Provably Fair Can Cheat Players. Proof and code provided.

[ktinho]

31 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

  

 

 

The op has given the location of the original source. You may not be aware that moderators have banned players for posting links. So I'm not sure what more he can do.

You refer to op are you talking about the orignial post or my  response which I edited?

the original post of this thread. He has edited the article and then posted it here. what he has posted does not match with the source. Its been changed to fit a different narrative.  When you say what more can he do? do you agree that not changing the context of the article  would be one thing?

[dollartree1]

1 hour ago, ktinho said:

the original post of this thread. He has edited the article and then posted it here. what he has posted does not match with the source. Its been changed to fit a different narrative.  When you say what more can he do? do you agree that not changing the context of the article  would be one thing

Stop.   You're using logic.  These same people every single week get low IQ people to hop on their band wagon and day after day, week after week, dupeddonk shuts em down.  Its amazing to watch actually.  I think your post earlier said they kinda OCD about it?  That post really nailed it.   They twist words, post altered data, and anything else they can do to try and write this narrative. 

The truth is that usually the easiest and most logical explanation is correct answer.. and that is that stake uses the provably fair system the way it was meant to be used with its house edge built into it.   It's guaranteed to make money... a lot of money.  Why would they need to ruin their credibility and very profitable buisness model by cheating... surely someone would have had some more concrete proof by roughly a billion bets.  But nope.. just this FUD.  

[zeus69]

tbh i didnt understand much of these codes but gambling is gambling i guess dont expect to win much, just try except have fun more than wins

[maverick528]

1 hour ago, dollartree1 said:

and that is that stake uses the provably fair system the way it was meant to be used with its house edge built into it.   It's guaranteed to make money... a lot of money.  

No, the house edge has nothing to do with the provably fair system.

The house edge here is implemented in a different way in each game.

For example, in roulette there are 37 different numbers but you are paid 36x when you win.

Or if you bet red or black, you are paid 2x when you win, but your win chance is less than 50 % (18/37) because there is a 1/37 chance of losing when you hit the zero number, and that is the house edge on this case, 1/37.

 

[dupeddonk]

44 minutes ago, maverick528 said:

No, the house edge has nothing to do with the provably fair system.

The house edge here is implemented in a different way in each game.

For example, in roulette there are 37 different numbers but you are paid 36x when you win.

Or if you bet red or black, you are paid 2x when you win, but your win chance is less than 50 % (18/37) because there is a 1/37 chance of losing when you hit the zero number, and that is the house edge on this case, 1/37.

 

I don't think he's wrong.  To be provably fair, a casino must share how they determine the outcome, which includes how the house edge is calculated - which is different for each game.  

4 hours ago, Ghostnipple said:

The op has given the location of the original source. You may not be aware that moderators have banned players for posting links. So I'm not sure what more he can do.

Really, where? (The part about more detailed examples on github is not the location of the original source and also plagiarized.)  

[ktinho]

1 hour ago, Ghostnipple said:

To presume stake are using that specific shufflepuff method is an unfair assumption to make but that is not what the op is saying.

As far as I can see the op didnt mention stake, nor has he accused any casino directly of implementing this method. He is simply stating that its possible for a casino to cheat even if they implement the provably fair method. That is a fair assumption to make.

Online Casinos have the expertise, the motive and the opportunity to engage in foul play. Whether they go down that path is up to the individuals managing the casino.  I don't have a deep understanding of the cryptography used by a casino, so I look to a casino's behaviour elsewhere to inform me of their general approach/attitude to the player.

If on the customer facing side a casino is openly dishonest, disrespectful or treats players unfairly in one aspect of their operations, its fair to assume they do the same in other unseen parts of their operation.

Which is why my posts often go off on tangents, but I acknowledge not everyone understands how, for example, a description of a tshirt for sale in an online shop relates to the implementation of the provably fair system.

what about the fact  the thread is placed in 'stake  casino discussion'? The implication of where the thread is created tells me the OP is 'talking' with regards to 'stake casino'. 

He doesn't need to mention stake. 

The rest of what you post about foul play opportunity - that can be said with regards to any business  and any human being. In fact the OP demonstrates my point very eloquently if you compare the original post of this thread with the actual original article - posted above by @dupeddonk and also in an earlier post.

Perhaps @J-Dawg can explain their intentions behind the post  and why the context was changed and why it was posted in the stake casino discussion section. 

@Ghostnipple let us wait for  the OPs response.

 

[dupeddonk]

Just now, ktinho said:

what about the fact  the thread is placed in 'stake  casino discussion'? The implication of where the thread is created tells me the OP is 'talking' with regards to 'stake casino'. 

He doesn't need to mention stake. 

The rest of what you post about foul play opportunity - that can be said with regards to any business  and any human being. In fact the OP demonstrates my point very eloquently if you compare the original post of this thread with the actual original article - posted above by @dupeddonk and also in an earlier post.

Perhaps @J-Dawg can explain their intentions behind the post  and why the context was changed and why it was posted in the stake casino discussion section. 

@Ghostnipple let us wait for  the OPs response.

 

Ghostnipple is just trying to muddy the waters.  "Who said anything about Stake?" is just one way he likes to derail a conversation he would prefer doesn't happen and make it more difficult for other to follow.  

[ktinho]

1 minute ago, dupeddonk said:

Ghostnipple is just trying to muddy the waters.  "Who said anything about Stake?" is just one way he likes to derail a conversation he would prefer doesn't happen and make it more difficult for other to follow.  

Exactly!  i was presented with an answer to a question i didn't ask.

[ktinho]

3 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

Your original question was based on assumptions around the ops intentions. Im not a mind reader so Im reluctant to answer a question that should be addressed to the op. However I gave you an honest opinion and that is if a casino is dishonest in one aspect of their operations then I need assume they are dishonest in other aspects including how they use the "provably fair" system.

If that is not the answer you wanted from me, perhaps you can write the answer you wish to hear, then I can tell you if my views align or not.

No assumptions were made in the question - the article  posted was edited  and words changed and added that changed the context. I didn't assume anything i based what i said about narrative  on the members posting history on this forum. I asked you if you think that undermines the discussion about provably fair - which you yourself ask questions about - when false information is posted knowingly?

[J-Dawg]

Everyone knows what is going on, you don't have to be a genius to notice that something is not right.

The fact is, the provably fair statement entices players to bet more as it gives them comfort. Well, the other fact is, that provably fair can be used by operators to cheat players.

If we are talking about Stake, Stake hasn't given anything for players to accurately determine the fairness of their game, just a tool that proves nothing.

Provably fair should be dropped from all the originals until such time. Leave the games as are if they wish, but do not entice players with a false statement. These games are no way provably fair. Are any slots, for example Pragmatic, are they provably fair? No. These Stake Originals are no different and should not be sold or marketed that way.

 

1 hour ago, ktinho said:

No assumptions were made in the question - the article  posted was edited  and words changed and added that changed the context. I didn't assume anything i based what i said about narrative  on the members posting history on this forum. I asked you if you think that undermines the discussion about provably fair - which you yourself ask questions about - when false information is posted knowingly?

100% Untrue. Only things changed were taking out the mentioning/names of any casinos. If you are going to make such bold claims, what context was changed? Where and how?

[dupeddonk]

1 minute ago, J-Dawg said:

Everyone knows what is going on, you don't have to be a genius to notice that something is not right.
 

What's not right is the fact that you found an old post on another forum about a weakness in specific shuffle-based method to determine outcomes - you plagiarized the post and changed just a few lines so that it appeared to describe a problem with all provably fair games.

You did this maliciously, knowing that you were both stealing and misrepresenting someone elses work (which you obviously don't even understand) at the same time.

 

 

[J-Dawg]

5 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

I don't think he's wrong.  To be provably fair, a casino must share how they determine the outcome, which includes how the house edge is calculated - which is different for each game.  

Really, where? (The part about more detailed examples on github is not the location of the original source and also plagiarized.)  

As you have mentioned before dupeddonk, posting Github links are not allowed on here. Anyone can go on Github and search for it, not difficult. As usual, you try and derail the conversation. Nothing you have added deters from the information being provided

1 minute ago, dupeddonk said:

What's not right is the fact that you found an old post on another forum about a weakness in specific shuffle-based method to determine outcomes - you plagiarized the post and changed just a few lines so that it appeared to describe a problem with all provably fair games.

You did this maliciously, knowing that you were both stealing and misrepresenting someone elses work (which you obviously don't even understand) at the same time.

 

 

You want to talk about malicious, you of all people? Information, is information. If it is shared in a public space, under fair use, one is 100% entitled to use and share. 

[dupeddonk]

8 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

You want to talk about malicious, you of all people? Information, is information. If it is shared in a public space, under fair use, one is 100% entitled to use and share. 

You changed a few lines of someone elses post on a different forum from six years ago, then plagiarized it to try and trick people into believing that A) you know what you're talking about and B) All provably fair games are shuffle based and thus vulnerable to the issue described in the post.

 

[J-Dawg]

Just now, dupeddonk said:

You changed a few lines of someone elses post on a different forum six years ago, and then plagiarized it to try and trick people into believing that A) you know what you're talking about and B) All provably fair games are shuffle based and thus vulnerable to the issue described in the post.

If that is how you want to spin it, fine. But anyone who is reasonable and rational would not find anything untoward with how I've shared the information.

So, if the games are not shuffle based, what are they? The only way to know if it is provably fair is if the casino has published the code for every game’s RNG. All of it. Not just the hash from the seed pairs but exactly how that hash string is converted from a hexadecimal value to decimal value, which piece of that converted decimal value is used and the mathematical equation that turns that piece of the converted value into the result you see on your screen. If a casino only allows you to verify that they did not change the server seed then you have to also ask yourself, how the hell do I verify the rest of the process? If the casino keeps their code in darkness then you can’t. Once again, completely undermining the purpose of a casino being provably fair.

And yes, of course they are shuffle based. I said AKIN. That's why everyone's game plays differently, because a random shuffle has taken place. 

1st) I suggest you learn what the word AKIN means dupeddonk
2nd) If the games are not shuffle based, then what you are suggesting, is that the order of which the games play are not random, but placed very specifically. So you are actually going as far to state that they are not random at all.
Shuffle = random. 

[dupeddonk]

9 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

If that is how you want to spin it, fine.

No spin.  You literally removed:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation can exploit players."

And and added:

"All provably fair casino games are shuffle based. This means that all games regardless of the interface, are akin to a pack of cards being shuffled and the results being determined from that."

 

 

 

[LimboXhunter]

My experience here :

Every time i click max i loss .

I test trying to max then i put 0 i bet result loss

[maverick528]

48 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

The fact is, the provably fair statement entices players to bet more as it gives them comfort. Well, the other fact is, that provably fair can be used by operators to cheat players.

If we are talking about Stake, Stake hasn't given anything for players to accurately determine the fairness of their game, just a tool that proves nothing.
 

Wrong as always, you dont need a tool from Stake or anyone else to verify bets.

Provably fair in Stake uses two cryptographic functions that are widely known and available, that follow standards, and they are HMAC and SHA256. And they were not developed or modified by Stake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2

To verify a bet in Stake after you have changed the seed pair, you can use several public websites (not affiliated with Stake in any way) that implement those two algorithms that I mentioned. 

You also need some pencil and paper, and manually do some simple addition, division, etc. as it is described on the implementation details of provably fair on each Stake original game (excluding slide and crash). This way, you are verifying your bet without using any tool provided by Stake. Hopefully , you will get the same result using this method than the original result of the bet.

 

 

 

 

[J-Dawg]

Not letting your derail the conversation duppedonk. Anyone who thinks your statements are valid or worth merit can take them into consideration. I clearly think they have no validity or merit. That is the end of that. So moving forward, let's keep on topic. 

I reiterate

Of course they are shuffle based. I said AKIN. That's why everyone's game plays differently, because a random shuffle has taken place. 

If the games are not shuffle based, then what you are suggesting, is that the order of which the games play are not random, but placed very specifically. So you are actually going as far to state that they are not random at all.
Shuffle = random. 

If the games are not shuffle based, what are they then? Do we have the code for every game’s RNG. All of it. Not just the hash from the seed pairs but exactly how that hash string is converted from a hexadecimal value to decimal value, which piece of that converted decimal value is used and the mathematical equation that turns that piece of the converted value into the result you see on your screen. If a casino only allows you to verify that they did not change the server seed then you have to also ask yourself, how the hell do I verify the rest of the process? If the casino keeps their code in darkness then you can’t. Once again, completely undermining the purpose of a casino being provably fair.

3 minutes ago, maverick528 said:

Wrong as always, you dont need a tool from Stake or anyone else to verify bets.

Provably fair in Stake uses two cryptographic functions that are widely known and available, that follow standards, and they are HMAC and SHA256. And they were not developed or modified by Stake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2

To verify a bet in Stake after you have changed the seed pair, you can use several public websites (not affiliated with Stake in any way) that implement those two algorithms that I mentioned. 

You also need some pencil and paper, and manually do some simple addition, division, etc. as it is described on the implementation details of provably fair on each Stake original game (excluding slide and crash). This way, you are verifying your bet without using any tool provided by Stake. Hopefully , you will get the same result using this method than the original result of the bet.

 

 

 

 

Every provably fair online casino will go on and on about how fair and transparent they are. They will include multiple pages or FAQs with lengthy explanations of how they use provably fair RNG on their games as well as provide players with an in house tool for verifying fairness. (These always show that every bet was fair, by the way.) They lean on these tools and explanations like a crutch that is the only thing holding up their exaggerated transparency and perceived fairness. This can all just be smoke and mirrors used to gain trust and fool players that don’t know how they can actively participate in the fairness of their games.

The most common misconception of provably fair is that after a player manually changes their client seed, the casino can no longer change the outcome of the games without being caught and thus, has no opportunity to cheat. This is only partially true. It is not surprising to me that this is as far as most casinos will go with their descriptions, explanations and provably fair verification checkers. The process of generating a game result is much more complicated than the simple hashing of a server seed, client seed and nonce. That is only the first step of a more complicated mathematical process.

There is only one bet that can be considered truly fair and random. That is the very first bet of a seed pair of which the player sets the client seed after the site gives a hashed version of the server seed. The result of EVERY bet after the first is known by the casino and only by the casino! This holds the supposed purpose of provably fair in total contempt.

Many players use the same seed pair for months or until the casino forces them to change it. On top of that, many players have very predictable gambling styles and use specific strategies every time they play. 

 The provably fair algorithm is only one part of the process that is used to generate the game results that you see on your screen. Different games use different RNG. Some are very simple with only a few steps while others are required to convert the provably fair hash string to perform very long and complicated math functions. The more complicated the game’s rules are, the more complicated the process is to get that game’s results.  

Can we actually determine if a game is provably fair? Only if the casino has published the code for every game’s RNG. All of it. Not just the hash from the seed pairs but exactly how that hash string is converted from a hexadecimal value to decimal value, which piece of that converted decimal value is used and the mathematical equation that turns that piece of the converted value into the result you see on your screen. 

 And none of this takes into consideration players being served cold decks/strings/games. Whatever you like to call it.

I must say it's quite strange having to continually repeat myself as all anyone wants to do is focus and things that are arbitrary to the meat of the subject, and not actually address the real concerns that all players should have. If they don't have these concerns then they are ill informed on the subject. 

 

[dupeddonk]

23 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

Of course they are shuffle based. I said AKIN. That's why everyone's game plays differently, because a random shuffle has taken place. 

No reason to to get caught up in a debate about what is or isn't shuffle based.

You removed:

Quote

Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation can exploit players.

And added:

Quote

All provably fair casino games are shuffle based. This means that all games regardless of the interface, are akin to a pack of cards being shuffled and the results being determined from that.

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation" is not the same as "All provably fair casino games"

That's why you made the changes you did. 

[J-Dawg]

lol, 100% ignoring the facts, as usual. Doesn't look good for your motives. 
I stand 100% by everything that I have provided.

[dupeddonk]

43 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

Not letting your derail the conversation duppedonk. Anyone who thinks your statements are valid or worth merit can take them into consideration. I clearly think they have no validity or merit. That is the end of that. So moving forward, let's keep on topic. 

I reiterate

Of course they are shuffle based. I said AKIN. That's why everyone's game plays differently, because a random shuffle has taken place. 

If the games are not shuffle based, then what you are suggesting, is that the order of which the games play are not random, but placed very specifically. So you are actually going as far to state that they are not random at all.
Shuffle = random. 

If the games are not shuffle based, what are they then? Do we have the code for every game’s RNG. All of it. Not just the hash from the seed pairs but exactly how that hash string is converted from a hexadecimal value to decimal value, which piece of that converted decimal value is used and the mathematical equation that turns that piece of the converted value into the result you see on your screen. If a casino only allows you to verify that they did not change the server seed then you have to also ask yourself, how the hell do I verify the rest of the process? If the casino keeps their code in darkness then you can’t. Once again, completely undermining the purpose of a casino being provably fair.

Every provably fair online casino will go on and on about how fair and transparent they are. They will include multiple pages or FAQs with lengthy explanations of how they use provably fair RNG on their games as well as provide players with an in house tool for verifying fairness. (These always show that every bet was fair, by the way.) They lean on these tools and explanations like a crutch that is the only thing holding up their exaggerated transparency and perceived fairness. This can all just be smoke and mirrors used to gain trust and fool players that don’t know how they can actively participate in the fairness of their games.

The most common misconception of provably fair is that after a player manually changes their client seed, the casino can no longer change the outcome of the games without being caught and thus, has no opportunity to cheat. This is only partially true. It is not surprising to me that this is as far as most casinos will go with their descriptions, explanations and provably fair verification checkers. The process of generating a game result is much more complicated than the simple hashing of a server seed, client seed and nonce. That is only the first step of a more complicated mathematical process.

There is only one bet that can be considered truly fair and random. That is the very first bet of a seed pair of which the player sets the client seed after the site gives a hashed version of the server seed. The result of EVERY bet after the first is known by the casino and only by the casino! This holds the supposed purpose of provably fair in total contempt.

Many players use the same seed pair for months or until the casino forces them to change it. On top of that, many players have very predictable gambling styles and use specific strategies every time they play. 

 The provably fair algorithm is only one part of the process that is used to generate the game results that you see on your screen. Different games use different RNG. Some are very simple with only a few steps while others are required to convert the provably fair hash string to perform very long and complicated math functions. The more complicated the game’s rules are, the more complicated the process is to get that game’s results.  

Can we actually determine if a game is provably fair? Only if the casino has published the code for every game’s RNG. All of it. Not just the hash from the seed pairs but exactly how that hash string is converted from a hexadecimal value to decimal value, which piece of that converted decimal value is used and the mathematical equation that turns that piece of the converted value into the result you see on your screen. 

 And none of this takes into consideration players being served cold decks/strings/games. Whatever you like to call it.

I must say it's quite strange having to continually repeat myself as all anyone wants to do is focus and things that are arbitrary to the meat of the subject, and not actually address the real concerns that all players should have. If they don't have these concerns then they are ill informed on the subject. 

 

And now more plagiarism.  You can't just copy paste someone elses work, skip a few sentences here and there and then act like its yours.

https://archive.ph/wip/nUycy

Big surprised you skipped this one from the conclusion, which goes against your narrative.

Quote

As bad as all that sounds, provably fair RNG is still, by far, the best iteration of RNG to date. But, only if it is used correctly and only if players are educated on the ways casinos can cheat them under the guise of transparency and fairness.

 

5 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

lol, 100% ignoring the facts, as usual. Doesn't look good for your motives. 
I stand 100% by everything that I have provided.

 

Oh no, it's a fact. You can say it's not, but it is:

 

You found an old post on another forum about a weakness in specific shuffle-based method to determine outcomes - you plagiarized the post and changed just a few lines so that it appeared to describe a problem with all provably fair games.

You did this maliciously, knowing that you were both stealing and misrepresenting someone elses work (which you obviously don't even understand) at the same time.

[dollartree1]

54 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

Not letting your derail the conversation duppedonk. Anyone who thinks your statements are valid or worth merit can take them into consideration. I clearly think they have no validity or merit. That is the end of that. So moving forward, let's keep on topic. 

It legit blows my mind you can say this.  I can't imagine you being able to type that out without your face literally contorting into :trollface.  He includes references to valid facts that always refute you and your cronies.   Idk.. maybe I give the human race too much credit, but isn't it obvious dupeddonk actually knows what he's talking about?  I mean.. really... can someone read through any one of these defamation posts and think dupeddonk is spewing nonsense when he backs up ALL of his posts with references?  Are people in this world really this jaded? 

[J-Dawg]

Stake use the exact same method dupeddonk

Can you prove otherwise? No, because it's the same method.

 

22 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

And now more plagiarism.  You can't just copy paste someone elses work, skip a few sentences here and there and then act like its yours.

https://archive.ph/wip/nUycy

Big surprised you skipped this one from the conclusion, which goes against your narrative.

 

 

Oh no, it's a fact. You can say it's not, but it is:

 

You found an old post on another forum about a weakness in specific shuffle-based method to determine outcomes - you plagiarized the post and changed just a few lines so that it appeared to describe a problem with all provably fair games.

You did this maliciously, knowing that you were both stealing and misrepresenting someone elses work (which you obviously don't even understand) at the same time.

 

If you are accusing me of plagiarism, I don't deny it. Doesn't take away from the information being shared. All I've done is present it and kept it relevant. Which it is, 100%.

[dupeddonk]

12 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

Stake use the exact same method dupeddonk

Can you prove otherwise? No, because it's the same method.

Bitzino didn't use nonces and they didn't offer games like dice where the player chooses both the target number and over/under.  THey also pre shuffled the deck behind the scenes, which what the vulnerability was based on.

It's not the same method.

You're straight up lying.

Quote

If you are accusing me of plagiarism, I don't deny it. Doesn't take away from the information being shared. All I've done is present it and kept it relevant. Which it is, 100%.

You changed it, and then presented it without giving credit or making it clear which parts were changed and which parts weren't.  Your intent was clearly malicious.

It's worse than plagiarism.  

[Cogmaster]

37 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

And now more plagiarism.  You can't just copy paste someone elses work, skip a few sentences here and there and then act like its yours.

https://archive.ph/wip/nUycy

Big surprised you skipped this one from the conclusion, which goes against your narrative.

 

 

Oh no, it's a fact. You can say it's not, but it is:

 

You found an old post on another forum about a weakness in specific shuffle-based method to determine outcomes - you plagiarized the post and changed just a few lines so that it appeared to describe a problem with all provably fair games.

You did this maliciously, knowing that you were both stealing and misrepresenting someone elses work (which you obviously don't even understand) at the same time.

Hi, what is the name of the tool you used to check for plagiarism?