🏅 Top traders

@IsaacKing your random number is: 83

Salt: al3fko0hdCZsCmEygWEf, round: 2959617 (signature 8b25da7d7bd9f66719e25912ea588151bf7363f1f95b2160abe3ff1db22d69d9a43d699b73311be2601b8579b18439ed12c4067350adfa6b0db6659a63aab9e5d91efbc1b703c19478ac8739a57894890d634b7f3293655f11cf54f239aaffdb)

@IsaacKing you asked for a random integer between 1 and 100, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 2959615 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 2959617, salt: al3fko0hdCZsCmEygWEf.

@FairlyRandom 100

Resolves YES if FairlyRandom rolls a 42.

@A your random number is: 3

Salt: 4tY6dg3dufV8PXvF2vI2, round: 2959595 (signature a460fedc75843a18030a9d2462979dc00539f1be876c43bbbb3d33dfeab15197a20e10d8725432e63bc4f3d85a2dd1950a924547bd51cbf8c952f0002706a21a53432fa9d9c002947475cc3fc071359f647fb4b9bc5d23ffc83db5b4e5bbc5ec)

@A you asked for a random integer between 1 and 3, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 2959593 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 2959595, salt: 4tY6dg3dufV8PXvF2vI2.

@FairlyRandom 3
Another test

@A your random number is: 2

Salt: 35ks79VJSS5oA0ZMeh7t, round: 2959589 (signature 94fb603a4d350e7be024c6403fe350c664413d58dd44a33b86f38ab1aa47d08290deead5f5e1dc97936f86d4233476120ac17834dd1f21ee9dcab132c474947d9c6d79fe85dbf6026dfaeb232db0fcb5ffbc095f2160f7e00635e4139dcb953b)

@A you asked for a random integer between 1 and 2, inclusive. Coming up shortly!

Source: GitHub, previous round: 2959588 (latest), offset: 1, selected round: 2959589, salt: 35ks79VJSS5oA0ZMeh7t.

Testing that this market was successfully whitelisted too: @FairlyRandom max=2 offset=1

Not a valid request: Range is ambiguous. Please include only a single number, or explicitly state max=N

Ostensibly this market resolves YES if @FairlyRandom returns exactly a 1 (or is it 100) in response to a roll with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 100, however the market conditions are equally satisfied for any given number from 1 to 100, inclusive, assuming @FairlyRandom's output is uniformly distributed.

I suggest disambiguation is warranted in the unlikely event that a 100 is rolled and you meant for a 1 to be a success for YES or vis versa a 1 id rolled and you intended a 100 to be success for YES. Or, less likely, maybe 67 is the magic number that has a 1% chance of occurring which would result in this market resolving YES.

Before raising this issue there may have only been a 1% chance of a controversial resolution, however, given that any number is assumed to have a 1% chance of being the output from 1 to 100, I would posit that any resolution would be controversial if the number representing YES's 1% chance of success is not made known prior to the roll, since after the fact it is possible to cherry pick a 1% event with 100% success.