what are your opinions on the SatScratch website/service and the manner in which their forum representative has conducted himself?
Well.... He's using your Reputation thread to shamelessly advertise his service and "third pack".
Satscratch did send me a PM asking if he could provide more proof - a picture. Someone who understands crypto (which he seems to) should understand the value of such claims. :/
Even if the collectible physical coin is real (which we can't verify from a picture), all it tells me is that it's impossible to win 1 Bitcoin. As I wrote on their Trust page after they locked their topic:
There's a fundamental problem with SatScratch: they know upfront what prize the next "card" (or the next million cards) can win. It's not provably fair, so there's a strong incentive for them to simply not create cards with high prizes. Even worse: they refuse to answer questions about the percentage that's paid back to players.
They locked their topic so I'm posting it here for reference.
When a new casino starts, it should be possible for a user to win a large prize on day one. In this case, I assume it's set up in such a way that they'll never go into the red: it's not possible to win a large prize any time soon. And by being unwilling to prove otherwise, I think it's a reasonable assumption that all future prizes are paid from a fraction of their earnings before that.
On provably fair:
LoyceV raised valid technical points and we acknowledged them in the original thread. We use a commitment scheme — you get a SHA-256 hash before scratching, and the seed is revealed after. This proves the card wasn't swapped mid-game.
This proves nothing, as you'd have no reason to swap the card mid-game if you control them beforehand.
LoyceV correctly pointed out that because we use a deck-based model (like physical scratch cards), the server controls which cards exist in the deck.
Which is why adding a hash makes no sense, while it gives users the impression they can verify fairness.
He also acknowledged that there's no perfect solution for deck-based systems.
No I didn't:
Then come up with a proper provably fair system, or just call it a "we show you what we want and you can't verify anything" system. Either way, be honest about it.
You can't expect me to do your work for you. But here's another idea: create a million cards in a way that can be verified later, say once a month when you reset the stockpile and create a new million cards for the next month. Use a system like Bustabit's seeding event to make it fair. Then get an impartial third party who shuffles your hashes, and returns you a million new hashes. When a player buys a card, he sees the hash from the third party first, after which the third party releases your own hash. That decides which card the player gets. This way, you can't decide which card comes first, they're created in a verifiable way, and the third party doesn't know the value of the card.
How's that? Or come up with a better system. If you want to be Provably Fair, it's possible. You just have to come up with a good system.
We accepted his point and changed our terminology.
You didn't: your site still says "Provably Fair" at the bottom. What you're doing is not the industry standard of Provably Fair, and it's not the first time I've seen this phrase used incorrectly.
On odds disclosure:
LoyceV's feedback says "chance of winning unknown." We have publicly stated: over 1 in 3 cards wins a prize.
Okay, you got me on the chance. It's not about the change, it's about the Return To Player percentage.
His demand was for a full RTP percentage and per-tier breakdown. We ask him — if we published "65% RTP," how would he verify it? the answer is: you can't.
Sure you can: come up with an algorithm that results in a certain average RTP, then use for instance the above seeding event system to create them. That means you risk having someone win on the very first game.
But step one would be to publish the percentage. And as you're now giving 50% discount when someone buys 6 Cards, I'm pretty sure the RTP isn't 65% for a user who buys just 1 card. This also shows how meaningless your "discount" is: if the RTP is 2%, even a "buy 1 get 10 Cards" offer would have terrible odds.
It requires the same trust either way. We chose to publish the win rate (1 in 3) which is something players can actually experience and roughly verify over time.
The win rate is kinda irrelevant if it means winning less than 0.02 GBP on the average card.
For reference, BOTB (Best of the Best) is listed on the London Stock Exchange, has paid out over £90M in prizes, operates under the same legal framework as us (prize competition under S.14(5) Gambling Act 2005), and publishes no odds breakdown whatsoever.
You're missing the point: you're advertising your service on Bitcointalk, not on the London Stock Exchange or in a legal court room. I live in a country where the State Lottery was found guilty of misleading people by drawing prizes from unsold lottery tickets for many years. You have a chance to
prove on a mathematical level that you're not cheating: use it!
LoyceV — "Not provably fair" and "refuse to answer questions about percentage paid back." We answered every question he asked.
No you didn't. Earlier you confirmed you didn't answer the RTP question. Keep your facts straight.
We spent hours in detailed technical discussion with him. He acknowledged the deck-based limitation himself.
Again: I didn't. All I said is you should think of a better system.
The disagreement is about terminology and odds disclosure, not about us refusing to engage.
Just "engaging" isn't enough if your answers raise more questions.
For what it's worth: I don't care about you not signing a message proving on-chain ownership of more than 0.5 BTC. That's much less important than the fact that you can simply control no player will ever win that amount.
The scrutiny is fine, we can handle it. But the speed and intensity of it felt disproportionate for a site offering free cards and £1 scratch tickets.
I only engaged after I read about it on the Reputation board. I usually ignore the Gambling board, as it's mostly filled with spam. I've been told I create good reviews.
Added a third pack. Test the ticket.
Pack of six is available Please try.
This really isn't the board to
advertise your service!
