Worf_Of_Wall_St

Yeah I'm thinking the time investment on these cons, the failed attempts, the many years it took to get one million dollars (revenue, not profit!) from 45 victims adds up to this isn't about money, it's for sport.

Probably all that time and people skills could have been used to make money legitimately.

How is the randomness of your selected winners and prizes enforced?

Or put differently, what gives the insurer confidence that the stated chance of their having to pay out is accurate?

Makes sense, and sounds like good design. I want to go one level deeper though because I love implementation details.

How are the user picks and winning numbers communicated between the two parties? Via a mutually trusted third party? Digital signature with a timestamp provided by a trusted piece of hardware?

Otherwise if either side has the other's numbers first then they could choose their numbers to fit the result they want. Obviously on your side it would require a complicit user but that doesn't seem hard to arrange.

It always seemed to me that the biggest problem is elected politicians not understanding much about an issue so they can be easily swayed by self serving arguments of those who have their ear. From their perspective they aren’t doing anything wrong.

Things like net neutrality, if explained correctly, are obviously good things for consumers and all but a few companies but if you don’t know a thing about the internet and you only listen to a Verizon lobbyist then they probably could convince you that it’s bad and you’d have no idea that tax dollars paid for much of the infrastructure that they want to use to collect more tolls on.

This is the question I came here for.