Can crypto gambling be provably fair to regulators?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Do you think it's possible to create a system where a third party can verify that the outcome of the bet wasn't known to any of the parties ahead of the time?

Creating a third-party system to oversee the affairs of an organization or company has never yielded any positive results to my understanding, instead it causes delay and distrust in the system and most times increases the expenses to run a business. Assuming there's an automated method that this can be done quickly (which I'm quite sure can be achieved using the blockchain) then I'll recommend it should be encouraged.

Creating any company to over a companies doesn't make the work any less easier or faster. I strongly believe the cryptocurrency gambling platforms has been quite fair to their possible best since over my stay in the space, I haven't encountered much complains regarding the unfairness of the crypto casinos.

[1714707064]

1714707064

[1714707064]

1714707064

[1714707064]

1714707064

[1714707064]

1714707064

[Bitcoin Marketing]

Creating any company to over a companies doesn't make the work any less easier or faster. I strongly believe the cryptocurrency gambling platforms has been quite fair to their possible best since over my stay in the space, I haven't encountered much complains regarding the unfairness of the crypto casinos.

Its not the cryptocurrency gambling platforms to be fair or not, most of these are providing the same platforms to crypto and non crypto.
Its about the operators and here its a jungle which needs a regulation, both for the industry itself and for the players.

[witcher_sense]

Assuming there's an automated method that this can be done quickly (which I'm quite sure can be achieved using the blockchain) then I'll recommend it should be encouraged.

Creating any company to over a companies doesn't make the work any less easier or faster.

I don't think either that third party companies will help cryptocurrency gambling companies to work better. Cryptocurrency gambling industry shouldn't rely on centralized authorities when it comes to verify if cryptography really do things as it was algorythmically programmed. Decision must be found through using of methods that apply in blockchain rules. Without third party, without intermediaries, trustless. If anything requires trust, it can't be verified, so it is not provably fair system.

[shoreno]

Assuming there's an automated method that this can be done quickly (which I'm quite sure can be achieved using the blockchain) then I'll recommend it should be encouraged.

Creating any company to over a companies doesn't make the work any less easier or faster.

I don't think either that third party companies will help cryptocurrency gambling companies to work better. Cryptocurrency gambling industry shouldn't rely on centralized authorities when it comes to verify if cryptography really do things as it was algorythmically programmed. Decision must be found through using of methods that apply in blockchain rules. Without third party, without intermediaries, trustless. If anything requires trust, it can't be verified, so it is not provably fair system.

never see a gambling site that used a third party service or company for verification matters   .  there are sites being created for opening bets archive that arent related to that site but this isnt a big deal as its only bets that your trying to open and not the verification of bets if the bet made is provably fair or not   .

third party service/companies is okay and can help a gambling site improve on other things even on security  but cryptography and blockchain should work traditionaly the way it was built  .

[mu_enrico]

For land casinos, they are required to do all these checklists https://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=62, but it's not "provably fair" like what we see in online casinos. With the same logic, online casinos may have to do strict auditing similar to it, which is ugly, and after all the hassle, it's not provably fair per se since auditing stuff can be gamed, just like the Enron case.

[Quidat]

I think that will not be necessary because there will investigations when that happens and I think that is not worth it because you have to spend money to have the maintenance of regulators, it is more beter for investigations because I am there will be audit trail.

The regulators would already check the gambling site that will apply for a license, and they will not approve it if they will not pass the requirement.
Well, along the way, it's also possible that the site could cheat since not all the time the regulators are operating, but these days, gamblers are already smart, they will do an audit of their own to determine if the site is still trustworthy.

You are right because in the time that they would get a license, of course there would really be test up about fairness of the site before they would be granted of such license
but still not a sure thing that it wont be changed soon according to their likes.

I agree that gamblers nowadays or even in the past are quite clever in terms if they do find out something shady is happening.I dont see for gambling owners to
risk out to cheat their users and will give out bad reputation into their site.

[DarkDays]

Crypto gambling sites don't need to prove their provable fairness because they operate outside the scope of these regulatory agencies.

Because of this, these sites don't need a system to prove that they are operating fairly, since they're not going to get a license anyway. Instead, these platforms just do what is necessary to prove to their players that they are operating fairly.

Most platforms just allow players to check their seeds to see that they haven't been modified. That's about as far as they go unfortunately.

[hatshepsut93]

Crypto gambling sites don't need to prove their provable fairness because they operate outside the scope of these regulatory agencies.

Because of this, these sites don't need a system to prove that they are operating fairly, since they're not going to get a license anyway. Instead, these platforms just do what is necessary to prove to their players that they are operating fairly.

Most platforms just allow players to check their seeds to see that they haven't been modified. That's about as far as they go unfortunately.

And for how long it will continue like that? If there will be big cases of money laundering, the regulators and law enforcement will turn their attention to crypto casinos, and they will be forced to move to the darknet, which will be bad for their business, since it would make their sites slow and harder to access. In this light, legalizing is an alternative to that, but it would make them more expensive to players. However, it would also mean for players that their winnings will be legal.

Note, I'm not saying here that legalization and regulation are good or bad, I'm just discussing the future of crypto casinos.

[crwth]

I think with the provably fair system that casinos use can't alter the bet or know the outcome because it's the "provably fair" part of the system, right? With the gaming law in place in some places, their job is to give licenses to the ones who apply it. So, therefore, I don't think they would be ultimately deciding the regulations just on the "provably fair" part of the online casino, it's the entirety.

[ralle14]

Yes, its possible I remember hearing a similar discussion in bustabit or bustadice chat room (forgot which one) and they explained this kind of provably fair to one of their users that was curious. I think you can also find this topic being discussed in their main thread. There's positives and negatives to it but still possible afaik.

the what ? the verfication of bets  ? or as known as provaly fair system  ? and what is its negative side  ? i dont think it has but i can only say that its a good idea that they implement such system because this  is for their users to verify if the site is legit or not .

I'm talking about the provably fair part since they've been doing it with bustadice, it's kind of like a multi sig where it's divided to three parties. Here's a quote from bustadice's thread explaining the whole thing.

Enhanced provable fairness
bustadice builds upon conventional provably fair systems to provide additional guarantees to players, investors and the casino itself:

For players: If a dispute over fairness arises with a legacy casino, it's largely their word against yours. In bustadice, on the other hand, all bets are committed to an independent audit server in real-time and can be reviewed and verified by Ryan if need be.

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.

In addition, the casino itself gains increased confidence that all wins are legitimate–even if the game server were to be compromised.

The way we do achieve is by introducing a third party: The auditor (Ryan). Final roll results are computed with input from all three parties: The player, the game server and the auditor. When a server seed is revealed, both the player and the auditor can verify its bets.

[witcher_sense]

I'm talking about the provably fair part since they've been doing it with bustadice, it's kind of like a multi sig where it's divided to three parties. Here's a quote from bustadice's thread explaining the whole thing.

Enhanced provable fairness
bustadice builds upon conventional provably fair systems to provide additional guarantees to players, investors and the casino itself:

For players: If a dispute over fairness arises with a legacy casino, it's largely their word against yours. In bustadice, on the other hand, all bets are committed to an independent audit server in real-time and can be reviewed and verified by Ryan if need be.

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.

In addition, the casino itself gains increased confidence that all wins are legitimate–even if the game server were to be compromised.

The way we do achieve is by introducing a third party: The auditor (Ryan). Final roll results are computed with input from all three parties: The player, the game server and the auditor. When a server seed is revealed, both the player and the auditor can verify its bets.

That definitely sounds like one of the working solutions to the problem of not so provable fairness. Another proof of unnecessity and uselessness of third party controls, all problems can be solved within a particular casino. Nonetheless, some problems still exist, for example, necessity of trust to people controlling game server and audit server, they still can collude and change some bets results. There is no problem I guess when casino is reputable, they are long enough in gambling business and likely won't cheat, although I can't be so sure in case of fresh casinos.

[Russlenat]

I think with the provably fair system that casinos use can't alter the bet or know the outcome because it's the "provably fair" part of the system, right?

Definitely, in the early days when dice was still starting to be popular, there are sites that are not license but because we trust on the provable fairness, we still gamble because we believe on them and they are called as reputable site, how much more if they will be regulated, more safe for the gamblers.

With the gaming law in place in some places, their job is to give licenses to the ones who apply it. So, therefore, I don't think they would be ultimately deciding the regulations just on the "provably fair" part of the online casino, it's the entirety.

Regulators job will issue a license under a certain conditions and licensee should comply all of that for them to get the license, and in that condition are rules that they need to comply which is for the fairness of the casino and their responsibility to the government which is the tax.

[Mumbeeptind1963]

I think that will not be necessary because there will investigations when that happens and I think that is not worth it because you have to spend money to have the maintenance of regulators, it is more beter for investigations because I am there will be audit trail.

The regulators would already check the gambling site that will apply for a license, and they will not approve it if they will not pass the requirement.
Well, along the way, it's also possible that the site could cheat since not all the time the regulators are operating, but these days, gamblers are already smart, they will do an audit of their own to determine if the site is still trustworthy.

Yes, they are having guidelines and protocol, on which party should they give the license to operate, and when the time they will give them a licensed they are also going to monitor the progress and the all the flow of the website, so that both parties are having a secured transactions. Regulators needed to be transparent in all means, since we are talking a large amount of money in here.

[adzino]

Most of the casinos are aware of this issue. If a casino starts running without a license, they will be facing some problems in the long run. The authorities are also not stupid. None of the casino will be willing to support such huge crime. Now, lets say a dummy casino was made to launder money. They will have to eventually move those money somewhere. If they wants to convert it to fiat currency, it will have to go through an exchange. The exchange will have AML and KYC policies, thus the launderers will eventually get caught.
The only option they have is to make direct P2P transaction. Now if they could make a direct P2P transaction, then laundering the money through a casino makes no sense.