Gamdom fairness construction: SHA-256 hash chain per game (1M–10M rounds) · public salt from a real Bitcoin block hash. Independently verifiable: yes. Client seed: not part of the scheme. Fairness score 9/10. Snapshot 2026-08-18.
Not a seed-pair casino. Gamdom generated a long SHA-256 hash chain per game, published the terminal hash, and plays the chain in reverse; each game hash is combined with a published salt. We verified from the shipped game bundle that the hilo and roulette salts are real Bitcoin block hashes (blocks 496369 and 453235) — public constants no one invented after the fact. Chain continuity is auditable by anyone: SHA-256 of each revealed game hash must equal the previous one.
How to verify a Gamdom round
Save the committed server-seed hash (or the published chain/proof values on chain- and VRF-based games) before playing.
Set your own client seed where the scheme supports one.
After the session, rotate the seed pair or open the revealed values; confirm the revealed seed hashes to the commitment.
Recompute the round from the revealed values with the operator’s published per-game formula or our seed verifier.
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.
Game
Declared edge
Notes
Plinko
1%
Mines
1%
Keno
1%
Pocket Dice
1%
Limbo
1%
Crash
1%
Dice
1%
HiLo
1%
1% on fixed bets; 1.08–1.25% on hi/lo positions (recomputed, see /research/house-edge).
Roulette
0.9901%
0.9901% edge recomputed by WagerDB from the shipped spec — every bet returns exactly 100/101.
Blackjack
0.57%
Anomalies and caveats
No seed pairs and no client seed: the player contributes nothing to the draw. The chain proves results were fixed in advance; it cannot prove they were not cherry-picked against you in aggregate — that is inherent to the model, not an accusation.
Our recomputation of the shipped game spec found HiLo hi/lo positions priced at 1.08–1.25% edge (two-decimal truncation always falls the house's way), above the exactly 1% on its fixed bets.
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: 1/2 — 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: 2/2 — 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
WagerDB static analysis of the public DiceV4Page/client bundles (2026-08-16, see /research/house-edge) + Gamdom fairness page with per-game sample code.
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.