In addition, there's already a long-running scam casino called FairProof that refuses to die, so you're definitely better off avoiding any accidental association with their site.

I'm no expert on php, but I can't see how a SQL injection would bypass the prot function in any of those examples.

Some sites queue up withdrawals and process them all in one transaction - while the transaction itself will be larger and it means players will have to wait longer to receive their withdrawal, it'll be a saving compared to sending a separate transaction for every withdrawal. You could also give players the option to decide whether they'd be happy to take a higher transaction fee off their withdrawal in exchange for getting it sooner, perhaps combined with a loyalty bonus where you'd be willing to pay a larger share of the transaction fee for regular players.

What Lone Shark is saying is that he had money in his balance which was lost because of bets with the wrong result, and the bet history as it appears now does not reflect what actually happened. Assuming his claim is true, if they were to look at his earlier bets, they would find 0.013 (give or take) of winnings which are unaccounted for. Paradice.io keeps posting the wrong part of the bet history as irrelevant 'proof', which may be a mistake on their part, or may be feigning ignorance.

Let's ignore the variable house edge element for now. I believe it's part of the issue here (and I think it's a bad idea in general), but this is a bug that goes far beyond the way that system was intended. My calculation might be off here, but I think losing a x1.02 "roll under" bet with a roll of 20.75 would require a house edge near 80%, nothing like the 0.5 to 3% intended.

ParaDice.io: The bet history that you show doesn't explain what happened to the 0.015 balance that Lone Shark says he had made after his withdrawals - it only shows 5 losses totalling about a tenth of that. With the assumption that Lone Shark is telling the truth about having that balance in the first place, the most reasonable explanation here is that the bug he showed caused him to lose the rest. I think your bet history is coded in such a way that it shows what should have happened (him winning 0.00001 with many bets), but doesn't show what actually happened at the time due to the bug (him losing 0.0005 with each of those bets.) Unless you can either prove that he never had that balance in the first place, or how he actually lost it, your site has ripped him off and you owe him compensation and an apology.

I have quite a bit of experience playing on other Coindice-based sites and have reason to believe this was a bug and not an intentional scam. However, if it has caused the player to lose balance when they should have won, it's obviously not a visual bug. The admin's response here fails to address the issue - the bets history he posted is irrelevant to the actual issue because it doesn't say anything regarding the history of the player's balance. If the OP is ok with this, the best way forward would be for the admin to provide a complete history of the player's bets so that the balance can be recalculated.

Also, to the OP: Was 0.1 a typo? From your explanation, the 'scammed' amount sounds like 0.01.

Lone Shark: I've noticed similar issues to this on some other modified Coindice-based sites, which seem to be caused by the site's house edge being changed mid-play to a drastically high edge - when the edge goes back to normal, the page displays the target roll as the current one, not the one at the time of the bet. The changed edge itself I believe is either due to a bug in the site or caused accidentally by someone working on the site at the time, and is not an intentional scam - however, I think the admin here is somewhat incompetent and it's irresponsible of him to run a site of this nature. I strongly advise everyone not to play here until the admin refunds you and fixes this issue and the others mentioned before.

Coindice - the script that Paradice is built upon - generates the number fairly in the sense that it's randomly chosen and not biased. It's provably fair at the hash level - the player's roll is the same as the roll that the site provides the hash of - but it's not provably fair at the RNG level. The admin could theoretically edit the code so that it generates biased results and players wouldn't know or be able to do anything about it (due to the lack of a client seed). However, it's unlikely that Paradice (or any other site) would do anything like that - such a system implemented without great care could make a site more vulnerable to potential exploits - and I'm pretty sure there's no scam going on here, at least with the rolls. MafiaCoin's 'proof' post makes no sense - at best he just has no idea how it works, at worst he's just trying to cause trouble.

However, while it's unlikely that the site is cheating, personally I'd advise steering clear of paradice unless they implement a true provably fair system with a client seed option and rework their rules. A 'one account per user' rule on a Coindice-based site - where users are likely to accidentally create multiple accounts due to the automatic generation of them - is suspicious and could be used as an excuse to withhold legitimate withdrawals, and the same goes for a horribly vague rule like 'don't faucet farm' rather than having specific limitations on the use of the faucet.

Username: flippy

Username: flippy

thanks

Your site is not 'provably fair'. This doesn't mean it's not coded to be fair, but as it stands, it would be trivial for you to code your game to give yourself an advantage beyond the advertised house edge, and players would never know because it's all serverside. Most established bitcoin based gambling sites use a provably fair server seed/client seed system which enables players to prove that the site isn't cheating.

username: flippy

thanks

And now the chat's been removed. I think that proves it.

A faucet of 1250 satoshi and a 10000 satoshi minimum withdrawal is probably a bad idea (too easy for players to drain the site) - that said, actually attempting to withdraw gives a "Entered amount is not valid. You probably does not have enough balance for this." message. Also worth noting there's a youtube video by the owner of the site pretending to have found a 'glitch' in it (which is really just another dumb betting pattern) - perhaps it's just dubious advertising, but I suspect the owner is attempting to lure players into playing a site where he's disabled withdrawals.

I requested a 0.01 BTC withdrawal - the amount was taken off my balance, but I didn't receive anything. In the cashout history it shows the amount as 'NaN' and says it's been paid.

I'm not necessarily accusing the OP of anything here - he previously ran a fair blackjack site and hopefully intends to run this in a fair manner too - but I have to recommend against playing this kind of game. It's been done before in the past and is usually a scam, as it's too easy for a site owner to cheat at this kind of game with bots as fake players.

Username: flippy

username: flippy

Bet ID:11,267,956,563
Bet ID:11,267,928,332
Bet ID:11,267,965,291
Bet ID:11,267,961,530
Bet ID:11,267,990,046
Bet ID:11,268,027,772
Bet ID:11,267,911,985
Bet ID:11,268,061,569
Bet ID:11,267,979,765
Bet ID:11,267,990,267
Bet ID:11,267,985,095
Bet ID:11,268,012,705
Bet ID:11,268,009,456
Bet ID:11,268,034,498
Bet ID:11,267,945,810
Bet ID:11,268,001,937
Bet ID:11,267,924,423
Bet ID:11,268,107,707
Bet ID:11,268,055,500
Bet ID:11,268,050,708
Bet ID:11,268,061,838
Bet ID:11,267,941,411
Bet ID:11,268,015,962
Bet ID:11,267,932,523
Bet ID:11,267,974,247

I don't really recommend this script, but if someone really wants to use it for some reason, at least don't pay this guy for what's free: https://github.com/coinables/Bitcoin-Faucet-Dice-Faucet-Box

Username: flippy
Bet ID: 11,029,627,656