The question is for Kruw and the developers of mixers that use the services of blockchain analysis companies. If all UTXOs are "guilty until proven innocent", how can users refute evaluations that are "false-positives"?
They can't, because you can't prove a negative.Or "WE can't". Because from their viewpoint if it's a validated positive, then it's a good illustration of the effectiveness of blockchain analytics. But if a "tainted" UTXO passed through, then it's merely an illustration that the blockchain analysis company should set up more filters.  The hypothesis that there might be two different prices between KYC-Bitcoin and "tainted" non-KYC-Bitcoin might start being a real issue when BlackRock and the other institutions/asset managers truly come in, no? Perhaps in five years? |
|
|
|
|
It's laughable that the people I talk to that remain in denial of the high-probability of Stagflation that's going to happen in many regions around the world.
In Europe, Christine Lagarde raised interest rates again, it's the tenth hike and she won't truly confirm when she'll stop. That will slow down most European economies. But in other parts of the world, China's Stimulus and the supply cuts for Crude Oil will cause higher fuel prices and therefore more inflation.
Stagflation will not merely be a narrative.
|
|
|
|
Australia is looking to ban credit card usage in online gambling. The reason they give is that Australia loses 25 billion dollars only in gambling in a year. That is a big amount indeed.
That's a laughable move from their policy makers in Australia because it won't stop the people from losing billions more in illegal gambling. People won't stop gambling, but they're killing an industry for legal gambling. Although the title says, the ban of credit cards but when you read the actual news it says that they will ban crypto usage in online gambling too. The Bill, set to be introduced to federal parliament on Wednesday, will illegalise the use of credit cards and digital currencies in online wagering and slap fines up to $234,750 on companies that don’t enforce the ban. A true censorship-resistant, permissionless cryptocurrency = Bitcoin can't be stopped. It will find market inefficiencies and make them more efficient, legally AND illegally.  |
|
|
|
Hi. My friend CHATGPT help me out: I wanted to share my experience as a Rollbit user. It appears that Rollbit somehow acquired my information, possibly from my previous involvement with Stake. As a Diamond-level player on stake, Rollbit unexpectedly awarded me 6k for free. This made me quite profitable since I hadn't deposited any of my own funds, and I managed to cash out between 50-80k in the past year. However, my Rollbit account was recently disabled without any prior notice. Fortunately, I had already withdrawn my balance as a precaution. When I reached out to inquire about the reason behind the ban, I received only a brief response: "Banned permanently for abuse." They didn't offer any further explanation. My activities on Rollbit mainly involved participating in their crash game and placing bets on various sports events. Occasionally, I made 1.01 bets in pursuit of their Level up bonus. If such bets were not allowed, it raises the question of why Rollbit offered those odds in the first place. I'm not deeply attached to my Rollbit account, but it seems they may have grown weary of not seeing a return on the money they awarded me. In total, I received 14K in bonuses without ever depositing my "own" money. My intention in sharing this story is to caution all of you to approach Rollbit with caution. It's essential to be aware of the risks, especially when they involve receiving unexpected bonuses or promotions from them. I hope none of you have to endure the disappointment of having your funds confiscated. Stay safe  This is why we have built JustBet. You can directly play from your web3 wallet. Instant payouts, no deposit, no withdrawal, no KYC, no bullsh*t. No one can ban you. Use decentralized casino and stay safe. Is JustBet truly an onchain gambling service like DirectBet was, or is it merely the wallet interacting with the site on login? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0I believe no casino could actually claim to be "no KYC" if it doesn't utilize the blockchain as it should be at the back-end/when the casino's website merely functions as a front-end for the service. Plus another clue. I believe if a casino is regulated, there are definitely no assurances that it will stay "no KYC" forever. But if it isn't regulated, I want to be assured that the casino is a real onchain casino. Real "Onchain Casinos" built on top of a real blockchain, that claim to be truly "no KYC" would be very hard to execute. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, i had iphone 5 but never had so much bitcoins. I was too young at that times
Which is the actual point of the topic. If you bought 53 Bitcoins instead of your iPhone 5, you could buy 100 iPhones right now and you would still have more Bitcoins left to enjoy the next bull cycle. You might be having shower-thoughts like, "Is it too late"? I believe NOT. 21,000,000 Bitcoins - Unlimited Fiat, just keep working/saving, then Buy the DIP and HODL. |
|
|
|
Then what's the point of having to check them for "taint"? Would UTXOs received from a Dark Market dealer pass through their coordinator?
If Coinfirm deems this "naughty", it will be rejected. The point of discriminating against some "naughty coins" is to create the perfect environment so that large corporations like Binance can justify requesting all that ton of KYC info when you make an account, which in addition is extremely useful for a surveillance state. Then how can users be sure that centralized mixers themselves don't use Coinfirm or the services of blockchain analysis companies? To be frank, I believe it's merely a trade-off for mixers to protect themselves from the state, but like you posted it could be an attack vector. Quoting myself: Blockchain analysis companies are the practice of "being guilty until proven innocent". Living under a state which can put me behind the bars because I might be involved with some activity, with absolutely no scientific evidence is totalitarian. Literally everyone in the blockchain is potentially involved in some illegal activity.
But it's just genius. They've convinced the world that it's needed. A weapon to intrude into people's liberty and having them voluntarily handing it over is just the ultimate weapon.
The question is for Kruw and the developers of mixers that use the services of blockchain analysis companies. If all UTXOs are "guilty until proven innocent", how can users refute evaluations that are "false-positives"? |
|
|
|
This is an illustration of the value of hodling and the evil of inflation.
We all know how Bitcoin's price has grown more than 2 billion percent over the years. 1BTC used to be just $0.001. Now it's $26,000. Between $0.001 and $26,000, many supporters and believers sold their coins thinking they have already made money out of it. Little did they know that the price would continue to rise.
The primary reason is that Bitcoin is inflation-proof. With Bitcoin, nobody has the power of the printer. No one can indiscriminately inflate its supply. No president or central bank governor has the power to devalue the currency such that in the Bitcoin standard prices are falling rather than rising.
Plus the difference between thinking about Bitcoin's price zoomed out to the maximum/having it as a low time preference investment and using it as a Medium of Exchange. I'm not discouraging my fellow plebs not to spend their Bitcoin, but do save MOST of what you have. We must not forget that there's unlimited fiat, and just 21,000,000 Bitcoins. |
|
|
|
#Bitcoin Impulsive Move Nearby. 🚀 The extremely low volatility we are witnessing right now is not something new in #BTC cycles. It usually lead to impulsive moves. Pay close attention to the 2nd dip in green 🟢. In 2016, the crossover after the dip led to an impulsive move to the upside. The same thing occurred in 2019. The 2nd dip just occurred in 2023. I know many are expecting a red 🔴 September with a deeper pullback. Yet in markets, as i told you EOY 2022, when too many people are expecting a scenario to occur, each and every time the opposite happens. Let's see how it plays out this time. I'll keep you posted. 🫡  Source linkShower thought. We might also see another "COVID-19 pandemic-like crash", probably caused by bad macro-economic conditions that would finally make inflation drop in many regions at the cost of their economies. Massive lay-offs, slow-growth, recession and stagnation everywhere. BUT what is the cure? The money printer. Perhaps another situation that could coincide with the Halving? |
|
|
|
But the same hypothesis, I want people to "clean" their UTXOs from "taint" If by "taint", you mean the list of coins which are treated unequally by chain analysis firms (some of which do get funded by the US government), then we actually don't know what will happen, and probably neither any Wasabi developer knows. That's the one. "Taint" enforced by "their" definition. Let's teach other plebs how to remove the "taint" by having them pass through Wasabi's CoinJoin.
As I said, their coordinator makes a request to Coinfirm and will enforce that UTXO list to the coinjoin round. Your coins could be accepted even if you're wanted by the FBI, or could be refused even if you're innocent.
Then what's the point of having to check them for "taint"? Would UTXOs received from a Dark Market dealer pass through their coordinator? You don't know? But a centralized entity making claims such as zkSNACKS should be regulated by an authority in case those claims aren't real, no?
I still don't get where you're confused. Which claim by zkSNACKs is false if they approve a coin which is deemed as "naughty" by some chain analysis firm? I'm merely talking about a hypothetical situation. From a user's viewpoint, zkSNACKs' coordinator checks if the UTXOs are tainted before they pass through, no? Then the user should assume that all UTXOs that CoinJoined through Wasabi are not tainted. BUT what if the user still had his UTXOs blocked or confiscated by another centralized entity because of claims that they were "tainted". Who would be responsible for this problem? |
|
|
|
They are creative with terminologies, inflation and stagflation. I remember how politicians try to mislead citizens with recession and technical recession which is reflected recession but they want to avoid it and reduce its severity by using a creative term, technical recession.
Why they don't use a term hyper inflation but use stagflation? Because hyper inflation sounds very bad while stagflation is not and looks to be a new term, need time for citizens to discover and accept it.
Bad economic policies, gold standard removal and other reasons like oil price increases are some factors that come together with governments to print more money into their economies then cause inflation in some countries or hyper inflation in some special nations.
I believe the term "technical recession" is as old as the study of modern economics itself. If there's a recession for two consecutive quarters = it's a Technical Recession. The politicians actually are changing the official definition by not recognizing it, also telling the bureaucracy to "cook the numbers". The term Stagflation, although a newer term, was first used during 1965. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real. We will probably hear more of the term for the last quarter of 2023 - first quarter/second quarter of 2024. |
|
|
|
Is this fake news or does Michael Saylor need to promise that he will eat his dick on national television to get this prediction more attention hehehhee.
If you frequently scream ludicrous things to the public to hopefully get your investment a lot of attention, at some point, people will get tired of your craziness and you'd get a lot less attention as time goes. This is a perfect example of this lol. He might as well say that Bitcoin cures cancer of something that deranged. Although true, it would still be laughable to compare the Chad Saylor with John McAfee, no? Chad Saylor made one of the largest investments in Bitcoin, and therefore people can't touch him no matter how hard those people laugh at him. John McAfee is a mere snake-oil salesman who used his popularity to shill shitcoins. |
|
|
|
I believe not. From a viewpoint of a business, I think casinos accept that there will always be a very small percentage of users who will be long-term winners. BUT as long as they don't "abuse" the service by taking advantage of the rakeback/cashback rewards program by betting exclusively on 99% implied winners, then they won't be banned from the service. All users are expected to play in the casino under the the casino's terms. You either actually play/gamble, or leave. You could also play a game where you could find your own edge, like BlackJack.
I disagree. Why do you think so many casinos limit or outright ban long-term punters? It's because they are a business and they cannot afford to keep them around which makes sense if you think about it. There are very few gambling sites out there that actually allow long-term winners to continue playing(Pinnacle etc). They ban all long-term punters? If that was actually true, then all long-term BlackJack players who actually has an edge on the game would have been banned. It's because they are a business that they also need to protect their reputation too, and not be that "notorious" Casino known for banning long-term players who actually gamble. I believe you should also try to look at the situation from the casino's point of view too. Because from their viewpoint, you're merely farming for the cashback/rakeback rewards and not actually using the site for real gambling. From the point of view of the business owner, you're a leech that's taking revenue out of the business, not someone who brings something into the business. What would you do if you had such a "customer"?
Makes sense. No casino/sportsbook likes long-term winners which is why they usually resort to this stuff to try and keep their business alive. Rollbit actually released all of his funds successfully before banning him which is the most important part. Sites which confiscate funds and ban winners are basically scams and Rollbit is clearly not one of them. I believe not. From a viewpoint of a business, I think casinos accept that there will always be a very small percentage of users who will be long-term winners. BUT as long as they don't "abuse" the service by taking advantage of the rakeback/cashback rewards program by betting exclusively on 99% implied winners, then they won't be banned from the service. All users are expected to play in the casino under the the casino's terms. You either actually play/gamble, or leave. You could also play a game where you could find your own edge, like BlackJack. , and the rest is casino.. OK, but that's still probably what caused the problem. |
|
|
|
I believe you should also try to look at the situation from the casino's point of view too. Because from their viewpoint, you're merely farming for the cashback/rakeback rewards and not actually using the site for real gambling. From the point of view of the business owner, you're a leech that's taking revenue out of the business, not someone who brings something into the business. What would you do if you had such a "customer"?
Makes sense. No casino/sportsbook likes long-term winners which is why they usually resort to this stuff to try and keep their business alive. Rollbit actually released all of his funds successfully before banning him which is the most important part. Sites which confiscate funds and ban winners are basically scams and Rollbit is clearly not one of them. I believe not. From a viewpoint of a business, I think casinos accept that there will always be a very small percentage of users who will be long-term winners. BUT as long as they don't "abuse" the service by taking advantage of the rakeback/cashback rewards program by betting exclusively on 99% implied winners, then they won't be banned from the service. All users are expected to play in the casino under the the casino's terms. You either actually play/gamble, or leave. You could also play a game where you could find your own edge, like BlackJack. |
|
|
|
Have you thought about using CEXes instead of Bridges? You could just deposit your BTC, and then on the withdrawal process, you can choose the network you want to withdraw your WBTC to. I obviously wouldn't recommend storing WBTC for the long term though.
For a higher fee, there's also those non-deposit exchanges like eXch.cx which have started advertising in BitcoinTalk through their own signature campaign. Third-party risks are probably the same as Bitstamp and other centralized exchanges, but they act like "bridges" and there's no need to go through KYC. Plus OP, why not hold the actual base coin/unit for that blockchain instead of holding Bitcoin as an IOU in another blockchain? It's better to hold the shitcoin than holding an IOU in a blockchain of a shitcoin. |
|
|
|
Stagflation will probably be an economic term that many of us plebs will start hearing more and more of from the news as the economic situation in many regions around the world continue to worsen. Stagflation is an economic cycle, or condition, when there's slow growth, low demand, low employment, BUT high "sticky" inflation. That's where many countries are probably going. Plus if you didn't pay attention in your Economics class in school, it's currently the best time to learn about it because it's probably going to come sooner than expected. So let's discuss. What Causes Stagflation?There is no real consensus among economists about the causes of stagflation. They have put forth several arguments to explain how it occurs, even though it was once considered impossible. Blame Oil Price ShocksOne theory states that stagflation is caused when a sudden increase in the cost of oil reduces an economy's productive capacity. The oil crisis of the 1970s is the prime example. In October 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) issued an embargo against Western countries. This caused the global price of oil to rise dramatically, therefore increasing the costs of goods and contributing to a rise in unemployment. 8 Because transportation costs rose, producing products and getting them to shelves became more expensive and prices rose even as people were laid off from their jobs. Critics of this theory point out that sudden oil price shocks like those of the 1970s did not occur in connection with any of the simultaneous periods of inflation and recession that have occurred since the embargo. 9 Blame Poor Economic PoliciesAnother theory is that the confluence of stagnation and inflation is the result of poorly made economic policy. Harsh regulation of markets, goods, and labor in an otherwise inflationary environment are cited as the possible cause of stagflation. Some point to former President Richard Nixon's policies, which may have led to the recession of 1970—a possible precursor to other periods of stagflation. Nixon put tariffs on imports and froze wages and prices for 90 days in an attempt to prevent prices from rising. 10 Once the controls were relaxed, the rapid acceleration of prices led to economic chaos. While appealing, this is an ad-hoc explanation of the stagflation of the 1970s which does not explain later periods that showed a simultaneous rise in prices and unemployment. Blame the Loss of the Gold StandardOther theories point to monetary factors that may also play a role in stagflation. Nixon removed the last indirect vestiges of the gold standard, bringing down the Bretton Woods system that had controlled currency exchange rates. 11 This decision removed commodity backing for the currency and put the U.S. dollar and most other world currencies on a fiat basis, ending most practical constraints on monetary expansion and currency devaluation. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stagflation.asp
|
|
|
|
The main point I want to emphasize is that when I withdraw money from the casino, it becomes mine. On the other hand, when I make a deposit, it's still my money.
I use my funds to place bets at odds like 1.01 and 1.1, both to rank higher and gradually build up my balance. The casino offers features such as rakeback, weekly and monthly bonuses, similar to what Stake does. However, these bonuses are calculated based on your performance since the last time.
The issue might revolve around rakeback, especially considering they have a calendar bonus that activates every 8 hours, boosting your rakeback for an hour. This could imply that making low odds bets during that hour is seen as abusive. It seems like you can only bet on low odds for 21 out of 24 hours.
For instance, if I bet $100 on 1.01 odds, I win $1, but it's essential to note that just because it's 1.01 odds doesn't guarantee a win. Statistically, I'm supposed to lose at least 1/100 times based on the odds. However, during that hour, I might also receive an extra $1 in rakeback due to the increased rate, effectively doubling my winnings.
However, I must stress that I'm speculating because I lack clarity on the exact reasons behind these actions being considered abusive. My suspicions arise from a similar situation I found in another post where someone had their balance taken. If the casino's rules are indeed as I speculate, it would be helpful if they were clearly stated for all players to understand, so we all had the chance to think “omg thats too complicated for me, see ya”.
I believe you should also try to look at the situation from the casino's point of view too. Because from their viewpoint, you're merely farming for the cashback/rakeback rewards and not actually using the site for real gambling. From the point of view of the business owner, you're a leech that's taking revenue out of the business, not someone who brings something into the business. What would you do if you had such a "customer"? |
|
|
|
If you're in the United States, It's probably best to start saving the most of what you can save from you salary and control/stop purchases for things that you don't need. When unemployment rapidly rises, it usually leads to a recession. The other problem, is high inflation. Recession + High Inflation = Stagflation. If true, then you probably need to hold some of your savings in a Store of Value asset.  This would also probably be just another wrong projection, but it wouldn't hurt to save and HODL Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
HIRE me? Is that an accusation? Or are you merely too stupid to recognize sarcasm? Yes, I'm the one incapable of recognizing sarcasm... OK, then I beg for forgiveness ser. Haha. But the same hypothesis, I want people to "clean" their UTXOs from "taint" and send "dirty" UTXOs from the Dark Markets through Wasabi's CoinJoin by first going through JoinMarket -> Lightning Network -> Bitcoin blockchain, then Wasabi. They could also add Samourai for another layer before Wasabi. Then according to that, we can sue zkSNACKS for false advertising if a government entity, or an exchange, blocks, locks, or confiscates our coins because they are "tainted" even after going through Wasabi-CoinJoin?
That question goes to you too, Kruw.
I don't know. You don't know? But a centralized entity making claims such as zkSNACKS should be regulated by an authority in case those claims aren't real, no? That's probably something to think about. |
|
|
|
Let's give thanks to WasabiWallet for giving us this wonderful opportunity. Did Wasabi hire you too? HIRE me? Is that an accusation? Or are you merely too stupid to recognize sarcasm? How dare you.
Are you saying that we can sue zkSNACKS for false advertising if our Wasabi CoinJoined UTXOs are blocked, locked, and confiscated?
When did zkSNACKs promise you government approved coins? Then according to that, we can sue zkSNACKS for false advertising if a government entity, or an exchange, blocks, locks, or confiscates our coins because they are "tainted" even after going through Wasabi-CoinJoin? That question goes to you too, Kruw. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
