Gambling in 2100?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Absolutely. One of the LPI techniques involves combining frequency hopping, bursting, random intervals, progressive threshold seeking, and OTP so that unless you have the previously shared secret to reproduce the random variations, the signals are nigh-indistinguishable from background noise or a reflection of some glitchy device. Better sensors for detection in 5W also mean better receivers can be signaled by lower power transmitters for better evasion.

If the cheaters can afford to put smart dust on every card they want to mark the gaming commission can put nano emission detectors in every card and you will not fool a sensor that close with "random noise". It'll be in a place where there isn't supposed to be any noise.

For that matter the auto-shuffler can probably wipe every card clean of any smart dust.

Or maybe there's no electronics in the cards and the inside of the shuffler is a Faraday cage with an EMP emitter that will fry all the smart dust before the card are dealt again.

When the cheating tech has to be subtle and the anti-cheating tech doesn't it's advantage to anti-cheating.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If the cheaters can afford to put smart dust on every card they want to mark the gaming commission can put nano emission detectors in every card and you will not fool a sensor that close with "random noise". It'll be in a place where there isn't supposed to be any noise.

I look forward to reading your published paper.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

When the cheating tech has to be subtle and the anti-cheating tech doesn't it's advantage to anti-cheating.

Noting that the anti-cheating tech can frequently be reduced to the famous $5 wrench or similar.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If the cheaters can afford to put smart dust on every card they want to mark the gaming commission can put nano emission detectors in every card and you will not fool a sensor that close with "random noise". It'll be in a place where there isn't supposed to be any noise.

There can't be a place with no EM noise, it's unobtainable like absolute zero and in fact absolute zero would be required. You could get close enough to defeat the LPI that way in a lab, but not in an inviting casino.

The smart dust is more properly called surveillance dust in the TS corebook, about p.169. Canonically they are found with Microscopic Vision, chemscanners, and bughunter swarms.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

There can't be a place with no EM noise, .

"The place" in my statement was in physical contact with the card and not just "the casino".

It doesn't matter, since once it came to me the idea of the shielded box with the EMP inside was obviously superior. Call it a "nano-clave" and they might be as common in a setting with nano as paper shredders are in the current day.

It does bring up the issue of what do you do for high density storage that's EMP-proof. An improved version of microfiche (nanofiche?) might do the job.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

"The place" in my statement was in physical contact with the card and not just "the casino".

As long as the card is above 0 K, it will naturally produce some EM. Not much even at room temp, but that's why LPI includes the "adaptive threshold" technololgy that lowers the amplitude of the output to within a sigma or so of the local background level. This greatly cuts bandwidth, but only 4 bits need to get out to identify the card value, 2 more for the suit where that matters.

Nanoclaving the cards may not be reliable unless its also strong enough to wreck the animated cards. It'd be simpler, cheaper, and probably more popular to use a CSM that pulls from racks of visible, unused cards, and remove used cards from the game.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

This greatly cuts bandwidth, but only 4 bits need to get out to identify the card value, 2 more for the suit where that matters.

How is your nanodust going to read the cards? A spot of dust on the surface of the card won't be able to determine anything beyond the color of the spot of the card surface it's on, and won't even be able to do that if it's in a lightless area, such as the inside of a deck.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

How is your nanodust going to read the cards? A spot of dust on the surface of the card won't be able to determine anything beyond the color of the spot of the card surface it's on, and won't even be able to do that if it's in a lightless area, such as the inside of a deck.

The cards are exposed to light as they are dealt into play, and an ad hoc network of dust motes exchange each one's location on the face and the current color at that point. This allows identification of card values and suits by elimination when the design appearances of the cards are known, as they would be because the cheater had to have played at least once before in order to place the dust.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

The cards are exposed to light as they are dealt into play, and an ad hoc network of dust motes exchange each one's location on the face and the current color at that point. This allows identification of card values and suits by elimination when the design appearances of the cards are known, as they would be because the cheater had to have played at least once before in order to place the dust.

That ad hoc communication is going to be pretty noticeable, due to the sensitivity limits of the dust.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That ad hoc communication is going to be pretty noticeable, due to the sensitivity limits of the dust.

I'm sorry, I mis-typed. It would be flexible and established on the card as the motes are emplaced, a literally ad hoc, improvised configuration rather than the particular, scalable activities the term of art "ad hoc" means in current networking IT. It might even involve some other channel, like sonics.