Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot!

[Boelens]

Is the free BTC thing still going on? My user is Boelens.

I think it was just people who posted whilst the site was down haha

Aw darn, I posted just before that =P.

[1714706773]

1714706773

[1714706773]

1714706773

[vlees]

Small analysis of the data above:

After 1: 25.04% win vs 24.94% loss: 49.98% win chance
-more data-

How to read? So, you have won the last round, you want to know what the chance of winning after 5 spins is. So in the row: After 5, you see it's 25.4%. Was your last round a loss, then after 5 it will be 24.51%.

(this is done with winning with 50.00 and higher).

What does this show? Nothing, it's random.

Hey vlees, what does the 25% chances relate to? I know you've probably clearly explained it however I'm still a little confused. Shouldn't it be 50% win 50% loss after losing x amount irregardless? I don't see how the 25%'s come in is all.

Also Namworld, I understand your a large investor in Coinroll judging by the trust you gave them (regarding the 200 BTC investment or what not), but I don't think Stunna would appreciate you advertising on his thread. Then again I might be wrong, sorry Stunna if you don't mind ^_^

It means that if you have previously won, the chance for the next roll to be a win is 25.04%. If you have previously lost, the chance for the next roll to be a win is 24.94%. Together this is 49.98% and the other 50.02% are the chance of losing the next round.

[Zaih]

Small analysis of the data above:

After 1: 25.04% win vs 24.94% loss: 49.98% win chance
-more data-

How to read? So, you have won the last round, you want to know what the chance of winning after 5 spins is. So in the row: After 5, you see it's 25.4%. Was your last round a loss, then after 5 it will be 24.51%.

(this is done with winning with 50.00 and higher).

What does this show? Nothing, it's random.

Hey vlees, what does the 25% chances relate to? I know you've probably clearly explained it however I'm still a little confused. Shouldn't it be 50% win 50% loss after losing x amount irregardless? I don't see how the 25%'s come in is all.

Also Namworld, I understand your a large investor in Coinroll judging by the trust you gave them (regarding the 200 BTC investment or what not), but I don't think Stunna would appreciate you advertising on his thread. Then again I might be wrong, sorry Stunna if you don't mind ^_^

It means that if you have previously won, the chance for the next roll to be a win is 25.04%. If you have previously lost, the chance for the next roll to be a win is 24.94%. Together this is 49.98% and the other 50.02% are the chance of losing the next round.

Ohhh, cheers!

[Zaih]

Oo, noticed you guys changed to sha512 when going to confirm some bets. Why was this? To further randomize rolls?

[Stunna]

Oo, noticed you guys changed to sha256 when going to confirm some bets. Why was this? To further randomize rolls?

Hey,

Confirming we've changed to Sha512. All bets prior this update can still be calculated as provably fair through using sha1. Everything else is the same with the system apart from this. Max bet is doubled currently, we will restore it to full by the end of today hopefully.

[Herbert]

Just had a few rounds here (username Herbert) and have to say I'm impressed! The UI is totally slick, bets are rolling fast, everything works fine. So it looks like I need to figure out some new ways to get rich

Have to say though from my own experience: I can't believe you are running with 1% house edge. The variance will kill you unless you have huge piles of bitcoin. I started bitbattle.me with 1.8% and raised to 1.9 after a few months and still on overall the real house edge I have is way below 1%

[KingOfSports]

I felt so bad that you were down 300 BTC that I "donated" you guys 2.5 BTC just now...I swear your RNG hates me. 5 or 6 losses in a row almost every session. Max wins in a row is like 2 or 3....

[Stunna]

Just had a few rounds here (username Herbert) and have to say I'm impressed! The UI is totally slick, bets are rolling fast, everything works fine. So it looks like I need to figure out some new ways to get rich

Have to say though from my own experience: I can't believe you are running with 1% house edge. The variance will kill you unless you have huge piles of bitcoin. I started bitbattle.me with 1.8% and raised to 1.9 after a few months and still on overall the real house edge I have is way below 1%

Appreciate the kind words, that absolutely means a lot to me coming from you. The 1% house edge has been destroying us, (-300 BTC in under a week) I am considering raising it for sure. Thanks for the advice, will certainly take it into consideration.

[dooglus]

use his possibly huge mining rigs to break the hash (sha1 is breakable by GPUs nowdays)

But wouldn't he still need to search on average half the search space of possible daily secrets?

One of my recent bets had the secret of "3f64ba20351af718e715e1c5eae61e86812ea1ae".  That's a 40 character hex string, or 160 bits of secret (4 bits per hex digit).  To find the secret, I'd have to compute on average 2^159 sha1 hashes within say 23 hours (then I'd have an hour before it changed again to win lots of bets).

To be able to do that, I'd need to be able to run sha1 hashes at a rate of around 9 million billion billion billion billion hashes per second.

Can GPUs really do that?

Code:

>>> 2**159 / (23*60*60) / 1e9 / 1e9 / 1e9 / 1e9
8825492.979051346

[vlees]

Your calculation is not 100% correct: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

But even with using these failures I doubt it will be possible to crack this within 24h-1second on a normal home PC.

[dooglus]

Your calculation is not 100% correct: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

But even with using these failures I doubt it will be possible to crack this within 24h-1second on a normal home PC.

I'm aware of that blog post, but it's entirely unrelated to primedice.  That post is about how some Chinese researchers allegedly discovered a method that makes it 2048 times easier than was previously thought to find a collision in sha1 outputs.  But we don't care about collisions in primedice.  All we care about is how hard it is to reverse the hash and find the daily secret.  The Chinese discovery doesn't help in that regard at all.

Even if the blog was relevant, and the findings it referred to make it 2048 times easier to find the primedice daily secret, just replace the '9 million' with a '4 thousand', but leave the 'billion billion billion billion' in there.  It's still too big a number to comtemplate. Even if you convince every Bitcoin miner to switch from mining to trying to steal Stunna's Bitcoin stash (and good luck getting the ASIC miners to figure out how to switch from sha256 to sha1...)

I think the natural conclusion here is: nobody was cheating; it's just too hard.

[Zaih]

Your calculation is not 100% correct: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html

But even with using these failures I doubt it will be possible to crack this within 24h-1second on a normal home PC.

I'm aware of that blog post, but it's entirely unrelated to primedice.  That post is about how some Chinese researchers allegedly discovered a method that makes it 2048 times easier than was previously thought to find a collision in sha1 outputs.  But we don't care about collisions in primedice.  All we care about is how hard it is to reverse the hash and find the daily secret.  The Chinese discovery doesn't help in that regard at all.

Even if the blog was relevant, and the findings it referred to make it 2048 times easier to find the primedice daily secret, just replace the '9 million' with a '4 thousand', but leave the 'billion billion billion billion' in there.  It's still too big a number to comtemplate. Even if you convince every Bitcoin miner to switch from mining to trying to steal Stunna's Bitcoin stash (and good luck getting the ASIC miners to figure out how to switch from sha256 to sha1...)

I think the natural conclusion here is: nobody was cheating; it's just too hard.

Now that you put it that way...

[Stunna]

Hey,

We highly doubt anyone was cheating, we made the switch to Sha512 as it was very simple to implement and more practical in the long run.


Also we've restored the maximum bet payout to 5BTC

-Stunna

[Zaih]

Hey,

We highly doubt anyone was cheating, we made the switch to Sha512 as it was very simple to implement and more practical in the long run.


Also we've restored the maximum bet payout to 5BTC

-Stunna

Good to hear, did you make Bitcoins back in order to put it back at 5? Or just buy?

I rly hope made lol

[Zaih]

Hmm.. Talk about predicting the future. Guy bets constant 0.001 on a 6x multiplier. Loses them all. Suddenly 89x's his bet, ups the multipier to 9x and then wins.

[bit777]

What if someone had a botnet of say 500,000 pc's. Bitcoin is notorious for DDOS attacks, which origin from large botnets, and some of the botnets have 300-500,000 pcs or more. So what if someone pointed that artillery towards the sha?

Would it then be solvable in minutes/hours? Just asking a theoretical question.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Why does that even matter? SHA1 should not be used for anything today.

[dooglus]

What if someone had a botnet of say 500,000 pc's. Bitcoin is notorious for DDOS attacks, which origin from large botnets, and some of the botnets have 300-500,000 pcs or more. So what if someone pointed that artillery towards the sha?

If you had a million PCs (each with a similar GPU to the one you were using on your single PC) then you could divide your hashes per second per PC by a million.  Then, instead of 9 million billion billion billion billion hashes per second per PC, you'd "only" need to do 9 billion billion billion billion hashes per second per PC to find the secret in 23 hours.  And those hashes are now sha512 hashes, not sha1 hashes.  I expect they take longer, but I don't know.

Would it then be solvable in minutes/hours? Just asking a theoretical question.

Theoretical answer: "no". 

[Zaih]

What if someone had a botnet of say 500,000 pc's. Bitcoin is notorious for DDOS attacks, which origin from large botnets, and some of the botnets have 300-500,000 pcs or more. So what if someone pointed that artillery towards the sha?

If you had a million PCs (each with a similar GPU to the one you were using on your single PC) then you could divide your hashes per second per PC by a million.  Then, instead of 9 million billion billion billion billion hashes per second per PC, you'd "only" need to do 9 billion billion billion billion hashes per second per PC to find the secret in 23 hours.  And those hashes are now sha512 hashes, not sha1 hashes.  I expect they take longer, but I don't know.

Would it then be solvable in minutes/hours? Just asking a theoretical question.

Theoretical answer: "no". 

With sha512, how long many hashes per second would you need? If sha1 takes billions on billions on billions...

[Stunna]

Small update. You can now view other users statistics & watch their balance update in real time. Just click on a users name in any of the tables and click show previous bets. If you wish to have your statistics hidden from the public, please PM me and it will be done!


Affiliate program will also be rolled out very soon with a very high return!

-Stunna