bustadice – Next Generation Dice

[JollyGood]

That is the part that confuses me, in essence if investor profits drop by an estimated 33% then it should have investors concerned but devans thinks he has the correct formula to take Bustabit/Bustadice further and to be honest it is hard to argue with him because of his excellent track record. How do investors reconcile perfectly held belief and trust in devans along with a drop in profits by 33% - that is something difficult to accept.

(...)

I think keeping the equilibrium aside several investors are a little upset they were not advised beforehand or maybe even consulted before the changes were made. I know you made a post explaining your reasons so I hope they would be satisfied with the explanation.

Is it really necessary to say that 5000+ BTC and 6500 BTC are significantly larger bankrolls than they need to be? Another way of looking at it is the size of bankrolls are advantages and are attractive to investors in that others would want to invest as it shows the website and its owner are genuine/trustworthy etc. Maybe a change in format should have been implemented after consulting investors so that would have eased the transition better.

I explained my reasoning for not providing an advance notice in bustabit's thread:

Giving an advance notice is something I considered, but ultimately decided against because it would have made virtually no difference to existing investors. Had I announced the change a few months ago your only options would have been to remain invested or divest, the same options you have now.

Having an unnecessarily large bankroll is not an advantage. For one it's an unnecessary liability. All other things being equal I'd rather be responsible for 3,000 BTC or 4,000 BTC of investors' money than 5,000 BTC or more. It also indicates that the casino is charging investors below market value. Ideally the bankroll is just large enough to support all bets that players want to place and no larger. First and foremost bustadice is a casino and its players the customers, so attracting a large bankroll is not the end goal but the means to the end of allowing our players to bet.

I referenced the explanation you gave and thanked you for it.

Anyway it seems you are going full steam ahead and from what can be seen here there are a few investors that have expressed some reservations but there is no flood of complaints or grievances. If the profits still provide a good return for investors even after dropping approximately 33% then surely they would remain rather than pull their funds out.

[1714704646]

1714704646

[1714704646]

1714704646

[1714704646]

1714704646

[leen1993]

That is the part that confuses me, in essence if investor profits drop by an estimated 33% then it should have investors concerned but devans thinks he has the correct formula to take Bustabit/Bustadice further and to be honest it is hard to argue with him because of his excellent track record. How do investors reconcile perfectly held belief and trust in devans along with a drop in profits by 33% - that is something difficult to accept.

(...)

I think keeping the equilibrium aside several investors are a little upset they were not advised beforehand or maybe even consulted before the changes were made. I know you made a post explaining your reasons so I hope they would be satisfied with the explanation.

Is it really necessary to say that 5000+ BTC and 6500 BTC are significantly larger bankrolls than they need to be? Another way of looking at it is the size of bankrolls are advantages and are attractive to investors in that others would want to invest as it shows the website and its owner are genuine/trustworthy etc. Maybe a change in format should have been implemented after consulting investors so that would have eased the transition better.

I explained my reasoning for not providing an advance notice in bustabit's thread:

Giving an advance notice is something I considered, but ultimately decided against because it would have made virtually no difference to existing investors. Had I announced the change a few months ago your only options would have been to remain invested or divest, the same options you have now.

Having an unnecessarily large bankroll is not an advantage. For one it's an unnecessary liability. All other things being equal I'd rather be responsible for 3,000 BTC or 4,000 BTC of investors' money than 5,000 BTC or more. It also indicates that the casino is charging investors below market value. Ideally the bankroll is just large enough to support all bets that players want to place and no larger. First and foremost bustadice is a casino and its players the customers, so attracting a large bankroll is not the end goal but the means to the end of allowing our players to bet.

well, if the new terms would make me decide thst it is not profitable (while it was under the old terms, expected profits decreased 33%) i will have to withdraw and i see that as a loss of 2% of my bankroll (what it would have cost me to get this bankroll invested the second before you announced this). Don't think it is fair in that way.

I do understand why you do it, but that is not important when we talk fairness. You are doing something that was not agreed on with other peoples money. imo that is unfair

[Timetwister]

That is the part that confuses me, in essence if investor profits drop by an estimated 33% then it should have investors concerned but devans thinks he has the correct formula to take Bustabit/Bustadice further and to be honest it is hard to argue with him because of his excellent track record. How do investors reconcile perfectly held belief and trust in devans along with a drop in profits by 33% - that is something difficult to accept.

(...)

I think keeping the equilibrium aside several investors are a little upset they were not advised beforehand or maybe even consulted before the changes were made. I know you made a post explaining your reasons so I hope they would be satisfied with the explanation.

Is it really necessary to say that 5000+ BTC and 6500 BTC are significantly larger bankrolls than they need to be? Another way of looking at it is the size of bankrolls are advantages and are attractive to investors in that others would want to invest as it shows the website and its owner are genuine/trustworthy etc. Maybe a change in format should have been implemented after consulting investors so that would have eased the transition better.

I explained my reasoning for not providing an advance notice in bustabit's thread:

Giving an advance notice is something I considered, but ultimately decided against because it would have made virtually no difference to existing investors. Had I announced the change a few months ago your only options would have been to remain invested or divest, the same options you have now.

Having an unnecessarily large bankroll is not an advantage. For one it's an unnecessary liability. All other things being equal I'd rather be responsible for 3,000 BTC or 4,000 BTC of investors' money than 5,000 BTC or more. It also indicates that the casino is charging investors below market value. Ideally the bankroll is just large enough to support all bets that players want to place and no larger. First and foremost bustadice is a casino and its players the customers, so attracting a large bankroll is not the end goal but the means to the end of allowing our players to bet.

I referenced the explanation you gave and thanked you for it.

Anyway it seems you are going full steam ahead and from what can be seen here there are a few investors that have expressed some reservations but there is no flood of complaints or grievances. If the profits still provide a good return for investors even after dropping approximately 33% then surely they would remain rather than pull their funds out.

Unfortunately there aren't any other decent investment opportunities that I know about. Yolodice recently closed investment completely (I think the owner had most of the bankroll, so it makes complete sense). Crypto-Games returns are quite low. And there isn't much more.

[devans]

well, if the new terms would make me decide thst it is not profitable (while it was under the old terms, expected profits decreased 33%) i will have to withdraw and i see that as a loss of 2% of my bankroll (what it would have cost me to get this bankroll invested the second before you announced this). Don't think it is fair in that way.

I do understand why you do it, but that is not important when we talk fairness. You are doing something that was not agreed on with other peoples money. imo that is unfair

As I said, you can can contact me for a reimbursement of the net dilution fee if you say you would not have invested knowing the new terms and would like to divest again. Send me a message at https://bustadice.com/support while signed in to your account.

[JollyGood]

Unfortunately there aren't any other decent investment opportunities that I know about. Yolodice recently closed investment completely (I think the owner had most of the bankroll, so it makes complete sense). Crypto-Games returns are quite low. And there isn't much more.

My advice to any investor is that they should stay put and see how the format works for them because when you weigh up less profit along with safety, security and excellent reputation - sometimes it makes sense to at least invest with an almost guaranteed winner rather than website that might guarantee some profit but has nowhere near an excellent reputation as Bustabit/Bustadice.

If after a few week investors decide to pull out then at least they gave it a fair try. Hopefully they will find something else that makes them happy.

well, if the new terms would make me decide thst it is not profitable (while it was under the old terms, expected profits decreased 33%) i will have to withdraw and i see that as a loss of 2% of my bankroll (what it would have cost me to get this bankroll invested the second before you announced this). Don't think it is fair in that way.

I do understand why you do it, but that is not important when we talk fairness. You are doing something that was not agreed on with other peoples money. imo that is unfair

As I said, you can can contact me for a reimbursement of the net dilution fee if you say you would not have invested knowing the new terms and would like to divest again. Send me a message at https://bustadice.com/support while signed in to your account.

I think it was the fact you did not make an announcement (though explained why) which was the reason that there has been some discontent. Had you made it before implementing the new format nobody would have had a reason to complain.

I still see most investors staying put because the reputation and honesty of the websites and its owner is paramount for most investors.

[finaleshot2016]

Congratulations on this update bustadice and happy to be part with you even though i'm just in a campaign.
This is the one of the great patch notes on a betting site that I've seen, typical update but new changes.

Unfortunately there aren't any other decent investment opportunities that I know about. Yolodice recently closed investment completely (I think the owner had most of the bankroll, so it makes complete sense). Crypto-Games returns are quite low. And there isn't much more.

My advice to any investor is that they should stay put and see how the format works for them because when you weigh up less profit along with safety, security and excellent reputation - sometimes it makes sense to at least invest with an almost guaranteed winner rather than website that might guarantee some profit but has nowhere near an excellent reputation as Bustabit/Bustadice.

If after a few week investors decide to pull out then at least they gave it a fair try. Hopefully they will find something else that makes them happy.

Agree, tho there's a lot of gambling sites out there that guarantees you to give huge profit but bustadice will give all you wanted, not a common gambling site and has a great reputation for how many years. Hopefully, bustadice will still continue its legacy in this scene.

[JollyGood]

How are investors finding the new format?

Are most happy with the commission structure? What sort of feedback are you getting about the change from people that invested?

[Timetwister]

How are investors finding the new format?

Are most happy with the commission structure? What sort of feedback are you getting about the change from people that invested?

Of course we are not happy, expected returns dropped 1/3. At least that extra edge the casino is getting could be partially used for running some promotion to drive traffic.

[JollyGood]

How are investors finding the new format?

Are most happy with the commission structure? What sort of feedback are you getting about the change from people that invested?

Of course we are not happy, expected returns dropped 1/3. At least that extra edge the casino is getting could be partially used for running some promotion to drive traffic.

Losing 33% or so of previously expected returns is a hard hit to take especially when there are not too many options out there where bankroll funds could be transferred to.

Maybe if enough investors raise the issue with devans he might consider lowering the casino edge or at least as you stated maybe consider driving a promotion with those extra profits.

[GamblingSiteFinder]

It's mainly the fact that bustabit is the preferred choice of game for megawhales like whatevvs, FREE-JBAY, KLITZ, etc. Probably due to them being around since 2014 and always processing large withdrawals instantly. There is no crash game in the world that has a higher trust level than bustabit. Just a few days ago, the whale PredictableLegacy lost 220 BTC within a few games. I mean, it could have gone the other way too... I guess luck/variance is also a pretty major factor. But yeah, everything seems to be going very well for the two sites, and I hope it continues.

I found the man who jinxed the Bustabit bankroll investors  

[BayAreaCoins]

So the only thing I can see that I think is strictly beneficial is trying to make sure that casinos are consumer-friendly casinos as possible (i.e. fair, transparent, no manipulative/lockin bullshit like roll-over reqs etc.)

I think you are misleading investors that investing is Provably Fair is a bit manipulative.

These games are only Provably Fair proveable fair to players, these investing sites are currently not Provably Fair to investors. (besides maybe PF to you and devan, but it is definitely not PF to me if I invest.)

Investing is not Provably Fair by math.  Period.  Please consider changing this.

Because investing isn't provably fair

[RHavar]

I think you are misleading investors that investing is Provably Fair is a bit manipulative.

These games are only Provably Fair proveable fair to players, these investing sites are currently not Provably Fair to investors. (besides maybe PF to you and devan, but it is definitely not PF to me if I invest.)

Investing is not Provably Fair by math.  Period.  Please consider changing this.

The full dot-point in question is:

Neither bustadice nor its auditor can undetectably cheat by predicting future rolls. Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investing becomes provably fair.

which states the caveat pretty explicitly. Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it. I'd probably write the copy as "Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investors are given additional protections against cheating" or something of that sort

[BayAreaCoins]

Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it. I'd probably write the copy as "Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investors are given additional protections against cheating" or something of that sort

I respectfully agree with that as well.  That would be an accurate statement.

Let me know when you fix that and I will remove the neautral feedback.

[RHavar]

Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it. I'd probably write the copy as "Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investors are given additional protections against cheating" or something of that sort

I respectfully agree with that as well.  That would be an accurate statement.

Let me know when you fix that and I will remove the neautral feedback.

I'm sorry, but this is beyond stupid. I actually agree with you about the language on the site needing to be changed. But the fact that you know it's not even my site (i'm just acting as auditor) and in fact, it's never been my site (Daniel built it from the start) makes this extra stupid. So I'll call your bluff and raise you negative.

[BayAreaCoins]

Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it. I'd probably write the copy as "Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investors are given additional protections against cheating" or something of that sort

I respectfully agree with that as well.  That would be an accurate statement.

Let me know when you fix that and I will remove the neautral feedback.

I'm sorry, but this is beyond stupid. I actually agree with you about the language on the site needing to be changed. But the fact that you know it's not even my site (i'm just acting as auditor) and in fact, it's never been my site (Daniel built it from the start) makes this extra stupid. So I'll call your bluff and raise you negative.

(For anyone that's wondering, RHavar is throwing a fit because of this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.msg52814057#msg52814057.)

But the fact that you know it's not even my site (i'm just acting as auditor)

That's strange because you sound like an owner here:

Ryan and I are proud to announce bustadice, a new take on classic dice.

You are being disingenuous.

Stop telling me what I know and what I am.  I don't know that it isn't your site.  You sure seem pretty involved (for no apparent reason.. perhaps the goodness of your heart or the love for the community *throws up*  ).  We just discussed this in private message two weeks ago:

I'm kind of a bit curious about what you meant by suspicious timing of MoneyPot being sold hours after the dice.ninja scam. Surely with the benefit of hindsight, you can see it was just a total coincidence? Or are you implying that I am might be DMF?

I don't believe in coincidences.

What I do think I know (feel free to correct me) is that you currently: Decide what datacenter to host stuff at, help maintain & secure funds, contribute math that determines what players rolls are, act as an "auditor", you're a chat moderator and you bankroll the site.  You also make statements that BustaDice website is proveably-fair to normal investors (which is totally bogus).  It sounds an awful lot like your website, but you enjoy having that "it wasn't me" excuse.

3) Your site is not provably fair, you're asking us to trust you and/or the retarded company that issued a meaningless certificate.  

But... isn't that provably fair if you do trust them!? (sarcasm)

Please send the Bitcoin you now owe me.  My BTC address is: bc1qwupmf3gc6ql8thl3eqmkce6uuur4prj4schw55

Thanks.

[justdimin]

Interestingly there is a point to be made but with much less ego of course.

Yes, it is of course not provably fair if there is a chance of it, which means the provably fair wording should definitely be changed, but that is devans topic not RHavars, RHavar is basically just a consultant of sorts and looking at how the people have been profiting from the gambling I doubt they are working together to scam people, yet that doesn't change the fact that investing requires trust to two people instead of being super totally decentralized way, I trust you guys with all my money that is no problem to me at all but some others may not so the wording should definitely be changed to something that represents the current situation better if you ask me. Not what RHavar said that looks a bit unprofessional, something that is more like "we do business in wall street mate" level of professionalism .

[RHavar]

Interestingly there is a point to be made but with much less ego of course.

Yes, it is of course not provably fair if there is a chance of it, which means the provably fair wording should definitely be changed, but that is devans topic not RHavars, RHavar is basically just a consultant of sorts and looking at how the people have been profiting from the gambling I doubt they are working together to scam people, yet that doesn't change the fact that investing requires trust to two people instead of being super totally decentralized way, I trust you guys with all my money that is no problem to me at all but some others may not so the wording should definitely be changed to something that represents the current situation better if you ask me. Not what RHavar said that looks a bit unprofessional, something that is more like "we do business in wall street mate" level of professionalism .

Yeah, BayAreaCoins has a point: the language on the website should be changed. Although, he's making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It's a minor dot-point 3 pages down:

Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investing becomes provably fair.

and it probably means to say something like:

Investing becomes provably fair from the point of the auditor, so if you can trust the auditor to be honest and not collude with bustadice you have additional guarantees

but it's pretty clearly it's not malicious or was intended to mislead people. My very original post on this topic was agreeing that the language should be changed, and I have no doubt Daniel will do it when he becomes aware of it.

But BAC taking out on me is a bit strange. Bustadice is not, and has never has been my site. I did not write that sentence, and have no ability to change the language. If fact, the only reason I am the auditor of bustadice was because at the time I agreed, Daniel was a competitor to me. And who wouldn't want to audit their competitor .  Since then, Daniel bought me out of bustabit -- so it doesn't look good from an "independence", and I'd be more than happy to step down as auditor if someone reputable wants the job

---

[I'd also like to point out that I act for auditor for free. But I am not 100% sure about that, as I think I might have originally asked Daniel to pay me for the $20/month or so of server costs in running the auditor. I quite literally can't remember, but either way I have no tangible financial stake in auditing other than protecting my own bankroll investment I independently made in bustadice]

[BayAreaCoins]

Ryan has removed his negative feedback against me (lol fagggggggg).

Ryan has also opened an addition thread for this:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194451.msg52819518#msg52819518

I have pledged to donate 100% of the 1.1 BTC Ryan said he would give me if I could "remotely" prove that he stated investing was provably-fair.

[BayAreaCoins]

Dooglus ruled that I did not "remotely" provide evidence that Daniel said "both sites" where provably-fair to investors.

I have posted that I concede as agreed.  Daniel does not owe me 1.1 BTC or 10 BTC. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194451.msg52822895#msg52822895

However, you or whoever still need to fix BustaDice so it isn't claiming to be PF to investors.  I will remove my neutral feedback that relates to that after it's been corrected as I've always stated.

gg

Edit #1:  Just to be clear.  The feedback I will remove when BustaDice is no longer making false claims for investors is:

"Claims their sites are provably fair for investors. Investing is absolutely not provably fair for investors by math like it is for players."

This neutral feedback was left on Ryan's and Devin's accounts.  I will remove both after the claim is removed.

[devans]

Some good points were brought up in this and bustabit's thread, so I will change the wording in the next patch come Sunday.