Two threads about SatScratch are locked. This is open to discuss SatScratch

[TheAndy500]

I just published a thread about the SatScratch Affiliate Signature Campaign. I'm not writing here to advertise it, but rather to reassure everyone that I'm aware of the situation and monitoring it closely.

I decided to publish it because the SatScratch team, in accordance with the community's wishes, did what they were asked to do, namely remove the "Provably Fair" label from website and ANN thread, and presented (in my opinion) sufficient resources to launch such a service.
If anyone knows of any other contraindications please let me know and I will take appropriate steps.

Not everyone needs to be familiar with the customs of Bitcointalk, but I think they already understand them and therefore deserve a little help after such a "difficult" start.

When it comes to whether to buy cards or not, everyone should decide for themselves whether it is worth the risk.

[Zwei]

Without the hash, we could detect a winning pattern mid-scratch and swap the result before reveal. With the hash, the result is locked. It closes that attack surface.

you are missing the point completely. the problem is not you changing the result mid scratch, it's that you know and can control the result before the scratch, because the seeds are generated by you.
and since you know which tickets are winners and which are losers, you can pick which ones to give to players.

not saying you are doing that, but you also can't prove you are not. so with how your system works right now, no one who knows anything about fair gambling is gonna play your scratch tickets.

[SatScratch]

Without the hash, we could detect a winning pattern mid-scratch and swap the result before reveal. With the hash, the result is locked. It closes that attack surface.

you are missing the point completely. the problem is not you changing the result mid scratch, it's that you know and can control the result before the scratch, because the seeds are generated by you.
and since you know which tickets are winners and which are losers, you can pick which ones to give to players.

not saying you are doing that, but you also can't prove you are not. so with how your system works right now, no one who knows anything about fair gambling is gonna play your scratch tickets.

We're not missing the point — we agree with it. The server generates the deck. That's the same as every physical scratch card ever made — the National Lottery decides what prizes go into 40 million scratchers and you trust that it's fair.

Cards are assigned randomly. One way to prove is to announce winners. if some people play and they win randomly that would be good. especially if they announce in this thread. We will reach out to them (via email) if they are willing ..

[JollyGood]

You have removed the words "provably fair" from the website, you took that step because it was not a provably fair system. I think the way you acted to remove the words soon after having discussions here demonstrates your flexibility and should be recognised.

Do you think the site can become a viable business when potential customers could turn away because it is not provably fair?

We're not missing the point — we agree with it. The server generates the deck. That's the same as every physical scratch card ever made — the National Lottery decides what prizes go into 40 million scratchers and you trust that it's fair.

Cards are assigned randomly. One way to prove is to announce winners. if some people play and they win randomly that would be good. especially if they announce in this thread. We will reach out to them (via email) if they are willing ..

[SatScratch]

You have removed the words "provably fair" from the website, you took that step because it was not a provably fair system. I think the way you acted to remove the words soon after having discussions here demonstrates your flexibility and should be recognised.

Do you think the site can become a viable business when potential customers could turn away because it is not provably fair?

We're not missing the point — we agree with it. The server generates the deck. That's the same as every physical scratch card ever made — the National Lottery decides what prizes go into 40 million scratchers and you trust that it's fair.

Cards are assigned randomly. One way to prove is to announce winners. if some people play and they win randomly that would be good. especially if they announce in this thread. We will reach out to them (via email) if they are willing ..

Good question. We removed "provably fair" because the community rightly pointed out it didn't meet the strict definition — and we'd rather be accurate than misleading.
As for viability — we believe in this because the returns are real. Someone is going to hit a big prize (1 million to 100 million sats) sooner rather than later.

We genuinely hope it's someone from this forum so they can confirm it here themselves. That will say more than any claim we can make. Best of luck!

[longyenthanh]

You have removed the words "provably fair" from the website, you took that step because it was not a provably fair system. I think the way you acted to remove the words soon after having discussions here demonstrates your flexibility and should be recognised.

Do you think the site can become a viable business when potential customers could turn away because it is not provably fair?

It's good to stop using the phrase "provably fair", as it raises certain expectations. But your integrity still can't be verified in the current setup.

That's why we changed the terminology on the site. The current system verifies your card wasn't tampered with after purchase. Full deck verification is a bigger technical challenge — we're exploring options including the approach you outlined.

Judging by their commitment and how quickly they respond to community needs, I have the impression this isn't the end.
From what they wrote above, I gather they intend to improve and continue working. I wish all projects that come here would demonstrate these qualities.
I wish them the best and hope they don't lose their enthusiasm and that the project will be a success.

[SatScratch]

You have removed the words "provably fair" from the website, you took that step because it was not a provably fair system. I think the way you acted to remove the words soon after having discussions here demonstrates your flexibility and should be recognised.

Do you think the site can become a viable business when potential customers could turn away because it is not provably fair?

It's good to stop using the phrase "provably fair", as it raises certain expectations. But your integrity still can't be verified in the current setup.

That's why we changed the terminology on the site. The current system verifies your card wasn't tampered with after purchase. Full deck verification is a bigger technical challenge — we're exploring options including the approach you outlined.

Judging by their commitment and how quickly they respond to community needs, I have the impression this isn't the end.
From what they wrote above, I gather they intend to improve and continue working. I wish all projects that come here would demonstrate these qualities.
I wish them the best and hope they don't lose their enthusiasm and that the project will be a success.

❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Thank you

[Vod]

❤️ ❤️ ❤️
Thank you

 

I did not try to "mislead" the forum.  Asking me to remove negative trust while leaving your own is a common practice of scammers.    No need to bombard me with messages - I've heard you loud and clear.

[SatScratch]

I did not try to "mislead" the forum. Asking me to remove negative trust while leaving your own is a common practice of scammers. No need to bombard me with messages - I've heard you loud and clear.

Bombard? We sent you  PM — the original offer and one follow-up to clarify within seconds. Here's the full history:


That's it. That message. The forum can see the full conversation. We have not contacted you since then

Also, we're not asking you to remove the feedback as a favour. We're asking you to correct a specific factual claim — that we "lied about having 1 BTC." We never said we had 1 BTC in a single wallet. We showed 0.5 BTC signed on-chain + 1.45 BTC in physical coins = 1.95 BTC. That's documented in this thread.

We left feedback because we believe your claim is factually incorrect. Happy to remove ours the moment yours is corrected.  

[Vod]

That's it. That message. The forum can see the full conversation. We have not contacted you since then

Then stop calling me out so often in your posts!  And 0.5 != 1.0; pull that stick out of your ass!  

[SatScratch]

That's it. That message. The forum can see the full conversation. We have not contacted you since then

Then stop calling me out so often in your posts!  And 0.5 != 1.0; pull that stick out of your ass!  

We're calling out the feedback because it's inaccurate. We never claimed 0.5 = 1.0. We claimed 0.5 BTC (signed) + 1.45 BTC (physical) = 1.95 BTC. That's been our position from the start.

The offer stands — we remove ours when yours is corrected. Until then, we've said everything we need to say on this.

[LoyceV]

Can you show me an example in which it matters? Say I have a card in my hand on my screen, I start scratching. What's in it for you to change the card while I'm scratching?

Without the hash, we could detect a winning pattern mid-scratch and swap the result before reveal. With the hash, the result is locked. It closes that attack surface.

That's like saying you can replace a worthless ticket by another worthless ticket. It would only mean something if there's any way to guarantee fairness on the original ticket.

Let's discuss in dm?

I don't have the skills, budget and connections to create this. The legal complications alone: here lottery prizes are taxed based on the prize won. That wouldn't be possible when the prize is a private key that can be scratched somewhere in the far future.

I just published a thread about the SatScratch Affiliate Signature Campaign.

That's a waste of signature space: out of all global Bitcointalk users, you can only earn something if a UK-user signs up and buys "cards".
The 10% affiliate takes another huge bite out of the potential RTP: now the house edge can never be less than 10% (or 55% if you include getting 50% more tickets when you buy 6 at once).

The offer stands — we remove ours when yours is corrected.

You should read LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

[uche6215]

That's it. That message. The forum can see the full conversation. We have not contacted you since then

Then stop calling me out so often in your posts!  And 0.5 != 1.0; pull that stick out of your ass!  

We're calling out the feedback because it's inaccurate. We never claimed 0.5 = 1.0. We claimed 0.5 BTC (signed) + 1.45 BTC (physical) = 1.95 BTC. That's been our position from the start.

The offer stands — we remove ours when yours is corrected. Until then, we've said everything we need to say on this.

At this point you need to focus on building your reputation in the forum and at this juncture, things are not good for you. Go and check your signature Campaign. The campaign is just mess up. This is not how to do this. You are creating doubt for every step you take in the forum. The Signature Campaign would have given you some trust but as it is, you have ruined everything for yourself.

There is no bargaining in the trust system. One can give you feedback in different thinking and once you correct your mistakes they might remove it or not. Because it is a personal decision to take. As it is you need to focus on building your reputation through Signature Campaign and activities in the forum. If you are here arguing with experience forum users, you will receive More tags.

[AakZaki]

We're calling out the feedback because it's inaccurate. We never claimed 0.5 = 1.0. We claimed 0.5 BTC (signed) + 1.45 BTC (physical) = 1.95 BTC. That's been our position from the start.

The offer stands — we remove ours when yours is corrected. Until then, we've said everything we need to say on this.

Some new projects here are always built with solid steps, such as a review campaign on the site, a signature campaign and so on.
But I don't see it in your project. Instead of running a signature campaign to build a reputation for his project, but only encouraged to use affiliate links. Lol

I don't see any serious steps on this project that claims to have a total of 1.95 BTC in funds, even for promotions it still uses the free one. How can a good reputation be created when you are only claiming one-sided?

This is also what makes me unsure about this project:
Your domain is only registered for the next one year
Mininal withdrawal of 100K sats, this is a high amount for the size of the gambling site.
In the screenshot below, I tried to register and only got 1 free card, why was there a total of 6 games?


I tried once to make a purchase that I cancelled, because I am not British. But in this screenshot it shows 5 pending payments, this is really strange.

[SatScratch]

Firstly, thank you for trying the platform and taking the time to write this up! Really appreciate it!

Your domain is only registered for the next one year

Updated! Domain is now registered until 2033.

Instead of running a signature campaign to build a reputation for his project, but only encouraged to use affiliate links.

We have an affiliate programme because it aligns incentives — affiliates earn when players play. A signature campaign where people get paid per post doesn't bring us customers, it brings us posts. We'd rather pay people who actually drive real users.

Mininal withdrawal of 100K sats, this is a high amount for the size of the gambling site.

On-chain Bitcoin transaction fees make withdrawals below 100K sats expensive — the fee would eat most of the withdrawal. We're looking into Lightning Network to lower this in the future.

I tried to register and only got 1 free card, why was there a total of 6 games?

You get 1 free card to test the system. The other are from purchase that wasn't completed.

I tried once to make a purchase that I cancelled, because I am not British. But in this screenshot it shows 5 pending payments, this is really strange.

If you initiated a payment and cancelled, the system records the attempt as pending games until it expires.

BUT — this is actually a great catch! Users shouldn't see expired attempts cluttering their dashboard. We've cleaned it and we'd like to credit your account with 10,000 sats because your question just made the product better! as a bounty. PM us your email or the  characters of your account ID shown next to "My Games" on  so we can find your account and add the reward.

This actually gave us an idea — we're going to launch a proper bug bounty program on our services thread. Find a bug, report it, get paid. Seriously thank you for this — this is exactly the kind of feedback that helps us build something solid. 🙏

[SatScratch]

That's like saying you can replace a worthless ticket by another worthless ticket. It would only mean something if there's any way to guarantee fairness on the original ticket.

Fair point. We've acknowledged this and we're working on a better system.

That's a waste of signature space: out of all global Bitcointalk users, you can only earn something if a UK-user signs up and buys "cards". The 10% affiliate takes another huge bite out of the potential RTP

You're right that the current market is UK only. We're working on expanding to other jurisdictions. The 10% affiliate commission comes from our margin, not from the prize pool — it doesn't affect the RTP that players receive.

You should read LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

Will do. Thanks for the pointer.

 --

At this point you need to focus on building your reputation in the forum

Appreciate the advice. We're listening and learning. We'll focus on the product, engage constructively, and let the work speak over time.

[LoyceV]

On-chain Bitcoin transaction fees make withdrawals below 100K sats expensive — the fee would eat most of the withdrawal.

That's not true. It's often possible to pay very low fees, even 20 Satoshi can be enough.

we'd like to credit your account with 10,000 sats because your question just made the product better! as a bounty.

He already said he's not British, so he can't withdraw the bounty.

Find a bug, report it, get paid.

I've seen many bug bounties on Bitcointalk, but never before one that required KYC. My advice: don't go there!

Have you ever seen a scratch card for that doesn't allow you to withdraw small prizes?

[yahoo62278]

@SatScratch please take the time to read the Unofficial Rules of the forum. You are breaking rule 32 by posting back to back. Quote and answer everyone in 1 post please.

I'd also like to address the feedbacks on your profile while we are at it. I don't agree that red trust is deserved from inspace, that should probably be a neutral trust. The Vod feedback is 50/50 as you didn't prove you have 1btc exactly. You signed a message for .5btc and showed pics of something we cannot verify, so that could go either way for feedback. LoyceV feedback is correct as you cannot deny his points.

My advice is you work on the game and find a provably fair way to run it, it's the only way you're gonna get a fair shake here as the community likes to look out for the community. Whether we agree or disagree on certain politics, most users giving you a hard time have the best interest of the people in mind. That is always going to be a constant.

[TheAndy500]

I'd also like to address the feedbacks on your profile while we are at it. I don't agree that red trust is deserved from inspace, that should probably be a neutral trust. The Vod feedback is 50/50 as you didn't prove you have 1btc exactly. You signed a message for .5btc and showed pics of something we cannot verify, so that could go either way for feedback. LoyceV feedback is correct as you cannot deny his points.

100% agree. I wrote to inspace asking him to shed some more light on this negative tag. Truth be told, I haven't detected any lies on SatScratch's part regarding physical coins. (His tag: "Obvious lies about BTC CAS and Lealana coins")

As you wrote, Vod has the right not to recognize a photo of physical coins as collateral, so 0.5 BTC is only half the collateral. I can understand his negative trust.
For my part, I give SatScratch credit for their efforts.

LoyceV - I completely agree. Everything is clearly stated.

My advice is you work on the game and find a provably fair way to run it, it's the only way you're gonna get a fair shake here as the community likes to look out for the community. Whether we agree or disagree on certain politics, most users giving you a hard time have the best interest of the people in mind. That is always going to be a constant.

I also encourage SatScratch to work on creating a Provably Fair system, as I see potential in this project.

I saw they were adding a Dice game – it would certainly be much easier to implement a Provably Fair system there if they didn't repeat the principle of buying a ticket and then drawing the number (as with scratch card). We will see.

[SatScratch]

That's not true. It's often possible to pay very low fees, even 20 Satoshi can be enough. Have you ever seen a scratch card that doesn't allow you to withdraw small prizes?

Fair point. We'll reduce the minimum withdrawal threshold.

You should read LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system

Will do. Thanks.

please take the time to read the Unofficial Rules of the forum. You are breaking rule 32 by posting back to back.

Apologies — didn't know about this rule. One post from now on. Thanks for flagging it.

most users giving you a hard time have the best interest of the people in mind

We understand that. Every major criticism in this thread has pushed us to improve something. We appreciate it as long as it is fair.

My advice is you work on the game and find a provably fair way to run it, it's the only way you're gonna get a fair shake here

Sounds good. Will think something over the weekend.
 
On the proof of funds point(because we are being pushed on this a lot) — by Wed next week, we will move additional 0.5 BTC more into the same address we previously signed and post the updated balance publicly.
That gives the community a full 1 BTC in a single cryptographically verifiable wallet.