Primedice is cheating

[coinfist]

Primedice is cheating

Yesterday I was just using PD to bet and doing the double-or-nothing experiments.
It was going fine at first. But suddenly, I had 11 consecutive-losing bets.
They were pretty odd, weren't they?
So I did some verification using the script provided by Primedice.

See the screenshots below. I did verify all 11 bets. All 10 bets are correct, but the No.2 bet from top is wrong.
On the screenshot, the roll is 92.29. However, the result I got from script is 0.02.
So I should win that bet, there would not be the last one bet(top one) which cleared me out.

Please don't say that your verification script is not updated.
What's the purpose of the verification script that site does not use and can't verify result?
So whenever someone finds you are cheating, you can say it every time?

Return my money back, you scam site.


BET #805607190 INFO

SERVER SEED (REVEALED)
41fa224237f452360db8d35a276f4067fce6cad8d3dbf3c73bde2e804c8cb8c7
CLIENT SEED (NONCED)
ca45edd88ef251dd43edf42dc97c7ffb-3391

Screenshot of 11 consecutive-losing bets
http://prntscr.com/4ed9mo

Screenshot of BET #805607190 INFO
http://prntscr.com/4eda18

You can look up these bets by the bet id shown in the screenshot and verify them by yourself.
This did not just happen once but twice today and almost clear me out.
Since Primedice has been online for so long, I could not imagine how many times it has cheated.
I probably will do the same experiments on other bitcoin gambling web site. But Pirmedice is not trustworthy and return my bitcoin.

I also found the possible unfair when you PVP with "strangers" on Primedice.
See the post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=733500.msg8315850#msg8315850

I only used PD for several days, and already found 2 unfairness. 
How  you can still claim yourself 100% "provable fair"?


The script I am using:

            //the seed pair itself
            var clientSeed = "ca45edd88ef251dd43edf42dc97c7ffb"; //dont forget to exclude the dash and the nonce!
            var serverSeed = "41fa224237f452360db8d35a276f4067fce6cad8d3dbf3c73bde2e804c8cb8c7";

            //bet made with seed pair (excluding current bet)
            var nonce      = 3391;

            //crypto lib for hmac function
            var crypto = require('crypto');

            var roll = function(key, text) {

                //create HMAC using server seed as key and client seed as message
                var hash = crypto.createHmac('sha512', key).update(text).digest('hex');

                var index = 0;

                var lucky = parseInt(hash.substring(index * 5, index + 5), 16);

                //keep grabbing characters from the hash while greater than
                while (lucky >= Math.pow(10, 6)) {
                    index++;
                    lucky = parseInt(hash.substring(index * 5, index + 5), 16);

                    //if we reach the end of the hash, just default to highest number
                    if (index + 5 == 128 + 1) {
                        lucky = 99.99;
                        break;
                    }
                }

                lucky %= Math.pow(10, 4);
                lucky /= Math.pow(10, 2);

                return lucky;
            }
            console.log(roll(serverSeed, clientSeed+'-'+nonce));

[NLNico]

I am not familiar with running NodeJS so I made a quick PHP script and I am getting:

fa7ae - 1025966 - 59.66
21fdd - 139229 - 92.29
a05cc - 656844 - 68.44

Code:

$hash = hash_hmac('sha512', 'ca45edd88ef251dd43edf42dc97c7ffb-3391','41fa224237f452360db8d35a276f4067fce6cad8d3dbf3c73bde2e804c8cb8c7');
for($i=0;$i<30;$i++) {
	echo "<br>".substr($hash,$i*5,5)." - ". hexdec(substr($hash,$i*5,5)) ." - ".(hexdec(substr($hash,$i*5,5))%(10000)/100);
}

The first result is more than 1 million so it goes to the next one which results in 92.29 after the modulo function (and is correct AFAIK.)

There is 02 in the first result so perhaps your 0.02 result comes from there and there is a mistake in the verification script?

Also 11 consecutive-losing bets is nothing special at all. Verifying of bets is always good though.

[Stunna]

I am not familiar with running NodeJS so I made a quick PHP script and I am getting:

fa7ae - 1025966 - 59.66
21fdd - 139229 - 92.29
a05cc - 656844 - 68.44

Code:

$hash = hash_hmac('sha512', 'ca45edd88ef251dd43edf42dc97c7ffb-3391','41fa224237f452360db8d35a276f4067fce6cad8d3dbf3c73bde2e804c8cb8c7');
for($i=0;$i<30;$i++) {
	echo "<br>".substr($hash,$i*5,5)." - ". hexdec(substr($hash,$i*5,5)) ." - ".(hexdec(substr($hash,$i*5,5))%(10000)/100);
}

The first result is more than 1 million so it goes to the next one which results in 92.29 after the modulo function (and is correct AFAIK.)

There is 02 in the first result so perhaps your 0.02 result comes from there and there is a mistake in the verification script?

Also 11 consecutive-losing bets is nothing special at all. Verifying of bets is always good though.

Coinfist is a (paid?) shill. His bet should verify now. Earlier today he attempted to verify using an out-dated script we had listed on our verification page which was quickly fixed. Not much more to discuss here, note that he posted this thread after this was fixed.


Reference:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208986.msg8446518#msg8446518

[waterpile]

maybe just a frustrated gambler who lost BTC

[williamj2543]

maybe just a frustrated gambler who lost BTC

Nah, I think he made an honest mistake, he had been using an old verification script. Was it sorted out?

[izanagi narukami]

PD has become big and will reach 1 years old.
PD will face many challenge about it  

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"
   

[Stunna]

Again to repeat myself to ensure no one feels cheated by:

The code we provided on our verification page was slightly outdated as we changed the privably fair system to use less data. That is all.

All bets however DO ADD UP perfectly fine if you modify the script to the correct one.

Any reputable person (Dooglus etc.) who has a sound understanding on provably fairness can verify this. No one had rolls manipulated.

[coinfist]

Again to repeat myself to ensure no one feels cheated by:

The code we provided on our verification page was slightly outdated as we changed the privably fair system to use less data. That is all.

All bets however DO ADD UP perfectly fine if you modify the script to the correct one.

Any reputable person (Dooglus etc.) who has a sound understanding on provably fairness can verify this. No one had rolls manipulated.

It's your responsibility to make sure that verification is correct. Now I use that script to verify, and  you say it's slightly outdated.

Tell me what's the purpose of this verification if the site is not using it and whenever someone points it out and then it's "slightly outdated".
Who knows what exact algorithm you are using behind the door?

What would it happen if someone else finds an other problem, and it will be another "slightly outdated" or another excuse?
 

I am paid? Which unfairness I found are not true, including that PVP feature?

Want 100% provable fair? Do act like one.
So do you job and make sure it's 100% fair.   And not when someone points out a problem, and you throw out thousands of excuses.

[zolace]

Again to repeat myself to ensure no one feels cheated by:

The code we provided on our verification page was slightly outdated as we changed the privably fair system to use less data. That is all.

All bets however DO ADD UP perfectly fine if you modify the script to the correct one.

Any reputable person (Dooglus etc.) who has a sound understanding on provably fairness can verify this. No one had rolls manipulated.

yeah Stunna is right on this, if its outdated then your not going to the correct results,  Also its easy to get that many losses in a roll when I seen more then 20 losses

[cHoCo]

some rolls of primeidice are really unfair..

but its provably fair.

[rogerdonkey]

primedice cheating?? are u sure???

[ndnh]

some rolls of primeidice are really unfair..

but its provably fair.

I agree. PD is unfair to me. But it is probably fair

[Vortex20000]

Again to repeat myself to ensure no one feels cheated by:

The code we provided on our verification page was slightly outdated as we changed the privably fair system to use less data. That is all.

All bets however DO ADD UP perfectly fine if you modify the script to the correct one.

Any reputable person (Dooglus etc.) who has a sound understanding on provably fairness can verify this. No one had rolls manipulated.

Stunna is as trustworthy as the most trustworthy person on earth, who happens to be Stunna.

Primedice.com cannot be cheating because it defies the laws of trustworthiness.

I'd trust Stunna/PD with all my bitcoins

[dooglus]

The code we provided on our verification page was slightly outdated as we changed the privably fair system to use less data. That is all.

Any reputable person (Dooglus etc.) who has a sound understanding on provably fairness can verify this. No one had rolls manipulated.

It wasn't outdated, it was actually wrong. The developer had attempted to fix an out-of-date page and actually made it worse.

But as you say, the rolls themselves were fair.

[guizai]

Losing steaking 11 to 15 times is very normal on 50% chance.. and the OP is saying losing 11 steaks in a row is rigged?

If losing 11 steaks is not going to happen, I think all legit dice sites have already close down by whale with tons of BTC waiting..

[Rigon]

I had won 5 bitcoins at PD  and was going to gamble some more today but I think im going to be playing at dicebitco

[Bigbear8]

Well If It was technically fair but checking program was not working, It is still not nice because what player must think? Still I would give -1 for this issue. Of course most important thing that it is fair but everything should work.

[ouyaoxrd]

Post an "slightly outdated" verification script on your verification page? That's ridiculous...

https://i.imgur.com/3eSe8TP.png

[dooglus]

Post an "slightly outdated" verification script on your verification page? That's ridiculous...

https://i.imgur.com/3eSe8TP.png

view-source:http://rgbkey.github.io/verify/PrimeDice/

Code:

[...]
            lucky = parseInt(hash.substring(index * 5, index + 5), 16);
                if (index + 5 == 128 + 1) {
[...]

It looks very much like RGBkey just used the old broken script as provided on PD's verification page, and hasn't updated his copy yet.

[RGBKey]

Primedice is not cheating. I talked to them a few days ago with the same concern, and attempted to change my verifier to work with their system. I might have broke something in the process. The problem is with handling a small number of rolls that go above a certain number initially and need to use a different part of the hash. I will be updating my verifier page to reflect this and will talk more with the devs in an attempt to fix this as it is a known problem that the verification page on their site is in need of a serious redo.

I would trust PD with my money still, and this problem was initially brought up by me after losing a roll. They have not lost any trust in my eyes and should not in yours either, so please hold off on the accusations until I can get my verifier sorted out and they get their verification page sorted out.

It is correct that it's pretty bad for them to have an out-of-date verification page, but it's a new site and it's gonna have it's kinks.

I am in no way affiliated with primedice and everything expressed here is my opinion.

EDIT: Just updated the page, it SHOULD be correct now. If it is still displaying incorrect rolls, please contact me.