Topic: Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot! - page 1280. (Read 1990087 times)

Wow that is an insane amount. Would you care to share top 3 winners of that day?

BTC won Not given away.

Wait, the number of btc that has been given out in one day alone is over 1339BTC? 

Site seems to be stuck on the loading page again.

How can you say your site is 100% fair and even provides a script for everyone to verify. After someone finds that you site is cheating by using different algorithm, you say it's lack of documentation.

During 3 days I was using PD, I found 2 unfairness.

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

This is due to a missing * 5 multiplication from the substring selection that was added later on in development to the servers but not properly updated on the frontend. There is no way we can exploit this (as backend used the correct algorithm and therefore gave the correct roll numbers), it's an inaccuracy in our check script and our provably fair system still holds. The page has been updated and fixed, the few cases of bets that failed this verification will now verify properly using that script. Most bets verified but some failed due to the "shift over 5" nature, with the missing * 5, the verify script was using characters 5-6 (index + 5) instead of characters 5-10 (index * 5 + 5) for the second and subsequent tries when looping through viable roll numbers.

TL;DR, fixed, issue was a typo in the verify script and these special bets that didn't verify before now do.

That's funny, I only get 3 listed?

Looking for a reply to the cheating post as well.

Also, on the affiliate dashboard it says I have 5 referred users but there are only 4 listed below that.  Explanation please?

can you post the proof of your findings, so that people can see it also?

What is more important than the method of fairness or any algorithm is the fact that the roll was fair and the user got the exact win odds expected to win the bet which he did indeed.

I personally feel that your point about the "difference' causing him to lose is invalid, would he have adjusted his client seed etc knowing that the system used was different? This only seems to be important after the fact given that he lost.

I'm doing my best to provide a fair experience, I'm also working on code so I can be less reliant on developers to solve these sorts of issues. At the end of the day though his roll was fair and unmanipulated.


Also coinfist is a shill for another casino: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/coinfist-365873  (Notice all his posts are him screaming that PD is a scam in all caps) I'm not refunding him 0.01 which he lost placing a 100% fair bet. He literally created his forum account to simply type anti PD posts. Instead of proving that the verification section text  was incorrect you should instead try and prove that he did not get a 100% fair bet.


Also with regards to the 37,500 bet situation, I've already compensated the guy who should have won the 9900x payout 1 coin and will see if it is possible to run some sort of query for anyone who made this bet. In this situation the site was documented 100% correctly, just the house edge was advertised as 1% not 1.01% on old PD incorrectly.


Primedice is 100% fair but our verification page text has mistakes on it and is inaccurate end of discussion. We will edit this page today (hopefully without error this time)