Quote from: bittraffic on Today at 04:44:19 PM

Quote from: reptilee on Today at 04:13:21 PM

Quote from: Beparanf on Today at 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: bittraffic on Today at 04:03:50 PM

Godsake, the 36 users won already yet they still have to be shuffled to lose. You can really assume no one yet made something like this because the emotions of players are going to fluctuate from high and drop to zero. I would certainly avoid playing such game especially if $10 is just one entry. Not sure what others would think but I'm already one that will not join.

From 36 down to?

I believe you misunderstood his example. The prize distribution amount is being distributed in random not the quantity of the user will be countdown. Example some user will receive 500$ and so on randomly. This is both good and bad based on the reward that you will get if you are within the lucky 36 users.

Smart contract games is always a good idea for transparency issues. The only problem is it’s not popular anymore since gambler preferred games that can give result instantly and without any fees for placing bets which centralized casino offers.

When we choose the random winners, should it be distributed equally, or we put randomness on the winnings too? What would users prefer?

it should be equal. Random winnings get worse. Nonetheless, I would stay away still. You get lucky the first time and you'll need to be lucky once again on the random selection. Do they need to once again bet $10 to increase their chances in this random selection? Why not, see if the users double down? There's another idea.

Seeing they have yet done anything means there is no plan in place. But I see this is going to be a decentralized casino?

When you are talking about the random selection, do you mean the random selection on the prize distribution?

Random selection 1 (winners)
- We select the winners

Random selection 2 (Prize distribution)
- We select randomly how much each user get from the pot

We could see if a user double's down, (I assume you mean if he won, he would have less chance in the next round?) But this would not work, because it's super easy to generate a new address, and this user will be a "new better" in the system, easy to abuse.