Quote from: JackpotRacer on October 05, 2016, 05:16:26 AM

Quote from: dooglus on October 05, 2016, 02:08:14 AM

I was trying to explain to OP that the 2^31 limit on the client seed was probably a result of the maximum value that could be stored in an integer in the language you were coding in rather than a deliberate attempt to cheat your players.

does anyone know if this was the case? if yes that would sound actually good for the BB dev lobos and all involved parties if I understand dooglus explanation it would have been just a code language limitation

Before this there was actually a similar issue that was indeed a server-side limit (I assume just MySQL INT limit), I mentioned this more than a year ago:

Quote from: NLNico on July 31, 2015, 07:48:38 AM

4) AFAIK you should allow the client seed to be a number in the range of 0 and 2^32-1. However you are saving it now a signed INT which has a limit of 2^31-1. You should make it unsigned so the player can put the full range of numbers as client seed. In theory again MP could influence the outcomes with the information that the client seed will always be limited/low.

If I remember correctly they did fix that limit quickly so it allowed all client seeds (by manually changing.)

By that time clientseeds weren't generated in browser every bet (which was also part of my feedback):

Quote from: NLNico on July 31, 2015, 07:48:38 AM

3) IMO, you should generate a random client seed before every bet in the browser. If a player bets with the same client seed every time, in theory MoneyPot could give "next server seeds" based on their betting pattern. So if a player is betting high every time, they would give low numbers based on the same repeated client seed. I am not accusing MoneyPot of this AT ALL, RHavar seems a trustworthy person to me, but provably fair is all about not needing to trust the site owner.

So I assume they added that "automatic clientseed generation" after that (which is good) but unfortunately had this bug in it to not calculate in the full range (like RHavar mentions earlier in this topic.) TBH it is pretty silly to make the same mistake twice, but yeh mistakes happen I guess. Too bad I didn't really check that myself anymore by that time too (:

But anyway, is fixed now and since it would require basically both MP as BB to cheat (based on bet patterns), I don't think that's likely at all and probably just an oversight indeed.