![]() If a court case was launched accusing your games of being biased then there's nothing there to protect you, and just an indemnity protection in their EULA to stop you passing the blame to them. They say they are, and there's a lot of detail, but that's not the same as a guarantee. Thirdly I can't see where they guarantee that their numbers are truly random. Secondly it adds a dependency you don't need. Even if you were using then you could still cheat in a lot of different ways, for example making a hundred requests and choosing the one which gives the result you want. You could potentially do that but it's not really a good idea.įirstly you can still be accused of rigging as there's no way for them to know that you're not changing the data, they still only have your word for it as they don't have access to the code and the underlying data. ![]() In fact, showing them anything wouldn't even be a proof as anything, as the deck could have been tempered with at the beginning of the hand.Įven if using information from the players was safe (I agree it probably is - my point was that it's probably risky) what would even be the point? How would the players know that the information was actually used in the shuffle at all? You are right, and this was actually my point in another comment that I made on this post, that it is not possible to show the players the fairness of the shuffles. If you are in fact a poker player, you should see how your suggestion of showing the deck to the players is wrong, as it is in fact a rule that the deck and discarded cards must be protected from the players, which are not allowed to know or deduct your game unless you purposefully decides to show them. English is not my first language and I definitely didn't mean to be rude. Hey buddy! I'm sorry if this somehow came out wrong. Even if all the players are colluding but one… the shuffle will be completely fair, and can’t be predicted by any player. Using information provided by players is harmless. Players agree on a fair way to shuffle the deck, and then they can check the shuffle at some later point in time, after playing-kind of like reviewing the tapes after playing to make sure nobody was swapping cards around. If you like, think of it like playing poker on TV-you don’t know what was in my hand when I folded, but you can go back and watch the tapes later. You can’t make it possible for a player to verify that a shuffle was fair and still keep the results of that shuffle secret. The OP wanted something verifiable, it sounded like. You don’t need to be a dick and say things like “I don’t think you play poker.” You can just delete that from your comment, next time. This solves the "trusted RNG" problem, but not the "trusted Poker game" problem. You can still cheat by letting players know what is in somebody else's hand. it just means players are siphoning bits of urandom in Linux, or something like that. Not going to dive into what "random" means because it's not really important. Players are also confident that the server seed is "random" enough, if they transmit something which is "random". and all players can check that the deck was shuffled correctly. At the end of the game, the server can broadcast all of the seeds. Once all players have received the hash of all seeds, they transmit the seeds to the server, which are XORed to make the seed for the shuffle. First, each player transmits the hash of their seed, which is then distributed to all other players. Each player has a seed that they contribute to the RNG. The problem of trustable RNG is easy enough to solve. If you can't trust the server not to stack the deck, you can't trust the server not to give out information about the other players' hands either. If you can trust the server not to give out information about the other players' hands, you can trust the server not to stack the deck. The other main way to rig the game is to give players information about other players' hands. Problem is, stacking the deck is only one way to rig the game. ![]() PCG Random, Minimal C Implementation, 0.So, the real question is how to make a poker server which can be trusted. See the documentation for the minimal library for more details on how to use this library. Within a set range, and provides some demo programs to show it in use. see website) typedef struct Īlthough you could just copy and paste this code, the actual downloadable version of the minimal library handles proper seeding and generating numbers O'Neill / // Licensed under Apache License 2.0 (NO WARRANTY, etc. In fact, if you want to “see the code”, the here's a complete PCG generator: // *Really* minimal PCG32 code / (c) 2014 M.E. If you just want a good RNG with the least amount of code possible, you may be fine with the minimal C implementation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |