|
Doubt any of the countries will openly use Bitcoin as legal tender, if it ever happens at all. The truth is that the random tiny ass countries that are spawned over contested land might try something like this simply for publicity - but I can't see why a country would bother shifting to Bitcoin when its entire economy and markets are designed around its currency. It would need new regulation alongside new awareness (majority of people don't know anything about it) which is too much work for a government.
|
|
|
|
the price has been rising steadily for some weeks now. These last few days, the rise is has been bigger in relation to past periods. now in the last few hours and after bitcoin price nearing almost $270 we see a huge crash.
There's a lot of explanations for this price behavior... what's yours?
It's just standard supply demand. Hard to tell if it's actually linked to any one particular event - although at the moment it doesn't look like it. People have always been speculating about what causes the price shifts - but the reality is that just like a majority of the markets elsewhere there is rarely a singular cause to random fluctuations. |
|
|
|
|
In theory nothing is completely safe. There is always risk - it's just how much risk your comfortable taking and whether the trade-offs are worth it.
For most people they'd either be comfortable having their wallet on their computer. It's better than having it on an online wallet but obviously not as good as cold storage or a hardware wallet. Cold wallets are too much hassle for small transactions - and if you deal with BTC on a daily basis and in different locations - an online wallet for small transactions (i.e. hot wallet) could easily be justified.
|
|
|
|
So, who can explain me why the commercial banks must hate, don't use and even fight bitcoin as a currency, as I read in numerous posts here in bitcointalk?
A majority of the people on this forum are absurdly biased and quite illogical in terms of their belief that the "government" and the "greedy bankers" and so fourth are all after them and after Bitcoin. The harsh reality is that Bitcoin is a literal drop in the bucket in terms of financial markets - it makes little difference to any of the major players (both Federal and commercial banks). They don't bother helping Bitcoin because it's too much effort for little to no return. They occasionally go after people who use Bitcoin alongside their bank accounts because of their own TOS or money laundering or not wanting to deal with a customer they consider "high risk". TLDR: The banks don't actually care that much - it doesn't make a significant different to their bottom line in helping Bitcoin (actually the opposite) so they don't. |
|
|
|
There are no real tricks by which you can earn more money by gambling but there are few tricks by using which you can minimize your losses in the gambling. Don't try to win big money in one go for example if you have $ 1000 dollar then don't play with all money in a single session. You can have multiple games or sessions by splitting these $1000 into $200 small games. These increases your winning chances and at least you can recover whatever you are spending.
There is logic in splitting the chances in multiple games instead of one big shot, it is a mathematical relation. Yeah I remember covering this a couple years back with doog. It's actually pretty logical that reducing bet size reduces potential losses in terms of probability. Yes. And you're the first person who responded in such an open manner. Everyone else just tells me I'm wrong.  The trick is to split up your bet (the amount you were going to risk in a single bet) into a series of amounts which sum to a the same, and which form a sequence such that you can bet the smallest amount, and if it wins, you make the same as if you bet the whole amount at 49.5% (so you'll be betting with a smaller chance, and higher payout multiplier). And if it loses, you want betting the 2nd amount to cover the first loss and make the same net profit. Etc. If you can find such a sequence (and you always can, though it can involve some hairy math depending on the length of the sequence you're looking for) then the amount you expect to risk is less than your whole amount (since there's a non-zero chance that you will win before the last bet, and stop at that point), and so the amount you expect to lose, being 1% of the amount you risk, is less than when you make the single bet. Here's a very simple example: you have 1 BTC and want to double it. * you could bet it all at 49.5%, and succeed in doubling up with probability 0.495 * or you could bet 0.41421356 BTC at 28.99642866% with payout multiplier 3.41421356x, and if you lose, bet the rest at the same chance. If you win either bet, you double up, else you lose. Your chance of doubling up is 0.4958492857 - a little higher than the 0.495 you have with the single bet. Cool, huh? That's breaking the single bet up into a sequence of length 2. If you break it up into more, smaller bets, then the probability of success increases further. The more steps, the closer to 0.5 your probability of success gets. You'll be limited by real-life barriers, like the invisibility indivisibility of the satoshi, and the limit of 4 decimal places on the chance at JD. But in theory you can get arbitrarily close to 0.5. I think. And some quick maths (plus graphing) I cannot believe I'm saying this but I think you might be right. I went ahead and played around with a case where the player starts at 1 wants to move to 2 by making two bets (of any size between 0-1 inclusive). Hence I went to go graph the function to see if it was true and I got this: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/obkfifgbnlWhere y = probability of succeeding and d = the value of the first initial bet Notice how at both d = 0 and d= 1 the probability is 0.495 as expected (as you are either betting nothing then 1 or 1 then nothing and both are equivalent cases). And in between you get a probability higher than the 0.495 offered for the single bet. I've tried a few set values for cases where you split your value up to more than two and you do get a better result. I can only theorise that this is because as your bet size approaches 0 with the number of bets approaching infinity your expectation approaches 1. However, what I do not understand at the present is why this is so. I almost fell out of my chair when the numbers came out (I checked like 6 times), as it's inferring that you can get better than what the house 'technically' offers. The problem with this is that your expectation is better than just flat betting and logically that doesn't make sense. Both should have the same expectation. I'm going to mull it over. I haven't given it a lot of thought beyond this - doog explained it quite elegantly. When you bet your whole bankroll in a single bet, you expect to lose 1% of it.
When you split it up and bet the pieces in order from smallest to biggest, and stop when any bet wins you often don't end up betting the whole bankroll, and so you expect to lose 1% of less than the whole bankroll.
By splitting it up you reduce the amount you expect to bet, and so you reduce the amount you expect to lose.
|
|
|
|
I think this service would be good if they could ask paypal to reduce it's fees
That's not going to happen unless PayPal actually have some legitimate competition. Since it currently is the largest e-commerce payment method (aside from CC) it doesn't have to fear anyone else. Not to mention that Bitcoin hasn't really made the huge dent that people originally thought it might - while adoption is increasing it hasn't been particularly huge. |
|
|
|
|
Hi, I would like to join this campaign.
Username: Light
Member rank: Hero
Post count: 1846 (including this post)
BTC address: 1Light1BN9Lu38Jab9iqVmJXt4Rc66WAoB
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin isn't particularly better - people will argue on the technical side of block times etc. but those have their own pros and cons. The main reason why Bitcoin is considered to be superior is simply that it has far more infrastructure supporting it - and both merchants and consumers who actually use it. With things like Coinbase and Bitpay - you can actually use your coins to buy things whereas with LTC - you really can't - you'd have to convert it back to fiat and then spend that. This really all comes from the larger userbase that came with being the first of its kind, as well as the media attention from the past.
|
|
|
|
Casinos love gamblers like you who want to win back their losses.
Its the greed that makes them rich
Casino's love anyone who is willing to play. It's the -EV you take when you play that truly makes them rich - if anything they dislike whales because short term variance can take a chunk of the bankroll if you're unlucky. @OP: Best way to save what you have is to stop. Might as well think about losing less - rather than trying to gain back what you've already lost. |
|
|
|
Storing your money in the form of fiat banknotes can be complicated. Every 10 or 20 years, the government withdraws the old banknotes, and print newer bills. The older banknotes will become worthless after a certain date. It will be much better, to store the wealth in the form of bullion (gold, platinum, silver.etc) or in the form of United States treasury bonds.
AFAIK, there should be a period during which you should be able to go to your local bank and simply convert your older banknotes to the newer ones without issue. Also, storing your wealth in gold isn't exactly storage - it is technically an investment as it does suffer from price fluctuations compared to your local currency. Which means it may increase/decrease your overall wealth if you're not careful. Bonds on the other hand are quite a viable option - as long as you trust that the government can repay (the US government for example should be fine, but things like Greece would be a definite no-no). Unless you are not aware, you are losing your money each year even without putting them in a bank. The yearly inflation rate is so small that perhaps common people wont even realized it until few years, with that being said in few years ahead we wont see any use of $1 notes anymore That's not exactly how it works. The inflation rate is generally of major importance in regards to monetary policy - so much so that they'll tend to try and keep it around 2-3% per annum. All that means is that your money has decreased value in real terms - i.e. your money buys you less. It doesn't necessarily mean $1 is going to be irrelevant anytime soon. |
|
|
|
You've had some really great responses in this thread. In my view, paper wallets are inferior to the double-flashdrive approach.
Just keep your wallet.dat files on 2 drives stored in separate locations. Then, keep a bitcoin client "containing dust" fully synchronized on your machine on the ready.
Now, when you need to make a withdrawal, close the client, copy over your USB wallet.dat, reopen client and make withdrawal, then reverse the process to restore the dust wallet. Keep one flashdrive hidden and one within easy grasp.
As far as security goes - that really isn't much better than having your wallet permanently on your computer that is synced with the blockchain. You'd be far, far better off running a proper cold storage (i.e. Armory) and simply sign your TXs offline. Paper wallets are particularly designed for regular usage - that's why you keep a hot wallet - they are designed with the intention of securing your coins in a physical medium that is in most scenarios hacker-proof. |
|
|
|
increasing emissions won't destroy bitcoin's price if there is a clear purpose for it, as opposed to simply enriching the miners. Not increasing emissions could destroy the price, if it becomes a necessary thing to do. We can't really predict or know what will happen in the future, we'll have to see. But there needs to be a flexibility to deal with changes in society and the addition of new knowledge and technology. If bitcoin can't adapt, something else will simply take over its place. Pretty sure that in nearly all scenarios increasing supply will see a fall in price unless you have an appropriate increase in demand to maintain that price level. Contrary to your point, I simply cannot see a scenario where raising the limit is actually necessary - given bitcoin is divisible down to the satoshi you don't actually need to go any further unless you run out of units to state. And that'll only happen if a single person for some reason needs to hold less than a single satoshi (i.e. a single satoshi has a significant value). |
|
|
|
|
I use it primarily to pay for my electronic purchases - servers, domain names. Since I'm keeping a majority of what I have stored - I don't use it that often, maybe a couple times a month (or if I need cash in a hurry). I'm personally hoping that bigger retailers (i.e. local department stores start accepting it) - will definitely spur on increased consumer usage.
|
|
|
|
While I do agree that most of what their arguing isn't particularly well substantiated nor does it seem odd given that Bitcoin is basically a competitor to them (unless somehow and some odd reason they'd want to integrate it) I found this quote to be rather interesting. MasterCard goes on to say digital currency transaction costs may currently be lower than those involved in traditional payments methods, but this is because digital currency service providers don’t currently bear the cost of complying with consumer protection and anti-money laundering laws. Would consumer protection and AML really lead to increased cost (i.e. by business charging more) - or is that just BS from Mastercard? |
|
|
|
Is martingale just the 2x thing in which we double every bet we lose?
Also, if not, according to you what is the best martingale strategy?
Does martingale really works? Is it useful?
Please share your experience with martingale. You got some story to share?
Thanks
1. Yes 2. No best martingale strategy - all of them fail regardless of what you do. 3. Hell no, mathematically you are destined to fail in the long term unless you satisfy two conditions: a) you have infinite money b) the casino has no house limit Since both a and b are impossible (and let's be honest here, why would you bother gambling if you already had infinite money - go spend it already), you are never going to win overall. I could go on with some basic math and graphs, but I won't bother - it's been studied extensively, there are no means of beating a -edge in the long term. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin world has been divided into three camps: - those who think that bitcoin must be a scam;
- those who think it’s one of the most interesting technological developments in decades;
- and (the vast majority) those who have no idea what the fuss is about.
Well I can see a small problem here. I don't think I fit into any category. 1. I don't believe Bitcoin is a scam. It's just (currently) a simple commodity and economics at play. 2. Not really, it's just another tool to further electronic commerce. It's different - but I don't think it is remotely as interesting as computing itself (that is a truly incredible technological development). 3. Yeah, I don't fit in there either. I feel like there should be a camp that are ambivalent towards Bitcoin - have a small interest, but aren't going to be that sad should Bitcoin fail. It's more like a social experiment in some ways, seeing how change propagates throughout society. |
|
|
|
I remember a story about a deal in front of the louvre paris france (it hardly gets more public) in broad daylight and they still tried to run with the phone. I have to be careful everywhere and regardless of the light situation, probably good to bring a broad-shouldered friend. Just in case.
Well having a crowd/public area doesn't stop anyone from committing a crime. It just makes it less likely they'll get away - so they have less reason to go through with it. That being said, in an extremely crowded place like the Lourve stealing from someone and rushing into the throng of people is actually a more efficient means of getting away (you blend in) whereas in a less crowded location like a cafe people might actually be able to purse the thief. |
|
|
|
I don't really feel like this is something entirely new. Even before there was anyone selling ebay giftcards for bitcoin, we could always login to localbitcoins and sell for paypal. But you'd still go through several third parties. Not that I have a problem with giftcards but if a store accepts BTC directly it's always preferred.
Well as far as I can see it cuts down a bit on the fees you have to take. If you were purchasing an auction from eBay and you wanted to fund your PP quickly you'd generally take a decent 5-7% hit compared to the current exchange market. That being said, having spare cash in your CC and bank account are generally a must - so this is really only a scenario useful for people like Elwar who are funding everything using Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
rule number 1 of buying HD:
+ Dont touch anything Seagate +
Oh boy. Used a Seagate HDD for my new computer - kind of worried now after having looked at the stats. As to HDDs, 5400/5900 RPM would be fine - you don't need the additional reduction in latency from a faster drive when you're basically doing archive work. As to space, I wouldn't be too concerned, the math checks out - you won't be using that 8TB anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
Looking for either $10 or $20 USD denomination.
PM me or post here.
Thanks,
Light
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
