I grabbed the videos from mega and uploaded them to youtube for easier viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=434lUDOTRpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFV_GIc_L2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v_R6G-xUvA
The 2nd one is particularly telling. Whatever number the guy doesn't bet on is exactly what comes up every time.
Topic: Unofficial Unmoderated bitwincasino.com thread - page 2. (Read 3565 times)
Why do you choose to ignore ASICSRUS's posts Rannasha? Is it because you can't dispute his claims?
The 'provably fair' concept is simply not 'provably fair', and you know it.
The 'provably fair' concept is simply not 'provably fair', and you know it.
If ASICSRUS ever made any claims and provided the reasoning behind his claims, we could easily argue against him.
But he says things like "you cheat by tracking IP addresses so expert dice players lose more" or "dice rolls depend on the amount staked" without providing any evidence. You can't argue with stupid.
His posts are effectively content-free and are best ignored.
If he is the only source you have that math (the tech behind provable fairness) cheats, then that's a pretty sad state of affairs.
All the provably fair sites publish information about how the system works. If you can find a flaw in it please do bring it out into the open. The site operators all want to offer unquestionably fair games. Keeping an average of 1% of turnover is plenty. There's really no need to cheat the players. You should try it some time.
User ASICSRUS has pointed out the 'phoniness' in your 'concept' and has even gone as far to say he can PROVE its a sham (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311404.80), yet you choose to ignore his posts and continue with your circle jerk.
People ignore his posts because he makes no sense. He's either very stupid or deliberately trolling.
If you can link to a post where he presents any evidence that provable fairness doesn't work or is a "sham" please do so. Links to posts look like this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3382186
They have "msg" in them a couple of times. To reference the message you're pointing at.
Bitwincasino will not be signing up to this 'unprovably fair' concept since its nothing more than a scam.
You can keep repeating "it's a scam" over and over, but it isn't, and you have no evidence that it is.
The reason you won't be using a system that proves you're not rigging your results is that you can't. You have already openly admitted that your software *does* rig its results. You can't use provable fairness on a casino that openly cheats.
Bitwincasino = greatest Bitcoin casino on Earth
Casinobit = best casino of 2013
I see some similarities now
Casinobit = best casino of 2013
I see some similarities now
For simplicities sake though, lets say I play a game of heads or tails and tell you the MD5 hash of the next game is:
f10584bad223aad5d9f4106c645de8d3
You then bet on heads or tails.
Then I show you the seed for that hash:
1qdrtgv6(HEADS)hf78kdpl ---(Note the random numbers at the beginning and end of the word heads. This is because simply using (heads) can be checked beforehand and the player will just bet heads. This is what is known as salting, it doesn't change the predetermintion the game will be heads, but it makes it so the player wont know what it will be.)
I pay you x1.98 if you chose heads, otherwise you lose. There is no feasible way to hack this system right now.
f10584bad223aad5d9f4106c645de8d3
You then bet on heads or tails.
Then I show you the seed for that hash:
1qdrtgv6(HEADS)hf78kdpl ---(Note the random numbers at the beginning and end of the word heads. This is because simply using (heads) can be checked beforehand and the player will just bet heads. This is what is known as salting, it doesn't change the predetermintion the game will be heads, but it makes it so the player wont know what it will be.)
I pay you x1.98 if you chose heads, otherwise you lose. There is no feasible way to hack this system right now.
The provably fair point is moot. You run a rigged casino.
I wanted to stay out of this, I posted that initial collection of videos demonstrating the issues with this casino that seems to have started this whole thing, and I was happy that they were exposed. This particular casino is decidedly unfair, and reasonable people understand that. But now they're posting FUD:
The bitzino blog post here: https://techblog.bitzino.com/2012-06-30-provably-fair-shuffling-through-cryptography.html does a good job of explaining, in layman's terms, why this statement is completely ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that Bitwincasino can not implement a provably fair system such as those standard on many bitcoin gaming site because, as those connected to the site themselves have said, their software changes the outcome of bets based on the site's bankroll.
Oldminer: You claim that the standard provable fairness concept is open to manipulation. You'll do a great service to the bitcoin gambling community if you are able to explain this claim.
Quote
ANNOUNCEMENT
Bitwincasino will not be subscribing to the 'provably fair' concept, since in its current state at least, it is open to manipulation. The initial 'hash seed' (which is crucial to the 'proof' of this system) not being revealed to the player until after the results are shown is but one of the many problems with this 'proof of fairness in play', that seems to be peddled by a few individuals.
Bitwincasino will not mislead customers into believing they have a fair chance of winning by hiding behind a concept that is flawed and open to manipulation.
thankyou
Bitwincasino will not be subscribing to the 'provably fair' concept, since in its current state at least, it is open to manipulation. The initial 'hash seed' (which is crucial to the 'proof' of this system) not being revealed to the player until after the results are shown is but one of the many problems with this 'proof of fairness in play', that seems to be peddled by a few individuals.
Bitwincasino will not mislead customers into believing they have a fair chance of winning by hiding behind a concept that is flawed and open to manipulation.
thankyou
The bitzino blog post here: https://techblog.bitzino.com/2012-06-30-provably-fair-shuffling-through-cryptography.html does a good job of explaining, in layman's terms, why this statement is completely ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that Bitwincasino can not implement a provably fair system such as those standard on many bitcoin gaming site because, as those connected to the site themselves have said, their software changes the outcome of bets based on the site's bankroll.
Oldminer: You claim that the standard provable fairness concept is open to manipulation. You'll do a great service to the bitcoin gambling community if you are able to explain this claim.
The irony is that if the websites would actually cheat, ASICSRUS would be able to prove it very easily. Thanks to provable fairness. But instead, he only yells and rants and makes baseless accusations. And you actually believe him?
Err..read his posts again in that thread again dummy..he clearly states he can prove it yet his post is ignored & glossed over.
He states he *CAN* prove it.
He doesn't post proof.
You eat a kitten for breakfast every morning! I can prove it!
The irony is that if the websites would actually cheat, ASICSRUS would be able to prove it very easily. Thanks to provable fairness. But instead, he only yells and rants and makes baseless accusations. And you actually believe him?
Err..read his posts again in that thread again dummy..he clearly states he can prove it yet his post is ignored & glossed over.
This thread fails miserably..lol
He's making random claims of websites changing the win-chance when a user switches his bet-size and that websites (primarily Just-Dice) gives users different odds based on their IP address.
What? So 'provably fair' is only 'provably fair' sometimes? You mean like if the casino operator is honest? So wait..I thought you subscribe to this concept because it gives the customer an assurance they had a chance of winning?? I doesnt really does it..
How dense are you?
ASICSRUS claims that some websites cheat. He offers no evidence. None. So why put any value in his claims?
If I claim that you eat a live kitten for breakfast every day, that doesn't suddenly make it true. Right?
The irony is that if the websites would actually cheat, ASICSRUS would be able to prove it very easily. Thanks to provable fairness. But instead, he only yells and rants and makes baseless accusations. And you actually believe him?
You've been asked in this thread to bring up FACTS to show that provable fairness is not valid. Yet you offer none. You're becoming more and more like ASICSRUS. Rambling. Best left ignored.
He's making random claims of websites changing the win-chance when a user switches his bet-size and that websites (primarily Just-Dice) gives users different odds based on their IP address.
What? So 'provably fair' is only 'provably fair' sometimes? You mean like if the casino operator is honest, then its fair? So wait..I thought you subscribe to this concept because it gives the customer an assurance they had a chance of winning?? But it doesnt really does it..
How many other operators manipulate this 'provably fair' system but hide behind it, do you know?
For the love of god, do people even go here? I feel bad for them.
And when is the initial hash seed revealed to gamblers - before or after the results are revealed?Read. My. Post.
If you don't understand it, I can use smaller words. If you ask nicely, I might even draw a picture in Paint to explain it.
For the love of god, do people even go here? I feel bad for them.
Hi mooshire, whats your response to ASICSRUS's claims that he can prove the 'provably fair' concept is flawed?
And when is the initial hash seed revealed to gamblers - before or after the results are revealed?
thx
Suit yourself, but don't pretend that you can discredit solid concepts in the Bitcoin-gambling scene with nothing more than the ramblings of ASICSRUS as "proof".
Why do you choose to ignore ASICSRUS's posts Rannasha? Is it because you can't dispute his claims?
Because he's rambling and not putting forth a coherent argument. I have no issues with disputing any well-formulated claims should he choose to make them. He's making random claims of websites changing the win-chance when a user switches his bet-size and that websites (primarily Just-Dice) gives users different odds based on their IP address.
Yet he offers no proof. He claims he can prove it, people have called him out on it. But he doesn't do it. I can't dispute a claim that says "I have proof for X" without said proof being offered.
As added irony, ASICSRUS claims the whole provable fairness concept is a scam, yet advertises a provably fair casino (PrimeDice) in his signature.
Suit yourself, but don't pretend that you can discredit solid concepts in the Bitcoin-gambling scene with nothing more than the ramblings of ASICSRUS as "proof".
Why do you choose to ignore ASICSRUS's posts Rannasha? Is it because you can't dispute his claims?
Why do you claim the provably fair process to be a "scam"?
Suit yourself, but don't pretend that you can discredit solid concepts in the Bitcoin-gambling scene with nothing more than the ramblings of ASICSRUS as "proof".
Why do you choose to ignore ASICSRUS's posts Rannasha? Is it because you can't dispute his claims?
The 'provably fair' concept is simply not 'provably fair', and you know it.
Also provably fair is fair and you know it, but choose to ignore it. Stop claiming bullshit.
For the love of god, do people even go here? I feel bad for them.
Suit yourself, but don't pretend that you can discredit solid concepts in the Bitcoin-gambling scene with nothing more than the ramblings of ASICSRUS as "proof".
Why do you choose to ignore ASICSRUS's posts Rannasha? Is it because you can't dispute his claims?
The 'provably fair' concept is simply not 'provably fair', and you know it.
Just gonna quote from the official Bitwincasino thread and reply here, since my post would otherwise be deleted.
This proves once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Again, provable fairness 101:
1. Generate server seed. Hash it. Show the user the hash.
2. Get a client seed from the user.
3. Get a nonce value that is publicly visible (bet-count is a good one).
4. Generate the roll by combining the server seed, client seed and nonce.
5. Upon the users request: Show the server seed. At this point, regenerate a new server seed (go to step 1).
The user can hash the shown server seed and verify that the hash computed is the same as what he was shown in step 1. The operator can't change the server seed, since that would result in a different hash-value.
So yes, the actual seed is only revealed after the rolls, which is only logical, because with the server seed a user could compute whether he would win the next roll or not. But the hash of the server seed gives the user enough information to ensure that the operator hasn't changed it to alter the outcome of the roll.
Unlike your casino, which alters the outcome whenever you feel the bankroll is too low. Users aren't allowed to win if someone else was lucky and won just before them. Provably unfair.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Bitwincasino will not be subscribing to the 'provably fair' concept, since in its current state at least, it is open to manipulation. The initial 'hash seed' (which is crucial to the 'proof' of this system) not being revealed to the player until after the results are shown is but one of the many problems with this 'proof of fairness in play', that seems to be peddled by a few individuals.
Bitwincasino will not mislead customers into believing they have a fair chance of winning by hiding behind a concept that is flawed and open to manipulation.
thankyou
Bitwincasino will not be subscribing to the 'provably fair' concept, since in its current state at least, it is open to manipulation. The initial 'hash seed' (which is crucial to the 'proof' of this system) not being revealed to the player until after the results are shown is but one of the many problems with this 'proof of fairness in play', that seems to be peddled by a few individuals.
Bitwincasino will not mislead customers into believing they have a fair chance of winning by hiding behind a concept that is flawed and open to manipulation.
thankyou
This proves once again that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Again, provable fairness 101:
1. Generate server seed. Hash it. Show the user the hash.
2. Get a client seed from the user.
3. Get a nonce value that is publicly visible (bet-count is a good one).
4. Generate the roll by combining the server seed, client seed and nonce.
5. Upon the users request: Show the server seed. At this point, regenerate a new server seed (go to step 1).
The user can hash the shown server seed and verify that the hash computed is the same as what he was shown in step 1. The operator can't change the server seed, since that would result in a different hash-value.
So yes, the actual seed is only revealed after the rolls, which is only logical, because with the server seed a user could compute whether he would win the next roll or not. But the hash of the server seed gives the user enough information to ensure that the operator hasn't changed it to alter the outcome of the roll.
Unlike your casino, which alters the outcome whenever you feel the bankroll is too low. Users aren't allowed to win if someone else was lucky and won just before them. Provably unfair.
Just because it's beyond your power of comprehension, doesn't make it a scam. Come with proper arguments if you want to convince anyone, since the post about provable fairness you quoted in your thread is just a question that was thoroughly answered and no proof of anything.
I comprehend it very well, which is why I know its a scam. Its those that don't understand the 'concept' that think its valid, since on the surface it does look very good. But the devil is in the detail.
Quote
User ASICSRUS has pointed out the 'phoniness' in your 'concept' and has even gone as far to say he can PROVE its a joke (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=311404.80), yet you choose to ignore his posts and continue with your circle jerk.
You're seriously going to quote ASICSRUS as a credible source? Have you read some of his posts? And then using the fact that he *claims he can prove* (note: he hasn't actually proven anything) as a basis for your argument?There's a reason that I, and many others, ignore his posts. They're nonsensical rambling mostly. And the proof he claims to be able to produce is nowhere to be seen.
Quote
Bitwincasino will not be signing up to this 'unprovably fair' concept since its nothing more than a scam.
It's also hard to combine provable fairness with your casinos "feature" to grant 100% guaranteed losing rolls when the bankroll is too low (as opposed to simply decreasing the maximum amount a player can bet, but still giving every player & bet a fair chance).Suit yourself, but don't pretend that you can discredit solid concepts in the Bitcoin-gambling scene with nothing more than the ramblings of ASICSRUS as "proof".
Jump to: