, therefore the odds of rolling a 3 on a die is 1 in 3" . It's just not how odds work.
dreamhouse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1072
Merit: 666



View Profile
December 10, 2016, 12:20:40 AM
 #46

Last digit of block hash should be close to true random. I remember seeing some altcoins generate random blocks using some fixed bits in hash (usually a letter in the middle), and some dev did stats and showed the randomness is almost perfect.

           ▀██▄ ▄██▀
            ▐█████▌
           ▄███▀███▄
         ▄████▄  ▀███▄
       ▄███▀ ▀██▄  ▀███▄
     ▄███▀  ▄█████▄  ▀███▄
   ▄███▀  ▄███▀ ▀███▄  ▀███▄
  ███▀  ▄████▌   ▐████▄  ▀███
 ███   ██▀  ██▄ ▄██  ▀██   ███
███   ███  ███   ███  ███   ███
███   ███   ███████   ███   ███
 ███   ███▄▄       ▄▄███   ███
  ███▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄███
   ▀████▄▄           ▄▄████▀
      ▀▀███████████████▀▀
DeepOnion      ▄▄██████████▄▄
    ▄███▀▀      ▀▀█▀   ▄▄
   ███▀              ▄███
  ███              ▄███▀   ▄▄
 ███▌  ▄▄▄▄      ▄███▀   ▄███
▐███  ██████   ▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███  ███▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███   ████▀   ▄███▀
███▌  ███   █▀   ▄███▀  ███
▐███   ███     ▄███▀   ███
 ███▌   ███  ▄███▀     ███
  ███    ██████▀      ███
   ███▄             ▄███
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████████▀▀
.....DeepVault.....
....Blockchain File Signatures....
...deeponion.org...
valley365
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1003


View Profile
December 12, 2016, 09:31:22 AM
 #47

Last digit of block hash should be close to true random. I remember seeing some altcoins generate random blocks using some fixed bits in hash (usually a letter in the middle), and some dev did stats and showed the randomness is almost perfect.

yes I remember some coins like Jackpotcoin did tests on it, you can check its thread for more detailed info.
CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
December 14, 2016, 09:48:57 PM
 #48

100% random, and most betting sites use this as their system for fair, verifiable game play.
May I know, apart from Chain-Bet.com, who else is using this?
cloverme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1045


SpacePirate.io


View Profile WWW
December 14, 2016, 10:36:50 PM
 #49

I'm using it for some elements in my game. For example, the last number in the hash might correlate to the number of asteroids in a sector of space  Grin
Bitcoin Gambling
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 173
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
February 13, 2017, 11:24:23 AM
 #50

I'm using it for some elements in my game. For example, the last number in the hash might correlate to the number of asteroids in a sector of space  Grin

Nice to see more use cases of the last digit of bitcoin block hash. Smiley

arulbero
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1723
Merit: 1776


View Profile
April 07, 2017, 12:56:22 PM
 #51

New question:

If I generate 2^ 160 distinct points (in secp256k1), then I perform sha256 + ripemd160, I could get 2^160 different values (and then all the possible addresses)?

A point (x,y) is a 512 bit string  -> "04xy" -> sha256 + ripemd160

My guess is: if I generate 2^160 points is like if I generated 2^160 pseudo-random 512 bit strings, so there should be many repetitions.

According to "law of third" -> http://www.roulette30.com/2010/04/law-of-third.html

 I should get only 2/3 * 2^160 distinct values, not the entire space. Am I right or not?

And if I generated 2^161, or 2^162 ? What % of distinct addresses (on the total of 2^160 addresses) I will get?

HI-TEC99
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016
Merit: 1176



View Profile
April 08, 2017, 06:07:45 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2017, 06:19:30 PM by HI-TEC99
 #52

It's not enough to check the frequency. For instance, the sequence "1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3" has equal frequencies, but is unlikely to be random.

If you tried with a few thousand blocks this wouldn't show a more scientific answer rather than "I rolled a die 6x and I got 3 twice, therefore the odds of rolling a 3 on a die is 1 in 3" . It's just not how odds work.

+1

There's official government backed standards for testing randomness, and testing software called the NIST Statistical Test Suite software. However, even the official government standards say "statistical testing cannot serve as a substitute for cryptanalysis". Statistical testing by itself isn't enough, and good statistical testing can require 10^18 or more random numbers to test.

The details of the testing software are in this quote from another thread.


NIST produced some software for conducting statistical testing on data produced by random number generators. However it requires compiling, and needs huge data sets to work with.

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documents/SP800-22rev1a.pdf

Quote
This paper discusses some aspects of selecting and testing random and pseudorandom number generators.The outputs of such generators may be used in many cryptographic applications, such as the generation of key material. Generators suitable for use in cryptographic applications may need to meet stronger requirements than for other applications. In particular, their outputs must be unpredictable in the absence of knowledge of the inputs. Some criteria for characterizing  and selecting appropriate generators are discussed in this document. The subject of statistical testing and its relation to cryptanalysis is also discussed, and some recommended statistical tests are provided. These tests may be useful as a first step in determining whether or not a generator is suitable for a particular cryptographic application. However,no set of statistical tests can absolutely certify a generator as appropriate for usage in a particular application, i.e., statistical testing cannot serve as a substitute for cryptanalysis

This is the download link for the the NIST Statistical Test Suite software.

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/documentation_software.html


Testing if a sequence of numbers is random is incredibly difficult, as random.org points out.

https://www.random.org/analysis/

Quote
If you flip enough coins, you will get sequences of coin flips that seen in isolation from the rest of the sequence don't look random at all. Scott Adams has drawn this as a Dilbert strip, which is funny exactly because it is true:



What Dilbert is told is correct: It is impossible to prove definitively whether a given sequence of numbers (and the generator that produced it) is random. It could happen that the creature in the comic strip has been generating perfectly random numbers for many years and that Dilbert simply happens to walk in at the moment when there's six nines in a row. It's not very likely, but if the creature sits there for long enough (and Dilbert visits enough times), then it will eventually happen.


There is more software for testing randomness called dieharder. It doesn't run all the NIST tests yet, but earlier software it's based on (called diehard) required a default input to work on of ten million random numbers in a file. Dieharder requires much more data than that to run sensitive tests.



http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.php

Quote
Dieharder differs significantly from diehard in many ways. For example, diehard uses file based sources of random numbers exclusively and by default works with only roughly ten million random numbers in such a file. However, modern random number generators in a typical simulation application can easily need to generate 10^18 or more random numbers, generated from hundreds, thousands, millions of different seeds in independent (parallelized) simulation threads, as the application runs over a period of months to years. Those applications can easily be sensitive to rng weaknesses that might not be revealed by sequences as short as 10^7 uints in length even with excellent and sensitive tests. One of dieharder's primary design goals was to permit tests to be run on very long sequences.

*snip*

In addition to implementing all of the diehard tests it is expected that dieharder will eventually contain all of the NIST STS and a variety of tests contributed by users


Andre_Goldman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 251

Property1of1OU


View Profile
April 09, 2017, 11:02:18 AM
 #53

Hashes are uniformly distributed over the entire number space, so to answer you question, they are as random as they get. Furthermore, such hashes are routinely used in provably fair algorithms in other sites, sort of like an industry best practice.

I read somewhere in textbooks that computers are bad on random because they're designed to be deterministic machines.

edit: typo

Patent1number: ****-****
cloverme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1045


SpacePirate.io


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2017, 06:17:25 PM
 #54

Here's a good example of an interesting project toward random number generation: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Just remember your radiation suit  Cool
CounterEntropy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 203


View Profile
October 24, 2017, 06:55:56 PM
 #55

Here's a good example of an interesting project toward random number generation: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Just remember your radiation suit  Cool
Who'd like to expose themselves to radiation for some random number, while there are abundant sources on earth for the same? Cheesy
Dabs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1565


The Concierge of Crypto


View Profile
October 27, 2017, 12:47:18 PM
 #56

Hmm.. Their house edge is now 6.25% ? 1/16 chance to win 15 times.

Anyone can make money running a site that uses provably fair random numbers, or provably deterministic "random" numbers, based on seeds or block hashes.

The problem is having enough players, so it boils down to marketing, word of mouth, promotions ... I still like to run a site, just can't keep promoting it, so I had to close mine.

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!