Quote from: MarbleBoss on May 15, 2015, 11:11:46 AM

-snip-
Interestingly, pure scammers are not marked as scammer. Becasue this dice lobby knows those are not the competitor as they'll fail today or tomorrow...

e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=480605, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511134, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=512093 etc.

I stopped giving out negating ratings on a regular basis once ponzis got their own section with a proper warning. The finer details are up to those that play the games. If you however are coming to different sections I am willing to discuss the topic. I might be biased because I sell my signature to a dice gambling platform. Hard to hide it.

IMHO if I am to stupid to understand your game, its too complex. Its not that I am exceptionally smart, but one playing a game should not need to be in order to understand it.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 11:56:24 AM

-snip-
I mostly agree with you here. Anyone who spend some time in Investment Based Games, knows CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja are the only two honest games running in that section. Killing any of them with -ve trust will only benefit the other scammers, because then all will be at par. Both of these games run almost on the same logic and it seriously will be very dumb for the operator to cheat in these games.

Why would it be dump? How would you know they are cheating? CrazyJoker points out that an automated version might result in patters that players detect, so we are not talking about a perfect crime. On the other hand the skipped nounces on dicebitco.in did take their time to get detected.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:08:09 PM

-snip-
I think you are not correct in this judgement. Both you and I carry signatures of dice games that accept investment in the bankroll.

Investors have an exceptional high risk to get scammed, yes. Mainly because there is no way for the operator to proof that they will not run. Investing in a dice site is essentially sending someone anonymous money and hope for the best. An investment however is not a game.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:08:09 PM

We already know, that the operator of these games can easily play & win in his own game as the seed in DB is known to him. In this case, we always give the operator a benefit of doubt, though his actions are not publicly verifiable.

I dont, at least no longer. The only person I trust in this sense with a fair amount of my coins is doog. This is however derailing the conversation and distracting from the topic at hand.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:08:09 PM

Do we leave him -ve trust because he could scam ? In this case, I think, Vod is getting too partial to CrazyPonzi.com just because of the word 'Ponzi'.

I think Vod has the players in mind, not the investors. The players are the majority of the users. A player on a provable fair site (not limited to dice) has many ways to significantly lower the risk of a scam. They can #1 verify each bet (true for CP), #2 deposit only what they are willing to play (true for CP), #3 withdraw once they played (true for CP). Since the ponzi games let player play against eachother on would also have to be able to verify all other players bets. The order is very important. I am not entirely sure, but I think the PvP section of PrimeDice might have a similar problem. Both players must trust that Stunna did not disclose the seed to the other party.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:18:19 PM

-snip-
Vod is not associated with any gambling lobby. Rather, I have seen him suggesting people against investing in dice site. Ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060290.msg11372036#msg11372036

Which is true in a sense. Any casino that allows crowd investments has a high incentive to just close shop and leave. The higher the investment the higher the incentive.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:18:19 PM

Shorena is probably a gambler, but he is a very logical person. So far, I have seen, Shorena has always stood by what is logical.

Thanks. Yes I lost my fair share to gambling sites, both because I played and because I invested.

Vod is essentially without bias because he is not involved. I dont think its good to dismiss someones view just because they are not involved.

Quote from: RocketSingh on May 15, 2015, 12:18:19 PM

The problem here, I believe, the name 'Ponzi'. Though working on same principle, Nine9.ninja has not been given -ve trust. Vod just assumed CrazyPonzi is similar to other Ponzi scams and did what I could to save naive investors. I hope, he'll understand the game and rectify his feedback. Moreover, I think, both CrazyPonzi.com & Nine9.ninja needs to be moved to Gambling section.

My personal problem is not the name or the structure of the game, but that I can not verify the bets to my satisfaction. I had these discussions in the past and if I were to see a solution to create a provable fair ponzi game I would certainly play it. It would probably lose coins, but thats the nature of all luck based games. Even if there is skill involved. The name certainly brings baggage. I dont think that any games of the ponzi kind should be moved to the general gambling section. They got their own section because there is a high amount of scammers running them and many gamblers look down on the concept. It would certainly help if the section had more known sites that have been run for a long time.

Quote from: CrazyJoker on May 15, 2015, 01:54:33 PM

-snip-
Are you too lazy to sign up for free and login to check the neccessary information ?

I was, yes. I will change that later and check the details.

Quote from: CrazyJoker on May 15, 2015, 01:54:33 PM

-snip-
What are you talking about ? In a dice site that accepts investment, if the operator plays against his own bankroll knowing the seeds from his own DB, wont the investors in the bankroll lose money ?

Yes, as said above. Investors are at an exceptional high risk. Im arguing mainly from the players perspective. Investment is another big topic and its not possible to create it in a provable fair way AFAIK.

Quote from: CrazyJoker on May 15, 2015, 01:54:33 PM

Quote from: shorena on May 15, 2015, 06:54:11 AM

Im not talking about a change in hindsight. You could add a bet 0.1 second before someone elses bet is added. The bet could be perfectly caluclated to match the amount available to receive. That would be 2-3 simple lines of code. To the outside it would appear like a lucky player and no one could confirm whether there was an actual person behind the bet that just got lucky. This is the essential propblem with a ponzi, the operator is at an advantage because they control when exactly their system accepts a bet. This is somewhat hard if its done on chain, but since TX-IDs have no timestamps its still possible. This allows them to slip in a bet that is not at risk of losing.

This time you come up with a brilliant arguement. I seriously did not think about this flaw. Thinking about it a little bit, what I can say for now is, if I programmatically do so it would create a pattern that would be caught by players today or tomorrow. But, if you have a better solution to block this flaw, please let me know.

Thats the thing, I have no solution. I am willing to believe that it can be solved, but I am not sure. It might boil down to proving a negative (see e.g. Russels teapot analogy). IMHO the longer your service run the more confident the players will get. This might result in a higher total bankroll and thus a higher incentive for you to just vanish. On the other hand it might also increase your profit which is an incentive to stay honest. It is essentially like the problem an investor to a dice (or similar) site has.

Quote from: CrazyJoker on May 15, 2015, 01:54:33 PM

Quote from: shorena on May 15, 2015, 06:54:11 AM

Unless you can solve this problem in a way that is publicly verifiable you can not be called provably fair and will always have someone calling you a scammer. Not because you are a proven scammer (that would be too late) or because you are disthonest (which can not be proven) but because you could scam.

Same applies to dice site that accepts investment. Do you tag -ve to all dice site owners that accept investment not because they are proven scammer (that would be too late) or because they are disthonest (which can not be proven) but because they could scam investors by playing against their own bankroll ?

That is true and no I dont, but I also dont tag you negatively. Maybe it is like you and others say, an image problem. The word ponzi is a loaded term. It is used to describe a particular kind of scams. I think the bias towards your game might be less severe if you would call it differently. It would still have its technical problems though.