BC.GAME provably fair analysis

BC.GAME fairness construction: Mixed: plain SHA-256 (dice family) · HMAC-SHA256 (Mines/Keno/Wheel) · 10M-value SHA-256 hash chain (Crash). Independently verifiable: yes. Client seed: settable. Fairness score 9/10. Snapshot 2026-08-18.

The deepest originals catalogue in the set (36 titles in our index) and the most heterogeneous cryptography. Dice-style games hash "serverSeed:clientSeed:nonce" with plain SHA-256 and no HMAC keying; Mines, Keno, Wheel and Dragon Tower switch to HMAC-SHA256; Crash is drawn from a pre-generated 10-million-hash chain played in reverse. Verification is per game — the casino publishes per-game algorithms, keeps seed history in the profile, and independent verifiers (e.g. Dyutam) cover the main titles.

How to verify a BC.GAME round

1. Save the committed server-seed hash (or the published chain/proof values on chain- and VRF-based games) before playing.
2. Set your own client seed where the scheme supports one.
3. After the session, rotate the seed pair or open the revealed values; confirm the revealed seed hashes to the commitment.
4. Recompute the round from the revealed values with the operator’s published per-game formula or our seed verifier.
5. A mismatch on any single round — after checking encoding and nonce indexing — is the only evidence of tampering that actually means something.

Originals and declared house edge

Verification proves a round was not altered after the bet; the declared edge is applied openly in the payout table and is unaffected by any of this.

Anomalies and caveats

• Dice-family games use plain SHA-256 with no HMAC keying — a verifier hard-coded to the Stake engine returns wrong results for BC.Game dice.
• Crash rounds come from a pre-generated hash chain, so the client seed has no influence on crash outcomes.
• Marketing presents a flat 1% house edge; our catalogue records a 2% declared edge on most originals.

Anomalies describe observations from public code, documentation or reporting. They are not accusations of cheating; where something is unproven we say so.

Scoring breakdown — 9/10

• Verifiability: 2/2 — Can a player independently recompute a round end-to-end? 2 = full commit-reveal with a public algorithm; 1.5 = verifiable with caveats (mixed or partially undocumented constructions); 1 = commitment check only; 0 = nothing to check.
• Player control: 1.5/2 — Does the player influence the draw? 2 = settable client seed, rotation reveals the server seed, per-bet nonce; 1 = player input absent on some games (e.g. hash-chain titles); 0 = no player input at all.
• Documentation: 2/2 — Public documentation quality. 2 = per-game algorithm detail and/or sample code or a working verification sandbox; 1 = generic commit-reveal description; 0 = none found.
• Edge transparency: 1.5/2 — Is the price of each game stated and stable? 2 = per-game RTP/house edge published and consistent with our catalogue; 1 = published but with gaps, wide spreads or marketing mismatches; 0.5 = dynamic/undisclosed edge behaviour; 0 = nothing published.
• Track record: 2/2 — Known fairness-relevant incidents. 2 = none found; 1.5 = minor or contested; 1 = material public disputes relevant to trust in the fairness claim.

The score grades the fairness system and its transparency, not the casino overall. It says nothing about licensing, solvency or withdrawal reliability.

Method and sources

Casino per-game fairness pages + third-party verifier coverage (Dyutam, spindex BC.Game page documenting the dual SHA-256/HMAC constructions).

Analysis based on public documentation, community verifiers and — where noted — the operator's public client-side JavaScript, snapshot 2026-08-18. Constructions can change; the date matters.

Other fairness reports

• Stake — 10/10
• Shuffle — 9.5/10
• Gamdom — 9/10
• Thrill — 9/10
• Duelbits — 8.5/10
• Rollbit — 8/10
• Rainbet — 7.5/10
• Duel — 7.5/10
• 500 Casino — 7/10
• BetFury — 7/10
• Roobet — 6.5/10