Provably Fair Can Cheat Players. Proof and code provided.

[ktinho]

7 minutes ago, Mikasa323 said:

idk anything of it,but i think picking mines three times a row on a one mine is not provably fair

you pick the same location 3 times in a row and get 'mined'? 

[jungl3]

2 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

Please, just search his post history yourself. 

I can't find that in his post history. Is it verbatim or a misquote?

25 minutes ago, ktinho said:

I suggest that you read all of my forum posts for the interest of balance.

Sorry, I'm washing my hair tonight @ktinho

 

 

[ktinho]

57 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

I can't find that in his post history. Is it verbatim or a misquote?

Sorry, I'm washing my hair tonight @ktinho

 

 

use a narrator tool found in accessibility options on most devices. That way you can do both.

On 7/5/2022 at 8:21 PM, 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. 

 

did you actually write any of this post by the way? I am just rereading in case i missed anything and this is taken from a little known blog. so you aren't repeating yourself. you are really repeating someone else?

 

Article written  By Luther Von Dodosan -September 1, 2020. 

6 hours ago, kayttobr said:

That's very true, I enjoyed Stake back then as well. Stake had its good reputation, but now it's filled with tons of people saying it's scam, I wonder why.

People don't just randomly run outside and scream it's a fire.

If one goes does it, then yeah he's insane, but the patterns we see about people complaining? And always the same subject in different forms? Hmm, weird don't you think?

As of for me? I've Quit spending on Stake, also wouldn't be here on the Forums either but J-Dawg is a nice person and I got notified by being tagged by him so I thought I'd share my words here. But I'm done with Stake, withdrew all my money and yeah, I suggest you guys should be aware as well.

Be careful where you tread boys, it's a huge large gray area

The other day you posted something with regards to skipping bets. You were asked to contact the person who closed your thread. You then opened another about the same thing adding mods were trying to silence you or something of  that ilk. I suggested it maybe because of the word 'nonce' and a misunderstanding of the word by a moderator. Then you said i should go log in to my stake employee account. which is often the go to retort for anyone that doesn't agree with rigged scammed or cheated theories/outbursts.

You were offering evidence of something you saw as broken or fraudulent. Got no issue with that at all. 

IMO it is fair that they are given time to look at your evidence and you give them time to fix any issues satisfactorily - rather than a have a huge thread talking about something they are trying to solve or haven't had the chance to look at. One should also be afforded the same chance to explain themselves or fix any issues if there is an issue with their account- rather than it be a closed discussion.

IF after you provide the information you aren't satisfied with the outcome - then by all means complain and make people aware. As i keep saying  it is in the best interests of the player base that everyone is aware of legitimate fact based problems.

A huge number of threads on here about scams/rigged etc are not fact or evidence based. 

I'm not oblivious to the skipping btw.  Had it happen a few times when playing low stakes roulette but then  won sometimes on the next bet - not always won btw! it would be interesting to know the root cause. be it murky or just a bug.

[dupeddonk]

4 hours ago, jungl3 said:

I can't find that in his post history. Is it verbatim or a misquote?

Neither.  I was summarizing some (not all) of the arguments he's made in the past.  Looking back on it, I regret not including one of my all time favorite rigtard arguments, the J-Dawg "ITS NOT ON GITHUB SO ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE" argument. 

Anyway, If you have a point to make, feel free...

 

 

[jungl3]

12 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

Neither.  I was summarizing some (not all) of the arguments he's made in the past.  Looking back on it, I regret not including one of my all time favorite rigtard arguments, the J-Dawg "ITS NOT ON GITHUB SO ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE" argument. 

Anyway, If you have a point to make, feel free...

Thank you for giving me permission to speak.

I think it's out of order to attribute a quote to somebody when they didn't say it. Paraphrasing is ok if it's accurate, but you seem to have a personal issue with @J-Dawg and you're twisting his words. Try not to let your emotions get the better of you and stick to the facts - consider taking a break if you feel you're becoming upset.

We all need to get out and touch some (real) grass once in a while.

 

[dupeddonk]

9 hours ago, jungl3 said:

Thank you for giving me permission to speak.

I think it's out of order to attribute a quote to somebody when they didn't say it. Paraphrasing is ok if it's accurate, but you seem to have a personal issue with @J-Dawg and you're twisting his words. Try not to let your emotions get the better of you and stick to the facts - consider taking a break if you feel you're becoming upset.

We all need to get out and touch some (real) grass once in a while.

 

OP does have a history of claiming things like I said.   Nobody is going to read what I said about his past claims and walk away thinking something that isn't true.  If you actually had a problem with people twisting other peoples words, you would've called out OP, because that's exactly what he did.  He literally plagiarized the entire first post of this thread except for a few lines he changed to make it seem like the rest of the post was referring to every single provably fair game, which is false.  But instead you defended him.

Quote

op has a history of claiming. Stuff like "it's so obvious it's rigged, they can manipulate every outcome at will,  provably fair is a scam".

 

[jungl3]

13 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

OP does have a history of claiming things like I said.   Nobody is going to read what I said about his past claims and walk away thinking something that isn't true.  If you actually had a problem with people twisting other peoples words, you would've called out OP, because that's exactly what he did.  He literally plagiarized the entire first post of this thread except for a few lines he changed to make it seem like the rest of the post was referring to every single provably fair game, which is false.  But instead you defended him.

 

It doesn't matter what he has or hasn't said in the past - you cannot attribute a quote to somebody when they didn't say those words.

You and @ktinho have tag-teamed @J-Dawg throughout the 4 pages of this thread about attribution, but now it's alright for you to do the same thing? If it's not acceptable for him to do it, it's not acceptable for you to do it..even if it suits your agenda. It's a double standard, and given that you're generally quite a fair minded and logical poster, it's disappointing that you can't see that.

It brings into question why you spend so much time defending the site on this forum and what your true motivation is. Your intentions can't be principled if you think that the standards you expect of others don't also apply to you.

[dupeddonk]

On 7/8/2022 at 2:37 AM, ktinho said:

IF there were major issues it would be all over the internet because stake is the number 1 crypto casino in many peoples eyes.

On 7/8/2022 at 10:23 AM, jungl3 said:

Stake can't be cheating because they haven't been caught - a logical fallacy if ever there were one.

On 7/8/2022 at 1:06 PM, dupeddonk said:

He said "if there were major issues". Like the ones op has a history of claiming. Stuff like "it's so obvious it's rigged, they can manipulate every outcome at will,  probably fair is a scam".

(expand the above quote to read my response in context)

 

Just to be clear, @jungl3.  Do you really believe I was twisting OPs words or had any sort of malicious intent to misrepresent what he said when I posted:

Quote

Like the ones op has a history of claiming. Stuff like "it's so obvious it's rigged, they can manipulate every outcome at will,  probably fair is a scam".

Or are you making a semantics argument because you noticed I used quotation marks casually in a way that wouldn't make it to the final draft of a research paper.

All this, while in the same thread you're defending OP after copying someone elses post without giving them credit (aka plagiarizing) and maliciously changing a few lines, both misrepresenting what the original author said and making the basis of the argument objectively false?

Trying to equate what OP did when he created this thread with me using quotation marks improperly while summarizing some of his past claims is laughable.

I think you're cool with OP plagiarizing  someone else after a few malicious edits because you want to win the same general argument he's making that you seem to have become emotionally attached to.  And technically I used quotation marks incorrectly, so even though there was obviously no bad intent, thats all you could come up with, so you went with it.

 

 

What OP did in this thread was fucked up.  It's possible someone you agree with on one subject does something fucked up, the two aren't related.  This isn't a team sport and we aren't running political campaigns here...

[jungl3]

39 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

Just to be clear, @jungl3.  Do you really believe I was twisting OPs words or had any sort of malicious intent to misrepresent what he said?  Or are you making a semantics argument because you noticed I used quotation marks casually in a way that wouldn't make it to the final draft of a research paper.

In my eyes you were painting a picture of OP in broad strokes, in an attempt to make him look bad and gain the support of casual observers. While we're not in an academic setting here, I think you would be more persuasive in your arguments if you kept things factual and ethically justifiable - especially while you're accusing somebody else of not doing so.

44 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

All this, while in the same thread you're defending OP after copying someone elses post without giving them credit (aka plagiarizing) and maliciously changing a few lines, both misrepresenting what the original author said and making the basis of the argument objectively false?

I'm defending the spirit of debate in this thread, not OP or the information he has presented. I haven't once said that I agree with OP and, similarly, I don't think an omission of me calling him out shows that I agree with what he says. Just because I'm not vocal about something, it doesn't automatically put me on either side of the fence.

49 minutes ago, dupeddonk said:

Seems incredibly hypocritical to me.  I think you're cool with OP plagiarizing  someone else after a few malicious edits because you want to win the same general argument he's making. 

I think it's unfortunate that he changed a couple of the sentences, but he didn't claim to be the author. People have been banned from the forum for posting links in the past and it's been stated by mods that GitHub links aren't allowed. Neither are bitcointalk links, unless they're used to make stake look good, it seems. I'd assume he was wary of that when he made the post, but I could he wrong. It's plagiarism, but not the worst kind of plagiarism. If we're going for black and white; sure, it's plagiarism.

What is the "general argument" that he's making that I also want to win?

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

And technically I used quotation marks incorrectly, so even though there was obviously no bad intent, thats all you could come up with, so you went with it.

It wasn't (and isn't) obvious that there was no bad intent when you misquoted OP. I'm glad that you agree that you were wrong to do so and I hope you see how it could be seen as dishonest and potentially malicious.

Like I said, I'm interested in the spirit of debate and you've proven that if it suits you, you're willing to act in much the same way as OP does, while calling him out for it.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

It's possible someone you agree with on one subject does something fucked up, the two aren't related.

Very true. I agree with you on that.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

This isn't a team sport and we aren't running political campaigns here...

There's a shared connection in team sports and political campaigns: astroturfing. I think it's very likely that stake employ astroturfing, as many companies do in this day and age. That's my personal feeling, and whether or not you're connected to it, I don't know. You do seem very intent on defending stake whenever the opportunity arises and that makes me wonder why.

Each day, what could be seen as controversial topics are buried in the forum by empty and useless posts - the 10 post count for the Saturday stream thread doesn't itself explain why there is so much noise and so many low quality posts in the forum.

Don't you think it's a possibility that stake would want to create noise and distractions in that way? And that it's quite a common tactic for large companies to attempt to sway public opinion and present a better face than the reality?

[dupeddonk]

 

3 hours ago, jungl3 said:

I'm defending the spirit of debate in this thread

What is there to debate.  OP took someone elses 6 year old post from bitcointalk about a specific method used by a specific casino that's long gone and then changed it to read as if it was relevant to all provably fair games today.

He lied and got caught.  And then even after he comes back with something like  "No it's true, Stake uses the same method" (which you seem intelligent to understand is blatantly false) you continued to try and spin it as if he were just making a general argument.  

If you want to defend the spirit of debate, then try and get the monkeys to quit flinging poo everywhere.

4 hours ago, jungl3 said:

Each day, what could be seen as controversial topics are buried in the forum by empty and useless posts - the 10 post count for the Saturday stream thread doesn't itself explain why there is so much noise and so many low quality posts in the forum.

Don't you think it's a possibility that stake would want to create noise and distractions in that way? And that it's quite a common tactic for large companies to attempt to sway public opinion and present a better face than the reality?

Stake isn't creating the noise, it's the people making moronic accusations or straight up lies like OP.  But you're not wrong that it would serve to benefit Stake if they were scamming or ever planned to.  When there are mountains of people crying scam and it's obvious the accusations are bullshit, it would make it much easier for a legit one to get missed.

And if you think I'm a stake employee or anyone else is...who cares if they're making valid arguments?  

[jungl3]

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

He lied and got caught.  And then even after he comes back with something like  "No it's true, Stake uses the same method" (which you seem intelligent to understand is blatantly false) you continued to try and spin it as if he were just making a general argument.  

As much as you wish he didn't post that, it happened and he did, but it's no excuse for you to embellish the things that I've said in this thread.

You've also lied in this thread and I caught you out, but we've communicated what happened and got past it. I don't hold it against you and I realise that, in that moment, you probably felt that you had a reason to do so. A reason that made sense to you. I feel the same way about OP making this thread. He's most likely hurt because he's lost more money here than makes sense to him with the information he was given about the games, and for that I can empathise with him. Sometimes we have to look at where a message is coming from and not the message itself to gain an understanding of the situation.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

If you want to defend the spirit of debate, then try and get the monkeys to quit flinging poo everywhere.

I think it's a healthy sign when we're not all singing from the same hymnbook. Some arguments are more eloquent or more factual than others, but it's better to air our grievances and discuss things.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

Stake isn't creating the noise, it's the people making moronic accusations or straight up lies like OP. 

I can't disprove you, but it's also not something that you can prove. I think we'll have to agree to disagree and say that it's an unknown.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

But you're not wrong that it would serve to benefit Stake if they were scamming or ever planned to.

It would be an inexpensive insurance policy if they were careful to keep it quiet and not directly put it in writing. If I was them, I'd use a middle man to handle the sockpuppets and recruit people from the Philippines.

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

When there are mountains of people crying scam and it's obvious the accusations are bullshit, it would make it much easier for a legit one to get missed.

That's true, but luckily controversy is always popular and these kind of threads always have a good readership, with people ready to scrutinise the information. Some conspiracy theories become universally accepted truths - some are much more wild than an unregulated crypto casino not being as fair the owners make it out to be. In the interim, the people who felt something didn't quite sit right are called crazy and mocked by the unimaginative, the kool-aid drinkers, the bootlickers and the establishment.

2 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

And if you think I'm a stake employee or anyone else is...who cares if they're making valid arguments?  

I think it's a good thing for everybody to share their ideas. That way we can take multiple viewpoints into consideration and make an informed decision. Sometimes we'll learn news things or learn to think in a different way - it can be persuasive to both sides, for better or worse.

[dupeddonk]

44 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

I think it's a healthy sign when we're not all singing from the same hymnbook. Some arguments are more eloquent or more factual than others, but it's better to air our grievances and discuss things.

His argument is literally based on a lie.  He started a thread titled "Provably Fair Can Cheat Players. Proof and code provided." and then posted claims that he knew were false.  He intentionally lied, knowing at least some people would just believe it.  It really is as simple as that.

And this isn't the first time he's done something like this, by the way.  The other day he claimed that he knew I was from Australia while claiming it is a fact I work for Stake (I'm not from Australia, don't work for Stake, and donk is obviously used anywhere Poker is played) He said something like " 'donk' is a word used only in Australia, and nowhere else in the world.  Anyone that uses it is from Australia or very close to someone from Australia" Then he posted several definitions of 'Donk' with Australian origin.  I found his source, and it also had 7 or 8 other countries or regions that "donk" has been used.

The whole exchange was incredibly stupid, but my point is that this guy just doesn't give a shit about the truth.  He makes shit up and when he can't find anything true to back it up, he lies.  

 

47 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

You've also lied in this thread and I caught you out, but we've communicated what happened and got past it.

Bullshit, I have not lied or misquoted anyone.  I made it clear that I was summarizing OPs claims and my summary was accurate.

 

[ktinho]

10 hours ago, jungl3 said:

It doesn't matter what he has or hasn't said in the past - you cannot attribute a quote to somebody when they didn't say those words.

You and @ktinho have tag-teamed @J-Dawg throughout the 4 pages of this thread about attribution, but now it's alright for you to do the same thing? If it's not acceptable for him to do it, it's not acceptable for you to do it..even if it suits your agenda. It's a double standard, and given that you're generally quite a fair minded and logical poster, it's disappointing that you can't see that.

It brings into question why you spend so much time defending the site on this forum and what your true motivation is. Your intentions can't be principled if you think that the standards you expect of others don't also apply to you.

1) I ask that the OP does not scaremonger.

2) Does not use someone else's work that is not relevant - edit it to try and make it relevant

3) goes away and performs his own scientific investigation  and comes back with irrefutable evidence. 

 

It is fair, when reading all of a persons forum posts, upon a particular topic, that a person can make a judgment on that  persons beliefs/narrative about that topic. When a the person is consistently using words such as 'manipulate' as well as copy and pasting articles which he then edits to add  or remove words to make them relevant such as but not limited to: 

 

  

On 4/30/2022 at 8:56 PM, J-Dawg said:

Why would you want to manually adjust your client seed? Many players do this with the intention of manually handling the randomness and adding in a bit of personal luck into their results. From an objective perspective, this does not change the randomness involved in each of the rolls. However, there is a certain risk incurred when a player chooses to use the same client seed for subsequent rolls. The risk is that the gambling institution, in this case Stake, would be able to anticipate the client seed the player will use and adjust the result in the house's favor.

It is from a different casino in their FAQs. It provides no relevance or evidence that this statement needs to be associated with stake. It uses terms like "the risk is" which is not saying it is 100% fact but more of a 'there is a chance'. It is just Opinion based and this other place uses an RNG certification company.

So let me use their term and say "the risk is they are using a confidence trick" (we re being open and honest  and look we are RNG certified). This is just my thoughts about possible motives - they may well be trustworthy. No one can legitimately use  what they have said though to answer questions  or refute claims- because it is not stated alongside evidence. < As i am asking for  fact based evidence don't try to use this statement to troll. I have not denied the possibility. I am just not jumping on the bandwagon that stake is rigged because people are of the opinion that it is.

You have done your best in my opinion to sling mud and derail. Unless in future posts you are going to offer up evidence and proof of why stakes provably fair system is the same as the system used in the OP then i won't be replying. I see your behaviour as troll like.

The simple fact is the OP is not offering up evidence or information that can be proved to be relevant.

[1UnLuckyGambler]

On 7/4/2022 at 8:19 AM, J-Dawg said:

@Eddie@Ghostnipple@kayttobr

Provably Fair Implementations Can Cheat Players (proof)

(Due to space constraints, this is highly abridged. More detailed analysis on GitHub with the sample and optimized code)

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.

The exploit that casinos can use to cheat players is called Shufflepuff — a tool a casino can use to optimize against players, effectively creating cold decks. (code provided below in picture)
 

• Casinos can choose initial decks that perform strictly better against other initial decks, regardless of any Mersenne Twister seed.
• The result of the game is verifiably "provably fair" without compromising any code.
• The exploit can permanently alter the house edge of the game beyond expected outcomes.
• Due to the large arrangement space, the exploit is effectively undetectable. At the very least, refutable.

I'll assume you're familiar with how this provably fair method works.This attack applies to any casino that uses it.

You, as a player, have no ability to determine the actual Mersenne Twister seed. You can influence it, but the final seed is indirectly attributed to your client seed. However, the casino is free to determine the initial shuffle. It can be whatever they want. There is no guarantee that this shuffle (we'll call it initial deck from now on) is in any way random, and this is where the exploit begins.

In a nutshell, the house knows that the final shuffle will be one of 2³² possible shuffles. Since the initial deck space can be astronomically larger than the final shuffle space, the house simply needs to find an initial deck that performs well against as many final shuffles as possible.

How do we determine the optimized, stacked decks?

Let's try roulette, since it has the smallest search space. In the real world, it's a wheel game, but casinos treat it like a card game nonetheless.

• First, we degenerate the deck into point-values based on the outcome we want. For example, if we want to optimize the deck for red, we convert all the red cards to +1 and the rest (including green) to 0.
• We arrange the point deck in lexicographic (sorted) order: { 0000000000000000000111111111111111111 }.
• For all permutations (without repetition), perform a Fisher-Yates or Durstenfeld shuffle with all possible Mersenne Twister seeds (which range from 0 to 232 – 1). Add the first value of the shuffle to the rolling count.
• Compare two permutations. If one has a higher count than the other, it is strictly better than the other. Meaning, a casino can use it to permanently alter the house edge.

Implications

• Once an arrangement has been found, it can be easily masked to prevent detection. In the example, the arrangement only represents the position of red and blacks, but a casino can fill it with any red or black card, effectively producing shuffles that appear different.
• The casino presents the shuffle first, but it can learn from subsequent play. A player who consistently plays red or black (or green) can be exploited in the next round.
• A casino doesn't need to find the most optimized shuffle, just one that beats the theoretical expectation. So, a nefarious casino would collect many optimized shuffles on a rolling basis, making it effectively undetectable.
• The shuffles can be used to help you win as well. For example, the house could produce good shuffles to help dust bettors win, in the hopes they bet more (where they could then be cheated with bad shuffles for more bitcoin).

 

Shufflepuff Code (C++)

 

(see photo)

I have screen shots of a white-label casino provider telling me it (provably fair games) could be "skewed" when I was in talks to open an online casino through them.

 

Shady shit.

 

Will post screen shots if any interest....

 

edit-screw it, here's part of our convo on telegram (which he deleted soon after lol)....

 

Draw your own conclusions....personally I'm not smart enough to understand it all (which is probably why I never went through with opening a site 😂)

[ktinho]

1 hour ago, 1UnLuckyGambler said:

I have screen shots of a white-label casino provider telling me it (provably fair games) could be "skewed" when I was in talks to open an online casino through them.

 

Shady shit.

 

Will post screen shots if any interest....

 

edit-screw it, here's part of our convo on telegram (which he deleted soon after lol)....

 

Draw your own conclusions....personally I'm not smart enough to understand it all (which is probably why I never went through with opening a site 😂)

As the original article (not the edited version in the OP) shows there has been a method of provably fair that  was exploitable. But it did not relate to stake as it was not the same system and the post was 6 years old. No one is denying that fact but instead asking for evidence that the system stake use is exploitable and is being exploited.

[ktinho]

6 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

"Provably fair" as mathematical exercise is interesting to discuss.

However it is made redundant if a casino continuously and unapologetically refuses to honour agreements made with players and otherwise lies to them on a daily basis.

If a casino lies blatantly to my face, repeatedly.  I dont care if their coin has 2 sides to it, Im not betting  on it.

 

Then you shouldn't really care about provably fair. Perhaps start another thread about your issues but in here it is only going to serve to derail this further. ❤️

This thread requires proof/evidence of stakes system being exploitable and exploited. Not anything based upon opinion or irrelevance.

Please don't read that in an abrupt way. It is just where this thread is now at. Wall of text after wall of text - very little of it containing anything but squabbling.  

[1UnLuckyGambler]

8 hours ago, ktinho said:

As the original article (not the edited version in the OP) shows there has been a method of provably fair that  was exploitable. But it did not relate to stake as it was not the same system and the post was 6 years old. No one is denying that fact but instead asking for evidence that the system stake use is exploitable and is being exploited.

Okay, just thought i'd share that little tid bit. I thought it was pretty F'ed up. The detail he goes into is pretty nutso also, but i won't derail any longer-this convo way over my simple mind

[Losingdough]

On 7/8/2022 at 12:28 PM, dupeddonk said:

Accusing me of being a stake employee, or being paid by stake post what I do, (I've denied these accusations many times) are great examples of ad hominem attacks.  

one might ask themselves why it is that so many different people have come to the same conclusion on their own about your affiliation with stake ? curious . this is a general rule i like to follow , if a random has some beef with me and calls me an asshole i think wow that guy must be having a bad day. if half my friends , randoms , and couple family members all express to me that im being an asshole, I want to puff up and defend myself but instead i retreat somewhere quiet and reflect on what it is that my problem is and why is it im taking it out on others.

[dupeddonk]

1 hour ago, Losingdough said:

one might ask themselves why it is that so many different people have come to the same conclusion on their own about your affiliation with stake ? curious . this is a general rule i like to follow , if a random has some beef with me and calls me an asshole i think wow that guy must be having a bad day. if half my friends , randoms , and couple family members all express to me that im being an asshole, I want to puff up and defend myself but instead i retreat somewhere quiet and reflect on what it is that my problem is and why is it im taking it out on others.

People claim it's rigged so that they can believe it's not their fault they lost.

To accept the fact that the game isn't rigged, you have to accept that it's nobody else's fault that you lost.  You have to accept responsibility for your actions.

When I explain how provably fair works, some people see that as a personal attack.   They don't want to accept what I'm saying because that would mean accepting responsibility for their actions.  And they're unable to make any logical argument to dispute my claim.  So they try and discredit me/divert the conversation with ad hominin attacks like claiming I work for stake.  

[jomeke10]

oh wow thanks for checking it

[jungl3]

22 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

People claim it's rigged so that they can believe it's not their fault they lost.

Constantly losing and never seeing positive variance wins (higher than the amount you've lost in the past day) begins to get to people. Add to that, you're calling them retards and parroting your provably fair spiel, and it's understandable that they question your motivation.

Where are the lucky people who have had incredible runs of luck on originals, @dupeddonk? Because if it isn't some guy on a 3 cent reload creaming about hitting a 10kx limbo on a $0.00001 bet, you rarely see it. I've never seen that personally on my own account. I've never been up more than I've lost in the previous week, against all odds by this point. Thousands of depos, millions wagered. How?

Why is originals blackjack almost universally avoided and considered a scam? A 1% house edge game where the player's balance is ragdolled to $0 by insane 6 or 7 card draws by the dealer every 2nd hand..

[skleven]

On 12/10/2022 at 1:11 PM, Losingdough said:

one might ask themselves why it is that so many different people have come to the same conclusion on their own about your affiliation with stake ? curious . this is a general rule i like to follow , if a random has some beef with me and calls me an asshole i think wow that guy must be having a bad day. if half my friends , randoms , and couple family members all express to me that im being an asshole, I want to puff up and defend myself but instead i retreat somewhere quiet and reflect on what it is that my problem is and why is it im taking it out on others.

That guy got the "ignore-button" a long time ago. If he admitted the fact i would be ok with it. But 100% of his posts is defending stake, and no active player would do such a thing. 

He is ignorant, doesn`t handle facts very good and making an ass out of himself every time someone calls him out on his bs.

I picture him like the WoW gamer in South Park.. 

[Losingdough]

23 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

People claim it's rigged so that they can believe it's not their fault they lost.

To accept the fact that the game isn't rigged, you have to accept that it's nobody else's fault that you lost.  You have to accept responsibility for your actions.

When I explain how provably fair works, some people see that as a personal attack.   They don't want to accept what I'm saying because that would mean accepting responsibility for their actions.  And they're unable to make any logical argument to dispute my claim.  So they try and discredit me/divert the conversation with ad hominin attacks like claiming I work for stake.  

well the fact that you find it somehow your lifes mission to explain provably fair and to constantly defend stake seems in itself suspect however ill give you that. but one thing that ive never ever seen you , not one time, do , is admit that provably fair means absolutely nothing if after 3 million wagered on stake originals , enough to definitely know they patterns of a few of these games. that every single time , now in the millions , i increase my met from .25 to around $5 or $10 i will hit a losing streak that is always in itself so highly unlikely its probability is always something like less then 1 chance in 100 to happen. yet its happened every single time ive done it. thats not unucky . that is obviously and without any doubt to anyone with half a brain showing quite clearly that your ""provably fair game" infairly takes into consideration your bet size and changes the outcome so that you lose every time . ive shown you on here where ive gotten 1.00 on limbo 3 times in a row back to back. that has happened twice for me on stake. the probability of it happening once is less likely then getting struck by lightning but for it to happen twice proves that your original games are rigged. so explaining provably fair means nothing. if you cant see the code you have no idea its adhering to any provably fair hash.

On 7/4/2022 at 5:45 PM, dupeddonk said:

OP duped you.  

wow and dont work for stake. hmm. how did you find the info in question. how do you know stunna personaly?": but more importantly , j dawg didnt dupe anyone.  the relevant thing in his post is that stake most definitely can employ "provably fair in a dishonest card stacking way. and stake uses this card shuffling system on their original games so the argument in j dawgs post holds true and relevant. so why dont you admit you work for stake. just hate being real is it?

 

On 7/4/2022 at 5:19 AM, J-Dawg said:

@Eddie@Ghostnipple@kayttobr

Provably Fair Implementations Can Cheat Players (proof)

(Due to space constraints, this is highly abridged. More detailed analysis on GitHub with the sample and optimized code)

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.

The exploit that casinos can use to cheat players is called Shufflepuff — a tool a casino can use to optimize against players, effectively creating cold decks. (code provided below in picture)
 

• Casinos can choose initial decks that perform strictly better against other initial decks, regardless of any Mersenne Twister seed.
• The result of the game is verifiably "provably fair" without compromising any code.
• The exploit can permanently alter the house edge of the game beyond expected outcomes.
• Due to the large arrangement space, the exploit is effectively undetectable. At the very least, refutable.

I'll assume you're familiar with how this provably fair method works.This attack applies to any casino that uses it.

You, as a player, have no ability to determine the actual Mersenne Twister seed. You can influence it, but the final seed is indirectly attributed to your client seed. However, the casino is free to determine the initial shuffle. It can be whatever they want. There is no guarantee that this shuffle (we'll call it initial deck from now on) is in any way random, and this is where the exploit begins.

In a nutshell, the house knows that the final shuffle will be one of 2³² possible shuffles. Since the initial deck space can be astronomically larger than the final shuffle space, the house simply needs to find an initial deck that performs well against as many final shuffles as possible.

How do we determine the optimized, stacked decks?

Let's try roulette, since it has the smallest search space. In the real world, it's a wheel game, but casinos treat it like a card game nonetheless.

• First, we degenerate the deck into point-values based on the outcome we want. For example, if we want to optimize the deck for red, we convert all the red cards to +1 and the rest (including green) to 0.
• We arrange the point deck in lexicographic (sorted) order: { 0000000000000000000111111111111111111 }.
• For all permutations (without repetition), perform a Fisher-Yates or Durstenfeld shuffle with all possible Mersenne Twister seeds (which range from 0 to 232 – 1). Add the first value of the shuffle to the rolling count.
• Compare two permutations. If one has a higher count than the other, it is strictly better than the other. Meaning, a casino can use it to permanently alter the house edge.

Implications

• Once an arrangement has been found, it can be easily masked to prevent detection. In the example, the arrangement only represents the position of red and blacks, but a casino can fill it with any red or black card, effectively producing shuffles that appear different.
• The casino presents the shuffle first, but it can learn from subsequent play. A player who consistently plays red or black (or green) can be exploited in the next round.
• A casino doesn't need to find the most optimized shuffle, just one that beats the theoretical expectation. So, a nefarious casino would collect many optimized shuffles on a rolling basis, making it effectively undetectable.
• The shuffles can be used to help you win as well. For example, the house could produce good shuffles to help dust bettors win, in the hopes they bet more (where they could then be cheated with bad shuffles for more bitcoin).

 

Shufflepuff Code (C++)

 

(see photo)

j dawg, you are forever on my A list of awesome people. I love you. keep fighting the good fight!

[dupeddonk]

8 hours ago, Losingdough said:

wow and dont work for stake. hmm. how did you find the info in question. how do you know stunna personaly?": but more importantly , j dawg didnt dupe anyone.  the relevant thing in his post is that stake most definitely can employ "provably fair in a dishonest card stacking way. and stake uses this card shuffling system on their original games so the argument in j dawgs post holds true and relevant. so why dont you admit you work for stake. just hate being real is it?

I found it by copying J-Dawgs post and pasting it into google....  jesus dude.  

Stake doesn't use the system described in the post that he plagiarized and altered to make it look like they do.  

 

 

8 hours ago, Losingdough said:

well the fact that you find it somehow your lifes mission to explain provably fair and to constantly defend stake seems in itself suspect however ill give you that. but one thing that ive never ever seen you , not one time, do , is admit that provably fair means absolutely nothing if after 3 million wagered on stake originals , enough to definitely know they patterns of a few of these games. that every single time , now in the millions , i increase my met from .25 to around $5 or $10 i will hit a losing streak that is always in itself so highly unlikely its probability is always something like less then 1 chance in 100 to happen

Oh really?  Please share the data you've collected.  Or, let me guess, the millions of bets that you're talking about isn't in any database or spread sheet - you have a brain that's capable of storing such data and referencing it months later without any bias distorting the results.  

8 hours ago, skleven said:

100% of his posts is defending stake, and no active player would do such a thing. 

This is bullshit.  But a good example of the same confirmation bias the rigtards use to "prove" that they were cheated.  I criticized stake for how the drake stream drawing were run, when they refused to return funds to players that sent deposits on the wrong chain I called them out, I argue with mods all the time, created a thread when @MilicaB went on power trip making up forum rules, etc....

8 hours ago, Losingdough said:

j dawg, you are forever on my A list of awesome people. I love you. keep fighting the good fight!

You don't seem to understand.  He found an old post on another forum, copied it, and then changed a few words to make the article seem relevant to stake, and then posted it here.  Stake does not use the system the original post is talking about.  There is no pre shuffle used at stake.  Basically no casino uses it today.  The post was from years ago about a casino that no longer exists.  

If you're convinced Stake is cheating, J-Dawg is hurting your argument, not helping it by muddying the waters with obvious lies.  Why would anyone use lies when the truth is on their side?

@jungl3, you seem to have enough braincells to comprehend what @J-Dawgdid in the op of this thread.  Are you willing to speak up for the truth?  Or are you just going to support any argument that it's rigged and attack anyone that says it's not regardless of whether or not the argument is based in reality.

[Misca5001]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:58 PM, SilentDeath37 said:

most of players just lose gambling is this provably fair or not? 

all casino are winning  more then the house edge.

 

gambling is just for fun u cant win overall 

 

This is true