There's a problem with your provably fair method (you copied the bustabit scheme, without doing the "seeding event" to prove that the hash chain itself is fair). In other words: you are proving the games are predetermined, but you're not proving they're from a fair distribution. Does this qualify for the 100 ETH bounty?
Dear friend,
Thanks for your attention on BC.Game, and it's our great honor to answer your question.
Not just a replica, in 2017 when we have started to engaging in the blockchain market, BC.Game accidentally discovered Bustabit, similar to our originally-created H5 game in 2015 —train crash, followed by a purchase authorization from Bustabit to hash.game with our strong determination on developing games in crypto world.
About the hash fairness, on the base of long-term argumentation and some discussion with Bustabit team, we run numerous statistical tests on random hash seeds reaching a conclusion that the probability is same with impossible manipulation.
Here is the data:
Fair check
https://bcsnproject.github.io/HashCheck/
800k given data is available on our website:
60% probability of result higher than 2x (theoretically 49.505%), in favor of the player betting higher than 2x.
19.9% probability of result higher than 5x (theoretically 19.8%), in favor of the player betting higher than 5x.
9.97% probability of result higher than 10x (theoretically 9.903%), in favor of the player betting higher than 10x.
1.02% probability of result higher than 100x (theoretically 0.99%), in favor of the player betting higher than 100x.
Meanwhile, we can see that the real probability is higher than the theoretical one. But can we draw a conclusion that higher betting has more advantages? Would that make any difference if these data were distributed to each day.
I don’t think we have any conclusion from the above analysis due to different betting ways from each player. Here are some strategies for sure but we can’t say which one is the best.
Now let’s discuss this from a continuity perspective. (1*2 bet)
The number of 6 consecutive occurrences of result which doubles the previous one is 13485 (higher than theoretical one 13261), not in favor for those who stopped their betting at the sixth time.
The number of 7 consecutive occurrences of result which doubles the previous one is 6626(lower than theoretical one 6696), in favor for those who continue their betting at the seventh time.
The number of 8 consecutive occurrences of result which doubles the previous one is 3272(lower than theoretical one 3381), in favor for those who continue their betting at the eighth time.
So, does this help us reach a conclusion? While some strategies are good, some are not. We don’t believe that there is any best seed choice to affect the result. Maybe you want to say that increasing the probability of the result lower than 2x on purpose by the website is to earn more. But this is not guaranteed in some strategies. Even with huge amount of data analysis, you will find that the result lower that 2x is not in high percentage, even less than 0.5%. Greater data provides a result closer to the theoretical. In addition, 10-million data need 10 years to run out. There is no assurance at all when the data distributed each day, week, month and year.
To sum up, no matter which hash seed you are using, it’s a fair game on the grounds that we never know what strategy the player will choose. We prefer to invite more players to come with the better combination way of betting. That’s our goal and advantage.
We also welcome more specific analysis with data and algorithm worth 100ETH. You can run any test on GitHub. But opinion in one sentence is not enough.
https://github.com/BCSNProject/CheckCondition
The only advantage of seed choice is easier understanding for beginners; there is no effect on the fairness of the game. We are trying to use EOS+BTC seeds choices recently for players to make the seeds of this game more decentralized.
probably someone "snatched" it before I did.
