How is it misleading if it says right there in that Google snippet: "Assuming you trust the two [bustadice and auditor] not to collude".
Do you understand what provably fair means? It means you do not have to trust individuals & you can self verify cheats. It isn't "provable" if it relies on individuals. It's probably-fair (maybe).
Here are several quotes from RHavar:
So personally I am reasonably convinced the game seeding was done fairly, but I'm not sure it's done well enough to say it's provably fair (maybe "probably fair" is more appropriate?)
That system is known as "provably fair" and contains absolutely everything you need to prove the game is fair. While i do admit it requires quite a bit of technical knowledge, it has the advantage that anyone can verify the game for everyone. So if you can find someone who understands how the maths primitives work, it should be easy to verify =)
You're kind of mixing up terminology here, but you're also on the wrong track. Provably fair means you can prove the game was fair. End of story. If you can't do that, then it's not provably fair.
In the sense that a normal bitcoin casino offers "provably fair" which means "it can cheat you, but you can detect if they do"
So my strong advice for players would be to use a system they can verify themselves (i.e. provably fair)
Here is a quote from the Bustadice thread from Ryan tonight:
which states the caveat pretty explicitly. Although I actually agree with you in that provably-fair is the wrong term for it. I'd probably write the copy as "Assuming you trust the two not to collude, investors are given additional protections against cheating" or something of that sort
