Re: Breaking: Shuffle-based Provably Fair Implementations Can Cheat Players (proof)
Another important threat in the bitcoin space is investment based sites, there's absolutely no way to know if the owners will play against the house and steal from investors in an undetectable manner.
Can't agree more. I am not sure if many investors are aware of this possibility especially the ones with relatively high Profit/EV.
Stunna always bashes crowdfunded bitcoin casinos.
I can see why but people are smarter now and no one is investing large amounts in new sites with questionable owners who are likely to scam (Dicebitco.in and dice.ninja).
I wonder what his honest opinion is on BetKing.io/me when it comes to trust and investing.
But your argument doesn't make much.
If the Profit/EV is high then it is far less likely that the owner has been cheating the investors. If the owner was cheating then the Profit/EV would be lower.
Of the 5 Bitcoin investment sites on dicesites.com only 2 are under EV and people could accuse them of playing against investors.
People think SafeDice is legit though and is just below EV because of their risky invest model and were unlucky.
I've never trusted Bitdice so I won't go into that.
BetKing.io has a profit/ev of 140% so it strongly suggests that there is no cheating going on of investors.
Good job it's also provably fair so you can prove the house hasn't cheated players too
I've proved over and over that your funds are safer in BetKing than any other crowdfunded casino and it is a fact that it is the most trusted.
Primedice is certainly more popular but Stunna doesn't secure as many Bitcoin of other users as BetKing does at one time.
Though he may very hold more than the whole of BetKing in his own personal wallet
Moneypot looks like it might be safe to invest in as a couple of their owners (not all) are respectable members of the community, though the owners have only had it for 5 months so who knows.
SatoshiDice you would think would be safe since they have been around a long time but it seems common knowledge that they have changed owners more than a few times.
In response to OP. That is an interesting claim and I will look in to it a bit more. It would be good to see some ideas of solutions to the problem.
It (Edit: Stunna's) is a valid point. There is no investor provably fair implementation yet. (I like the concept here. https://etherdice.io/ )
Quote
But your argument doesn't make much.
If the Profit/EV is high then it is far less likely that the owner has been cheating the investors. If the owner was cheating then the Profit/EV would be lower.
If the Profit/EV is high then it is far less likely that the owner has been cheating the investors. If the owner was cheating then the Profit/EV would be lower.
My argument is that if the Profit/EV is higher than 100%, the owner is more likely to cheat the investors than if it is lower. It will also make it largely unsuspicious (and of course undetectable anyway) than otherwise.
You will have to be a programmer to be able to see if the clientseed was really generated in a cryptographically secure way in your browser (after getting the serverseed hash already.)
That's why changing clientseed manually is still better.
That's also why the "nonce implementation" is preferred since you only need to change it once and u can make as many bets as you like. Not like the "per roll implementation" where you indeed have to change the clientseed every bet.
There is some more specific advantages/disadvantages to that, for example a script/bot should be able to work more easily with the "per roll implementation". Also in reality with the "nonce method" you make like 1000 bets but only verify that last 10 losing streak.. so still not perfect. But I really believe on average "nonce method" is better.
That's why changing clientseed manually is still better.
That's also why the "nonce implementation" is preferred since you only need to change it once and u can make as many bets as you like. Not like the "per roll implementation" where you indeed have to change the clientseed every bet.
There is some more specific advantages/disadvantages to that, for example a script/bot should be able to work more easily with the "per roll implementation". Also in reality with the "nonce method" you make like 1000 bets but only verify that last 10 losing streak.. so still not perfect. But I really believe on average "nonce method" is better.
I always prefer nonce method except in Moneypot style cases.