Topic: 4Grinz Bitcoin Casino Official Thread - page 9. (Read 15205 times)

no published cold wallet yet, afaik. but so far I didn't bother them with that additional topic, since theyre not taking investments.

though it would be nice, if they could prove the almost 900 btc max jackpot announced on their site  

Satoshibet has provably fair slots! And SwissSoft has some. I will only play @4Grinz if I win 10 free mB

I'm not siding with the casino. I think the guy who is speaking for them is either badly misinformed or deliberately deceptive. But I don't think it's fair to jump from that to "any therefore he's a scammer". For some reason he is unwilling or unable to understand how the idea of provable fairness could help his business, and that is concerning.

It's like the difference between a casino saying:

  "we have 1000 BTC put aside to pay out jackpots - look, here's the address, here's a signature proving we control that address"

and a casino saying:

  "we have 1000 BTC put aside to pay out jackpots - we don't want to show you where, but look, here's a certificate saying we have it"

Which one would you rather play at?

Does 4grinz publish their cold storage address by the way? I don't think anyone asked about that yet.

dooglus, I feel confident that all casinos that run the coingaming.io platform are corrupt. Bait & switch that could not be more obvious. All of these coinggaming.io ran casinos have had red flags galore from the start. For instance: bitcasino.io hosting pirated slots. Maybe I should have clarified this. However, you should always side with the players in these kind of cases. You have an owner having a hissy fit the second he/she is questioned. A owner that is in control of peoples money the second they deposit. A casino that is as shady as they come.

Now, I do not want to be lynched here as you are well respected on this forum but one could say you do the same provably fair or not: prey on kids. Maybe that's why in my case you decided to not side with the player?

I'm not insinuating anything. You're the one that said you could prove it was fair. But you still haven't, despite all of this.

You can't. No one can. (apparently)
The money of your players is placed on faith that you've done the right thing, not concrete evidence.

Once again, thanks for clarifying.

We're here all night. 

4Grinz pays a fee for each level of testing in order to receive certification. As with any license, that's where the "interest" ends. GLI has no access or interest in players' money. They don't receive any further commissions. Their "interest" is in comparing several platforms, testing games they understand in ways you couldn't possibly (as a dice expert), and publicly reporting those findings to regulators in an effort to elevate standards, not get stuck in old ones. How you would insinuate that GLI receives a stipend from player losses is slanderous. We'll be sure to let our friends at GLI know this. SMH. (Some people will stoop to any levels just to make their point, even when it's pointless.)  

Most provably fair sites are closed source. Some aren't. The openness of the source isn't related to whether the events are generated in a provably fair way or not.


Is that why Linux is so much less secure that Windows? Oh, wait.


What happened today?


Try to keep up. You said that it was impossible to make a provably fair slots game, so I proved you wrong by showing you a working example of one. You said it many times, even after I posted the link to that one.


Sigh. It was showing you (and mostly everyone else) that you were wrong. Their choice of provably fair system is poor, but that isn't what we were discussing. You claimed it was impossible so I showed you that it isn't.


I already did.


"dice system"? What are you talking about. Provable fairness is unrelated to dice. It applies to any single-player game of chance, including slots, as I have already pointed out many times. You are really bad at arguing.


You still don't seem to understand the point of provable fairness. The point is that the casino can prove *to the player* that each and every game event was fairly determined. What you seem to have is some figure in authority which you claim has proved to themselves that your games are fair. That proves nothing to the player, since you could be lying about them having looked at your games, and they could be lying about your games being fair. You could also have changed your games since they looked at them, or change them just for your biggest bettors.

Provable fairness is something that happens while players play, to satisfy the players. It isn't a process you do in secret with some company who gives you a stamp of approval. The difference between these two is the word "proof". (Look it up).

I think the point has been hammered home enough times by now that if you don't understand then you never will, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

In other words, the "institution" that supplies numbers for you and has your players' money in their best interest, is not in your control. There is no proof.

Thanks for clarifying. There was no need to beat around the bush, though.

We're sticking with GLI - For 25 years, Gaming Laboratories International, LLC has continuously delivered THE best quality land-based and iGaming testing and consulting services with supreme accuracy while reducing time to market. With 21 laboratory locations spread across Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and South America, GLI is the only global organization of its kind to hold U.S. and international accreditations for compliance with ISO/IEC 17025, 17020 and guide 65 standards for technical competence in the gaming, wagering and lottery industries. For more information, visit www.gaminglabs.com.

If you choose not to play on our site, then vote with your web wallet. If you wish to disparage us because we don't use a dice system to measure the fairness of slots, then expect a swift response.

If you'd like to discuss scam sites, then please do so on another thread. This is our official thread meant to answer our player's questions, update them on contest results, and make promotional announcements.

We have gone out of our way to explain that Provably Fair systems were used during initial testing, and they were ineffective when applied to a slots scenario, and for several security reasons, we do not subject our software and platform to systems that put our security and that of our players at risk.

Where are you getting that quote from? Also, (good)working implementations don't use a new server seed for every roll, and let the client choose a new seed for themselves at their discretion. Which in turn, lets you verify a sequence. Which, by the way, you already said was impossible to do in my "casino in the sky".

"It's not a great implementation since it uses a new pair of seeds for every spin and puts too much burden on the player..."

Provably fair systems are open source, which puts players and their computers at great risk - especially today. If it's not the best implementation, or even a great implementation, then why are we arguing this? The process is disturbing. It pulls data from a player's browser and computer each and every spin. In also puts the burden on the player. 

I agree, but the questionable responses are equivalent to "You said I was wrong, but that's not true. But look! A shiny quarter!". He's asserting himself to being correct by leaps and bounds while being quite duplicitous by switching the subject to some unrelated details of his system, and then using that for 95% of rest of the post, while avoiding submitting a valid response to what was quoted. (or not quoted, lol)

I think it's important to be careful with the language. There's nothing to suggest that his site isn't fair. The issue is that we can't know whether it is or not unless he proves it to us.


Again, we haven't proved any such thing. At worst we've proved that he either doesn't understand provable fairness, or wants to pretend that he doesn't for some reason. Neither is a crime.


It's very hard to tell the difference between a straight house and a rigged one. I know Just-Dice isn't rigged, but we have such runs of good and bad luck that it looks as if it is at times. We had a 6 week period where most big players won their big bets. An outsider looking in could easily think we were doing it on purpose, setting them up for a fall. Then we had a week where the actual site profit was around 9 times the expected site profit for that week. "Variance is a bitch" is the common saying that expresses this phenomenon. It's quite possible that the long winning and losing streaks you see at the non-provably-fair casinos are legit. There's just no way of knowing for sure.


I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion that because a site doesn't offer provable fairness it means they have something to hide. It's definitely a possibility, but it seems unfair to assume it to be the case.

I'm unfamiliar with the term. Are you referring to this in Trevor Xavier's piece on reddit?


I don't know who Cantor Becker is. I put clamaddress.org up this morning and immediately received a bug report that it wouldn't work on iOS. I found that a fork of bitaddress.org by Cantor Becker had already fixed the problem so I took his fix, added it to my site, and added his name to the copyright notice, since I had used some of his copyrighted open source code. I very much doubt he is in any way involved with Just-Dice or CLAMs.


What makes you think that evaluation is "bitzino's"? It isn't. It clearly isn't.

It's not clear to me whether you are playing dumb here or not.


I found this thread when someone at Just-Dice drew my attention to it. After having made my first reply, I posted a link to it in the chat there, because I found some of what you were saying astonishing. That's presumably why so many people from the Just-Dice community posted replies here. No conspiracy, just a bunch of people who understand how provable fairness works trying to help you understand. Whether you want to or not.


I don't know what "tier 2 direct affiliates" means. Sounds like some kind of unpleasant marketing term to me.

tryphe and Tiger hang out on the JD chat sometimes. I think I've seen a webchris there a couple times. I don't know who EBK is.

Proven fair how?

You haven't answered this simple question. Yet you keep implying that you can and will. If the players can't reproduce the number series that the game also used, it's not proof.

Also, my insinuation isn't baseless because it's already in your best interest to fudge the numbers to be sleighed towards the house. How do I know you aren't cheating me? Because you act like it hurts you to and you have a pretty certification? Sorry, but it's just a joke.

(yes, even after pages of posts have proven you wrong, note my correct use of the word "prove")

I rarely say anything outside my own business, but calling provably fair outdated is tantamount to blasphemy. Good luck.

For fucks sake, a certification doesn't account for anything. If I have a certification for something, that means absolutely squat; other than someone printed that piece of paper. What counts is showing your players that you aren't cheating them, not some bullshit certification.

I suppose "numbers and science and Bitcoin are too confusing to be real and secure" too, huh?