bustabit – The original crash game

[Battareus]

It seems to me that would be honest to gambling people to limit the maximum bet to 100,000 bits, if someone loses large sums it could ruin his life, I don’t think that the person can recover after a huge loss which is more than his wage which he can get for the whole life.

[malevolent]

It seems to me that would be honest to gambling people to limit the maximum bet to 100,000 bits, if someone loses large sums it could ruin his life, I don’t think that the person can recover after a huge loss which is more than his wage which he can get for the whole life.

Someone could have enough coins left over from older days that betting tens of bitcoins at a given time is not an issue for them, if they feel like betting good for them and for bustabit's investors.

And they could still lose a lot of money with a series of smaller bets — as many do.
https://www.bustabit.com/faq/gambling-addiction

[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

[suchmoon]

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.

How is it misleading if it says right there in that Google snippet: "Assuming you trust the two [bustadice and auditor] not to collude".

[Tipstar]

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.

How is it misleading if it says right there in that Google snippet: "Assuming you trust the two [bustadice and auditor] not to collude".

Investors need to trust the owner. If you don't trust, you should not invest. Bustabit is an old gambling site and it's stats speaks of itself.
With the new rule of site getting commission only from the profit of investors, it would be a much better platform for users as well as investors.
The removal of dilution fee may change some earning statistics for long term users.

[BayAreaCoins]

How is it misleading if it says right there in that Google snippet: "Assuming you trust the two [bustadice and auditor] not to collude".

Do you understand what provably fair means?  It means you do not have to trust individuals & you can self verify cheats.  It isn't "provable" if it relies on individuals. It's probably-fair (maybe).

Here are several quotes from RHavar:

So personally I am reasonably convinced the game seeding was done fairly, but I'm not sure it's done well enough to say it's provably fair (maybe "probably fair" is more appropriate?)

That system is known as "provably fair" and contains absolutely everything you need to prove the game is fair. While i do admit it requires quite a bit of technical knowledge, it has the advantage that anyone can verify the game for everyone. So if you can find someone who understands how the maths primitives work, it should be easy to verify =)

You're kind of mixing up terminology here, but you're also on the wrong track. Provably fair means you can prove the game was fair. End of story. If you can't do that, then it's not provably fair.

In the sense that a normal bitcoin casino offers "provably fair" which means "it can cheat you, but you can detect if they do"  

So my strong advice for players would be to use a system they can verify themselves (i.e. provably fair)

Here is a quote from the Bustadice thread from Ryan tonight:

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]

@BayAreaCoins I think you're just confusing people

I think you're (or whoever) confusing people by grossly misusing the word "provably fair".

talking about bustadice in the bustabit thread.

I believe I have seen you make the claim that both sites are "provably fair" for investors IF you trust you "two".  

You're misusing the word and giving investors a false sense of security by doing so.  Stop.

This isn't the first time you and I have spoken about this. (99% sure we spoke about it in this thread in fact)

The investor guarantees and claims there are different than the ones here.

Are they?  How so?  Are you saying that either game is actually provably fair for investors?  

You're making guarantees to investors now?  

For the sake of everyone's sanity, it's best to discuss bustadice in the bustadice thread, and bustabit in this thread.

I think investors are traditionally pretty smart folks.  I'm sure they will manage.

[BayAreaCoins]

I've seen you make the claim that both sites are "provably fair" for investors IF you trust you "two".  

You're misusing the word and giving investors a false sense of security by doing so.  Stop.

lol, easy on the trigger there. I'll give you a bitcoin if you can remotely substantiate that. I've never said, or implied such a thing. I just checked the bustabit webpage and FAQ, and there's no claims like that either. Not to mention, bustabit doesn't even have an auditor system like bustadice does.

quoted, give me a minute

Edit #1:  You didn't type this?  

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

Edit #2:  I'm going to find the forum post as well.  Give me a few more minutes.  I have like 370 pages of past posts.

Edit #4:  You for sure typed this!  Thanks for that Bitcoin!  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2219681.msg50191132#msg50191132 I should have posted this one before #3.  (I went ahead and moved this one above #3)

Edit #3:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2219681.msg50260031#msg50260031

Edit #5" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.msg45335901#msg45335901

Edit #6: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2219681.msg22396650#msg22396650
#6 Quoted:

• Advanced provably fair system designed to protect not only the players, but also investors

...
Similar to how JustDice pioneered provably fair dice games, we hope that bustadice will considerably improve the situation for investors and set the standard for casino investing.

Enhanced provable fairness
bustadice builds upon conventional provably fair systems to provide additional guarantees to players, investors and the casino itself:
...
For investors: Neither I nor Ryan can undetectably cheat by predicting future rolls. Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investing becomes provably fair.

Edit #7:  https://i.imgur.com/P4STV89.png (picture from the homepage of Bustadice)

I'll give you a bitcoin if you can remotely substantiate that. I've never said, or implied such a thing.

I believe I have "remotely" shown that you have claimed that BustaDice and/or BustaBit is provably-fair for investors when it is in fact not (see "Edit #4).

I could have sworn that you said in a thread after this one that you'd offer .1 BTC if I could show a link with Daniel stating investing was provably-fair... I don't see it anymore, however, Edit #6 & #7 shows that.

It seems like you owe me BTC at this point.  My bitcoin address is: bc1qwupmf3gc6ql8thl3eqmkce6uuur4prj4schw55

[BayAreaCoins]

you should probably close your computer and come back tomorrow and reread over this stuff with a clear head.

You should just stop misusing the word "provably fair" and fix where y'alls website(s) claim it is provably fair for investors (bustabit or bustadice).

Maybe replace it to "probably fair" for investors?

[BayAreaCoins]

I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible, but you're making it hard.

There isn't any diplomacy in misusing a word that inspires false confidence from investors.

Just say this:

Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it.

Fix it, don't do it again and go on with life.  Simple.  

I'm not here to fight with you or cause any grief.  Just trying to maintain the integrity of the word "provably-fair".  I would hope you can respect that.

Edit: Maybe I was wrong about the claim in regards to BustaBit... the problem seems to be just on BustaDice... which is owned & operated by the same people regardless.  However, I will keep searching tomorrow.  I'm going to bed now and not cause you told me to! hehe It's all good Big Ry-dawg.

[BayAreaCoins]

You are being disingenuous.

No, I am not. I sincerely mean everything I'm saying.

Before I say something I regret, I'm just putting you on ignore. Have a good day. ><

Good call.  Have a good night as well.  I wasn't trying to upset you, but really you should know the difference between provably-fair and probably-fair.

I'm going to bed too, but not cause you told me so!

Put some ice on that butthurt.

[BayAreaCoins]

Sheesh Ryan... what happened to going to bed before you say something you regret?

Before I say something I regret, I'm just putting you on ignore. Have a good day. ><

17 minutes later...

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.

I'm childishly abusing the trust system?!  *looks Ryan up and down* *bursts out laughing* lol! OK  

I left you & your associate neutral feedback in regard to something that you agree with:

Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it.

and

I'm sorry, but this is beyond stupid. I actually agree with you about the language on the site needing to be changed.

and we had this talk back in March of this year too.

Read through everything... I still don't believe it is provably fair for investors, but it seems more like layering.

Layers help, but they don't make it mathematically fair for investors still.  I suppose it does make it fair for you though?

Yeah, you're right.

This is the second time I've had to call you or websites you're associated with out on misusing the term "provably-fair" in a fashion to give investors a false sense of security.  You bet your ass I left neutral feedback this time around.

I really don't think I'm abusing the trust system.  If anything, you are abusing the trust system, but I'm not mad at you.

Get some sleep, reconsider your feedback in the morning and send me that Bitcoin you owe me.  

I left you neutral feedback for absurd negative feedback you left me and I will leave you negative feedback tomorrow if you don't send that Bitcoin you owe me for me "remotely" showing that you personally have said investing is proveable-fair on y'alls site (Negative feedback will be left after midnight October 21, 2019).

Thanks, you probably should have just went to bed as you said.

Edit:  Ryan woke up and removed the negative feedback on his own prior to us using Dooglus as a third-party to settle the dispute in regards if Ryan owed me any BTC.

Double Edit: Dooglus ruled against me due to the fact I was unable to prove "both".  I've dropped my dispute.

[Battareus]

I watched ActuallyConanOBrien and ActuallyJimmyFallon bets for half a day, maybe these are 2 accounts with one strategy, their profit is at 70x, but after they started to increase the bid to large values, the chart started to crash around 50, and before that all the time game statistics had large values like 160x or even 2200x. I do not want to say anything bad about the honesty of this game, just a funny fact.

[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.

[dooglus]

I've seen you make the claim that both sites are "provably fair" for investors IF you trust you "two".  

I'll give you a bitcoin if you can remotely substantiate that. I've never said, or implied such a thing.

I was asked to give my opinion.

As I see it, Ryan's offer is that he will pay you if you can show that he has claimed both sites are provably fair for investors.

One of the two sites in question, Bustabit (the topic of this very thread), isn't provably fair for investors, and I've never seen anyone try to claim that it is.

To qualify for the payment you would need to show evidence of Ryan claiming that bustabit is provably fair for investors. Can you?

[BayAreaCoins]

Can you?

I can not at this time.

Only for Bustadice.  Which I thought qualified as "remotely" with ease.

Edit:  I have posted that I concede as agreed. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5194451.msg52822895#msg52822895

Daniel RHavar does not owe me 1.1 BTC or 10 BTC.

gg

[GamblingSiteFinder]

but I will just (again) state that I'm not Daniel.

We are all Daniel. 

But seriously, I'm just happy this thread can go back to normal.

[BayAreaCoins]

Daniel does not owe me 1.1 BTC or 10 BTC.

I'm not interested in another argument, but I will just (again) state that I'm not Daniel.

I said that on accident. (swear)

I meant "RHavar".  Updated.

Thank you for your time Dooglus.

[JasonFC]

There's nothing incorrect about the wording used on the bustadice web site. Investing in the bankroll of bustadice is provably fair under the condition that you don't expect the operator and the auditor to collude. That is a factual statement.

[dooglus]

There's nothing incorrect about the wording used on the bustadice web site. Investing in the bankroll of bustadice is provably fair under the condition that you don't expect the operator and the auditor to collude. That is a factual statement.

Not quite. It's possible that the operator and the auditor both get hacked. Then the hacker could cheat the investors without the operator or auditor even knowing about it, let alone colluding.