It's possible to enable smart contracts to be run of a side chain to bitcoins where checksums (eg hashes) for programs/assets etc are stored on bitcoin's blockchain and the actual data is stored somewhere else - like another blockchain or published centrally if needed.

There are already things like esports competitions and live streaming that might already bridge that gap too between earning and gaming and take much less of a setup (if people are actively looking into getting things like that - it'd be a place to start).

$20m doesn't sound like it should've had much of an affect on Solana's price if the investment pool was big enough (or even an insurance fund type system)... Are they going to have a vote every time something like this happens? Also this means they might still have $20m sat waiting to be liquidated - I don't think anyone smart is going to be dcaing out of a position like that (a more sustained alt crash normally comes after a btc one - compared with both btc and the dollar).

If it's not yet been mentioned, bitcoinj works a bit like electrum but scans blocks received from Bitcoin nodes that it's able to connect to which might be something you could also look at too: https://bitcoin.org - I'm not sure it's too user friendly though as the last time I used it in its raw form it was only usable via the command line (I also only used it to convert a wallet file).

A 5% cut doesn't sound like it'd be too noticeable so no I'd say it'd probably go unnoticed by the network and the people using bitcoin.

The news might be deemed negatively though but I think we've probably already lost most of the weak hands from the market anyway so something like this would probably go unnoticed. A large(ish) move in the price is probably due by now too so I doubt we'll be able to pick this out as a specific.

I've seen that warning a lot more recently and I think it's just a forum problem.

I thought it might've been due to more images trying to be loaded on the forums end and the proxy/Webserver dropping requests/communications. (it's especially apparent on pages with multiple images but is normally resolved by waiting a minute and refreshing).

The village idiot was normally the loudest whenever I checked my Facebook feed, that being said you could just unfriend or block them if they were too annoying.

Most popular social media is annoying though as paid content gets boosted the most out of everything and can also lead to misinformation and manipulation of the viewers (which itself can undermine both free speech and democracy).

Is this positive of "you can't expect it to drop fast" or "you can't say I was wrong just because I was" I can't decide which of the two...


I think people need to get better at checking data on their investments though too. Gold can stay stagnant or even drop for years (it's not a good hedge against inflation if we're at the same price we were at in 2012)...

It benefits those who hold a decent amount of cash/other assets to buy at lower prices. It might also be a lesson in diversification for some to work out how much extra they could've bought if they didn't invest everything at once (even though crashes like these don't come very often - so it's not a good idea to sell and pin your hopes on buying lower).

Yeah I agree with frankly that it could be a grievance to the scalability problems, the fairly slow network, or the lack of features (such as smart contract resemblance).

(smart contracts being a feature may not be something I directly agree with being implemented without its own chain - sandbox - but the author might)

"a couple of years" might mean more than 2 too.

We may just end up seeing something similar to the start of the pandemic too (if it's well managed). In 2007 and 2008 the UK saw a 5% inflation before the prices settled again, that'll probably be what happens this time - most inflation is driven by oil prices and those may be optional expenses in some cases too...

Not sure on this one but there's probabky a profit incentive to do some fiddling with the spreads if you own an exchange (eg day trading in the background but with a strategy that reduces risk - and you won't be paying exchange fees to yourself). It'd make sense considering the amount of data exchanges have available to just increase the gap between lowest asks and highest bids and make the market buyers buy something for slightly higher but keep the funds for the company (especially when people are panic selling and volatility is expected anyway - exchanges certainly aren't arbitraging with forex either for some reason).

It's strange the site you linked doesn't seem to suggest any evidence except the court filing, it'd be interesting to see the specifics at a glance (mainly the terminology used to say it was backed by usd).

It was backed by luna and they could probably argue it from that angle, but not if they said it was directly backed by the dollar or fully collateralised (it might've been fractionally/partially reserve backed though at the time of Coinbase's claim too).

It's an underflow error. I'm not used to php but you might be able to search that and find an optimal solution for how to represent the numbers.

If you can't find a solution, bitcoin core stores numbers in bitcoin it uses as the number of satoshi and then just puts a decimal place between the 8th and 9th index.

I'd advise this belong in development and technical discussion also.

I'm not sure where I found it last time but I don't think they're that exposed to crypto as a company. They seemed to have about a 25% stake in crypto when I last looked at their asset filing. They had a larger stake in data mining infrastructure which might've appreciated in value itself too.

Is it not better to call it "matched betting bonus abuse" (considering that's what it is so it doesn't get mixed up with matched betting via arbitrage). The difference being that matched betting via arbitrage takes some level of knowledge and skill for the person doing it as it's finding a way to reduce the probability of winning to below 1.

Repeatedly using bonuses with different accounts does automatically seem far less ethical.

I'd expect they'd be quite happy with it for now though (while it's going down) I haven't heard of a crypto casino using dollars exclusively and now allowing btc usage.

If you miss a bottom there's usually a good chance we'll end up near it again, it'll be interesting to see if this sort of setup has caused both panic buying and panic selling in the past though if the users of those places have kept away from checking the price for long enough.

I think these are already done for bots other users have made or by the forum's own features (eg notify) so you'd just be adding to that. Selling forum data as well as this might be something more people look at soon though (eg for new projects to see the things new coins are offering and what seems to be a basic requirement to attract larger communities - eg by similarities).

The campaigns and bounties thing hasn't really been done though and might be one to look at but I don't think there's a huge demand for it as a lot of campaigns/bounties can be found by watching other people's signatures change.

I think there's less of an incentive to hack the current biometrics used though (unless you mean by bypassing them - and I think there are still vulnerabilities that are found in their login process, a 6 digit pin in fairly easy to crack though if you've got another device to host the bruteforce attack - I don't think it's possible to use biometrics as soon as you turn on most devices for example and with apple, you can't use biometrics if you've held down the power button for a long enough time to end up on the confirm shutdown screen).

Being able to get access to every account somenoe has is a lot more useful to an attacker than gaining biometric info.

I'm suprised they've kept it going for this long and haven't yet started paying less in rewards to people.

I'm not sure if they're in some sort of deal with the developers they advertise to give them funds but I'd think that's likely since they're probably not boosting their own reserves anymore (altcoins have crashed quite hard in comparison to both fiat and bitcoin afaik - it's not much of an investment in their portfolio for the future if that coin no longer exists or has no volume in a few years).


I think they still do their money back on your first purchase too which is probably under half the amount you can probably get from learn to earn (if that's still a thing) - but it's a much simpler task.

Imo matched betting leaves a lot of control with the bookmakers so it's fairly reasonable to do it whenever it becomes an option (they can change odds if it's done too much), it's also normally done involving multiple companies so it probably benefits some too (especially if some users are likely to gamble with their profits). I think a lot of places change odds based on demands too.

Bonus abusing as in making multiple accounts with the same place is obviously much more problematic but it might be more on the site owner to actually prevent it - since it's probably expected it'll be attempted.