pull down to refresh

Yes, you can, if you think that 16 is coming more times them usual, try your luck....
100 sats \ 11 replies \ @nout 15 Jan
And where exactly do you return the number+salt ahead of the bet? In the responses I only see the last number, but I have not found any response that would actually return this field?
reply
You can go to menu->Spins
reply
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @nout 15 Jan
Oh I see, ok.
The reason why I'm giving you quite hard time is that "provably fair" is a big claim. There are probably ways to do that with e.g. STARKs or DLCs, but all that is fairly new cryptography and all quite complex. I don't think you are doing it.
reply
It's still not ok. Limiting visibility of the hash to the first 7 characters is "provably fair theatre". Very easy to create collisions at only 7 chars. Waiting for them to show the full hash.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @nout 1 Feb
"provably fair theatre"
I mean the current setup is already "provably fair theatre" no matter if you show the full hash or not.
reply
I mean the current setup is already "provably fair theatre" no matter if you show the full hash or not.
No. The concept is sound. If the roll is hashed, and the hash is revealed before the spin ends, then the roll is provably fair, because it cannot be changed without changing the hash.
However, It is trivial to create SHA256 hash collisions against a 7 character string. It is impossibly difficult to create collisions with the full 64 character hex string.
The authors know this - they base their entire thesis on this principle. Which is why it smells. They try to give the impression of being provably fair, while limiting the hash to just 7 characters is provably not fair. They have been advertising heavily here, unless this is addressed asap - show me the hash, @SN should reject their advertising sats and tell them to look for suckers elsewhere.