Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game

[dooglus]

The only way to make fair to investors is to pull the random number from a provable RNG such as a hardware one.  Services such as random.org offer this.  Of course, this translate CP risk from the OP now to a different 3rd party.

I don't see how this works at all.

I could just tell you I'm using random.org, but 1 in 100 times I don't use random.org at all, I just pick a number that makes you lose.  How do you tell?

That way it's not provably fair at all.  Now both gamblers and investors have to trust that I'm really using random.org and not just picking whatever rolls suit me.

There's a game called "insanity dice" that uses random.org.  I think it's intended as a joke.

[1715037057]

1715037057

[1715037057]

1715037057

[1715037057]

1715037057

[1715037057]

1715037057

[dooglus]

a test period where the player, OP and investors are Provably fair could  clear things up.

I'm sure nobody disagrees with using a completely provably fair system for players and investors.

The problem is nobody has yet come up with such a scheme.

[dooglus]

The problem is Dooglus will resist saying how do you know random.org will not cheat. What would be your counter to that?

I'm not suggesting random.org will cheat.  I'm suggesting that those who currently suspect me of cheating won't be reassured when I tell them "no, honest, I asked random.org for a number and they said you lost".

Because maybe I didn't ask them for a number at all.

[dooglus]

I am prepared to lose the entire investment without BKing myself - even if Doog ran off with the coins or was robbed, or etc.

"Or etc." indeed.  Is there any chance you can regain access to your old paper wallet?

The house luck suggests a 0.51% historical edge which is perplexing to me after 150M bets.

I addressed this yesterday.  Did you see it?

This is the URL in case you didn't:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242962.msg3274813#msg3274813

2 of the first million bets at 0.0001% won.  That means that a full 1 million of the site's 150 million bets were twice as "lucky" as they should have been.  Water that extra 100% luck down by a factor of 150 and you get 100%/150 = 0.66%, giving a total luck of 100.66%.

So just one of those two wins at 0.0001% has kept the luck up above 100% since the first week of operation.  The fact that the actual luck is currently 100.49% means that ignoring those two wins at 0.0001% the players are actually *less* lucky than they should have been.

[dooglus]

graphs should be automated.
investing/divesting should be made easier and faster. (allow remove 2fa for invest/divest only)
multiple chats should be implemented. (one with only investors, one for just high rollers)
return to 1% max profit
no invest/divest fees
flat fee on just profits, even as high as 25%
rewards for high rollers (special colors, characters, names, free rolls, separate chat, etc)

no specific order.

JD should be known for it's simplicity yes, but that doesn't mean a lack of innovation.

of course this is not a democracy. there are no votes. just opinions.

Thanks for your opinions.  I do take note of them all, and have a long list of things that need doing.  I'm sorry I'm not making much progress on that list.

Incidentally, you can configure which things require 2FA codes on the account tab.  It's quite possible to set it to require 2FA to divest but not to invest, for instance.  Take a look.

[dooglus]

What if instead of investing a specific amount of bitcoin, there was an option to invest a specific percentage of the bankroll? For example, as others change their investment, yours would automatically adjust stay the same percentage

What if 3 people each set it to 50%?  I worry the server might explode.

I'm being silly, but you see my point?  Each person with a fixed percentage automatically increases their investment when anyone else increases theirs in a never-ending feedback loop?  I guess ultimately some of them reach the limit of their bankroll and don't get the percentage they requested.  It could work that way.

[dooglus]

So is that mech's fault?  I'm confused who is at fault.

He claims he entered a different withdrawal address than the server saw in his request.

I don't see how that's possible.  It looks to me like he put the address he wanted into the 'emergency withdrawal' field, then clicked 'withdraw' and let it default to the last address he had put into the withdrawal address field, which was an address he used to control but no longer does.

In a recent PM to me (maybe a week ago), mechs told me:

(06:49:06 PM) mechs: if I thought you were running a scam, I would be nice, divest, and then bad mouth you

I don't get the impression that's what he's doing, but it's an interesting possibility.

[dooglus]

Doog: I mentioned this earlier, maybe it was too stupid to deserve a response but could your software and historical rolls be audited by a trusted third party (such as the one used by pokerstars which gave me this: PokerStars shuffle verified by Cigital, PokerStars submitted extensive information about the PokerStars random number generator (RNG) to Cigital. We asked this trusted resource to perform an in-depth analysis of the randomness of the output of the RNG, and its implementation in the shuffling of the cards on PokerStars) or does that lead to potential exploitation as well?

It's not stupid, no.

The site uses the standard OpenSSL RAND_bytes call for its randomness.
  http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/RAND_bytes.html

I'm not sure what Pokerstars' claim is worth.  Their game isn't provably fair.  There's nothing to stop them submitting a fair RNG for auditing and then using a different, corrupt RNG to deal their games.  Like when a company keeps two sets of books - one to show the auditor and one that tells the truth.  I'm not suggesting Pokerstars is corrupt (though it's an accusation I see a lot), but the fact that they have a good RNG doesn't prove that they don't also have a bad one that they use exclusively.

[dooglus]

Sorry for the flood of posts.  I've been offline most of the day again today, and had to catch up all at once.  I should be online more from now on.

[drawingthesun]

All this talk about pokerstars is pointless, they do not deal a provably fair poker game no matter what "auditing" they do.

Also Dooglus, I would suggest making investors pay for each divest they do. However give every user 1 free divest per day.

This will stop the daytraders that are creating more negative EV for the long investors, and also its still fair to those people that needs quick access to their coins. A non day trading investor will not have used up their free fee and thus have nothing to worry about.

[theskillzdatklls]

Doog: I mentioned this earlier, maybe it was too stupid to deserve a response but could your software and historical rolls be audited by a trusted third party (such as the one used by pokerstars which gave me this: PokerStars shuffle verified by Cigital, PokerStars submitted extensive information about the PokerStars random number generator (RNG) to Cigital. We asked this trusted resource to perform an in-depth analysis of the randomness of the output of the RNG, and its implementation in the shuffling of the cards on PokerStars) or does that lead to potential exploitation as well?

It's not stupid, no.

The site uses the standard OpenSSL RAND_bytes call for its randomness.
  http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/RAND_bytes.html

I'm not sure what Pokerstars' claim is worth.  Their game isn't provably fair.  There's nothing to stop them submitting a fair RNG for auditing and then using a different, corrupt RNG to deal their games.  Like when a company keeps two sets of books - one to show the auditor and one that tells the truth.  I'm not suggesting Pokerstars is corrupt (though it's an accusation I see a lot), but the fact that they have a good RNG doesn't prove that they don't also have a bad one that they use exclusively.

OK, sure I get that it proves nothing going forward but what about going backwards?  If they audit and see that there was true randomness in all events up until this point couldn't that prove a similar point?  Maybe the only solution is to have everything back-checked at checkpoints every X period.

[Keyser Soze]

What if 3 people each set it to 50%?  I worry the server might explode.

I'm being silly, but you see my point?  Each person with a fixed percentage automatically increases their investment when anyone else increases theirs in a never-ending feedback loop?  I guess ultimately some of them reach the limit of their bankroll and don't get the percentage they requested.  It could work that way.

Assuming the server could handle the additional requests, I believe it would solve the "day trading" issue that has been mentioned recently. Just as you said, their actual percentage would only go as high as their balance allowed.

I am not really familiar with server management or anything, but I am guessing this is not a reasonable option due to the potential increase in server load.

[Mitchell]

Doog: I mentioned this earlier, maybe it was too stupid to deserve a response but could your software and historical rolls be audited by a trusted third party (such as the one used by pokerstars which gave me this: PokerStars shuffle verified by Cigital, PokerStars submitted extensive information about the PokerStars random number generator (RNG) to Cigital. We asked this trusted resource to perform an in-depth analysis of the randomness of the output of the RNG, and its implementation in the shuffling of the cards on PokerStars) or does that lead to potential exploitation as well?

It's not stupid, no.

The site uses the standard OpenSSL RAND_bytes call for its randomness.
  http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/RAND_bytes.html

I'm not sure what Pokerstars' claim is worth.  Their game isn't provably fair.  There's nothing to stop them submitting a fair RNG for auditing and then using a different, corrupt RNG to deal their games.  Like when a company keeps two sets of books - one to show the auditor and one that tells the truth.  I'm not suggesting Pokerstars is corrupt (though it's an accusation I see a lot), but the fact that they have a good RNG doesn't prove that they don't also have a bad one that they use exclusively.

OK, sure I get that it proves nothing going forward but what about going backwards?  If they audit and see that there was true randomness in all events up until this point couldn't that prove a similar point?  Maybe the only solution is to have everything back-checked at checkpoints every X period.

That sounds like a good idea.

[theskillzdatklls]

All this talk about pokerstars is pointless, they do not deal a provably fair poker game no matter what "auditing" they do.

Also Dooglus, I would suggest making investors pay for each divest they do. However give every user 1 free divest per day.

This will stop the daytraders that are creating more negative EV for the long investors, and also its still fair to those people that needs quick access to their coins. A non day trading investor will not have used up their free fee and thus have nothing to worry about.

Also, lol.  You think people day trading makes it 'more negative EV'?  Do you have any f**king clue what you are talking about?  Its the exact opposite and if you want to bet huge on this we can use doog as an escrow, wager whatever and find an established arbitrator settle this.

[drawingthesun]

All this talk about pokerstars is pointless, they do not deal a provably fair poker game no matter what "auditing" they do.

Also Dooglus, I would suggest making investors pay for each divest they do. However give every user 1 free divest per day.

This will stop the daytraders that are creating more negative EV for the long investors, and also its still fair to those people that needs quick access to their coins. A non day trading investor will not have used up their free fee and thus have nothing to worry about.

Also, lol.  You think people day trading makes it 'more negative EV'?  Do you have any f**king clue what you are talking about?  Its the exact opposite and if you want to bet huge on this we can use doog as an escrow, wager whatever and find an established arbitrator settle this.

Ok I misspoke. So far it has been negative EV for the investors that have been invested non stop and most of the day trade investors are up (me included)

[tucenaber]

Seems mech found the paper wallet.

https://blockchain.info/tx/1b538b4e705d9ec63a1e2af672989d9c71c351bf7b3c66730efb087495512da6

[VTC]

Hey, Doog.

Please update the investor balances as it's two weeks behind.

[Mitchell]

Seems mech found the paper wallet.

https://blockchain.info/tx/1b538b4e705d9ec63a1e2af672989d9c71c351bf7b3c66730efb087495512da6

Damn. So much BTC.

[theskillzdatklls]

All this talk about pokerstars is pointless, they do not deal a provably fair poker game no matter what "auditing" they do.

Also Dooglus, I would suggest making investors pay for each divest they do. However give every user 1 free divest per day.

This will stop the daytraders that are creating more negative EV for the long investors, and also its still fair to those people that needs quick access to their coins. A non day trading investor will not have used up their free fee and thus have nothing to worry about.

Also, lol.  You think people day trading makes it 'more negative EV'?  Do you have any f**king clue what you are talking about?  Its the exact opposite and if you want to bet huge on this we can use doog as an escrow, wager whatever and find an established arbitrator settle this.

Ok I misspoke. So far it has been negative EV for the investors that have been invested non stop and most of the day trade investors are up (me included)

You still don't know wtf negative EV is.  I suggest you retake 5th grade math.

[dooglus]

In a recent PM to me (maybe a week ago), mechs told me:

(06:49:06 PM) mechs: if I thought you were running a scam, I would be nice, divest, and then bad mouth you

I don't get the impression that's what he's doing, but it's an interesting possibility.

I'm so sick of this shit...

00:01:01 (12141) <mechs> So I just spent 2 hours in a dumpster
00:01:05 (12141) <mechs> literaly
00:01:13 (12141) <mechs> and FOUND THE FUCKING PAPER WALLET!
00:01:25 (94995) <BinaryReign> Woooooohoooooo yay mech
00:01:25 (149364) <natasha> grats!
00:01:37 (139385) <R> Congrats!!!
00:01:37 (11) <BuyActivemining> for a piece of paper worth a house I would have jumped into an outdoor shitter
00:01:37 (160228) <puckles> lol
00:01:39 (94995) <BinaryReign> thank god eh? lol
00:01:45 (160228) <puckles> that was scary
00:01:51 (139385) <R> My heart was racing when I read the news
00:01:59 (12141) <mechs> Guys, I did put in the code correctly into withdrawal. But Doog still got the last withdrawal address and exported it there
00:02:00 (94995) <BinaryReign> me to banker lol
00:02:05 (11) <BuyActivemining> time to take a roll and celebrate mechs
00:02:22 (70603) <life> so withdrawal address on this site is not functioning?
00:02:28 (139385) <R> Yeah, it's your lucky day
00:02:34 (12141) <mechs> I did not make an error, the withdrawal mechanism is buggy or Doog made an error and somehow usedmy last wothdrawal address
00:02:35 (147184) <Ramona> mech... here people was asking what you was going to do if not able to recover that wallet
00:02:52 (147184) <Ramona> so now that all happy, enligh us
00:02:54 (10160) <MiningWeTrust> I find that story hard to believe
00:02:54 (12141) <mechs> Ramona: honestly? I already reconciled it was gone.
00:02:58 (147184) <Ramona> what was you going to do
00:03:01 (10160) <MiningWeTrust> but I'm glad you get your coins
00:03:03 (149364) <natasha> that would totally suck if withdrawl not working
00:03:07 (12141) <mechs> thx everyone
00:03:23 (12141) <mechs> but it is really bad....I did not make an error. I copy/pasted
00:03:25 (11) <BuyActivemining> what a windfall
00:03:26 (12141) <mechs> I double checked it
00:03:27 (11) <BuyActivemining> rain!
00:03:35 (147184) <Ramona> LOL
00:03:33 (11) <BuyActivemining> *giggles*
00:03:38 (12141) <mechs> I put in google auth code. And Doog sent to a old withdrawal address
00:03:54 (12141) <mechs> which I had just thrown out this MORNING!
00:04:08 (147184) <Ramona> so you would have simply accepted a quarter milion dollar lost without any consuguence ?
00:04:11 (149364) <natasha> if this is bugged, there could be other bugs too

I'm meant to believe that once, and only once, the withdraw form ignored the value typed into it and decided to use a different address?