My plan was to port Lua to run on a blockchain.

UTC 2014-10-17 00:00:00
Cuz BTS needs time to collect eye-balls.

手机下不了谷歌文档。能否把正文复制一下。

感觉赌民也不光是为赌而赌，真实赌场的气氛是很难复制到软件里的。而且lotto dac是不是有点抢真实赌场生意？

Decentralized Peer to Peer Game Platform,
Truly Random Number Service from DPOS, and Cross-chain by System Escrow
bitsharestalk.org, bitsuperlab
hackfisher@gmail.com
2014-08-04

1.0 Introduction

BitShares Lotto is an experimental prototype to demonstrate, validate, and speculate how a decentralized, autonomous, and robotically honest game platform system is working. Systems like this are also known as Distributed Autonomous Corporations (DAC).

Games based on randomness have come to rely almost exclusively on trusted third parties to provide random feeds. While the system works well enough, it still suffers not only from the centralized trust based model, but also from the possibility of cheating from players or the trusted entity of the system. Even though some crypto based game on the Internet have provable random feeds which can be verified by public, but they can also cheat by submit selective favorable transactions as hidden players because they know the random secret in advance. The cost of mediation and trusted entity increases system transaction costs, possibility and return of being lucky. The players cannot make sure it’s a fair game without trust the third party, thus reduce the fun, ease motion, and charity activities based on these games.

This system is to resolve these problems, to understand this, it can be separated to several parts:
Crypto technology and blockchain concept from Satoshi’s “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, which makes the system decentralized and trustless.
A consensus algorithm like DPOS to update and maintain the network and public ledger.
A truly random number generator (RNG) algorithm which is based on the concept of provable distributed secret feeds, there is an algorithm from DPOS, which is used to shuffle the delegates ordering randomly in each round.
A platform framework with different layers, the core layer and rule layer which is designed to allow others develop play rules on it and keep the tokens economic system self-sustained and safe at the same time.
The later one is achieved by separate different rules with their own tokens (chips), by pegging their inner exchange price with the system token (lto) according to their collateral lto supply and their current chip supply. At the same time, the collateral can be added or covered by the market users according to current price.
Algorithms like combinatorial number system (CNS) is to normalize the diversity of different rule inputs and outputs, make it easy to design the play rules.
A concept of cross chain trading rely on system escrow and user issued assets on decentralized exchanges like Bitshares X. This need the user issued assets support system escrow too, and will make the exchange a dependency of this system. This DAC will support similar kind of system escrow for other game DAC (with provable supply feed) to plug into.

3.0 System Tokens

Lotto shares(LTO) are the tokens of the system. LTO provides an opportunity to expand on our model for token distribution, LTO may explore models where game rewards give winners the tokens of the game system itself. People can own LTO for purpose of exchange chips and play this games, acting as employees/delegates, or owning the DAC. There are a lot of demand types:


Playing the game means that people need to pay or bet for ticket in the process of playing game.
Owning the DAC means that the lotto shares owners will be paid with dividends from the revenue.
Acting as employees(delegates) of the DAC means that if delegates want to get advantage in DPOS process, they would like to own lotto shares to vote for their own blocks.
To own future DACs in this franchise. This is the Daddy-DAC of a proto-family.
Donate to charity feeds, people can choose to donate the chip rewards to charity feeds.

People buy LTO to exchange for "chips" in inner system, with chips they use them to play the games.  All spent chips go into the rewards to players except for a small percent that being called “house edge”. Part of this will be use to pay to the workers of the system, delegates, left will eighth go to charity or directly be destroyed in the system, there is no single central entity benefit from the house edge.

Investors can buy/sell LTO in the open market without ever playing the game. Players can buy/sell LTO in the open market without thinking of it as investing. Both drive demand for LTO. This makes holding LTO and winning LTO a good thing for both types of buyers.

Another kind of tokens in this system is called “chips”, TODO

3.0 Consensus Algorithm using DPOS

The point of DPOS is take advantage of specialization, allows for faster block times and confirmations and also allows for scalability on the level of visa's 10,000 tps payment processor. the system is still decentralized in that there is no one point of failure and there is no one point of control. delegates have a simple job and can be fired on command if they do not perform their duties. consensus on a whole is reached by each individual stakeholder, whereas in pow only hashing shares contribute to network consensus.

Delegates are the entities which make all these magic happen. They are involved in the decentralize system as a key part people vote for them to represent the current consensus, and changing consensus of the system, which could help the system to upgrade and reform itself.

In the DPOS peer to peer game system, delegates are playing more important roles, because they not only collect transactions, produce and sign blocks on scheduled time slot, but also that they are the source of the provable distributed random secret services. Please refer section 4.2.



4.0 Truly Random Number Generation (RNG) in Decentralized System
4.1 General Thinking of RNG

Trusted Third Party Feeds
The random number used most often in games is to use RNG feeds from existing lottery games, e.g. using New York Lottery Quick Draw numbers to resolve bets. This is not viable because the feed is possible to cheat, and the feed can not even prove the result is selected in advance, which means some guy can decide the game result as he want. The danger is that players have to trust a single point that could cheat or failure.

Benevolent Entity with A Provable Secret Key
The idea is that RNG should be a provable and deterministic process before reward being out. The P2P nodes or the players could verify the fairness of the RNG after the ticket purchase and jackpots round.

The provable approach is by publishing a one-way hash of the random selected secret ahead of time,
participants can verify and prove that hash after the secret being out.

This is easy to achieve by simply delegate the work to one central but unsafe benevolent entity. But there is a flaw here, benevolent entity with a secret key (e.g. classic satoshi d-Dice) has the chance to cheating by submitting selective transactions. Benevolent entity has some advantage to others in this case, the secret is not random to the entity like other players and it can make use of that knowledge.

Future Event

Another approach is to use future events as the random result, the random of future events could be determined and revealed at the same time. But the future event should be carefully selected, because there are cases that some entities could influence the result of future event. This can be resolved by selecting future event that can hardly be hardly influenced/predicted, or by reducing the influence to future event from entities(e.g. increasing number of factors).

There are future events which are hard/impossible to predict("calculated out" in other words), so they are not determined thus random to the observers until happen time. They will be determined and happen at the same time, right away be revealed (no need to calculate out because everyone knows) the same time, but not before that point.

Using of Randomness from blockchain

We can add difficulty for a player to influence the RNG process by introducing proof of work(POW), this will make player’s factor more independent, prevent collusion or economic impossible. With something like mining with heavy hash power applied you are more likely to profit by submitting the block than holding out hoping to win the lottery.

For example, some data could be hashed and used as the feed from Bitcoin blockchain and hybrid the data  before making the random number. As bitcoin mining involves randomness, it's more secure for a random number generation.

Assuming there is a miner who are going to re-select another result rather than distribute it, he are losing competition advantage to other miners. The process before observe the result takes time because POW are introduced.  This is the meaning of economic impossible, and POW reduced the miner's influence to the result, time cost is the point. And try result collision is difficult in a probability space of > 476127 (to get third level prize of double color lottery), given that the miner have maximum to 10x time before other miners have the block for distribution, the possibility is still very low < 1/47612.

So a mining based approach creates a decentralized random factor that is probably good enough to start a DAC. But it’s true that, even with help of POW, miners still have chances to attack, observers like miners can predict the result by influencing the event that will happen. Miners, or more likely pool admins, have the chance of cheating by selective discarding of unfavourable blocks. The randomness would be better to be generated out of control of any entity.

Provable Distributed Randomness


but still not enough for us to get that randomness,  we need to depend on the randomness process of collecting/communication to reveal them later.

Without mining I could see something along the lines of each member of the Board of Directors(BOD) generating a secret random number in advance, revealing the hash of the network.  Then after the designated drawing block all members of the BOD reveal their secret key.  The secrets are all hashed together along with the hash of one block header of the drawing block.

With this particular structure the BOD would be committing to their secrete numbers long before the hash of the drawing block could be known.  The only way to rig the drawing is for the BOD members to collude.   If even one member is honest and keeps their information secret then the others are SOL.The more board members you have the harder it is for them to collude. 

The entire process can be boiled down to the following process without a BOD.

Anyone who wishes to contribute to the Random Number Generation process publishes the hash of their secret  HASH(S).
After all HASH(S) has been published all participants have an opportunity to publish S
After all participants are given an opportunity to publish their S,   HASH( S[0...N] ) is calculated as the chosen random number.

Anyone concerned about the randomness of the result can participate in the process by publishing two transactions.  Everyone else can simply choose to trust that the others are not colluding.   If there is even one honest individual in the batch then it is secure. If all of the BOD contribute to the process then it can be assumed that there is a high probability that at least one of them is honest. 

In this way everyone who wants it to be provably fair 'for certain' can know for sure that it was fair if they pay the minimum transaction fee.  Everyone else can simply trust that it is fair and take the risk that everyone else is colluding against them.  You could go so far as to have every ticket purchase include its own secret.  Once the purchase window is over, everyone reveals their secrets.  The hash of all secrets becomes the winning number.  Because no valid transactions should ever be excluded from the block-chain for more than 1 or 2 rounds of the BOD we can safely assume that no one could know the random number generated in the end. But in this case, if there are too many tickets are involved in the RNG process, the time cost to collect all the secrets could be very high, it can not be guaranteed that all secrets can be collected before deadline.

4.2 Provable Distributed RGN Algorithm from DPOS:

It is a good balance to choose the RNG BOD members from 101 delegates of DPOS, this also allocates the cost of making sure it is provably secure to those who care about it the most. This means we would probably stick with letting the BOD do the drawing because they have a 99% uptime guarantee during RNG and are generally trusted. As long as one of them is honest then the resulting number is truly random.

With DPOS we have 100 nodes that should have near 99.9% uptime which means we can reliably produce a secure random number with assuming that just 1 out 100 is honest.

Code:
struct Block
{
   hash  secret;  // HASH( S[n] ) where n is the index in the array of secrets generated by this delegate
   hash  revealed_secret; // S[n-1]
};

For each block add a header field containing   HASH(S[n]) where S[n] is a secret to be revealed next time this delegate produces a block.   Also include in the header S[n-1].

We now have a stream of secrets being revealed once per block (15 to 30 seconds)... from this stream of secrets we can generate the random number R for the block as:

Code:
if( first_block_produced_by_delegate ) then Block[HEAD].revealed_secret = 0
ASSERT( HASH( Block[HEAD].revealed_secret) ==  GetLastBlockProducedByDelegate(Block[HEAD].delegate_id).secret )

R = HASH( Block[HEAD].revealed_secret )
for( uint32_t i = 1; i < 100; ++i )
{
     R = HASH( Block[HEAD-i].revealed_secret + R) // where + is concat
}

R = random number generated this block.

Every R is calculated from secrets introduced by all 100 delegates that were revealed after they committed to them.  If even one of the 100 delegates is honest then the resulting R is truly random.

Actually, "Block[HEAD].revealed_secret" the S[n-1] generated by HEAD's delegate in last round (each round 100 delegates' blocks). If we require the least security level of "even one of the 100 delegates is honest then the resulting R is truly random", jackpots should be drawn out using 100th block's R when there are 100 blocks following from the block where ticket purchase transactions are accepted.


“Distributed” means that the random number of one block are generated by the previous 101 delegates’ revealed secret, so as long as one of them are honest, then the resulting random number is truly random. “Provable” means that they need to publish the hash of their secrets to the blockchain in the previous block which is at least ahead of a cycle (every delegate have at most one chance in one round, 101 blocks),  so they can not cheating the resulting number by analyzing the player’s transactions or other delegates’ published secrets, and revealing selective favourable secret. The revealed secret’s hash must be the hash they published last time.

Why shuffle important?

8.0 The Path to A Game Platform and Ecosystem




8.1 Rule Layer and Core Layer

Lotto is designed in two abstract layers, the rule layer and the core layer, which will make it very easy to create a alt-lotto, for lotto family DAC creator. Users can customize lotto dac, by customize the rule config and rule layer api of Lotto. On the chain, there are only ranked lucky numbers and winning number, no rule configuration and jackpots drawing info. So all transactions much the core layer and part of rule could be accepted.

The communication and cooperation between these two layers are using combinatorial number system(CNS) to map them. CNS will be described below.

The lotto family DAC creators can select whatever kind of rule they like, color counts, ball count, k to select, prize definition etc. The outer rule layer will also provide simple api for inheritors to customize prizes rules. Here is a sample to demonstrate what will a rule be.

8.2 Large Prize Payout

To prevent winners of large jackpots from dumping their huge shares to the market, the payout should be delayed and spread over many blocks. This mechanism should be part of transaction validation, using similar feature like “nLockTime” from Bitcoin protocol to lock/freeze the payment for several blocks. Bitshares toolkit's transaction seems to have a similar field "valid_until", which should be the same with “nLockTime”. That is,  if an output is a "reward" output, they will be split to up to N parts, each with 1 to N lock time and can only be spent after 1 to N blocks.

8.3 Common Requirements for Game Rules
RNG (Random Number Generation). A random number need to be generated by Bitshares Lotto DAC, which is used for calculate winning number.
Lotto/Game rule definition. There are a lot of game rules, lottery, dice etc, but there model are pretty similar, actually they have a lot in common, so can be concluded to an abstract model/layer to define the rules.
We need a mapping method to link the lucky number and winning number to continuous nature numbers, so we can simplify the problem space to RNG from nature numbers. The lucky number are selected by user according to rule model.
Well designed of rule model with a good economic balance, which could keep the DAC being self-sustained and continuous. There should no jackpots giving out be failure because of rewards flaws.
Large scale of prize should not corrupt the market of Lotto shares, e.g. Prize owns dump there jackpot to the market.

8.4 Combinatorial Number System(CNS) for Mapping combinations to Natural Numbers

CNS are used to map the rule layer model to the core layer’s RNG process, especially useful in mapping the lottery combination inputs to natural numbers, which can help custimize different rule with only some simple script language or config file.

In mathematics, and in particular in combinatorics, the combinatorial number system of degree k (for some positive integer k), also referred to as combinadics, is a correspondence between natural numbers (taken to include 0) N and k-combinations, represented as strictly decreasing sequences ck > ... > c2 > c1 ≥ 0. Since the latter are strings of numbers, one can view this as a kind of numeral system for representing N, although the main utility is representing a k-combination by N rather than the other way around. Distinct numbers correspond to distinct k-combinations, and produce them in lexicographic order; moreover the numbers less than correspond to all k-combinations of { 0, 1, ..., n − 1}. The correspondence does not depend on the size n of the set that the k-combinations are taken from, so it can be interpreted as a map from N to the k-combinations taken from N; in this view the correspondence is a bijection.
The number N corresponding to (ck,...,c2,c1) is given by
N = (kCk) +  + (2C2) + (1C1)

The fact that a unique sequence so corresponds to any number N was observed by D.H. Lehmer.[1] Indeed a greedy algorithm finds the k-combination corresponding to N: take ck maximal with , then take ck − 1 maximal with , and so forth. Finding the number N, using the formula above, from the k-combination (ck,...,c2,c1) is also known as "ranking", and the opposite operation (given by the greedy algorithm) as "unranking"; these operations are known by those names in most Computer algebra systems, and in computational mathematics.

Ranking/Unranking algorithm for multi-color balls lottery:
Given that there are c kinds of colored balls, each kind of balls have Bi balls, numbered from 0, 1, … Bi, user have to choose Ki balls from each kind ball as the combination of this color ball’s combinations.
The final user selected balls are actually ball combination groups, each color has a related combination group, each group i is a combination with Ki balls select, such as (C1, C2, C3, ... , CKi)Gi.
First, mapping the Gi group combination to nature number using ranking algorithm of CNS, The number RGi is the corresponding ranking number calculated according to (C1, C2, C3, ... , CKi)Gi, which are ordered incrementally.
RGi = (KiCKi) +  + (2C2) + (1C1)
For each group, there is a probability space of
SGi = KiBi
Then the final ranking number R is calculated as following
R = i=0c-1(RGi x=0i-1SGx)
The unranking is the reverse of the 3 to 5 steps.

In the ticket purchase block, user selected combination groups are converted to its ranking number as the lucky number which will be broadcasted in the claim_ticket transaction, further to be stored in blockchain.

After the winning number is out, and before the jackpots matching process, the winning number will be converted to combination groups using unranking algorithm, this winning combination groups are used for detail jackpots much in the rule layer. By the same token, because nodes can only know the ranking of lucky combination groups, and the can not generate the jackpot just according to ranking winning and lucky number, lucky number also need to be unranked before match.

The winning number is random number created by RNG, it has a u64_t type, but before the unranking, we should notice that the is a maximum probability space to the possible combination groups, which should be
TRG =i=0c-1SGi

The winning number need to do    (mod TRG)      before unranking.


9.0 Cross-chain exchange based on Decentralized User Issued Asset Escrow

Systems like BTSX have User issued assets which can represent tokens of some digital equity. If systems like this support escrow mechanisms, which mean destroy some Bit Asset (say LTO assets) in the exchange, and create same amount of tokens(LTO) in Lotto System, and vice versa. This is achieved by consensus communication between two systems, for example, if Lotto detect that some amount of LTO assets are sent to a escrow address, then, LTO with same amount will be created in Lotto system, and vice versa. Escrow address is some special address of the system that no one know the private key.

This sound similar to Bitcoin’s concept of side chain, but the difference is that with bitcoin side chain, there is only one token in that system, so any this kind of escrow will have the risk to dilute that token or double spending, this is why need merge mining. But here, there are special user issued asset for its chain, representing exactly the same token mirror of it own chain.


9.0 References
[1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_number_system
[3] http://www.bitshares.org/security/delegated-proof-of-stake.php
[4] http://chancecoin.com/technical
[5] https://classic.satoshidice.com
[6] http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-robotics/
[7] http://trade.500.com/dlt/

Quote from: rock57 on August 06, 2014, 06:08:00 am

Quote from: alt on August 06, 2014, 05:28:53 am

BTS500刀，但绝对不是这个能养蛀虫分走我们50%股份的BTS
我不是说大户坏，我相信在坏的制度下，好人会变成坏人。1%做代表才是真正的垄断。

你是想说，任何一个没有为整个体系做事的人，比如没有参与营销，没有参与更改代码，没有参与规则设定，只要是靠买卖赚钱，抱着嫩模数钱的人，我们判定他为蛀虫。

你忽略了资本的力量，所有得利的人他都是有付出的，他购买BTS就是支持整个体系，持有是信任，卖出是创造流动性，他付出了资本的机会成本，并承担风险，这些人缺一不

可，世界运行不就是如此吗。

现在50%预留的初衷是什么呢？不就是拿来做后期推广开发的吗？
投钱的等着股票升值就可以了
那么你有1%能做delegate，你能白白从50%股份中分钱。我不是delegate就该被你稀释吗？只是什么逻辑呢，你们口口声声为小散考虑，是真的吗？