The source is mostly very simple, e.g.:
function getLuckyNumber($serverSeed, $clientSeed, $incrementalNonce) {
$seed = $serverSeed . '-' . $clientSeed . '-' . $incrementalNonce;
do {
$seed = sha1($seed);
$lucky = hexdec(substr($seed,0,8));
} while ($lucky > 4294960000);
return ($lucky % 10000) / 100;
}
Sure assuming that is the code that is used for a given game.
If its not the rolls with be different.
The owner of the game really can do what the want. They don't even have to provide source.
If they dont they will be considered untrustworthy.
In any case I bet a great many people are clueless what sha1 is.
Its not important to understand the details as long as you can verify the rolls with someone neutral or someone you trust.
-snip-
My point is simple, I don't think a dice game is anymore trustworthy than a Ponzi game. They all have the same basic problem, that is they have to be trustworthy in the first place.
Thats your opinion. I am not convinced, but lets assume for a second this is true. How does it help you? You are trying over and over again to argue that something different (state, dice sites) is not trustworthy which does nothing to support your cause.
With a dice game you have the site gaining off of a small edge. Probably most of these sites are legit. However if you play it, you will only lose value over time. The house edge will slowly but surely take everything away from you. I don't see why that is held up as a shinning example of something fair.
Because the odds are known and the rolls can be verified. Of course the casino is profitable long term otherwise no one would run one.
-snip-
This is exactly what I disagree with. You call losing your deposit a scam. Well if you gamble enough with a legit gambling site, you will also lose your stake. In both cases you lose everything, yet one is ok and the other isn't.
One is fair the other is arbitrary thats the difference.
In both cases you also have a risk of being scammed by an operator, but one is okay and the other isn't?
The same risk as
everywhere exchanges, online gambling, even the trustworthy escrowers here. If the operator for some unknown reason decides to stop beeing honest there is nothing you can do about it. But at least it is immediatly known.
A ponzi can be dishonest, but it can not be detected.-snip-
Agreed, but a dice site could be designed so that the operator can always place winning bets and he is the only one that can do that. That could even be done with the standard provable code provided you don't share all the code of the system. How is that any different than the Ponzi game problem?
Thanks for confirming my hunch. You dont actually do not understand how this works, do you? If the operator of a dice site wants to cheat themselves out of their own money, I am perfectly fine with it. If the operator of a dice site uses the knowledge of the server seed to win at their own site, they win their own money.
It gets back to one thing. You have to have trust in the operator. If the operator is dishonest, it doesn't matter what the game is. I'm baffled by how naïve people are.
This is common knowledge, you brought this up to try and defend the ponzis while it is not even defending the ponzi. You try to attack provably fair - well known and established concept you apparently do not understand - in order to gain nothing.
tl;dr:
#1 A ponzi can only be fair if the operator does not play. This can not be proven. Great minds have tried for centuries. Go ahead and try it. I will applaud your success should you succeed.
#2 Whether or not dice sites and provably fair gambling can be cheated is not part of the discussion as it has nothing to do with ponzis
#3 Every time you give bitcoins to someone else, like the operator of any (!) site in order to do anything you are at risk of getting scammed. This is not an argument for ponzis. This is a general risk of the Internet.
