Topic: Just-Dice is not provably fair to gamblers - page 2. (Read 4169 times)

in the matter a fact i wrote about your site on my site...
http://bitcoinadvice.bugs3.com/btc-and-doge-betting/
and i didnt ask nothing for advertising 
p.s.
I count on your good heart
hehehehe

dooglus do not be mad... probability that i wrote is to hight, and your "1 in 100,000 chance" its way to low from the right number....

how you see my "" after my sentence.. it means that I do not blame your site because of my lost... i just blame the fact that I'm addicted to gambling... hehehe...

In one word: i love just-dice...  ...hmmm this is not one word...

No, by default the game is provably fair.  Provable is an adjective, it means that something is capable of being proven.  Just-dice can be proven to be fair.  As Doog explained, the user just has to take certain steps to do that.  And, as far as I know, of those who did take those steps, just-dice has been proven fair 100% of the time.  

Every user has the ability to prove that the game that they just played is fair.  It sounds like you just want the site to make it easier for users to prove that the game is fair.  Doog's position appears to be that the benefits of that, if any, are outweighed by the negative impact those changes would have on user experience.  If anyone disagrees, I'm sure there are other dice sites that make it easier to prove fairness, and if not, create one!  Maybe you're right, Doog is wrong, and users do prefer the steps to prove fairness to be easier, even if it requires changes that may be a detriment to the user experience.  Maybe there's some room for innovation there, and it can be done with little to no cost to the user experience.  

The point is, the game is fair, and with some effort that can be proven by anyone playing it if they follow Doog's instructions.  Just-dice is provably fair to gamblers.

The potential for anyone in Doog's position to do something dishonest (walk away with investor money, cheat his own site, switch the game with a different game that is unfair) has nothing to do with the fairness of the game.  That potential exists whenever someone must place their trust in someone else.  You can never prove that there is a 100% chance of honesty.  But you can make a rational, informed judgment, and all things considered this seems to be a pretty safe one considering the various incentives, at least in this context (I know little about and can't comment on whether the site is safe from hackers, for example, though it is a pretty big target and as far as I know other than a manual payout mistake early on, not much of any has been lost).

DOOG come on my threads and support me now!!!!!!!   

I think there's a problem with your calculation there.

You lose a 91% bet with more than 1 in 10 chance.
So you lose 5 in a row with more than 1 in 100,000 chance.

"in 2 hours" doesn't tell us much when we don't know how fast you're playing.

If you tell me your account number I can give some real statistics and we can see how unlucky you really were.

Well you never can win a house...  1 from 10000 will "win" something.... i try play for few satoshi and i can say nothing... but 5 miss strike on 91%... well probability for that is 1:95848388234728472882426378462387432.... and i have 3 5xstrikes in 2 hours...

Oh thats not nice Doogie!!!!!



But Yeah This site is legitimate the algorithm is changed every day.

Yeah, it probably doesn't need saying, but Kyle doesn't represent me in any capacity.

Please feel free to leave your head wherever it is.

As dooglus's attorney and advisor I ask you remove your head from your ass, Quick crying over things that aren't broken.. and fuck your hat.

Any further harassment towards my client and I will fuck you with the long dick of the law.

Have a good day,

KLYE

You need to get your facts straight.  The 'Fair?' tab was updated *before* the algorithm changed.  Otherwise that's not "plenty of warning", is it...  It was updated in September.  October, November and December all happened after September, and so the new algorithm was described on the 'Fair?' tab in those months too.


Both algorithms have caused the profit chart to very closely follow expectation, except for a couple of occasions when nakowa played.


The old algorithm is no longer available.  Both algorithms effectively give you random rolls.

You trust to easily then, just cause others do.  You will jump off the bridge just cause they do.

Trust and judgement belongs to me and no one else.

Yes now, but not before. Not in October, November or December. The algorithm was changed without prior announcement, only a mention in a thread at the end of September.
The above algorithm was much less profitable than the current algorithm for you, Just compare the profits. I agree to play with the above algorithm, not the current and initially only asked that, something reasonable following your logic. I promised that would take this to court and I will. I have not forgotten.

By default its not provably fair, perhaps should put this on your site:
Its not much to ask, but he is refusing to do it for some reason.

The second change I asked for is condition checking in the code that lets the server change the seeds (he can do any time during your betting), something simple like "if user has randomize window open then allow seed changes otherwise refuse" would work.

No.  You can 'randomize' (and so set your client seed) any time you have made 0 rolls with your current seed pair, or more than 9.  What you can't do is randomize after every few (1 to 9) bets.  But you can randomize as many times as you like if you've not bet at all.

My first design of the site forced new players to type a client seed before they could start playing, but it was pretty much universally disliked by the testers.  It turns out most people don't want to be bothered to think about the details and would rather get to the game itself as soon as possible, so I removed that feature before launching the site to the public.

doesn't step 2 require at least 100 rolls?
if i understand you right doesnt that mean that you can cheat the first 100 rolls of every user?

btw i am not concerned. i did choose just-dice because i do trust dooglus. i would never gamble anywhere where i do not trust the operator - even if they claim to be provable fair and has lots of trust of others and i did check the code.

The old algorithm and the new algorithm both cause many losses.  When users play the 10% game they lose around 90% of the time!

If you think that the change to the algorithm somehow "made" people lose, I don't know what to tell you.

Plenty of warning was given, including on the 'Fair?' tab which describes the algorithm:

I've had an ongoing discussion with this guy in a support ticket where he basically tried to extort me.  He gave me three options: fix the "bug", pay him for his silence, or he'll post a thread about it.  Since I don't consider this a bug, and I don't ever pay extortionists, I told him to go ahead and publish his findings.  So he did.

I guess now I get to enjoy rebutting his points all over again, only in public this time.  


Nothing magical happens every 100 rolls.  Your client and server seed stay the same until you change them.  If you're referring to the 'all bets' log, then that's silly.  If you don't trust me, then why trust me that the 100 listed rolls are real?  You need to write down each roll as it happens surely.


It basically boils down to this:

Any provably fair site can cheat its users if the users don't take the steps required to verify the fairness.

At Just-Dice, those steps are:

1) make a note of the server seed hash
2) set your own (unpredicable) client seed
3) play as much as you like, making a note of your rolls
4) verify the rolled numbers

Players who care about fairness will follow those steps, and players who don't, won't.  If you follow those steps then there's no way I can cheat you.

Your thread subject, "Just-Dice is not provably fair to gamblers" isn't accurate.  More accurate would be "Just-Dice is provably fair to any gambler who cares about provable fairness and can be bothered to take the steps to verify the proof".

When did i say that i didnt expect to lose money lol?
I just said i lost some btc there, im not crying, i know perfectly the risks, but from what i understood in this thread the game MIGHT be rigged, and i would like to know what is going on since im not really tech savy.

Ahhzamundos, do you know him personally?  

Just asking cause we dont truly know anyone.


Anyway I commend the person on top, was a point I was trying to make a while ago.  now im sure your get ops to challenge you to protect there rep so they wont lose business.  

I was trying to warn others about this, that I found a developer who can manipulate dice.  Thats why I truly stopped betting cause I saw a funny pattern.   Especially with martingale.    People are not gonna listen to this, they gonna see his side but if those was exposed earlier im sure the site would have been doomed.  People trust these OPS with there life.  

Wow, you should not gamble if you don't expect to lose money.