Hi Doog,
Why don't you just use as a salt for each roll a random # generated by http://www.random.org/ or another true random generator site (this one uses atmospheric noise I believe)? Wouldn't that close any loophole for the operator or someone who has compromised the site and can see the server seeds to cheat?
Topic: Just-Dice.com : Invest in 1% House Edge Dice Game - page 225. (Read 435362 times)
Frankly, you just have to trust some anonymous guy who goes by the name of Dooglas from bitcointalk.org. All his actions thus far have been honorable, though it could just be part of the long con and he just made off with 2.7k and can continue doing so. Investing in anonymous businesses is risky business. No financial advisor would ever recommend it.
This. Someone won 2700 coins this morning. And there's no way I can prove it wasn't me.
I woke up at 9am and had to go out straight away. I had been up until 4am the night before with the site. I said to Deb that I should check the site before going out. She said "it was fine 5 hours ago, leave it". But I logged in anyway, and saw a whole series of 200 BTC bets going through. Needless to say I was late for my appointment, having had to stay back and go into the cold wallet to cash out the big winner.
I knew that at some point the house would do badly, and was expecting much worse fallout than I've seen so far. Very few investors have pulled out as a result of the loss, which surprises me to be honest.
Thanks for your ongoing support. Let's hope the next whale doesn't do quite as well!
It's possible, the bet result just has to come from other source, for example, tomorrow mtgox btc price, score of next football match, next merkel root, etc.
That's OK, but the site processes 20 bets per second. If each bet had to wait for the next football match to finish, we would have a pretty slow site.
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
I have over 500 BTC of TF's on hold. I only accept deposits up to that 500 BTC threshold. If inputs.io disappears with JD funds, we take the funds from TF's balance. He's agreed to this to limit JD's CP risk.
* it was over 500 BTC before this morning's losses. It's probably still over 500 BTC now.
Thanks - that's all I needed to know. I knew you had funds of his on deposit - just didn't know if you blocked inputs.io deposits that would take exposure above that.
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
No, it is entirely exploitable by me. At any time I can look to see what my next roll is and bet accordingly.
This is why it took me a year between coming up with the idea for JD and implementing it. I just couldn't imagine anyone investing when I can just win all their coins.
Eventually, having failed to come up with any even slightly promising workaround for the problem, I decided to just make the site anyway and see what happened. It seems people trust me enough that they believe I won't cheat them. I've pointed out this hole in this thread before, I believe. It's the same issue as at SatoshiDice, where presumably Erik knows the daily secrets and can win at will.
I guess it's just something you have to bear in mind when deciding whether to invest / stay invested. I could slowly drain your investment by winning against the site. I could run off with all the invested coins at once. I won't do either, but I would say that, wouldn't I!
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
I have over 500 BTC of TF's on hold. I only accept deposits up to that 500 BTC threshold. If inputs.io disappears with JD funds, we take the funds from TF's balance. He's agreed to this to limit JD's CP risk.
* it was over 500 BTC before this morning's losses. It's probably still over 500 BTC now.
Another question, open for anyone informed to answer:
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
A possible solution to this is the change the way bets are calculated. Right now it is a hash of (Server seed + Client Seed + nonce)
Maybe 10 investors are asked for a number from 0 to 9 and that's 10 more numbers that are added to the hash calculation.
A "highest wins" or whatever would be very useful after this latest streak. Just throw on a "hey, you never know."
Question for dooglus about CP exposure.
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
i.e. if someone deposited 50k via inputs.io then TF vanished would those of us who didn't use inputs.io bear any risk? Or do you have something in place that withdraws payments made via inputs.io before they're allowed to be used on the site? Or maybe some block that prevents larger deposits from there than he has on deposit with J-D (though then it would be messy if the house lost).
I don't ask this because I distrust TF - I have 200 BTC on deposit with him and another 100 BTC going there later. But at same time I have to be careful in controlling my CP risk - and if investment at J-D has CP risk with TF then I have to add it to Coinlenders deposits when evaluating my total exposure to him. That's especially the case when it's investors' funds I'm deploying not my own.
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
i.e. if someone deposited 50k via inputs.io then TF vanished would those of us who didn't use inputs.io bear any risk? Or do you have something in place that withdraws payments made via inputs.io before they're allowed to be used on the site? Or maybe some block that prevents larger deposits from there than he has on deposit with J-D (though then it would be messy if the house lost).
I don't ask this because I distrust TF - I have 200 BTC on deposit with him and another 100 BTC going there later. But at same time I have to be careful in controlling my CP risk - and if investment at J-D has CP risk with TF then I have to add it to Coinlenders deposits when evaluating my total exposure to him. That's especially the case when it's investors' funds I'm deploying not my own.
Answered previously
In case anyone's worried about the counter-party risk that Just-Dice is taking on in trusting inputs.io deposits to be valid, we've frozen the balance in TF's account (the 580 BTC or whatever he had after his crazy bets of a few days ago) as collateral. That allows us to eliminate the counter-party risk entirely. With the only caveat being that his frozen coins are invested on the site, and so could be lost if we're particularly unlucky.
Although I suppose this does not fully answer the question.
Someone could cleat the full 26k site bankroll with about 3Mil by just always betting at 98% until the site is bankrupt.
I wish someone would try...
Were you around for while we were testing the site with testnet coins? I gave lots of players millions of coins to test this out. None of them succeeded in making a significant dent in the bankroll, and the bankroll increased many times over. Each time you win a 98% max bet, you win 1% of the bankroll. Each time you lose one, (about 1 in 50) you double the bankroll.
See where that leads in the long term?
On the other hand, investors seem surprised to have lost a significant (6%?) part of their investment. This surprise may be because somewhere it was stated that investors risk max 1% of their bankroll. This may be deceptive as the risk is max 1% for each bet! In fact, it is not unlikely to lose 10-20% of your investment when a big player plays for a long time and is lucky.
Is the site unclear on this point anywhere?
It says:
"On each bet, each player can profit by up to 1% of the house's bankroll."
(emphasis mine). Is there anywhere that this needs clarifying. I don't mean to suggest that the 1% risk is all you'll ever risk. It is "per roll".
I think the answer is that dooglas can easily cheat - he knows the server side secret and obviously can set the client side seed to make any results he wants to appear and cheat investors. He could make a fake ID, beat the house, call it variance and make off with our money while keeping his reputation intact and having plausible deniability (which he would lose if he simply stole the money and ran). He could keep such a scam going for a very long time and you could never prove otherwise. Just a couple lucky whales and variance leading to investor loses outpacing gains.
Frankly, you just have to trust some anonymous guy who goes by the name of Dooglas from bitcointalk.org. All his actions thus far have been honorable, though it could just be part of the long con and he just made off with 2.7k and can continue doing so. Investing in anonymous businesses is risky business. No financial advisor would ever recommend it.
However, I personally am going with my guy and think Dooglas is an honest guy despite the myriad of risks. I remain invested - i have not divested a single BTC and just added some more today actually.
Still, buyer beware - bitcoin world is a scary place full of scammers and boogie men.
Frankly, you just have to trust some anonymous guy who goes by the name of Dooglas from bitcointalk.org. All his actions thus far have been honorable, though it could just be part of the long con and he just made off with 2.7k and can continue doing so. Investing in anonymous businesses is risky business. No financial advisor would ever recommend it.
However, I personally am going with my guy and think Dooglas is an honest guy despite the myriad of risks. I remain invested - i have not divested a single BTC and just added some more today actually.
Still, buyer beware - bitcoin world is a scary place full of scammers and boogie men.
Another question, open for anyone informed to answer:
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
It's possible, the bet result just has to come from other source, for example, tomorrow mtgox btc price, score of next football match, next merkel root, etc.
Another question, open for anyone informed to answer:
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
And how can you be sure that he won't take the 26k btc, change his name, his face and went to Canaries Island?
You can't.
If you don't trust him, don't invest.
Even if you trust him, don't invest more than you can aford to lose.
Another question, open for anyone informed to answer:
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
I understand perfectly well how the game is provably fair for the player. But is it provably fair for the investor, and if so, how?
How can it be proven that the honorable dooglus, who has access to the server-side secrets, can not simply make bets and win every time, thereby robbing investors?
I'm not suggesting dooglus would ever do such a thing - I just wanted to know if there is any way to *prove* that he is not? (Or perhaps I have misunderstood the concept and it may not even be possible?)
Question for dooglus about CP exposure.
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
i.e. if someone deposited 50k via inputs.io then TF vanished would those of us who didn't use inputs.io bear any risk? Or do you have something in place that withdraws payments made via inputs.io before they're allowed to be used on the site? Or maybe some block that prevents larger deposits from there than he has on deposit with J-D (though then it would be messy if the house lost).
I don't ask this because I distrust TF - I have 200 BTC on deposit with him and another 100 BTC going there later. But at same time I have to be careful in controlling my CP risk - and if investment at J-D has CP risk with TF then I have to add it to Coinlenders deposits when evaluating my total exposure to him. That's especially the case when it's investors' funds I'm deploying not my own.
I notice people can deposit with inputs.io. Are those of us who don't use online wallets taking on any exposure from that?
i.e. if someone deposited 50k via inputs.io then TF vanished would those of us who didn't use inputs.io bear any risk? Or do you have something in place that withdraws payments made via inputs.io before they're allowed to be used on the site? Or maybe some block that prevents larger deposits from there than he has on deposit with J-D (though then it would be messy if the house lost).
I don't ask this because I distrust TF - I have 200 BTC on deposit with him and another 100 BTC going there later. But at same time I have to be careful in controlling my CP risk - and if investment at J-D has CP risk with TF then I have to add it to Coinlenders deposits when evaluating my total exposure to him. That's especially the case when it's investors' funds I'm deploying not my own.
Code:
23:11:28 (14)dudes, if you don't want whales betting as much as possible, you are truly stupid
Words to live by
Maybe we should increase the house edge to 2%? Or maybe we can have a high rollers table - with a higher house edge for larger bets?
Or maybe just advertise widely that someone just won $1 million on the site, and that it was paid out by dooglus with no fuss whatsoever. That will probably bring in a lot of new players, which will win the house more in the long run!
I do not believe he won USD $1,000,000. It was more like USD $250,000. The reason the withdraw was so large is because he came in with a large bankroll... he needed it to wait out the variance, and keep betting, till he got to where he was.
In that case, I apologise for my misinterpretation. But I stick to the conclusion: great advertising opportunity!
Maybe we should increase the house edge to 2%? Or maybe we can have a high rollers table - with a higher house edge for larger bets?
Or maybe just advertise widely that someone just won $1 million on the site, and that it was paid out by dooglus with no fuss whatsoever. That will probably bring in a lot of new players, which will win the house more in the long run!
I do not believe he won USD $1,000,000. It was more like USD $250,000. The reason the withdraw was so large is because he came in with a large bankroll... he needed it to wait out the variance, and keep betting, till he got to where he was.
It isn't a statistical anomaly. He has a huge bankroll and thinks that the range from min bet to max bet is too high and allows players to successfully martingale if they have a big enough bankroll.
What do you think about that? Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.
What do you think about that? Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.
What is the min and max or the range he suggested ?
Jump to: