bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game

[yudkowske]

Yeah, that's fine

Awesome! I'm about to deposit 1 btc to test the water
May the luck be with me.

[1714847827]

1714847827

[KloNEM]

Hi Ryan,

could you please think about (at least temporarily) lowering the withdrawal fee ? In the last days, BTC fee level has been clearly decreased, so I think that 700bits is unnecesarily high fee now. I guess lowering into ~ 400bits would be more than enough. Thanks.

[actmyname]

Hi Ryan,

could you please think about (at least temporarily) lowering the withdrawal fee ? In the last days, BTC fee level has been clearly decreased, so I think that 700bits is unnecesarily high fee now. I guess lowering into ~ 400bits would be more than enough. Thanks.

Taken from estimatefee stats: For a standard transaction with 3 inputs and 2 outputs (this is being very generous) to confirm within ≤2 blocks, since the size is 522 bytes and the fee 136 sat/byte it is around 700 bits.

[RHavar]

Hi Ryan,

could you please think about (at least temporarily) lowering the withdrawal fee ? In the last days, BTC fee level has been clearly decreased, so I think that 700bits is unnecesarily high fee now. I guess lowering into ~ 400bits would be more than enough. Thanks.

Sorry about that, yeah it definitely should be lower. I made the mistake of hard-coding that value into the configuration file, with the only way of changing it reset the web-server. Which wouldn't be so bad, except I also made the mistake of storing mutes in memory 

So I've dropped the withdrawal fee now, but it won't kick in until I reset the webserver (when ever that is).

Fortunately in the next release (which is getting very close!) both of those issues are fixed, and withdrawals are going to be way cheaper. Like crazy cheap (thanks to me spending over a month optimizing coin selection and partial batching and what not ).

[game-protect]

WARNING!

There still is no governmental or regulatory framework governing online gambling or eGaming whatsoever, as such no official Costa Rica Online Gambling License designed to deal with e-gaming (gambling over the Internet) exists.

The absence of legislation governing online gambling operations or administration from Costa Rica means very clearly that a Costa Rica Online Gambling License does NOT exist!

As no special Costa Rica Online Gambling License exists or is required in Costa Rica, the business is operated by a specifically registered Costa Rican Company.

This provides for all the profits from the company to be tax free and indemnifies the directors from liability!

[RHavar]

WARNING!

There still is no governmental or regulatory framework governing online gambling or eGaming whatsoever, as such no official Costa Rica Online Gambling License designed to deal with e-gaming (gambling over the Internet) exists.

The absence of legislation governing online gambling operations or administration from Costa Rica means very clearly that a Costa Rica Online Gambling License does NOT exist!

As no special Costa Rica Online Gambling License exists or is required in Costa Rica, the business is operated by a specifically registered Costa Rican Company.

This provides for all the profits from the company to be tax free and indemnifies the directors from liability!

You're wrong on a few points, (e.g. Costa Rica companies aren't tax free, among other taxes they need to for pay a 15% withholding tax on all money taken out of the company), but your post is more or less on the mark.

If players want to be sure the game is fair (as they should) they will need to verify the provably fair scheme, which offers some strong guarantees. This is far better than blindly trusting a regulator is able to completely supervise it (which is technically not feasible, and never happens).

[dogevisitor]

Hi Ryan,

could you please think about (at least temporarily) lowering the withdrawal fee ? In the last days, BTC fee level has been clearly decreased, so I think that 700bits is unnecesarily high fee now. I guess lowering into ~ 400bits would be more than enough. Thanks.

Sorry about that, yeah it definitely should be lower. I made the mistake of hard-coding that value into the configuration file, with the only way of changing it reset the web-server. Which wouldn't be so bad, except I also made the mistake of storing mutes in memory 

So I've dropped the withdrawal fee now, but it won't kick in until I reset the webserver (when ever that is).

Fortunately in the next release (which is getting very close!) both of those issues are fixed, and withdrawals are going to be way cheaper. Like crazy cheap (thanks to me spending over a month optimizing coin selection and partial batching and what not ).

Have you ever considered actually opening a true wallet service?

[RHavar]

Have you ever considered actually opening a true wallet service?

Yeah. I actually have all the pieces that could make a really kick-ass wallet service (at least if you care about fees and on-chain privacy). The main problem is just that I'm really constrained for time. I'm already pretty delayed for bustabitv2 (I really wanted it out 6 months ago), no small part because of side-tracking with stuff like integrating a constraint-solver for handling withdrawals in a privacy/fee maximizing way

But if after the bustabitv2 launch everything is going smooth, I might split out the code to make a special wallet service =)

[dogevisitor]

Have you ever considered actually opening a true wallet service?

Yeah. I actually have all the pieces that could make a really kick-ass wallet service (at least if you care about fees and on-chain privacy). The main problem is just that I'm really constrained for time. I'm already pretty delayed for bustabitv2 (I really wanted it out 6 months ago), no small part because of side-tracking with stuff like integrating a constraint-solver for handling withdrawals in a privacy/fee maximizing way

But if after the bustabitv2 launch everything is going smooth, I might split out the code to make a special wallet service =)

You need to hire an assistant haha, or a team

[KloNEM]

Hi Ryan,

could you please think about (at least temporarily) lowering the withdrawal fee ? In the last days, BTC fee level has been clearly decreased, so I think that 700bits is unnecesarily high fee now. I guess lowering into ~ 400bits would be more than enough. Thanks.

Sorry about that, yeah it definitely should be lower. I made the mistake of hard-coding that value into the configuration file, with the only way of changing it reset the web-server. Which wouldn't be so bad, except I also made the mistake of storing mutes in memory 

So I've dropped the withdrawal fee now, but it won't kick in until I reset the webserver (when ever that is).

Fortunately in the next release (which is getting very close!) both of those issues are fixed, and withdrawals are going to be way cheaper. Like crazy cheap (thanks to me spending over a month optimizing coin selection and partial batching and what not ).

Yeah, I absolutely understand to you with that hard-coding mistake, I did it the same many times in my "IT life" .

Which is just interesting now for me -- the fee on the blockchain is already lowered (around 157bits), although it is still cutting 700bits from Bustabit account by withdrawal. I supposed that "700 hardcoded bits" will be still used within  the BTC transaction (until you'll restart the server) ?

[RHavar]

I have received a credible scam accusation against 7mbtc.com, which is a korean licensed (they paid me 2 btc) version of bustabit. Thanks to the provably fair scheme, we can see they are manipulating about ~8% of the games.

More details will follow, but just a heads up for now to avoid this site while it's being worked out.

[RHavar]

So thanks to the extensive research of vadoff, you can see potentially manipulated results from (7mbtc.com) in purple:
https://jsfiddle.net/vadoff/r4kp44Lv/1/embedded/result/

I can't come up with a good explanation for how this would be happening, and it means their house edge isn't matching what they are advertising. I will update the bustabit.com/license.txt file to reference this post

[TwitchySeal]

So thanks to the extensive research of vadoff, you can see potentially manipulated results from (7mbtc.com) in purple:
https://jsfiddle.net/vadoff/r4kp44Lv/1/embedded/result/

I can't come up with a good explanation for how this would be happening, and it means their house edge isn't matching what they are advertising. I will update the bustabit.com/license.txt file to reference this post

So they are only manipulating winning bets by paying out less than they should?

If I were a cheater that owned a site like this, that's what I would do.  Players are much less likely to scrutinize a winning bet.

Does 7mbit.com have any presence on this forum?

[DarkDays]

So thanks to the extensive research of vadoff, you can see potentially manipulated results from (7mbtc.com) in purple:
https://jsfiddle.net/vadoff/r4kp44Lv/1/embedded/result/

I can't come up with a good explanation for how this would be happening, and it means their house edge isn't matching what they are advertising. I will update the bustabit.com/license.txt file to reference this post

So they are only manipulating winning bets by paying out less than they should?

If I were a cheater that owned a site like this, that's what I would do.  Players are much less likely to scrutinize a winning bet.

Does 7mbit.com have any presence on this forum?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like they are saying that some games are crashing at very low numbers (which would make most if not all players lose when some of them would have won) when they should be crashing at higher numbers.  For example:

27807ebb19abb46b215a159430ec701b1ff062867b9458eef139bb782f4c8536   should have crashed at 1.13   but crashed at 1.10

eb18dca6fa47714a37f95622a760a8a87061b48b80da3c9f5b2c64bd26baf566   should have crashed at 1.43   but crashed at 1.01

d1a0c7681205d1150beb27fa36f0062999d0fbb87fc2e160e43aae30500a35d6   should have crashed at 1.48   but crashed at 1.02

8887f6e956118c1625878bb46d2754c03f3983dd6f11a33d44537e9e8028f9a9   should have crashed at 1.63   but crashed at 1.00

0aea96252b1f5a6b72672a8930006c9d62e4dd67e2a9dc1933797b5629ab231a   should have crashed at 1.66   but crashed at 1.01

9f01292ec66a211bd09bdfeb744392b3ccf43d70fd2b8d7c3e1bfb4a20fb097a   should have crashed at 1.21   but crashed at 1.08

e97d35503abc8f9480226e6192efaf7780982e0ad04e553858ffef7d085774bb   should have crashed at 1.90   but crashed at 1.09

[TwitchySeal]

So thanks to the extensive research of vadoff, you can see potentially manipulated results from (7mbtc.com) in purple:
https://jsfiddle.net/vadoff/r4kp44Lv/1/embedded/result/

I can't come up with a good explanation for how this would be happening, and it means their house edge isn't matching what they are advertising. I will update the bustabit.com/license.txt file to reference this post

So they are only manipulating winning bets by paying out less than they should?

If I were a cheater that owned a site like this, that's what I would do.  Players are much less likely to scrutinize a winning bet.

Does 7mbit.com have any presence on this forum?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like they are saying that some games are crashing at very low numbers (which would make most if not all players lose when some of them would have won) when they should be crashing at higher numbers.  For example:

27807ebb19abb46b215a159430ec701b1ff062867b9458eef139bb782f4c8536   should have crashed at 1.13   but crashed at 1.10

eb18dca6fa47714a37f95622a760a8a87061b48b80da3c9f5b2c64bd26baf566   should have crashed at 1.43   but crashed at 1.01

d1a0c7681205d1150beb27fa36f0062999d0fbb87fc2e160e43aae30500a35d6   should have crashed at 1.48   but crashed at 1.02

8887f6e956118c1625878bb46d2754c03f3983dd6f11a33d44537e9e8028f9a9   should have crashed at 1.63   but crashed at 1.00

0aea96252b1f5a6b72672a8930006c9d62e4dd67e2a9dc1933797b5629ab231a   should have crashed at 1.66   but crashed at 1.01

9f01292ec66a211bd09bdfeb744392b3ccf43d70fd2b8d7c3e1bfb4a20fb097a   should have crashed at 1.21   but crashed at 1.08

e97d35503abc8f9480226e6192efaf7780982e0ad04e553858ffef7d085774bb   should have crashed at 1.90   but crashed at 1.09

Ahh, that makes sense.  I was totally wrong - clearly a Bustabit n00b

[RHavar]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like they are saying that some games are crashing at very low numbers (which would make most if not all players lose when some of them would have won) when they should be crashing at higher numbers. 

You're reading it right. It's not clear to me if 7mbtc.com is intentionally manipulating results (e.g. adjusting it in response to a whale or something), or has altered their house-edge/formula and not properly advertising it.

[DarkDays]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like they are saying that some games are crashing at very low numbers (which would make most if not all players lose when some of them would have won) when they should be crashing at higher numbers. 

You're reading it right. It's not clear to me if 7mbtc.com is intentionally manipulating results (e.g. adjusting it in response to a whale or something), or has altered their house-edge/formula and not properly advertising it.

Do you have access to the game results to see if certain people were or were not betting during the early bust times?  There is a long stretch of bets that they didn't deviate, maybe something can be gleaned from that info. 

Also, if they had altered their house edge (in a fair way), would it only crash lower on already <1.97x crashes?  Wouldn't it be lower across the board?

[RHavar]

Do you have access to the game results to see if certain people were or were not betting during the early bust times?  There is a long stretch of bets that they didn't deviate, maybe something can be gleaned from that info. 

I had a look, but I can't notice anything. Here for instance is a manipulated game:
https://www.7mbtc.com/game/1229619

I suspect it's just randomized, or possibly human-controlled but I'm not sure.

Also, if they had altered their house edge (in a fair way), would it only crash lower on already <1.97x crashes?  Wouldn't it be lower across the board?

Well, there is an infinite way of changing the house edge and I'd argue they are all fair as long as done honestly. You could even do something like "Every 2nd game is 0x" and that would be fair if you are open about it.

However 7mbtc.com publicly claims to have 0-1% house edge, and links to a verification script: ( https://jsfiddle.net/1L1uqcgv/6/embedded/result/  ) which generally works, but has anomalies which can only be explained by cheating. I have been able to reproduce vadoff's findings, there's definitely something dishonest going on.

[RHavar]

Just saw this today:
https://www.bustabit.com/game/4420630

Pretty cool, a 5.6M game. And niks28 managed to actually cashout at 100,000x  (although with only 1 bit )

[Jungian]

How's the investment feature coming along? Is that still on track to be released?