Quote from: kxu1005 on May 12, 2019, 11:31:41 PM

On the note of language, I'm actually not certain what you mean by "interpretation"? Look Dear Respectable @RHavar, definitely willing to remedy if necessary but unfair for us if you don't specify what you mean + make assumptions + strong/enticing language + troll -- while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right? I assume you mean interpretation to check if we know what we're talking about, is that it?

So for reference, here's your seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133118.0

and here's the part that makes it useless:

Quote

and use the hashes to determine the crash point in a provably fair manner.

Now, for comparison here's bustabit's original seeding event:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0

Now, notice how it says how it uses the hash. (i.e. provides code in the format of "crashPointFromHash").

--

So in summary, bustabit seeding event proves the *GAME RESULTS* are fair. While yours proves the *GAME HASHES* are.

see the difference?

Quote from: kxu1005 on May 12, 2019, 11:31:41 PM

while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right?

P.S. I'd not worry too much about the trust system. It's not a huge amount better than a glorified guestbook (although a lot more complex, i'm not entirely sure how it all works actually but some of the most trusted people are just people who have done a lot of little deals with a lot of other trusted members etc.) .