4 ms·
Your point is valid, translating existing games which are built on a set of assumptions (physical presence -> unique non-communicating players, physical deck +
by alexandros 18y ago
Your point is valid, translating existing games which are built on a set of assumptions (physical presence -> unique non-communicating players, physical deck + shuffling -> unique cards and true randomness) may not be translatable to an online experience in a sustainable manner.
I was refering to the general problem of not being able to trust the single point of control, which applies to all types of online gambling. In this context, I was wondering why games that can be gambled on have not appeared that work in a fully distributed manner.
- njharman 18y agoBecause it doesn't solve the cheating described in the post you replied to. Distribute all you want but if 5 of 6 players are colluding player #6 is gonna be screwed.
- alexandros 18y agothere is a way to derrive an unbiased random number, even if everyone else is cheating. take this: http://everything2.com/title/Coin%2520tossing%2520protocol http://everything2.com/title/Coin%2520tossing%2520protocol and extend for N participants and results from 1 to N. Given this, a lot can be done.