The Crypto Gambling Foundation will be calling out fake "Provably fair" sites

[RHavar]

A lot of websites miss the nonce aspect. This in turn creates an unfair environment and a major opportunity to rig events. Unless the user changes their client seed EVERY round this case is not fair. They will also have to in turn engage users to verify bets one by one to ensure their fairness. This isn't what anyone (Lets be realistic) does and leaves the vast majority of people open to being scammed. If an operator notices you are not changing your client seed EVERY bet they are able to change the outcome of rolls.

I think it's a bit too harsh to call it "fake" provably fair, as without a nonce it is still provably fair -- just perhaps suboptimal from a users point of view. But if you trust the client (e.g. you've audited a static version, or using some 3rd party client you trust) it's actually possibly better.


There have been a bunch of casinos though with "fake provably fair", the biggest offender I remember was the old 999dice which put a "betId" (instead of a nonce) in the preimage, which allowed them to 100% control the outcome. And then there's been dozens of sites with "fake" provably fair systems (pretty much 99% of all multiplayer gambling games that come out, they screw up the provably fair and it's not actually provably fair).


I would be trying to categorize sites (from best to worst):

* Trustless
* Provably fair  (follows best practices)
* Provably fair (warning: suboptimal, not practical for human verification)
* Not Provably Fair   (game design makes provably fair impractical)
* Not Provably Fair   (for no good reason)
* Fake Provably Fair  (claims to be provably fair, but isn't)

[Aengus]

A lot of websites miss the nonce aspect. This in turn creates an unfair environment and a major opportunity to rig events. Unless the user changes their client seed EVERY round this case is not fair. They will also have to in turn engage users to verify bets one by one to ensure their fairness. This isn't what anyone (Lets be realistic) does and leaves the vast majority of people open to being scammed. If an operator notices you are not changing your client seed EVERY bet they are able to change the outcome of rolls.

I think it's a bit too harsh to call it "fake" provably fair, as without a nonce it is still provably fair -- just perhaps suboptimal from a users point of view. But if you trust the client (e.g. you've audited a static version, or using some 3rd party client you trust) it's actually possibly better.


There have been a bunch of casinos though with "fake provably fair", the biggest offender I remember was the old 999dice which put a "betId" (instead of a nonce) in the preimage, which allowed them to 100% control the outcome. And then there's been dozens of sites with "fake" provably fair systems (pretty much 99% of all multiplayer gambling games that come out, they screw up the provably fair and it's not actually provably fair).


I would be trying to categorize sites (from best to worst):

* Trustless
* Provably fair  (follows best practices)
* Provably fair (warning: suboptimal, not practical for human verification)
* Not Provably Fair   (game design makes provably fair impractical)
* Not Provably Fair   (for no good reason)
* Fake Provably Fair  (claims to be provably fair, but isn't)

Completely agree. Will be adding this quote to OP.

[JackpotRacer]

A lot of websites miss the nonce aspect. This in turn creates an unfair environment and a major opportunity to rig events. Unless the user changes their client seed EVERY round this case is not fair. They will also have to in turn engage users to verify bets one by one to ensure their fairness. This isn't what anyone (Lets be realistic) does and leaves the vast majority of people open to being scammed. If an operator notices you are not changing your client seed EVERY bet they are able to change the outcome of rolls.

I think it's a bit too harsh to call it "fake" provably fair, as without a nonce it is still provably fair -- just perhaps suboptimal from a users point of view. But if you trust the client (e.g. you've audited a static version, or using some 3rd party client you trust) it's actually possibly better.

"suboptimal from a users point" if you mean with users the players of a casino IMO the players should not need to trust any casino OP and need to be sure that they cant be cheated. if this kind of Provably Fair exists and if this is the "nonce" version it should be implemented by all casino OPs

a player who wins will in general not take his time to verify his bets after his gambling session but if a player loses he will yes try  to verify his session

just my 2 satoshi

[lrdeoliveira]

A lot of websites miss the nonce aspect. This in turn creates an unfair environment and a major opportunity to rig events. Unless the user changes their client seed EVERY round this case is not fair. They will also have to in turn engage users to verify bets one by one to ensure their fairness. This isn't what anyone (Lets be realistic) does and leaves the vast majority of people open to being scammed. If an operator notices you are not changing your client seed EVERY bet they are able to change the outcome of rolls.

I think it's a bit too harsh to call it "fake" provably fair, as without a nonce it is still provably fair -- just perhaps suboptimal from a users point of view. But if you trust the client (e.g. you've audited a static version, or using some 3rd party client you trust) it's actually possibly better.


There have been a bunch of casinos though with "fake provably fair", the biggest offender I remember was the old 999dice which put a "betId" (instead of a nonce) in the preimage, which allowed them to 100% control the outcome. And then there's been dozens of sites with "fake" provably fair systems (pretty much 99% of all multiplayer gambling games that come out, they screw up the provably fair and it's not actually provably fair).


I would be trying to categorize sites (from best to worst):

* Trustless
* Provably fair  (follows best practices)
* Provably fair (warning: suboptimal, not practical for human verification)
* Not Provably Fair   (game design makes provably fair impractical)
* Not Provably Fair   (for no good reason)
* Fake Provably Fair  (claims to be provably fair, but isn't)

Awesome that your on board Rhaver, you're one of the smartest guys in the Bitcoin gambling community. I hope to see you develop this.

[Nelka4]

A lot of websites miss the nonce aspect. This in turn creates an unfair environment and a major opportunity to rig events. Unless the user changes their client seed EVERY round this case is not fair. They will also have to in turn engage users to verify bets one by one to ensure their fairness. This isn't what anyone (Lets be realistic) does and leaves the vast majority of people open to being scammed. If an operator notices you are not changing your client seed EVERY bet they are able to change the outcome of rolls.

I think it's a bit too harsh to call it "fake" provably fair, as without a nonce it is still provably fair -- just perhaps suboptimal from a users point of view. But if you trust the client (e.g. you've audited a static version, or using some 3rd party client you trust) it's actually possibly better.


There have been a bunch of casinos though with "fake provably fair", the biggest offender I remember was the old 999dice which put a "betId" (instead of a nonce) in the preimage, which allowed them to 100% control the outcome. And then there's been dozens of sites with "fake" provably fair systems (pretty much 99% of all multiplayer gambling games that come out, they screw up the provably fair and it's not actually provably fair).


I would be trying to categorize sites (from best to worst):

* Trustless
* Provably fair  (follows best practices)
* Provably fair (warning: suboptimal, not practical for human verification)
* Not Provably Fair   (game design makes provably fair impractical)
* Not Provably Fair   (for no good reason)
* Fake Provably Fair  (claims to be provably fair, but isn't)

Awesome that your on board Rhaver, you're one of the smartest guys in the Bitcoin gambling community. I hope to see you develop this.

Rhaver is the king of gambling, behind dooglus of course. Maybe stunna too if he's lucky :p

[Aengus]

Thank you for all the support from everyone.

[audaciousbeing]

So in short what the service propose to offer is providing a review on gambling sites. We can only hope that you won't compromised along the line because there are several sites that claim to review but the same gambling sites they want to provide unfettered review about, have their banner on their site as a form of advertisement.

My advice, when you discover a site that does not comply based on your calculations, the first is to contact them because they might have built some valid assumptions into their own calculations so as to avoid issues of going back and forth on the basis of figures which does not add any value.

[adaseb]

You are saying that some sites don't have the nonce when calculating the provably fair outcome

[Server Seed Hash] + [Client Seed] + [Nonce]

However if its just the server seed hash and client seed, and if both of those are constant won't the roll be exactly the same everytime.

In this case I assume the server seed hash keeps changing, while client seed stays the same. In that case since the noonce always starts at 1, won't it be exactly the same situation.

Since the casino already knows what the nonce will be and they know their server seed. And they assume "client seed" won't get changed.

[buwaytress]

Despite my own personal feelings that people should do their own research, can't deny that a lot of newbies wouldn't know how to verify provably fair claims on their own, based on my own initial experience with crypto casinos. On that note, I think this is a good call and can be educational at the same time.

Just be careful not to harm your own reputation also. Rhavar's right that it would be harsh (not to mention unfair) if a blanket label of fake be used in calling sites out. Might want to edit the thread title to better reflect your objectives... which is not to call out fake sites but perhaps... to ensure a standard or benchmarking for Provably Fair casinos?

I'd advise to develop a standard operating procedure for approaching, informing and evaluating site owners responses and (possible) rectifications before announcing anything. I think owners should also be given the benefit of doubt - a proper reach out can help establish this.

[lrdeoliveira]

You are saying that some sites don't have the nonce when calculating the provably fair outcome

[Server Seed Hash] + [Client Seed] + [Nonce]

However if its just the server seed hash and client seed, and if both of those are constant won't the roll be exactly the same everytime.

In this case I assume the server seed hash keeps changing, while client seed stays the same. In that case since the noonce always starts at 1, won't it be exactly the same situation.

Since the casino already knows what the nonce will be and they know their server seed. And they assume "client seed" won't get changed.

Moment you change the client seed (Yourself and not through sites choice) you have made the decision of what all the next outcomes will be. This is due to an added nonce. If you don't have the nonce you are forced to change your client seed every single time.

[Aengus]

Updates on current members can be found on the forum. Welcome Betking as a new member. They have been a trust machine in the Bitcointalk community for years & we can't stress enough about the safety of betting there. Rest assured, your results are random & your funds safe.

Great job with their recent ICO. I can't wait to see them add more provably fair casino games!

[imamimam1234]

Finally got this explanation about provably fair, thank you. I will pay attention to this topic read it in depth mode .

[JackpotRacer]

Updates on current members can be found on the forum. Welcome Betking as a new member. They have been a trust machine in the Bitcointalk community for years & we can't stress enough about the safety of betting there. Rest assured, your results are random & your funds safe.

Great job with their recent ICO. I can't wait to see them add more provably fair casino games!

I second you and very well expressed.

[Aengus]

Finally got this explanation about provably fair, thank you. I will pay attention to this topic read it in depth mode .

Glad we're getting the message across nice & simply!

[gapjustin]

Welp, I think it's a good idea to do this. however I don't think someone who owns a gambling site should be thebone doing this as he/she might be biased.

[JackpotRacer]

Welp, I think it's a good idea to do this. however I don't think someone who owns a gambling site should be thebone doing this as he/she might be biased.

biased to what?

[ImHash]

Good job, Now you want to  stop them from cheating people? I used to gamble a lot but after some time I realized the only outcome was for me to lose no matter how I gambled and how many strategies I used. I wanna know what happens to casinos if they all use real provably fair system? Probably they will all close down their business and go home, Because if you let the results to be determined by random outcomes then one would use a simple strategy to win at the end.

[maximuss]

Welp, I think it's a good idea to do this. however I don't think someone who owns a gambling site should be thebone doing this as he/she might be biased.

biased to what?

I agree...
This is the same as Marlboro establishing foundation "Let's stop lung cancer" 

That's just definition of Conflict of interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

[JackpotRacer]

Welp, I think it's a good idea to do this. however I don't think someone who owns a gambling site should be thebone doing this as he/she might be biased.

biased to what?

I agree...
This is the same as Marlboro establishing foundation "Let's stop lung cancer" 

That's just definition of Conflict of interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

sorry but I cant agree with this comparison. lets say primedice is using the perfect Provably Fair solution and asking all casinos to add the same perfect Provably Fair solution what would be wrong with this or biased?

how many perfect Provably Fair solutions are out there?

to be frank I am not an expert of PF but I always wanted to see that the PF solution is done the way that a player can verify his bets after his session and it should not matter if the player's session was 1 bet or thousands of bets or more. to change client seed for each bet is not good for players and is not good for casino OPs

[adaseb]

You are saying that some sites don't have the nonce when calculating the provably fair outcome

[Server Seed Hash] + [Client Seed] + [Nonce]

However if its just the server seed hash and client seed, and if both of those are constant won't the roll be exactly the same everytime.

In this case I assume the server seed hash keeps changing, while client seed stays the same. In that case since the noonce always starts at 1, won't it be exactly the same situation.

Since the casino already knows what the nonce will be and they know their server seed. And they assume "client seed" won't get changed.

Moment you change the client seed (Yourself and not through sites choice) you have made the decision of what all the next outcomes will be. This is due to an added nonce. If you don't have the nonce you are forced to change your client seed every single time.

In that case you are not forced to change your client seed, most likely in that scenario the server seed would change everytime.

Basically its how the site is coded, but it makes no difference whether a nonce is incremented or the server/client seed is changed.

Someone did an analysis of this and tried to find a pattern, and the results were all "almost" equallity likely.