Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 147. (Read 435353 times)

You're clearly a very intelligent and well spoken person, and I do respect the concept and execution behind the site, but it would be much better to remove this potential conflict of interest altogether. I don't see the necessity to have outside 'investors' since it's one of the biggest credibility destroyers about your business. Conflicts of interest are no good. Even if you're not cheating, who's to say someone on your team isn't?

Also, not saying this is the case, but all of this publicity, public speaking, etc can be a good source of red herrings to keep people believing longer (keep the con going) as well as bring in more cash.

Also, there would be no way to steal from a quiet account, it would be noticed and its silence would be even more suspicious. Putting a face to this 'whale' is far more convincing that at the very least 'cheating' isn't going on (another credibility destroyer). You also can't steal from a bunch of small accounts because that would make the game look systemically broken (statistically, versus a loss based on variance).

Again, I have no proof here, but the red flags should be a deal breaker for intelligent people. That you're able to continue operating despite this glaring security hole/conflict of interest, makes me believe that even if you are fooling people, you've earned it. If people have been warned and still do it, they're greedy and foolish, and deserve to be parted with their money.

I am a small investor and love just-dice, thanks dooglus for making it possible for small fry like me to play with you.

Now that we know Nakowa's basic system - willingness to absorb large losses while waiting for a targeted win number - it seems like investors can now design a counter strategy, for example I bailed out today for his final run of winnings.  I am not anti-Nakowa, I'm glad he plays at JD but I appreciate a lot of the discussion and analysis in this thread that has highlighted he is not superman or supremely lucky, he's got a very sensible cash management strategy and JD's low 1% edge gives him a decent chance to pull it off.

I don't think he's cheating and I don't think you should do anything drastic like change the max bet of the site.  Personally, I'd increase it, but I have not run the analysis you have.

What would help me as an investor is some kind of ability to put in a stop loss order, e.g. if my investment balance is < X then divest X % of my investment balance.  However, I imagine that would be hard to program and result in a lot of variability in your investment total which you probably don't want.  But right now I have to "lucky" enough to be on when he's on and manually monitor my balance and try and get out before I lose what are for me very hard to replace coins.

When the site had 50K btc invested you said you had too much investment, what in your mind is the ideal level of investment?

Please do not give up!  Your site is one of the best things about BTC and you are a great member of this community.

I totally agree.

Not for these exact reasons, though they are similar: the solve fact that you can be an investor, and not through a traditional share-system, rather through a bankroll, is so innovative that brings automatic success.


I'm also a bit concerned about this.
While I think it's more likely he's just been quite lucky (<2% chances, IIRC), I find a bit disconcerting that absolute confidence everything's fine and site hasn't been cracked.

Doesn't make much sense: if you find a flaw, you can exploit it and make much more.
Of course there are people that wouldn't do it, but still...

We should coin the term "investors fallacy."

The mathematical correct thing to do to push profit in your favor is to pump the house edge. Variance will flicker around a quicker growing profit line. Minimum bet can be raised to full Kelly, or kept at fractional Kelly.

Think doog has to maximize the bets, 10-20 BTC, or sg else. If he won't do that, the site will be destroyed in a week by Nakowa....

https://just-dice.com/lucky.txt

You can prove this is the code because if you run the server seed, client seed and nonce it comes out exactly the same.

Well I don't know the implementation of JD, but shouldn't it the possible to use the output of a PRNG to make a fair system?

Except a physical RNG is not provably fair for the gambler.

We recently learnt that some RNGs or their APIs are not completely safe. Unless JD is using a physical RNG thats also a possible point of failure.

These are just my thoughts. I might be falling victim to gamblers phallacy .

Thanks for the explanation molecular.

secure against what? "Attacks" against cryptographic hash functions are attacks against the complexitiy of calculating their inverse function (EDIT: or finding a collision). This is not the way these functions are used in JD.

Existence of predictable pattern in JD dice rolls does not imply sha256 is "broken", does it?

No, a predictable pattern existing in JD PRNG would not mean proof of work for Bitcoin is compromised.

POW involves "guessing" a nonce so that the sha output is smaller than x. Predicting a pattern in JD means exploiting properties of sha256 that have nothing directly to do with its "irreversibility". In JD the difference between two consecutive inputs to the function is known (nonce = nonce + 1). This could lead one to be able to predict (maybe statistically and using past data) changes between 2 consecutive outputs. Again: I'm not saying this is the case and sure as hell I'm not saying I found something like that, but I just can't rule it out for myself.

And Bitcoins proof of work too right?

SHA512 is secure, all these posts are just FUD.  No attacks have been proven against SHA512 or even SHA256.

Only tweaking 1 bit in the input to SHA would still give a completely different output - that's the point of a hashing algorithm!

I find it quite funny that there's all these posts from people saying how they think they have found 'patterns' of high high low low or whatever, then they end their post with 'but I'm not a mathematician'.

Believe me, if SHA512 or SHA256 were broken, we would know about it - firstly the entire TLS/SSL CA infrastructure would collapse..

Will

dooglus should put out a bounty to prove the RNG is flawed. allow people to benefit financially without losing their soul...

If this is the case, wouldn't the entire proof of work for Bitcoin be compromised?

Bitcoin = SHA256(SHA256)
JD = HMAC-SHA512(sever seed, client seed, nonce)

They both use the SHA family right?

just deposited ~ 2 hours ago with no problem.

I have the same suspicion and the same problem. I can't even think clearly when sha256 is involved .

Maybe a tried-and-true PRNG could be used seeded with sha256(server_seed || ":" || user_seed) or whatever) instead of that nonce-postfix-thingy that is implemented, which only changes a couple of bits (down to only one bit rougly every second time) of the sha256 input between rolls. I'm not saying this is a flawed approach (I clearly do not know this), just that it's impossible for me to be sure it's not (partly) predictable.

I'm not very firm with math-stuff, just wanted to assure Dabs he's not alone in his suspicion.

EDIT: I highly doubt a human brain would be able to detect such things, btw. Nakowa is just a lucky gambler.