Re: Breaking: Shuffle-based Provably Fair Implementations Can Cheat Players (proof)
Ps, there is actually one dice site "pocketdice" that uses "initial random numbers" which was proven to have a bad provably fair implementation (for more simple reasons than OP 
) Unfortunately they still didn't improve this.
) Unfortunately they still didn't improve this.How the system works exactly is still beyond me but I can't see the logic on the relatively complex way it is implemented or the mystery behind the 30.
But how is this?
The client's seed is not really used to generate the random result.
OP says that even when the distribution of numbers in the "initial deck" is fair, the outcome can still be influenced to have a slightly bigger chance to have an outcome the house prefers. This could be done by calculating what the different client seeds do with a specific initial deck.
Oh I see. I was thinking it was something else (to do with the shuffle thing).
I thought OP was making that point with:
Except for the fact that your roll tendencies can be tracked. Maybe you ALWAYS go "Higher than 8".
So what if pocketdice's 30 "random numbers" have 9 1's, 7 2's 5 3's, 5 4's, 3 5's and 1 6?
when he was actually still talking about 30 and he fails to mention they don't need to track roll tendencies - just every single roll.So what if pocketdice's 30 "random numbers" have 9 1's, 7 2's 5 3's, 5 4's, 3 5's and 1 6?