Pages:
Author

Topic: A guide to how Provably Fair works. - page 4. (Read 12402 times)

vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
April 13, 2013, 05:36:37 AM
#28
As of the moment no one has done that yet thus claiming "provable fair" isn't the most noble thing to do, some would even call it lying.

"Fair" means they don't cheat the player.  "Provable" means they can prove it.  There's no lying.

S Dice would have a unique opportunity to cheat their shareholders due to the nature of the Bitcoin network, it all comes down to the greed of the individual I think, Gox could have easily hired professional security guys, rent a CDN, buy a DDOS protecting router for that 3% is it that they pull? Instead they chose to lie to their users like a bunch of teenagers and deny a DDOS ever happened (according to what I've got they have admitted to it in the end), same thing with S Dice and most successful bitcoin casinos, gluttony.

SatoshiDice has all their activity publicly available on the blockchain.  They have less opportunities to cheat their shareholders than any traditional online casino.  It would be trivial for a traditional casino to say "we had a high roller come and win a million dollars from us.  Sorry, no dividends this month".  How would the shareholders argue with that?

Gox and their DDoS has nothing to do with this, not even a little bit.


Here is a situation though, Satoshidice knows their own secret word ahead of time, thus they can submit bets to themselves as if they are the player, since they can potentially "be" the player and know the secret word ahead of time (since they are really Satoshidice) they can thus submit selective bets and raise the house edge to such a degree that no one of the investors would be getting a cent.

In the "real world" there is so much surveillance and protocols that casinos have to follow that claiming a person won a million dollars without it happening would be virtually impossible. Funny that so many people are defending their precious stock yet they fail to see and to point out this simple flaw while claiming some algorithms/blockchain protects them on the low level.

We can now establish who is right in the first argument: Me


Satoshidice claims it is "provably fair" but decides they will not prove that they are fair and so far it hasn't been proven once. Now I do understand your claim that they must not prove that they are fair to really be fair but then it's the argument of religion basically, if I hold my hand behind my back and claim I have a couple of pounds of diamonds in my hand I would be the one making the statement thus I would be the one needing proof (e.g. showing you the diamonds) and not you needing proof of me not having the diamonds in my hand behind my back in order to establish that they really are not there, since I have no initial proof of my statement it is disregarded.

Makes sense? Gox has everything to do with it since both of the companies are ran by teenagers that fail to employ the proper people to do a job they are unqualified to do out of pure greed.

We can now establish who is right in the second argument: Me


Thanks for doing the simulation SRoulette Smiley
Always happy to help Smiley
Anything we can to do reassure players is in ours and the communities best interest.

Interesting that the mainstream will roll with the established website despite the utter stupidity in doing so while such alternatives exist.

WTF?

SatoshiDICE is provably fair for your own games. Provably fair is not a magic bullet - it doesn't suddenly allow you to prove the house isn't making any bets, or that the house isn't cheating their shareholders, but that doesn't mean something is not fair.

And, wow, it's ridiculously easy to prove s.dice is provably fair.. get past secrets, generate random hashes ("txids"), repeat many times.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 13, 2013, 05:00:10 AM
#27
As of the moment no one has done that yet thus claiming "provable fair" isn't the most noble thing to do, some would even call it lying.

"Fair" means they don't cheat the player.  "Provable" means they can prove it.  There's no lying.

S Dice would have a unique opportunity to cheat their shareholders due to the nature of the Bitcoin network, it all comes down to the greed of the individual I think, Gox could have easily hired professional security guys, rent a CDN, buy a DDOS protecting router for that 3% is it that they pull? Instead they chose to lie to their users like a bunch of teenagers and deny a DDOS ever happened (according to what I've got they have admitted to it in the end), same thing with S Dice and most successful bitcoin casinos, gluttony.

SatoshiDice has all their activity publicly available on the blockchain.  They have less opportunities to cheat their shareholders than any traditional online casino.  It would be trivial for a traditional casino to say "we had a high roller come and win a million dollars from us.  Sorry, no dividends this month".  How would the shareholders argue with that?

Gox and their DDoS has nothing to do with this, not even a little bit.


Here is a situation though, Satoshidice knows their own secret word ahead of time, thus they can submit bets to themselves as if they are the player, since they can potentially "be" the player and know the secret word ahead of time (since they are really Satoshidice) they can thus submit selective bets and raise the house edge to such a degree that no one of the investors would be getting a cent.

In the "real world" there is so much surveillance and protocols that casinos have to follow that claiming a person won a million dollars without it happening would be virtually impossible. Funny that so many people are defending their precious stock yet they fail to see and to point out this simple flaw while claiming some algorithms/blockchain protects them on the low level.

We can now establish who is right in the first argument: Me


Satoshidice claims it is "provably fair" but decides they will not prove that they are fair and so far it hasn't been proven once. Now I do understand your claim that they must not prove that they are fair to really be fair but then it's the argument of religion basically, if I hold my hand behind my back and claim I have a couple of pounds of diamonds in my hand I would be the one making the statement thus I would be the one needing proof (e.g. showing you the diamonds) and not you needing proof of me not having the diamonds in my hand behind my back in order to establish that they really are not there, since I have no initial proof of my statement it is disregarded.

Makes sense? Gox has everything to do with it since both of the companies are ran by teenagers that fail to employ the proper people to do a job they are unqualified to do out of pure greed.

We can now establish who is right in the second argument: Me


Thanks for doing the simulation SRoulette Smiley
Always happy to help Smiley
Anything we can to do reassure players is in ours and the communities best interest.

Interesting that the mainstream will roll with the established website despite the utter stupidity in doing so while such alternatives exist.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 252
April 13, 2013, 04:50:42 AM
#26
Thanks for doing the simulation SRoulette Smiley
Always happy to help Smiley
Anything we can to do reassure players is in ours and the communities best interest.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
April 13, 2013, 02:08:43 AM
#25
Thanks for doing the simulation SRoulette Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 252
April 13, 2013, 02:05:02 AM
#24
Hopefully a sample of 125'000'000 is sufficient Smiley

Code:
count at 125000000
Result: 1, Count: 17853524, Perecent: 14.2828%
Result: 2, Count: 17860550, Perecent: 14.2884%
Result: 3, Count: 17862642, Perecent: 14.2901%
Result: 4, Count: 17855991, Perecent: 14.2848%
Result: 5, Count: 17862922, Perecent: 14.2903%
Result: 6, Count: 17851206, Perecent: 14.2810%
Result: 7, Count: 17853164, Perecent: 14.2825%
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 252
April 13, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
#23
It's possible to run huge simulations to check the distributions created by the provably fair algorithms to see if there's any bias.  I don't know if anyone has done that.

Our casino http://satoshiroulette.com/ certianly has, see the original thread here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/satoshi-roulette-new-rng-147935
We did that recently in a thread when we upgraded our RNG to show the fairness and distribution over uneven numbers (ie 7).

huge simulation to check the distributions created by our provably fair algorithm:
Code:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;
use warnings;
use Digest::SHA qw(hmac_sha512_hex);
use Math::Random::MT;

my $range = $ARGV[0];
our $secret = rand();
my $r = 0;
my %hash = ();
my $cc = 1;
my $c = 1;

while(1)
{
#$r = &get_result($c, $range);
$r = &get_result(rand(), $range);
$hash{$r}++;
$c++;
$cc++;

if($cc >= 500000)
{
$cc = 0;
my $t = 0; # should never see zerom ut check anyway

print "\ncount at $c\n";
while($t <= $range)
{
if(defined  $hash{$t})
{
my $s = sprintf("%.4f", ( $hash{$t} / $c ) * 100 );
print "Result: $t, Count: $hash{$t}, Perecent: $s%\n";
}
$t++;
}
}
}

exit 0;

sub get_result
{
my $tx = shift;
my $range = shift;
my $seed = Digest::SHA::hmac_sha512_hex($tx, $main::secret);
$seed =~ s/^(.{8}).*$/$1/;
$seed = hex($seed) + 0;
my $gen = Math::Random::MT->new($seed);
my $number = int($gen->rand($range)+1);
return $number;
}

Results:
Code:
perl number_distribution_mersenne.pl 7

count at 500000
Result: 1, Count: 70994, Perecent: 14.1988%
Result: 2, Count: 71495, Perecent: 14.2990%
Result: 3, Count: 71369, Perecent: 14.2738%
Result: 4, Count: 71446, Perecent: 14.2892%
Result: 5, Count: 71470, Perecent: 14.2940%
Result: 6, Count: 71637, Perecent: 14.3274%
Result: 7, Count: 71588, Perecent: 14.3176%

count at 1000000
Result: 1, Count: 142091, Perecent: 14.2091%
Result: 2, Count: 142924, Perecent: 14.2924%
Result: 3, Count: 143039, Perecent: 14.3039%
Result: 4, Count: 143031, Perecent: 14.3031%
Result: 5, Count: 143140, Perecent: 14.3140%
Result: 6, Count: 142669, Perecent: 14.2669%
Result: 7, Count: 143105, Perecent: 14.3105%

count at 1500000
Result: 1, Count: 214198, Perecent: 14.2799%
Result: 2, Count: 213999, Perecent: 14.2666%
Result: 3, Count: 214668, Perecent: 14.3112%
Result: 4, Count: 214527, Perecent: 14.3018%
Result: 5, Count: 214434, Perecent: 14.2956%
Result: 6, Count: 213722, Perecent: 14.2481%
Result: 7, Count: 214451, Perecent: 14.2967%

count at 2000000
Result: 1, Count: 285847, Perecent: 14.2924%
Result: 2, Count: 285742, Perecent: 14.2871%
Result: 3, Count: 286227, Perecent: 14.3114%
Result: 4, Count: 285383, Perecent: 14.2691%
Result: 5, Count: 286089, Perecent: 14.3044%
Result: 6, Count: 285052, Perecent: 14.2526%
Result: 7, Count: 285659, Perecent: 14.2829%

As you can see it is very fair distribution.
We are happy to run any simulation a player requests or assist with getting the simulation script to work.

edit: the above is just from a ~3 minute run, I will let it run for the next ~24 hour and give an update on its results.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
April 11, 2013, 06:19:48 PM
#23
The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.
The chance of it being fixed by say bitzino is 0% because of math. And you claim that it is lower in established casinos? LOL. If your point would be true it would also be possible to counterfeit bitcoins, spend coins from wallets without having the private key, and so on. Sorry, but it only shows that you have no clue about math and hashes.

Have you read the rest of my post and comprehended my point though?

....
Oh so you want standards of the industry where your win and loses are capped, come on dude, if you don't like it don't play. But this is fair, and can be prove. I will make a casino just for you where you only get 25% edge and the house gets 75% cause that is what slots are set too.

You just lost me there,

They are misrepresenting themselves to the gullible bitcointalk masses, the quality of the numbers generated is unknown, I rest my case.

The quality numbers they are generated are not unknown. So that is a lie...
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
April 12, 2013, 03:33:19 PM
#22
As of the moment no one has done that yet thus claiming "provable fair" isn't the most noble thing to do, some would even call it lying.

"Fair" means they don't cheat the player.  "Provable" means they can prove it.  There's no lying.

S Dice would have a unique opportunity to cheat their shareholders due to the nature of the Bitcoin network, it all comes down to the greed of the individual I think, Gox could have easily hired professional security guys, rent a CDN, buy a DDOS protecting router for that 3% is it that they pull? Instead they chose to lie to their users like a bunch of teenagers and deny a DDOS ever happened (according to what I've got they have admitted to it in the end), same thing with S Dice and most successful bitcoin casinos, gluttony.

SatoshiDice has all their activity publicly available on the blockchain.  They have less opportunities to cheat their shareholders than any traditional online casino.  It would be trivial for a traditional casino to say "we had a high roller come and win a million dollars from us.  Sorry, no dividends this month".  How would the shareholders argue with that?

Gox and their DDoS has nothing to do with this, not even a little bit.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 12, 2013, 12:42:24 AM
#21
The difference appears to be that traditional casinos can pay to get the stamp of approval from some body that says the random number generator they demonstrated to that body is good.  There's no way they can prove that they actually use that good random number generator when the public plays against them however.

With provably fair games the players can be sure that the algorithm that is used is the one that the casinos claim is used, because they can check the maths for themselves.

It's possible to run huge simulations to check the distributions created by the provably fair algorithms to see if there's any bias.  I don't know if anyone has done that.

And claiming that provably fair doesn't work because SatoshiDice can cheat to defraud their shareholders is disingenuous because any business can cheat its shareholders no matter what business they're in.  It's not like that is unique to provably fair casinos.

All provable fairness gives you is the assurance that the house isn't cheating the players.  And that's a lot.

As of the moment no one has done that yet thus claiming "provable fair" isn't the most noble thing to do, some would even call it lying.

S Dice would have a unique opportunity to cheat their shareholders due to the nature of the Bitcoin network, it all comes down to the greed of the individual I think, Gox could have easily hired professional security guys, rent a CDN, buy a DDOS protecting router for that 3% is it that they pull? Instead they chose to lie to their users like a bunch of teenagers and deny a DDOS ever happened (according to what I've got they have admitted to it in the end), same thing with S Dice and most successful bitcoin casinos, gluttony.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
April 11, 2013, 09:13:13 PM
#20
The difference appears to be that traditional casinos can pay to get the stamp of approval from some body that says the random number generator they demonstrated to that body is good.  There's no way they can prove that they actually use that good random number generator when the public plays against them however.

With provably fair games the players can be sure that the algorithm that is used is the one that the casinos claim is used, because they can check the maths for themselves.

It's possible to run huge simulations to check the distributions created by the provably fair algorithms to see if there's any bias.  I don't know if anyone has done that.

And claiming that provably fair doesn't work because SatoshiDice can cheat to defraud their shareholders is disingenuous because any business can cheat its shareholders no matter what business they're in.  It's not like that is unique to provably fair casinos.

All provable fairness gives you is the assurance that the house isn't cheating the players.  And that's a lot.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
April 11, 2013, 05:46:37 PM
#20
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.

So you rather know that your gambling could have been fixed by the casino so for sure lose. Or would you rather have something that is as random as it gets, the software can't fix it to make sure you lose. I don't know what planet your from. Also why you have to name call? LMAO Does it in-power you in some way?

The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.

S. Dice for example claim they have fair play, yet it is possible for them to submit selective bets since they know the secret word in advance and potentially steal from their investors. Okay not bad right? Wrong, nobody can vouch for the quality of the numbers that satoshidice generates and how random they are exactly, have they been certified by the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology (also known as METAS) and confirmed for quality number output that could compare to commercial RNGs such as Quantis? No? Didn't think so, it was certified by a bunch of smartasses on bitcointalk.

Using the (salted) hash of the chat as a seed is also a bad idea for various reasons, please leave it to the pros to generate quality random numbers, especially when it comes to gambling on virtual property, fund your project properly and hire a qualified person to do that work.

You clearly never been to a licensed casino, slots are the worst odds and how is 95% in a bitcoin casino less than a licensed casino?

S.Dice has certainly had losing months, and they can't do that and if you check up on that, so if they do it you can show the forum, but I doubt that. They have made millions and don't need to fix the bets, that would make them lose everyone that was using the site.

You can't do random numbers in computers hence why you need hash something can be random, like a chat, and it clearly works as you can see it working.

It might work, it might even generate the house edge they claim, but it is unfair to the players that the numbers are not generated according to the standards of the industry, e.g. players could have "cold"/"hot" periods with S dice whereas players would loose 15 times in a row or win 15 times in a row. Same thing with other bitcoin casinos, nobody can guarantee how chaostic they are exactly. People need to start pulling their head out of their asses.

Oh so you want standards of the industry where your win and loses are capped, come on dude, if you don't like it don't play. But this is fair, and can be prove. I will make a casino just for you where you only get 25% edge and the house gets 75% cause that is what slots are set too.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 11, 2013, 06:14:08 PM
#19
The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.
The chance of it being fixed by say bitzino is 0% because of math. And you claim that it is lower in established casinos? LOL. If your point would be true it would also be possible to counterfeit bitcoins, spend coins from wallets without having the private key, and so on. Sorry, but it only shows that you have no clue about math and hashes.

Have you read the rest of my post and comprehended my point though?

....
Oh so you want standards of the industry where your win and loses are capped, come on dude, if you don't like it don't play. But this is fair, and can be prove. I will make a casino just for you where you only get 25% edge and the house gets 75% cause that is what slots are set too.

You just lost me there,

They are misrepresenting themselves to the gullible bitcointalk masses, the quality of the numbers generated is unknown, I rest my case.
full member
Activity: 148
Merit: 100
April 11, 2013, 06:11:11 PM
#18
The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.
The chance of it being fixed by say bitzino is 0% because of math. And you claim that it is lower in established casinos? LOL. If your point would be true it would also be possible to counterfeit bitcoins, spend coins from wallets without having the private key, and so on. Sorry, but it only shows that you have no clue about math and hashes.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 11, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
#17
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.

So you rather know that your gambling could have been fixed by the casino so for sure lose. Or would you rather have something that is as random as it gets, the software can't fix it to make sure you lose. I don't know what planet your from. Also why you have to name call? LMAO Does it in-power you in some way?

The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.

S. Dice for example claim they have fair play, yet it is possible for them to submit selective bets since they know the secret word in advance and potentially steal from their investors. Okay not bad right? Wrong, nobody can vouch for the quality of the numbers that satoshidice generates and how random they are exactly, have they been certified by the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology (also known as METAS) and confirmed for quality number output that could compare to commercial RNGs such as Quantis? No? Didn't think so, it was certified by a bunch of smartasses on bitcointalk.

Using the (salted) hash of the chat as a seed is also a bad idea for various reasons, please leave it to the pros to generate quality random numbers, especially when it comes to gambling on virtual property, fund your project properly and hire a qualified person to do that work.

You clearly never been to a licensed casino, slots are the worst odds and how is 95% in a bitcoin casino less than a licensed casino?

S.Dice has certainly had losing months, and they can't do that and if you check up on that, so if they do it you can show the forum, but I doubt that. They have made millions and don't need to fix the bets, that would make them lose everyone that was using the site.

You can't do random numbers in computers hence why you need hash something can be random, like a chat, and it clearly works as you can see it working.

It might work, it might even generate the house edge they claim, but it is unfair to the players that the numbers are not generated according to the standards of the industry, e.g. players could have "cold"/"hot" periods with S dice whereas players would loose 15 times in a row or win 15 times in a row. Same thing with other bitcoin casinos, nobody can guarantee how chaostic they are exactly. People need to start pulling their head out of their asses.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
April 11, 2013, 05:36:33 PM
#16
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.

So you rather know that your gambling could have been fixed by the casino so for sure lose. Or would you rather have something that is as random as it gets, the software can't fix it to make sure you lose. I don't know what planet your from. Also why you have to name call? LMAO Does it in-power you in some way?

The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.

S. Dice for example claim they have fair play, yet it is possible for them to submit selective bets since they know the secret word in advance and potentially steal from their investors. Okay not bad right? Wrong, nobody can vouch for the quality of the numbers that satoshidice generates and how random they are exactly, have they been certified by the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology (also known as METAS) and confirmed for quality number output that could compare to commercial RNGs such as Quantis? No? Didn't think so, it was certified by a bunch of smartasses on bitcointalk.

Using the (salted) hash of the chat as a seed is also a bad idea for various reasons, please leave it to the pros to generate quality random numbers, especially when it comes to gambling on virtual property, fund your project properly and hire a qualified person to do that work.

You clearly never been to a licensed casino, slots are the worst odds and how is 95% in a bitcoin casino less than a licensed casino?

S.Dice has certainly had losing months, and they can't do that and if you check up on that, so if they do it you can show the forum, but I doubt that. They have made millions and don't need to fix the bets, that would make them lose everyone that was using the site.

You can't do random numbers in computers hence why you need hash something can be random, like a chat, and it clearly works as you can see it working.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
April 11, 2013, 01:08:02 PM
#16
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.

So you rather know that your gambling could have been fixed by the casino so for sure lose. Or would you rather have something that is as random as it gets, the software can't fix it to make sure you lose. I don't know what planet your from. Also why you have to name call? LMAO Does it in-power you in some way?
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 11, 2013, 05:30:10 PM
#15
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.

So you rather know that your gambling could have been fixed by the casino so for sure lose. Or would you rather have something that is as random as it gets, the software can't fix it to make sure you lose. I don't know what planet your from. Also why you have to name call? LMAO Does it in-power you in some way?

The chance of it being fixed by an established and licensed casino is much lower than ANY bitcoin casino.

S. Dice for example claim they have fair play, yet it is possible for them to submit selective bets since they know the secret word in advance and potentially steal from their investors. Okay not bad right? Wrong, nobody can vouch for the quality of the numbers that satoshidice generates and how random they are exactly, have they been certified by the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology (also known as METAS) and confirmed for quality number output that could compare to commercial RNGs such as Quantis? No? Didn't think so, it was certified by a bunch of smartasses on bitcointalk.

Using the (salted) hash of the chat as a seed is also a bad idea for various reasons, please leave it to the pros to generate quality random numbers, especially when it comes to gambling on virtual property, fund your project properly and hire a qualified person to do that work.
hero member
Activity: 740
Merit: 501
April 11, 2013, 09:06:19 AM
#14
Seems to me that provable fairness gives the spotlight to crypto-charlatans, I would much rather trust my funds to large licensed casinos than a bunch of dorks hashing each other hashes in someones basement.
vip
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1043
👻
April 11, 2013, 06:21:12 AM
#13
Bumpy Smiley
hero member
Activity: 626
Merit: 500
https://satoshibet.com
March 30, 2013, 05:51:44 PM
#12
Excellent summary of provably fair.
Keep on spreading the word so that eventually players avoid sites that prefer to manipulate/cheat.

Qft! Provably fair should become the standard, not the exception. Bitcoin is an excellent gateway to achieve this.
Pages:
Jump to: