Topic: bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game - page 2. (Read 293500 times)
Ryan, do you plan to make something with transaction fee, e.g. "multiple output for more players", as you mentioned sometime ago ? At least now, could you please lowering the fee into some more reasonable level? E.g. 600-700 bits ? I think 900 bits is "more than enough" now (and anyway, my last withdrawal went out with 511 bits fee in fact, so the 600-700 level would be enough, I believe). Thanks!
I'm very exited to announce my crowd sourced, licensed by bustabit, litecoin casino: https://www.bustacoin.com
It is worth noting, that "licensed by bustabit" is not an endorsement, just a copy of source code was given. I strongly discourage people from investing because of any association with bustabit.
I'm very exited to announce my crowd sourced, licensed by bustabit, litecoin casino: https://www.bustacoin.com
Hello, I like the bustabit.. It's a nice game.. is the owner the same with bustadice?
Ryan (Rhavar), bustabit owner, is a partial owner of Bustadice as he himself stated here :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22399067
Also the main part of users' funds is held in 2-of-3 cold storage with keys split between Daniel of bustabit, Ryan and a neutral third party.
Hello, I like the bustabit.. It's a nice game.. is the owner the same with bustadice?
No, bustabit does not have the same onwner as bustadice. RHavar is the owner of bustabit, and devans is the owner of bustadice.
RHavar is helping devasns with his site however, so they are somewhat linked.
Hello, I like the bustabit.. It's a nice game.. is the owner the same with bustadice?
I haven't used this in almost a year now. Is the creator still working on Bustabit 2?
Fun Fact:
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009. In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009. In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.
Oh interesting, I didn't know that bit of history. They probably got a good deal on the domain. I wonder if the name "United Bitcoin" came after the domain (as it seems rather strange to use the word "united" when you're forking)
Most of the major US-facing poker site domain names were seized by the US government on Black Friday. Some sites, like Stars, decided to play nice, withdraw from the states, pay a shitload of money, and take on other debt in order to curry favor (and it worked, since Stars is now allowed to operate in New Jersey). Other sites, like UB (and their sister site AP) decided to bounce and steal everyone's money. I'd imagine the domains were sold or released and got snapped up by enterprising resellers who sold the domain to these guys, who created a name that fit the domain.
I've spent some more time reading into "UB" and unfortunately will not be able to support it. According to the "whitepaper" it said:
So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days. However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:
Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).
However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive. (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).
So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/
Quote
All active Bitcoin addresses will receive corresponding balances on UnitedBitcoin’s chain. Balances of inactive addresses will be collected and used to serve the community.
So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days. However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:
Quote
The output address (receiving address) must also be listed as one of the input addresses and cannot be a totally new address
Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).
However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive. (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).
So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/
Just let your gamblers withdraw their Bitcoins and claim their UB at their own wallets.
Besides, I don't feel like they're missing anything if they don't claim them anyways, as it's another pointless fork. It's insane that BCH reached such a height. BTG is a weird one too and I'm kinda sure something like United Bitcoin won't be able to get further than maybe a couple percents of the current Bitcoin price.
-=-=-
You seem like a pretty reasonable
I've spent some more time reading into "UB" and unfortunately will not be able to support it. According to the "whitepaper" it said:
So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days. However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:
Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).
However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive. (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).
So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/
Quote
All active Bitcoin addresses will receive corresponding balances on UnitedBitcoin’s chain. Balances of inactive addresses will be collected and used to serve the community.
So I made sure to shuffle around the wallet so that all unspent were active in the last 30 days. However, reading the fine print (which isn't in the white paper) it says:
Quote
The output address (receiving address) must also be listed as one of the input addresses and cannot be a totally new address
Which is total bullshit, and not something I realized before the fork. A normal bitcoin transaction uses a new address each time (for privacy point of views) and they created a totally arbitrary rule that says it can't be a totally new address (probably to intentionally limit the distribution).
However, there is a "phase 2" way of getting the UB. However the "phase 2" way requires doing a "send bitcoin to the same address" transaction and manually submitting the txid. However, this isn't possible to really do on my production wallet and is cost prohibitive. (An at-peak consolidation right now would cost me an estimated 19534.55 USD in fees, for something that I have no assurances will even have any value).
So unfortunately, there's really no way I am able to offer support for this :/
Fun Fact:
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009. In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009. In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.
Oh interesting, I didn't know that bit of history. They probably got a good deal on the domain. I wonder if the name "United Bitcoin" came after the domain (as it seems rather strange to use the word "united" when you're forking)
I was just now made aware of another bitcoin fork (yay!) called "United Bitcoin", at the sexy domain: https://www.ub.com/
I will be taking a snapshot of all users balances at fork time, and claiming for users so I can distribute to users (conditional upon there being trezor support for it)
Fun Fact:I will be taking a snapshot of all users balances at fork time, and claiming for users so I can distribute to users (conditional upon there being trezor support for it)
Domain (ub.com) used to belong to ultimatebet - Home of the biggest online poker cheating scandal ever (owners could see players cards, stole tens of millions) in 2009. In 2011 they got shut down and ended up just stealing the rest of the money.
I will be taking a snapshot of all users balances at fork time, and claiming for users so I can distribute to users (conditional upon there being trezor support for it)
Edit: This will not be possible
I think that bustabit is always the same game, it doesn't change! maybe you can add some other games
İ hope too longride in coinworld
Are there any cool features just like a rebate for the loss that you had and bonuses? I might be interested in this game again. I will keep an eye for this update, I hope that you will bring something cool on the site. All the best
I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it. One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )
A small rake is foreseen anyway not significant. Maybe Ryan is going to offer this PvP game like an addon to the main game ( traditional one).
If it was at me I wouldn't change a single aspect of the actual bustabit and still don't understand why it is going to be changed: I could be wrong but I guess it is the most successful game in bitcoin gambling industry just the way it is now.
That's my perspective as well, as the old saying goes "it if ain't broke don't fix it"
I think it's the fairest approach to try separate these groups of players, I'm just trying to find the smoothest way to do it. One thing I'm experimenting now with is a special PvP variant of bustabit with high bonuses, starting from 0.9x and being 0% house edge. And to limit the unbounded risk of offering a 0% house edge game, if the net profit is < 0, there will be a small rake. (e.g. if the game loses 20 BTC, there will be a 0.1% rake, or 100 BTC and a 1% rake etc. )
A small rake is foreseen anyway not significant. Maybe Ryan is going to offer this PvP game like an addon to the main game ( traditional one).
If it was at me I wouldn't change a single aspect of the actual bustabit and still don't understand why it is going to be changed: I could be wrong but I guess it is the most successful game in bitcoin gambling industry just the way it is now.
How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake?
The 0% rake would be exclusive to the pvp version. The primary game (playing against the house) would still have a normal house edge
I think he's asking why you would segment the population and have some players playing a game that earned you nothing.
How would you make money and thus be able to continue supporting the game if there is 0% rake?
The 0% rake would be exclusive to the pvp version. The primary game (playing against the house) would still have a normal house edge
Jump to: