ㅤ

[LoyceV]

I believe that, if the rolling will be done by someone with a good reputation on the forum, nobody will complain about fairness in choosing the winner.

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this: enter a list of participants, choose a future Bitcoin block, and after the block gets mined, use the block hash as random seed to pick a winner. Like I did manually here.

[BenCodie]

Funny. I just posted in that thread in the hopes I would win but also with the thought of wonder as to why the user was giving away so much BTC (the first thought of course that came to mind, was merit). After reading all of the theories here, a lot more makes sense. The only way to validate which of the theories are correct is to see which winner is chosen. I have doubts that a winner will even be chosen if the user sees this thread. Time will tell!

[TryNinja]

I believe that, if the rolling will be done by someone with a good reputation on the forum, nobody will complain about fairness in choosing the winner.

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this: enter a list of participants, choose a future Bitcoin block, and after the block gets mined, use the block hash as random seed to pick a winner. Like I did manually here.

Fun fact, I made a bot that does this to run giveaways on the forum (currently only on the Portuguese local board). Create threads, get tickets, and the bot uses a future block hash to draw a winner:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409071.msg60711596#msg60711596
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5409071.msg61051620#msg61051620

I would love to make a website version of this, but I didn’t bring my laptop on my cold trip (I got the internet though, for $75 ).

[bitmover]

I believe that, if the rolling will be done by someone with a good reputation on the forum, nobody will complain about fairness in choosing the winner.

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this: enter a list of participants, choose a future Bitcoin block, and after the block gets mined, use the block hash as random seed to pick a winner. Like I did manually here.

I can make a page for this in my domain.

Something like bitcoindata.science/giveaways

I will make it on the next week, as I am now traveling and I will be back on sunday. No laptop here 

[GazetaBitcoin]

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this [...] Like I did manually here.

Knowing that you have expertise, inside my mind I was thinking about you for doing this, but I did not write it in my previous post I as did not know if you are interested or not. However, any other member with good reputation is good as any other one of this kind


Speaking of which --

I will make it on the next week, as I am now traveling and I will be back on sunday. No laptop here 

Thank you bitmover for giving a hand here! But do you think you will be able to do it until Jan 24th? This is the date when OP said he would like to roll. In case you can do it, will you let Rbah know, inside his giveaway topic that you are willing to organize the rolling? I'm saying this to have everything transparent there as well. (Being a Newbie, it's possible that he does not even know about the existence of this thread from Reputation board Oo)

I would love to make a website version of this, but I didn’t bring my laptop on my cold trip (I got the internet though, for $75 ).

Thank you also for showing your good intentions, TryNinja No worry about this, I believe that, once your bots will be fully prepared they will can be used in future similar occasions. After all, inside Collectibles board (at least) there are many such raffles and a bot would help a lot.

[LoyceMobile]

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this [...] Like I did manually here.

Knowing that you have expertise, inside my mind I was thinking about you for doing this, but I did not write it in my previous post I as did not know if you are interested or not. However, any other member with good reputation is good as any other one of this kind

I (still) don't know databases, so i can't do it. The reputation of the creator shouldn't matter, as long as it can be verified. The website is meant for convenience.

[bitmover]

I will make it on the next week, as I am now traveling and I will be back on sunday. No laptop here  

Thank you bitmover for giving a hand here! But do you think you will be able to do it until Jan 24th? This is the date when OP said he would like to roll. In case you can do it, will you let Rbah know, inside his giveaway topic that you are willing to organize the rolling? I'm saying this to have everything transparent there as well. (Being a Newbie, it's possible that he does not even know about the existence of this thread from Reputation board Oo)

I have created a first version, but I would like some suggestions from you and @LoyceV, who suggested the creation of this tools, before releasing and announcing it.

You can see it here:

https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/




It is already working if you add competitors manually.

I will create the scrapper today at night or tomorrow, but I would love to hear some suggestions.

Do you think I should scrap all users who added a bitcoin address in a thread, like this one? Then the user would just paste the URL of the thread in the tool.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5435424.0

Then I would add number 1,2,3... for each user.

IF there is a code tag with all competitors, anyone can just copy/paste in the tool.

[LoyceV]

I would like some suggestions from you and @LoyceV

I would leave out the "guess" for each user. Just a list of usernames, then base the winner on some algorithm that uses the selected block hash as input. That also means you don't have to ask how many digits to consider.
As long as anyone can reproduce what you're doing, it's (more or less) provably fair.
See my example, and the following post for the results. You don't even have to select just one winner, you can create a list of all participants in an order determined by the selected block hash. That way, the giveaway is flexible for multiple winners.

Do you think I should scrap all users who added a bitcoin address in a thread, like this one? Then the user would just paste the URL of the thread in the tool.

Most giveaway organizers will want to select who qualifies by themselves. You could ask for a link to one post that has all names, that way an unedited post can help ensure nobody edited anything afterwards.
So: the creator of the giveaway posts this, and copies the link to that post into your BGM:

Code:

satoshi
Finney

[FatFork]

Do you think I should scrap all users who added a bitcoin address in a thread, like this one? Then the user would just paste the URL of the thread in the tool.

I agree with LoyceV, developing a scraper for the entire thread would be a waste of time. There are many potential issues to consider such as someone posting in a wrong format or someone editing the post while the scraper is running... There are simply too many things that can go wrong. It would be more efficient for the contest organizer to manually prepare the list of participants.

I think you need to come up with a better way for selecting the "Target Block". For instance, if someone wants to organize a contest and announce that the winner will be chosen from Block 773400, your tool does not currently have the option to select a specific target block and can only choose a block offset from the most recent one.

[bitmover]

I think you need to come up with a better way for selecting the "Target Block". For instance, if someone wants to organize a contest and announce that the winner will be chosen from Block 773400, your tool does not currently have the option to select a specific target block and can only choose a block offset from the most recent one.

Can you expand this a little more?

Right now you can add block 773400, it will say not mined yet. What would you expect?
Something like "expected to be mined in 10 days"?

I would like some suggestions from you and @LoyceV

I would leave out the "guess" for each user. Just a list of usernames, then base the winner on some algorithm that uses the selected block hash as input. That also means you don't have to ask how many digits to consider.
As long as anyone can reproduce what you're doing, it's (more or less) provably fair.
See my example, and the following post for the results. You don't even have to select just one winner, you can create a list of all participants in an order determined by the selected block hash. That way, the giveaway is flexible for multiple winners.

I have seen giveaways where you can select a number from 1 - f , this is why I let people put their guess.

I will make an algorithm to add a number to each participant and chose one based on the block hash

[LoyceV]

I have seen giveaways where you can select a number from 1 - f , this is why I let people put their guess.

Those are easy: anyone can verify the result without needing a website for it

I will make an algorithm to add a number to each participant and chose one based on the block hash

That's the part that's missing for many giveaways

[FatFork]

Can you expand this a little more?

Right now you can add block 773400, it will say not mined yet. What would you expect?
Something like "expected to be mined in 10 days"?

Oops, my bad. So it only works on blocks that have already been mined, right? I thought the tool was supposed to do something else.

[BenCodie]

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated. No posts were made announcing which block would be chosen and the OP just suddenly edited the thread with the details. There is no "last edit" time either to see when the post was edited. I am sure the doubt is uncalled for considering who won, I just think that it could have been done in a way where not even a little bit of doubt was left open.

Honestly  , I will confirm receipt as soon as it arrives   -snip-

Congratulations on winning! Yes, would be nice if you let us know. After that, OP gets merit for it.  

I am not sure if you are making fun or you really believe that you won therefore, for making sure that no confusion goes from here, you did not win anything yet. -snip-

It looks like he really won. OP didn't make a separate post for it, but he wrote it in his first post of this topic.  

-snip-
we will wait till the hash is mined after this one 00000000000000000006b0f25523ef9a00fac656c7594e165697ddc5067beb68

00000000000000000004256b47c615b199e839b5c4e586f21c7e891832b39db9 which is number 99 (NOT FILLED)

00000000000000000005bee4da68306ecc95e6450a904054aa6f112908018fea which is 18 WINNER IS 5tift

Congratulations 5tift but Rbah you really should have made posts announcing that you were choosing a winner instead of editing your post so that there was a timestamp of the winning announcement.

The winning block #773,386 occurred 4 hours and 8 minutes ago. That is a mere 2.5 hours after xLays made his post and less than 2 hours after I had made mine, that suggested to you how to choose the winner.

I think it is unlikely that the winner was chosen unfairly. It is just a shame that you made no posts announcing which block was being used to determine the winner prior to doing so and that the result that is still potentially open to even the slightest amount of doubt when it did not have to be.

[GazetaBitcoin]

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated.

What difference does it make who was chosen as the winner? The fact that the drawing took place does not mean that the payment took place. Last time, the winner was also announced, but the matter did not go beyond promises of payment.

Until getting to payment, it has to be stated the fact that the election of the winner broke the giveaway rules and, as a consequence, that winner is not eligible.

OP said he will do the rolling or he'll allow a trustworthy member to do it. OP did not do any rolling nor a trustworthy user did it. A user tagged as Ponzi promoter gave OP a suggestion of how to roll and, inside that suggestion the winner was a member named 5tift. However, 5tift was only the name which came as winner within an example of how to roll. That was not an official rolling. And even if it would be considered so (although it can't be, since it was an example), it is not an eligible rolling, based on OP's own rules: do it by himself or by a trustworthy member.

I am not sure if OP got confused or he broke his own rules at will. But, so far, what's happening is outside the giveaway rules.

[BenCodie]

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated. No posts were made announcing which block would be chosen and the OP just suddenly edited the thread with the details. There is no "last edit" time either to see when the post was edited. I am sure the doubt is uncalled for considering who won, I just think that it could have been done in a way where not even a little bit of doubt was left open

What difference does it make who was chosen as the winner? The fact that the drawing took place does not mean that the payment took place. Last time, the winner was also announced, but the matter did not go beyond promises of payment.

I was talking more about how the winner was chosen and the way it was chosen (by not making any posts, therefore no timestamps to prove that the winning block was chosen before the winner was announced. In reference to what I said about the chosen winner, it wasn't the primary reason for my post but I think that if a newbie with a very little amount of posts in comparison to an established member would make a difference as well. Especially considering that currently there is no way for a normal member to know that the block was chosen after the block occurred (Maybe a mod can know if they have access to edit history?)

Like GazetaBitcoin said while I was posting as well, payment is more of a concern after the winner is elected fairly. If the winner is not elected fairly, that is the first point of concern before who gets paid. If the winner was not elected fairly then it is probably likely that the winner will be paid if the giveaway was rigged.

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated.

What difference does it make who was chosen as the winner? The fact that the drawing took place does not mean that the payment took place. Last time, the winner was also announced, but the matter did not go beyond promises of payment.

I am not sure if OP got confused or he broke his own rules at will. But, so far, what's happening is outside the giveaway rules.

It does look like a poor decision to quickly finish off the giveaway. Unfortunately due to the way it all occurred there is no certain way to know for now.

Until getting to payment, it has to be stated the fact that the election of the winner broke the giveaway rules and, as a consequence, that winner is not eligible.

OP said he will do the rolling or he'll allow a trustworthy member to do it. OP did not do any rolling nor a trustworthy user did it. A user tagged as Ponzi promoter gave OP a suggestion of how to roll and, inside that suggestion the winner was a member named 5tift. However, 5tift was only the name which came as winner withing an example of how to roll. That was not an official rolling. And even if it would be considered so (although it can;t be, since it was an example), it is not an eligible rolling, based on OP's own rules: do it by himself or by a trustworthy member.

I am not sure if OP got confused or he broke his own rules at will. But, so far, what's happening is outside the giveaway rules.

Nothing surprising. Most likely, the name of the winner was chosen without any roulettes or blockchain. This happened from both the Mitch112 account and the Rbah account. Therefore, there can be no talk of any fair drawing. The purpose of these pranks, I think, is different.

If you aren't already aware, the winner of this giveaway was supposedly chosen via a chosen block and its hash. The concern is that the OP edited his thread without making posts so there is on way to know the timestamp of the block was chosen before the block occurred (fair) or after (presumably not fair). If the giveaway is fake, I think it is clear it is to establish some sort of reputation or give out the idea they have money. I found it odd that the user went on to try and use the marketplace not long after the giveaway was ongoing, but again there is no way to validate anything enough to make a claim.

[bitmover]

I have seen giveaways where you can select a number from 1 - f , this is why I let people put their guess.

Those are easy: anyone can verify the result without needing a website for it

I will make an algorithm to add a number to each participant and chose one based on the block hash

That's the part that's missing for many giveaways

Here you go

https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/

I found a nice and simple solution.

As the block hash is just a number, its last 3 digits is converted to decimal using this function:

Code:

var decimal =  parseInt(blockhash.slice(-3), 16)

Now we have a *nearly* 3 digit integer from the block hash.

Dividing this number by the number of participants. Using the modulo operator, the division remainder becomes the index number.

This index number is applied in the participants list, to get the position of the winner.

Code:

var rolled = decimal % competitors.length
 var winner = competitors[rolled];

Maybe we can use this tool in future giveaways
I changed the address in the first post, I just edited it.

Use the new one please.

[LoyceV]

It looks like the giveaway in question announced a winner. In my opinion though there is still doubt about how the winner was calculated. No posts were made announcing which block would be chosen and the OP just suddenly edited the thread with the details. There is no "last edit" time either to see when the post was edited. I am sure the doubt is uncalled for considering who won, I just think that it could have been done in a way where not even a little bit of doubt was left open.

Now only Admins can see the edited posts, and I don't think they'll care enough to check.

[JollyGood]

If I have understood this situation correctly, the OP of the $50 giveaway thread (who is a newbie and has almost zero posts in the forum) basically conducted a giveaway even though he did not announce in the OP of the thread how a winner was going to be selected.

Furthermore, a few posts down the line he is asked how a winner will be decided. The OP of that thread decides to roll a wheel and suggests even someone trustworthy could do it but then does not offer the option again and instead simply announces he found the winner by editing the OP of that giveaway thread.

Now it seems many (if not most participants of the giveaway thread) are not happy and want a more transparent way to find a winner. Is that basically the issue?

[GazetaBitcoin]

Furthermore, a few posts down the line he is asked how a winner will be decided. The OP of that thread decides to roll a wheel and suggests even someone trustworthy could do it but then does not offer the option again and instead simply announces he found the winner by editing the OP of that giveaway thread.

Is that basically the issue?

You are close

Indeed, OP did not initially announce giveaway rules; he did it later, in the seventh post. Rolling was supposed to take place on Jan 24th. Yesterday (Jan 24th), OP asked how to proceed. A Ponzi promoter (so, obviously, not a trustworthy member) gave him an example of how to choose the winner by using a block's hash. In the given example, the winner was user 5tift. However, that was just an example!

OP did not understand that it was only an example (or simply ignored that) and announced 5tift as winner, although he (OP) broke his giveaway rules. And his giveaway rules were those stated in post #7, respective to have him or a trustworthy user make the rolling.

But, in our case: (1) he did not make any rolling; (2) no trustworthy user made any rolling; (3) there was actually no rolling at all, as what that Ponzi promoter said was just an example of how a rolling works.

Since then I don't know what happened, nor if OP actually paid the money to the fake winner. In any case, he broke his own rules.

[CoinEraser]

Indeed, OP did not initially announce giveaway rules; he did it later, in the seventh post. Rolling was supposed to take place on Jan 24th. Yesterday (Jan 24th), OP asked how to proceed. A Ponzi promoter (so, obviously, not a trustworthy member) gave him an example of how to choose the winner by using a block's hash. In the given example, the winner was user 5tift. However, that was just an example! -snip-

Sorry, but I'm not sure about that. In xLays example post, only the number 92 was given as the winning number and not 5tift. I think you read that wrong and 5tift only spoke up next because he received a PM from Rbah. He published this PM from Rbah in another thread:

Hello 5tift,
you are the winner of my BTC giveaway
I'll be sending 50 bucks to this address 1MxqUhnCwuUwbc7Z1NhNTTGiVHJXBpurCi in the next few hours
Thanks for joining

However, I no longer believe that Rbah will pay the prize. 24 hours have passed and nothing has arrived at the address from 5tift.  
https://blockchair.com/de/bitcoin/address/1MxqUhnCwuUwbc7Z1NhNTTGiVHJXBpurCi
But you're right about the other things.