EveryDice.com | 0.99% Edge - Instant Cashout - Invest - Referral - Mobile - Fair

[cech4204a]

22 May 2014

    Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).

23 May 2014

    Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.

If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?

I wonder if this list of events is missing something.  People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.

It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.

If he won 141 and then lost 92, he should have only won 49 or 50 after rounding, then why did the site profit went down from +95 to -46? 

he won back even more affterwards, wait for Edward for full list of best or stats

[jaysabi]

1Dice's full bet history was published, but it's hosted on ED site, and of course since Admin took site down, cannot see the bet history now:  https://everydice.com/log_1dice1.txt

For as much as he won, he lost a lot too. A lot of his losing was followed by bigger bets that he won (martingale strategy) except for runs where he would bet 2 btc at 50% and get really streaky. Hardly "impossible" or statistically "improbable." Winning 7 or 8 times in a row at 50% is hardly a rare occurrence. His streak just stands out because the amounts are so large. He also had martingale streaks where he'd lose in streaks, starting at .1 until he'd run into max bet cap at 1.6, then he'd just do a bunch 1.6 bets and win more than he lost to make up his losses. Eventually, his luck started running out, and when he wasn't as streaky, he started to slow down the betting and get more persistent about his withdrawal delays because he was afraid of losing what he won.

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?

[Soappa]

On an unrelated note, can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?

I am not 100% sure about ED, but for PD the bet result is determined by sha512(secret, server seed, client seed).
The "secret" are different for each day, and will only be revealed after the day.
Only sha(server seed) will be published before your bet, but not the server seed directly.
Client seed can be set by the player himself.

So, with only server seed and client seed, the player still shouldn't be able to know the bet result beforehand...

[littlebox]

Looks surprisingly like Mt.Gox 's announcements.

I suggest players move to JD. Or maybe you can try my site with free BTC from my faucet. It's small and relatively new. I'm confident with my site, but maybe you can wait till it's more established before deposit your btc

[blizeH]

A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.

I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.

I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.

[jaysabi]

A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.

I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.

I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.

?

Can you show the math you used to arrive at 3SD/4SD? I can't speak to P-4747, but I was gambling along side 1Dice at ED and he sure did a lot of losing in between his winning. 3SD/4SD sounds dubious to me on first glance.

[kleineaap]

A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.

I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.

I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.

This doesn't stop the case from smelling real bad.
If any seeds were leaked - which sounds more like a lame excuse - that's a problem from the house. House can't pay their mistakes because bankroll is from investors? You should have protected investors' balance much better.
Now it's the winning gambler paying from the house mistakes? Where on earth this makes sense? Maybe with Bitcoin, given all the past examples similar to this, but it does not make it acceptable in any way.

And where are site admins? Sudden disappearance?! No email support, not even to 1DiCe1???
Website being DDoSed under heavy betting??? Where was the protection at the moment?

And now investors trying to make deals? And other opportunists trying extortion? Man, it's fishy as hell.

It's a shame this keeps happening.

How I see it, any other outcome different than the winner getting his coins - without undeniable proof of unfair gambling - is plain theft.

[dooglus]

22 May 2014

    Player 1DiCe1 deposited 2.6 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 won ~141 BTC and causing site profit to go down from +95 BTC to -46 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 automatic withdrawal of 6 BTC and manual withdrawal of 50 BTC (total of 56 BTC).

23 May 2014

    Player 1DiCe1 deposited 6 BTC.
    Player 1DiCe1 won ~51 BTC.

If he won 141 and only withdrew 56 on the 22nd, why did he redeposit on the 23rd?

I wonder if this list of events is missing something.  People with a balance of 87 BTC generally don't deposit another 6 before continuing to play.

It's missing dice's loss of 92 btc and 52 btc, that's why he deposited, so he was able to get back profits.

That seems like a significant omission.  "OMG this guy won so much he must be cheating (please ignore his losses)"

[dooglus]

can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?

Yes.

All provably fair sites are pretty much the same.

There's a secret (sometimes a site-wide secret that changes each day, sometimes a per-user secret, sometimes per-bet - it depends on the site) which is used to generate the rolls in a deterministic way.

The secret isn't published until some time after the bet has happened (at the end of the day, when the user changes their seed, after each bet, again depending on the site), but a hash of the secret is published before the bet.

In this way the site can prove that they didn't change the secret when the bet happened, because if they did the hash wouldn't match, which everyone can check once the secret is published.

Does that make sense now?  All the sites have secret seeds, they all publish the hash of the secret before, and the secret itself after.

(There's also a 'client seed' which the player himself picks after seeing the server seed hash, and before playing - this also contributes to the roll generation and prevents the site from picking a "bad" server seed to make the player lose, but is irrelevant to this discussion).

[jaysabi]

can anyone explain how site seed being known can cheat the gambling site? Doesn't JD and LN publish the site seed?

Yes.

All provably fair sites are pretty much the same.

There's a secret (sometimes a site-wide secret that changes each day, sometimes a per-user secret, sometimes per-bet - it depends on the site) which is used to generate the rolls in a deterministic way.

The secret isn't published until some time after the bet has happened (at the end of the day, when the user changes their seed, after each bet, again depending on the site), but a hash of the secret is published before the bet.

In this way the site can prove that they didn't change the secret when the bet happened, because if they did the hash wouldn't match, which everyone can check once the secret is published.

Does that make sense now?  All the sites have secret seeds, they all publish the hash of the secret before, and the secret itself after.

(There's also a 'client seed' which the player himself picks after seeing the server seed hash, and before playing - this also contributes to the roll generation and prevents the site from picking a "bad" server seed to make the player lose, but is irrelevant to this discussion).

Yes, thank you. So if you knew the secret seed, because you knew what the hash is before the roll, you could mathematically figure out what the result of the roll would be and bet accordingly. Is that the gist of it?

[WhatsBitcoin]

A lot of people are saying "just pay him already" without realising that it is not himself he's trying to protect here, but the site's investors.

I've played at a lot of online casinos before and have been refused payments for the smallest of things, and that's from the casinos own bankroll. In this case, there are some slightly peculiar results from two players - not impossible, but almost 3SD/4SD respectively from my quick calculations which is highly unusual.

I think in this case the admin is right to proceed with caution, especially if there is even the slightest suspicion that the site could have been compromised.

You're saying this cause you lost a boatload of money. Your own greed makes you extremely bias here.

[blizeH]

My own greed? That's a bit strong. I'm just saying that this isn't a traditional player vs casino case - the site admin has to be 100% sure that the bitcoins haven't been exploited in some way.

FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.

He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.

[boumalo]

My own greed? That's a bit strong. I'm just saying that this isn't a traditional player vs casino case - the site admin has to be 100% sure that the bitcoins haven't been exploited in some way.

FWIW despite the 3SD (1DiCe) and 4SD (4747) sessions I saw I don't actually have any real reason to believe that this players did cheat, but obviously the site admin does - after all, it's not his Bitcoin that is at stake here, it's the investors vs those two.

He could have happily just paid out to 1DiCe and 4747, taken his considerable profit from the wagering and let the investors deal with it. Obviously that hasn't happened, which makes me believe there's something else going on here.

The owner has bitcoins invested in the site bankroll so it is partly his bitcoins and having a small bankroll reduce his potential earnings anyway

It is very disappointing not to be able to access his funds for those who have money invested

[blizeH]

I haven't done the calculations myself, but based on what Ruru said, plus knowing what a few people had invested, I'd be surprised if the site owner's investment loss was greater than his commission profits.

[888]

I was watching that 4747 playing, he started to play after 1Dice1 won a lot from the site should've deposited a lot(20 or 30 BTC maybe).

I doubt at least 4747 knew how to win or why he would deposited that much when even 1Dice1 couldn't withdraw?

[ruru]

Let's at least watch the cold wallet addresses.
https://blockchain.info/address/1EDCWwzPzuT5v9hmxCwrW5hCDWFyGcdpeg and https://blockchain.info/address/1EDCWx4aJ5bT3ztma8wqT3CyTRbd9uSA8K

Once again,

https://www.mtgox.com/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.msg605957#msg605957 and
http://media.coindesk.com/2013/11/Inputs.io-bitcoins-stolen.png
http://coinbet.cc/
http://hamster-334.getforge.io/

They all share something similar, no? These are the game over screens of various scams. We have Mt.Gox, BS&T, Inputs.IO, Coinbet.CC and perhaps, EveryDice.

[WhatsBitcoin]

I was watching that 4747 playing, he started to play after 1Dice1 won a lot from the site should've deposited a lot(20 or 30 BTC maybe).

I doubt at least 4747 knew how to win or why he would deposited that much when even 1Dice1 couldn't withdraw?

If he deposited 20-30 coins and won 50 coins this is not statistically improbable. Once AGAIN I recommend NO ONE EVER play on this site again.

The funny part is that theres a good chance everydice runs with everyone's funds here because the way they have handled this they know their business is DONE.

[BayAreaCoins]

You guys kinda had it coming investing with a "newbie" account. Just sayin....

[dooglus]

Yes, thank you. So if you knew the secret seed, because you knew what the hash is before the roll, you could mathematically figure out what the result of the roll would be and bet accordingly. Is that the gist of it?

If you remove the bit I struck out, then yes, you've got it.

The only bit you got wrong is that knowing the hash of the secret seed doesn't let you find the secret seed itself.  To find the secret seed you need to gain access to the server somehow, or be told it by someone.

The point of a hash is that it is one way.

If I tell you I'm thinking of a secret, and its hash is 1b8f391a4813d911de3f94d624ccdc82c12fc6a6 then you can't figure out what the secret is without guessing a whole bunch of times, hashing each guess, and seeing if it gives you 1b8f391a4813d911de3f94d624ccdc82c12fc6a6.

But when I tell you later that my secret was 'this is my secret', you can hash that, and see that it gives you that same long string of text, and be pretty certain that I'm telling you the truth.

There's a chance that some other secret would give the exact same hash, but it's almost impossible to find two secrets with the same hash.

(In this example I used sha-1 for the hashing because it produces shorter hashes; in practice people use sha-256 or sha-512 which produce longer outputs making 'collisions' even less likely).

[littlebox]

Yes, thank you. So if you knew the secret seed, because you knew what the hash is before the roll, you could mathematically figure out what the result of the roll would be and bet accordingly. Is that the gist of it?

If you remove the bit I struck out, then yes, you've got it.

The only bit you got wrong is that knowing the hash of the secret seed doesn't let you find the secret seed itself.  To find the secret seed you need to gain access to the server somehow, or be told it by someone.

The point of a hash is that it is one way.

If I tell you I'm thinking of a secret, and its hash is 1b8f391a4813d911de3f94d624ccdc82c12fc6a6 then you can't figure out what the secret is without guessing a whole bunch of times, hashing each guess, and seeing if it gives you 1b8f391a4813d911de3f94d624ccdc82c12fc6a6.

But when I tell you later that my secret was 'this is my secret', you can hash that, and see that it gives you that same long string of text, and be pretty certain that I'm telling you the truth.

There's a chance that some other secret would give the exact same hash, but it's almost impossible to find two secrets with the same hash.

(In this example I used sha-1 for the hashing because it produces shorter hashes; in practice people use sha-256 or sha-512 which produce longer outputs making 'collisions' even less likely).

Collision of Sha-256 is highly unlikely. With the current computational power, it is more unlikely than the entire human race being wiped out in the next second or so, if my memory servers me right.