Topic: ChainProfit.com - 27+ BTC Paid | 140% Return | Running over four months now - page 28. (Read 28740 times)

Ponzi schemes for definition can't be fair... At the very most you may think to create some pyramidal or multilevel scheme which isn't a complete scam.

Ponzi schemes by definition end up in the moment the author of the scheme decides to run away with the money that was collected. What would you like to have provably fair? The probability that the scammer runs away after, say two days? Please clarify what you really mean.
Minimizing the risks? Well, I bet none of the Ponzi authors would agree for an honest and renowned escrow (with positive trust) for some fixed amount of time.

If its not the rolls with be different.


If they dont they will be considered untrustworthy.


Its not important to understand the details as long as you can verify the rolls with someone neutral or someone you trust.


Thats your opinion. I am not convinced, but lets assume for a second this is true. How does it help you? You are trying over and over again to argue that something different (state, dice sites) is not trustworthy which does nothing to support your cause.


Because the odds are known and the rolls can be verified. Of course the casino is profitable long term otherwise no one would run one.


One is fair the other is arbitrary thats the difference.


The same risk as everywhere exchanges, online gambling, even the trustworthy escrowers here. If the operator for some unknown reason decides to stop beeing honest there is nothing you can do about it. But at least it is immediatly known. A ponzi can be dishonest, but it can not be detected.


Thanks for confirming my hunch. You dont actually do not understand how this works, do you? If the operator of a dice site wants to cheat themselves out of their own money, I am perfectly fine with it. If the operator of a dice site uses the knowledge of the server seed to win at their own site, they win their own money.


This is common knowledge, you brought this up to try and defend the ponzis while it is not even defending the ponzi. You try to attack provably fair - well known and established concept you apparently do not understand - in order to gain nothing.


tl;dr:
#1 A ponzi can only be fair if the operator does not play. This can not be proven. Great minds have tried for centuries. Go ahead and try it. I will applaud your success should you succeed.

#2 Whether or not dice sites and provably fair gambling can be cheated is not part of the discussion as it has nothing to do with ponzis

#3 Every time you give bitcoins to someone else, like the operator of any (!) site in order to do anything you are at risk of getting scammed. This is not an argument for ponzis. This is a general risk of the Internet.

Agreed, but a dice site could be designed so that the operator can always place winning bets and he is the only one that can do that.    That could even be done with the standard provable code provided you don't share all the code of the system.   How is that any different than the Ponzi game problem?  

It gets back to one thing.   You have to have trust in the operator.   If the operator is dishonest, it doesn't matter what the game is.   I'm baffled by how naïve people are.    

EDIT:  I have no idea why the operator would want to do that, unless is was a backdoor to scam the site. 

Ponzi make a provably fair,
I think that is not ponzi,
but gambling 

This ^^^^.
Until you can solve that conundrum, there is no way that any ponzi game can be considered legit or fair.

Ponzi schemes are everywhere, mostly used by governments.   Most people are just seem blind to them.

Besides Ponzi schemes, there are pyramid schemes of a vast variety.   They are a primary reason I really dislike affiliate programs.  

There are addiction schemes with drugs (even tobacco).

Then there is just plain old gambling which is a 100% sure way of losing all your wealth.  

How are any of these things better?

EDIT: Sorry ... I just realized I was off topic. 

This is exactly what I disagree with.   You call losing your deposit a scam.   Well if you gamble enough with a legit gambling site, you will also lose your stake.   In both cases you lose everything, yet one is ok and the other isn't.   In both cases you also have a risk of being scammed by an operator, but one is okay and the other isn't?   

Sure assuming that is the code that is used for a given game.  The owner of the game really can do what the want.   They don't even have to provide source.   In any case I bet a great many people are clueless what sha1 is.  That is only one avenue of attack.   The point proof only prove what it was set up for.   If you aren't attacking dice rolls there are many other cheats that can be built in.   Or you don't even have to cheat, you just have to know what will happen from a given computer.  

My point is simple, I don't think a dice game is anymore trustworthy than a Ponzi game.   They all have the same basic problem, that is they have to be trustworthy in the first place.

With a dice game you have the site gaining off of a small edge.   Probably most of these sites are legit.   However if you play it, you will only lose value over time.   The house edge will slowly but surely take everything away from you.   I don't see why that is held up as a shinning example of something fair.  

Whenever you want to build provably game but as long as ponzi scheme exist, you will never build a provably fair ponzi.

As we know Ponzi scheme will scam people in the end.
Better gambling it rather invest into ponzi

we cant create a fair ponzi game
because fair and ponzi is diffirent world
it cant be in same sentences...

Knowing the next number would give an advantage to the player not the operator. I dont see how this works, besides against the investors, which is a completly different topic and we are allready way off the OP (are ponzis fair).


Truly random is not the goal, as doog once said:




The source is mostly very simple, e.g.:


I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand.


I have yet to see an argument why this would be so.



I dont know, they got provably fair wrong and wrote "probable fair” instead. Ill take a deeper look when I have more time.

I think they didn't really understand what "Ponzi" is, so they just think they would always get interest by "investing". I hope they learned their lesson

I think OP refers a dedicated ponzi game like ponzidoge (was) but not a real ponzi scheme. In such a game players get into a queue and get paid from the next player's money until the round ends, so it shows some ponzi characteristics but still not a real ponzi. Certainly late comers are going to lose money but as the timer is there they know what level of risk they are taking.

I have seen people mentioning missed payouts on other threads, and the ponzi operator saying that some system error and will be fixed. Can't those people see, that operators are trying to skip payments and are keeping them to themselves, by getting people to believe in their BS ?

Not really ... let's just say it is possible to write a random number generator that gives clues to the next roll.  The clues could be coupled to the server seed and another function.   If you know what the next roll is like, you have a lot of options for cheating.   However that is just one approach, there are others and I'm sure many that I've never thought of.

I'm not going to give you any details on how to make a random number generator that cheats.  I'll just say it is extremely difficult to make a random number generator that is truly random.  Additionally if you can run it and get the same sequence with the same seed, it isn't really random.  Anyway attacking the roll is a harder nut and there is a lot of low hanging fruit that I suspect most people would go with.  Even highly skilled programmers often aren't that strong in math.  

If you have the source and you can really understand the source then the hash keys might mean something.   Believe me, that is a tall order.   I wrote my own sha256 routine using AVX instructions along with parallel paths in the processor and understanding the simple hash math well enough to do that isn't something that can be done in a few hours.   There is a great deal of open source code that has had major bugs found only have years of a great many people going through the code.   If you don't believe me, read some pull requests in git repositories for your favorite Linux.    

The point is that these proofs are only valid if the site is honest in the first place.    

This is interesting. Do they have their own thread on BCT?

But for OP, I think having everything on the blockchain seems to make things fair except for a few cases where the script doesn't work right. The escrow idea sounds good too.

Ponzi isn't provably fair at all
It's just stealing someone else money

Gambling site still much more better than ponzi

Each "investor" in a Ponzi scheme has smaller chance of return than the previous one.
Everybody who knows what a Ponzi scheme is and plays, actually hopes that he will not be the scammed one, he hopes he will scam the next "investor".


Unlike a dice game, where you know (if the owner is fair) that you will surely be paid if you win, in a Ponzi, even if the owner is fair and doesn't run with the money, at some point the game will stop and the last ones "playing" or "investing" will lose.
At that point the owner of the game will publicly called a scammer anyway. And because that, most will actually wait for the best moment and just run with the money. Because scammer with money is better than "fair" scammer, you know.

I hope it make sense now.

if its a ponzi u cant do escrow ... wtf is wrong with u people ?
no wonder these thieves are are taking your money ... duh ...