3 ms·
>Probably fair Really? The following text is coped from them message at the top of the link you provided. TLDR: block.blockhash() only works for the previous
by vanattab 11y ago
>Probably fair
Really? The following text is coped from them message at the top of the link you provided.
TLDR: block.blockhash() only works for the previous 256 blocks, so EtherPot is broken.
Something strange happened with EtherPot after it launched. There were 3 subpots the first round, but somehow a single player was being reported as the winner of all 3. This single account only had 8% of the tickets, so winning all 3 subpots was pretty unlikely.
- logn 11y agoYes. From what I gather the correct way to generate a random number is described here: https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice https://explorer.etherapps.info/dice ... and some background discussion here: https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-random-number-function https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/546/lll-question-rando... However, that game is not totally fair. There's a house edge and of course fees to pay the Ethereum network (the miners). And stepping back, I think Ethereum overall slightly missed the mark. I like the idea of Turing complete programs verified in a blockchain. But I don't think there should be any cost if you're able to run your own node. Further, it's impossible to know the cost of a Turing complete program (halting problem) which is further compounded by the relatively confusing fee chart (variable based on market demand) and currency unit names.
- im3w1l 11y agoAnyone verifying the blockchain will have to run the programs in it. So it makes sense to charge a little bit for people to be able to put programs in there.