I can't believe you're defending "an incorrect assumption" regarding your previous generator, especially after you wrote a very good article showing how badly wrong you were.

Wait, let me restate that. You're Engineering the Disruption of Real Money Gaming and yet you say of some PRNG "no reason the ... implementation ... should not be good enough to not have to worry about"? You're not just wrong, in fact you're "not even wrong", that's how wrong you are. Plus that sentence has three negatives!

Jules Winnfield said it better than I could. Riffing from him, what you were doing was, compared to what you should have been doing: ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

Here's something I came up with in 60 seconds. It's far better than what you didn't want to worry about:

   ID Quantique hardware RNG [1]
   mixed with Intel RdRand [2]

Yes, you're right. That's not seed-able, so you can't create a reproducible sequence of values (e.g., for testing). That's an advantage. You want to test, you replace hardware with software. But if you want to disrupt real money gaming you don't use some crappy software in some random library that wasn't designed for the purpose.

Once again, I can't believe your defense of how badly you failed was the "reputation" that Google has. Real money is involved and you thought it was OK to rely on some crappy PRNG created by Google? For something that is at the heart of, the quintessence of what you are attempting to accomplish?

EPIC FAIL!!!

[1] http://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RdRand