bustabit – The original crash game

[devans]

Could you elaborate on the reasons why you are not planning to increase accepted crypto-types ?

The reason is pretty mundane: There's not enough demand in other cryptocurrencies to justify adding support in bustabit yet.

[upsidedown75]

Faucet is a very touchy subject because whose money are you giving away with that. Right now bustabit is bankrolled by investors and when someone loses the investors make money however when someone wins than investors are taking the hit, I know on overall investors are profiting (house always wins after all) but telling them "we are going to start giving away free money" won't be welcomed so it is going to be tough to pitch that idea, even if bustabit decides to give away money themselves then it is going to affect the investors all the same, mostly for the good which they will love but sometimes those free faucets could make money as well.

I don't know how it could be done but I know its a very sensitive subject so it can't be done quickly, it needs to be really well thought out.

[JollyGood]

Could you elaborate on the reasons why you are not planning to increase accepted crypto-types ?

The reason is pretty mundane: There's not enough demand in other cryptocurrencies to justify adding support in bustabit yet.

Thank you for the explanation

[devans]

The intended purpose of the offsite system is primarily for investors to decrease their counterparty risk by holding part of their investment themselves. It was never intended as a roundabout way for investors to increase their risk beyond what is safe according to the Kelly criterion.

But as bustabit's bankroll continues to grow, I believe the offsite system is increasingly being (ab)used to do just that. At over 6,300 BTC, bustabit's bankroll is only rarely fully utilized, so investors' desire to gain a larger stake in it by leveraging is understandable. However, it is arguably unfair towards other investors and is also not in bustabit's best interest, which ideally wants a stable and highly utilized bankroll.

In the past I've already reduced the maximum leverage for new offsite investments a number of times to discourage overleveraging and today I am disabling the ability to make new offsite investments entirely. Existing offsite investments are unaffected. Investors with offsite investments can still add to or remove from their onsite bankroll without being forced to divest their offsite portion. It is also possible to lower your offsite investment without fully removing it.

[cryptokyle]

The intended purpose of the offsite system is primarily for investors to decrease their counterparty risk by holding part of their investment themselves. It was never intended as a roundabout way for investors to increase their risk beyond what is safe according to the Kelly criterion.

But as bustabit's bankroll continues to grow, I believe the offsite system is increasingly being (ab)used to do just that. At over 6,300 BTC, bustabit's bankroll is only rarely fully utilized, so investors' desire to gain a larger stake in it by leveraging is understandable. However, it is arguably unfair towards other investors and is also not in bustabit's best interest, which ideally wants a stable and highly utilized bankroll.

In the past I've already reduced the maximum leverage for new offsite investments a number of times to discourage overleveraging and today I am disabling the ability to make new offsite investments entirely. Existing offsite investments are unaffected. Investors with offsite investments can still add to or remove from their onsite bankroll without being forced to divest their offsite portion. It is also possible to lower your offsite investment without fully removing it.

Has this been implemented yet? I see I am still able to increase my offsite exposure, bumping up my total estimated stake if I were to do so. Is this feature only on any new btc deposits after 4-28 or are you still in the process of implementing and changing it as of now (4-29)?

EDIT **  I see the message when actually attempting to do so Offsite investments are deprecated. You cannot increase your offsite investment. Disregard my previous comment.  **

[Timetwister]

The intended purpose of the offsite system is primarily for investors to decrease their counterparty risk by holding part of their investment themselves. It was never intended as a roundabout way for investors to increase their risk beyond what is safe according to the Kelly criterion.

But as bustabit's bankroll continues to grow, I believe the offsite system is increasingly being (ab)used to do just that. At over 6,300 BTC, bustabit's bankroll is only rarely fully utilized, so investors' desire to gain a larger stake in it by leveraging is understandable. However, it is arguably unfair towards other investors and is also not in bustabit's best interest, which ideally wants a stable and highly utilized bankroll.

In the past I've already reduced the maximum leverage for new offsite investments a number of times to discourage overleveraging and today I am disabling the ability to make new offsite investments entirely. Existing offsite investments are unaffected. Investors with offsite investments can still add to or remove from their onsite bankroll without being forced to divest their offsite portion. It is also possible to lower your offsite investment without fully removing it.

Well done! I hated having to overleverage so I wouldn't be diluted by those with 2 times as much offsite as onsite bankroll.

Under this new system what I'd suggest is increasing the maximum possible loss per round (loss for investors, prize for players) to 2 times Kelly criterion. Very rarely players go for max profit, so it's still a very conservative approach and it could encourage some more big bets (or martingale style strategies that would be able to bet more times before hitting max profit), while still being profitable for investors (positive bankroll expected growth).

[raven7886]

The intended purpose of the offsite system is primarily for investors to decrease their counterparty risk by holding part of their investment themselves. It was never intended as a roundabout way for investors to increase their risk beyond what is safe according to the Kelly criterion.

But as bustabit's bankroll continues to grow, I believe the offsite system is increasingly being (ab)used to do just that. At over 6,300 BTC, bustabit's bankroll is only rarely fully utilized, so investors' desire to gain a larger stake in it by leveraging is understandable. However, it is arguably unfair towards other investors and is also not in bustabit's best interest, which ideally wants a stable and highly utilized bankroll.

In the past I've already reduced the maximum leverage for new offsite investments a number of times to discourage overleveraging and today I am disabling the ability to make new offsite investments entirely. Existing offsite investments are unaffected. Investors with offsite investments can still add to or remove from their onsite bankroll without being forced to divest their offsite portion. It is also possible to lower your offsite investment without fully removing it.

That makes sense, after all why would the people who leverage their investment on a casino that literally prints money from how much it earns while others just stay there taking all the potential risks if there is any big win but not get the same amount during the big loses.

I fully agree with this decision and I feel like maybe even removing the existing ones could have worked as well, I mean 6300+ is more than enough for a long long time to cover many many losses and I think if you let it be the amount will grow by itself not by just more people investing more actually people profiting from their investments and organically increasing that amount too. I feel you can just let it be the regular invest/divest without any extra steps and still make it work for everyone involved.

[Coin-Desk]

I already know about bustabit this is a popular crash game. There are many interesting features that give the player the best experience. Anyone can invest here, and its investment fee is not too much. This is probably the most popular site of this time that people try to give their best. There are many features like Investment System, Higher bet limits, Deposit precredits, Highly optimized withdrawal system, etc.

[JollyGood]

Which version of the game is provided if the 2 BTC licence fee is paid?

After a licence fee is paid, are updates and upgrades provided for free?

[devans]

bustabit sells software license for version 1 of bustabit. Version 2, which bustabit.com is currently running, is not available for licensing. The software is provided as-is and buyers should be prepared to maintain and modify the code themselves.

If you're interested in purchasing a v1 license or have any questions about it, please contact me via email at https://www.bustabit.com/support.

[Alpinat]

I already know about bustabit this is a popular crash game. There are many interesting features that give the player the best experience. Anyone can invest here, and its investment fee is not too much. This is probably the most popular site of this time that people try to give their best. There are many features like Investment System, Higher bet limits, Deposit precredits, Highly optimized withdrawal system, etc.

I agree and from time to time there is a lot of winners announced on its website live. You can see their codename there. I remember when I had this moment that I just put 3X and I won but the biggest won at that time is like 1000X I kinda regret at that time but still cherish because I won.

[JollyGood]

bustabit sells software license for version 1 of bustabit. Version 2, which bustabit.com is currently running, is not available for licensing. The software is provided as-is and buyers should be prepared to maintain and modify the code themselves.

If you're interested in purchasing a v1 license or have any questions about it, please contact me via email at https://www.bustabit.com/support.

Thank you for the link. Do you have a demo URL where prospective purchasers can see v1 running?

And since you are not selling a licence for v2 could you please explain how ethercrash has an almost identical looking site to bustabit?

[Josepht]

Thank you for the link. Do you have a demo URL where prospective purchasers can see v1 running?

And since you are not selling a licence for v2 could you please explain how ethercrash has an almost identical looking site to bustabit?

I might be off here, but you already have all the information you need. Ethercrash runs the V1 version of bustabit. That should answer both of your questions.

[JollyGood]

Thank you for the link. Do you have a demo URL where prospective purchasers can see v1 running?

And since you are not selling a licence for v2 could you please explain how ethercrash has an almost identical looking site to bustabit?

I might be off here, but you already have all the information you need. Ethercrash runs the V1 version of bustabit. That should answer both of your questions.

Thank you for letting me know, it might have been posted before but escaped my mind. In that case both questions are indeed answered.

[JollyGood]

@devans

https://betking.io/crash

Is scammer Dean Nolan stealing your code again or did he pay you the 2 BTC licence fee this time?

[devans]

BetKing has not purchased a software license for bustabit's v1 code.

[StackGambler]

BetKing has not purchased a software license for bustabit's v1 code.

I don't think BetKing's code is open-source. You should probably add it to the list of untrustworthy sites if they're using your code

[JollyGood]

BetKing has not purchased a software license for bustabit's v1 code.

I don't think BetKing's code is open-source. You should probably add it to the list of untrustworthy sites if they're using your code

So why on earth is scammer Dean Nolan using the software (again) without paying for it (again) especially after it was because of his last stint using it without paying for it that brought about the downfall of whatever little reputation he had remaining and nearly brought the end of the betking website which was to be shutdown and all tokens "converted" in to his next scam ICO venture "bitsafe" exchange?

The follow up posts from this link exposed scammer Dean Nolan for the true compulsive lying fool he really is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.msg47568806#msg47568806

[StackGambler]

BetKing has not purchased a software license for bustabit's v1 code.

I don't think BetKing's code is open-source. You should probably add it to the list of untrustworthy sites if they're using your code

So why on earth is scammer Dean Nolan using the software (again) without paying for it (again) especially after it was because of his last stint using it without paying for it that brought about the downfall of whatever little reputation he had remaining and nearly brought the end of the betking website which was to be shutdown and all tokens "converted" in to his next scam ICO venture "bitsafe" exchange?

The follow up posts from this link exposed scammer Dean Nolan for the true compulsive lying fool he really is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.msg47568806#msg47568806

Agreed. More people should do their research and stay away from his casino. It has an extremely shady past.

[BetKing.io]

BetKing has not purchased a software license for bustabit's v1 code.

Because we don't use Bustabit v1 code. The game on https://betking.io is our own.