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

[MICRO]

If only verification documentation is wrong what it seems to be than i guess its not that bad situation ?

I don't know if it's that clear cut. If you launch a site with the documentation saying "we are provably fair because we do A, B, C to generate your rolls" but what you actually do is "A, B, D", then when the outcome of A, B, C and A, B, D differ, such that the player would have won if you did what you said you were going to do, but he loses because you actually do something different... then it seems like he has a winnable case there.

He took you at your word that you were doing A, B, C but it turned out you weren't doing that at all, and the difference caused him to lose.

I think dev has that already updated but as i said he wasn't online for whole day , he shoulda pushed some other updates today also .

I think the code snippet was updated recently. It was just updated wrongly, making it even worse than before since now it often computes very low rolls, like the 00.02 in the case that brought the error to light.

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

I personally feel that your point about the "difference' causing him to lose is invalid, would he have adjusted his client seed etc knowing that the system used was different? This only seems to be important after the fact given that he lost.

I'm doing my best to provide a fair experience, I'm also working on code so I can be less reliant on developers to solve these sorts of issues. At the end of the day though his roll was fair and unmanipulated.


Also coinfist is a shill for another casino: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=365873;sa=showPosts  (Notice all his posts are him screaming that PD is a scam in all caps) I'm not refunding him 0.01 which he lost placing a 100% fair bet. He literally created his forum account to simply type anti PD posts. Instead of proving that the verification section text  was incorrect you should instead try and prove that he did not get a 100% fair bet.



Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.

Actually i think it was 1.005% ?

[dooglus]

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

That's a reasonable argument.

The site is indeed provably fair, and he did get a fair roll. The documentation is wrong about just how that fair roll happens, and indeed the methods (for there are 2 - one in words and one in code and they're different) described in the documentation both would lead to unfair rolls if they were actually how things were done.

So all that needs to happen is for the documentation to be fixed and everything's fine.

[Stars]

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

That's a reasonable argument.

The site is indeed provably fair, and he did get a fair roll. The documentation is wrong about just how that fair roll happens, and indeed the methods (for there are 2 - one in words and one in code and they're different) described in the documentation both would lead to unfair rolls if they were actually how things were done.

So all that needs to happen is for the documentation to be fixed and everything's fine.

I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc?

[MICRO]

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

That's a reasonable argument.

The site is indeed provably fair, and he did get a fair roll. The documentation is wrong about just how that fair roll happens, and indeed the methods (for there are 2 - one in words and one in code and they're different) described in the documentation both would lead to unfair rolls if they were actually how things were done.

So all that needs to happen is for the documentation to be fixed and everything's fine.

I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc?

Well jd did not change much.

PD3 is made from scratch , so yeah i expected some issues at the start.

[Stars]

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

That's a reasonable argument.

The site is indeed provably fair, and he did get a fair roll. The documentation is wrong about just how that fair roll happens, and indeed the methods (for there are 2 - one in words and one in code and they're different) described in the documentation both would lead to unfair rolls if they were actually how things were done.

So all that needs to happen is for the documentation to be fixed and everything's fine.

I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc?

Well jd did not change much.

PD3 is made from scratch , so yeah i expected some issues at the start.

Yea but JD was also made from scatch, so I'm wondering if he had any issues since launch.

[dooglus]

Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.

I think you still misunderstand the situation.

The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets.

Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance.

On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were).

That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge.

Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge:

Code:

>>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10  ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

[BitCoinPokerBro]

Looking to maybe add a form of "Rake back" to Primedice.

This would mean if you wager a certain amount the house edge would be lowered. Here's an example:

 - User A has a total wagered 50 BTC. He then receives 0.1% of all his bets back (Win or lose) - Making house edge 0.81
 - User B wagered of 200 BTC. He then receives 0.2% of all his bets back (Win or lose) - Making house edge 0.71
 - User C had a total wagered of 1,000 BTC. He then receives 0.3% of all his bets back (Win or lose) - Making house edge 0.61

Sound good?

Yeah it's nice, poker rooms use that and its shown good results.
Or maybe bonus for deposit what is similar to this, for example you deposit 100 BTC and your deposit bonus is 120% (120 BTC), withdrawals is in levels after wager some part of 12000 BTC what is the final wager amount to claim whole bonus.
What ever you decide it would be nice to see some bonuses like this.

Stunna's idea is awesome. Not sure if it'll make much of a difference to win/loss ratio but receiving a bit back for large wagers would be nice.

However, I doubt a bonus could be implemented since hoards of bonus whores would try abuse the system by rolling extremely low odds. There would have to be some sort of odds restriction. Then there's the fact no one will want to have btc locked to an account because they decided to try for the bonus. Although the last bit could be easily remedied by releasing the bonus in small portions. Either way I doubt stunna would go for it

[dooglus]

I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc?

No, we didn't have any such issues.

I once forgot to manually debit a player's account after he requested a withdrawal that was too large for automatic processing, so he got a 1300 BTC freeroll which I later rolled back.

Other than that we had various DoS issues which I wasn't prepared for.

We did pretty extensive testing of the site before launch, including an open public test using testnet coins.

But I'm kind of OCD and have an eye for details. I coded the whole thing myself. It seems that with both the PD and PRC issues the root cause of the trouble is trusting third parties to be competent. They often aren't.

Well jd did not change much.

PD3 is made from scratch , so yeah i expected some issues at the start.

That's an odd argument. JD invented crowd-sourced gambling as far as I know. It changed from a state of non-existence to a fully working site. I wrote it from scratch. If you expect issues, why not run it with testnet coins until the issues are resolved?

I read one site recently (I forget which) saying something like "there are probably lots of exploitable bugs in our code so we don't keep much in the hot wallet". That seems crazy to me. Why not audit your code so you can be reasonably confident that it's not exploitable rather than just assuming you're going to get ripped off?

[MICRO]

Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.

I think you still misunderstand the situation.

The house edge was over 50% for some bets, and all kinds of values lower than that for all kinds of other bets.

Look at the 0.5% bet, for instance.

On PD2 you had to get a "raw" roll of 99.505 or higher to win. That's a 0.495% chance of winning, or 0.005% lower than advertised (as all bets were).

That results in a house edge of 1.99%, almost twice the advertised edge.

Here are some more examples, showing various actual house edge numbers from 50.5% down to 1.0055%. No bet actually had the advertised 1% edge:

Code:

>>> chance=0.01; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
50.5
>>> chance=0.1 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
5.95
>>> chance=0.5 ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.99
>>> chance=1   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.495
>>> chance=5   ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.099
>>> chance=10  ; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0495
>>> chance=49.5; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.01
>>> chance=90.0; 100 - ((chance - 0.005) * 99/chance)
1.0055

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

Same as 1% house edge even in long run might not be even close to that, as i think it was the case with jd ?
On jd house got only like 0.3% profit right ?

[BusyBeaverHP]

Thank you for keeping an eye on the betting verification process dooglus, you are doing God's work.

[dooglus]

[...]

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look.

Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post.

I also said "it could be more or less"...

Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here.

Edit: QFT

It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.

What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.

With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.

37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier.

Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database

Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4.

[Stars]

I'm curious Dooglus, out of the 1 year you ran JD did you run into any problems like all of these other websites are having, such as provably fair, something similar to that prc incident etc?

No, we didn't have any such issues.

I once forgot to manually debit a player's account after he requested a withdrawal that was too large for automatic processing, so he got a 1300 BTC freeroll which I later rolled back.

Other than that we had various DoS issues which I wasn't prepared for.

We did pretty extensive testing of the site before launch, including an open public test using testnet coins.

But I'm kind of OCD and have an eye for details. I coded the whole thing myself. It seems that with both the PD and PRC issues the root cause of the trouble is trusting third parties to be competent. They often aren't.

Well jd did not change much.

PD3 is made from scratch , so yeah i expected some issues at the start.

That's an odd argument. JD invented crowd-sourced gambling as far as I know. It changed from a state of non-existence to a fully working site. I wrote it from scratch. If you expect issues, why not run it with testnet coins until the issues are resolved?

I read one site recently (I forget which) saying something like "there are probably lots of exploitable bugs in our code so we don't keep much in the hot wallet". That seems crazy to me. Why not audit your code so you can be reasonably confident that it's not exploitable rather than just assuming you're going to get ripped off?

Yea as I expected, very impressive. I do wonder what dice websites would do if you weren't around to point out their flaws.

[Stunna]

[...]

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look.

Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post.

I also said "it could be more or less"...

Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here.

Edit: QFT

It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.

What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.

With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.

37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier.

Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database

Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4.

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

[Joca97]

[...]

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look.

Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post.

I also said "it could be more or less"...

Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here.

Edit: QFT

It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.

What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.

With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.

37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier.

Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database

Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4.

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

stunna you should make your own coin just for gambling

and add it to your site!!

[edmundduke]

That doesn't sound too bad the alternative coin
Would be most likely like play money, but still something to think about

[grux]

That's an odd argument. JD invented crowd-sourced gambling as far as I know. It changed from a state of non-existence to a fully working site. I wrote it from scratch. If you expect issues, why not run it with testnet coins until the issues are resolved?

I read one site recently (I forget which) saying something like "there are probably lots of exploitable bugs in our code so we don't keep much in the hot wallet". That seems crazy to me. Why not audit your code so you can be reasonably confident that it's not exploitable rather than just assuming you're going to get ripped off?

But Primedice isn't as simple as Just-Dice...

[Jaaawsh]

[...]

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look.

Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post.

I also said "it could be more or less"...

Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here.

Edit: QFT

It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.

What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.

With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.

37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier.

Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database

Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4.

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

Just have a happy hour, announce it well in advance so no one can complain about missing it.
My understanding is that it's 37500 bets that were affected if every bet made actually has a lower chance of winning than advertised. Don't forget about the little people!

[Acidyo]

That doesn't sound too bad the alternative coin
Would be most likely like play money, but still something to think about

PrimeCoin would be perfect. :3

[MICRO]

[...]

Since 750 million bets were made with this flaw, and the flaw is expected to have affected 0.005% of all bets, that means an expected 37,500 bets were affected by the problem.

I'm glad to hear that you've compensated one of the [edit: expected - it could be more or less] 37,500 victims.

I sent u a pm regarding that , but u didn't reply .

That 37k number is somewhat estimate but it can be so far from true.

I didn't notice your PM, sorry. I'll take a look.

Did you see I mentioned that the 37.5k number is the expected number of rolls that were incorrectly paid out as losers when they should have won if the house edge was 1% as advertised? I mentioned it 3 times in my post.

I also said "it could be more or less"...

Of course reality can be very different than expectation, but it could be off in either direction. It could be that many *more* than 37.5k bets were affected - I can't know the actual number. I can just be really sure that it isn't NINE, as Stunna claimed here.

Edit: QFT

It's not just >99.99 that is affected. *Every* bet is 0.005% harder to win than advertised. It's just that when the bet is advertised as 0.01%, the 0.005% error is half your advertised chance of winning, so it is hugely significant.

What this means is that on average 1 in every 20,000 bets in the history of the site was incorrectly marked as a loss instead of a win.

With 750 million bets on the site, that means that around 37500 bets were settled as losses when they should have been wins.

37500 bets assuming that every bet was made on the 10,000x multiplier.

Only 180,000 10,000x payout bets were made. Meaning about 9 would have been settled incorrectly. Will find those 9 bets soon when have time to run a proper query on whole database

Edit: Due to 0 working fine that means the expected number is actually ~4.

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

Just have a happy hour, announce it well in advance so no one can complain about missing it.
My understanding is that it's 37500 bets that were affected if every bet made actually has a lower chance of winning than advertised. Don't forget about the little people!

I think making pd3 house edge 0.91% is enough to make it up to everybody that played on old pd with only 0.005% higher house edge than advertised.

Just my 2 satoshis.

[dooglus]

I will make this situation right as I've stated before, I stand by my word (although I'm very vulnerable to delaying things). I've already paid out one coin and am 100% open to any suggestions on what to do for the remainder. It obviously won't be easy to track down people who may have placed that particular bet so one alternative that was suggested to me was to just get the average bet * bets effected and distribute it somehow or donate it.

It would be hypocritical of me not to make this situation right after I attacked prc for the sjess issue.

It's good to see you say that.

I see a lot of people being suspicious of you, and it's good to see that you plan to make this right. I don't think that any of the errors at PD are cynical attempts to squeeze a little extra profit out of people; I think they're genuine oversights.

It shouldn't be too hard to loop through all the bets in the database and figure out which ones were marked as losses because of rounding errors.

It would be harder to find the people who need to be refunded - you probably don't have email addresses for most of them.