|
Obviously, as a sportsbook/casino you are expected to comply with rules and regulations of the country you're operating in. But this case does seem a bit draconian - it is not immediately obvious to me at the very least how a "stuffed toy ad" could somehow catalyse teenage gambling.
ID'ing people will work as long as the venue is strictly physical. Whereas when you can play online, the dynamics change completely.
I personally think having mandating robust self-exclusion programs is actually the best way to curb problem gambling, no matter what the age is. Restricting entry simply does not work given that a person at any age could easily circumvent these rules if they were desperate enough to play.
|
|
|
|
today marks both a new price record for bitcoin in its decade long history and yet another case of a big FOMO that starts every time a major resistance is broken.
although we are going to see them quite often this year as this is going to be a bigger copy of 2017 as a fresh money starts coming into bitcoin once again.
similar to 2017 it could be expected that the trend continues all through the year with some slow down mid year with the real bubble at the end of the year.
what do you think?
This is when the big shots are going to be called. Don't be surprised if John McAfee makes a comeback here and predicts his $1 million bitcoin once again. It's important to keep a level head about prices in this bull market, imho. Whilst BTC fundamentals have indeed improved substantially with institutional money flowing in and the possibility of a ETF approval very soon, I don't think that they necessarily justify this current FOMO. I've started to see BTC margin trading ads IRL, which is generally the first signs of a market bubble. And that's coming from a long term BTC holder - I believe that BTC will make significant ground in the long run, but definitely not sustain this sort of growth in the short term. |
|
|
|
I was watching someone on youtube. What I got was that if BTC hits $30K , there should be no resistance (I assume this means less resistance that previously) to get to $40K.
What do you think?
He was sighting how $30K is a psychology barrier. You guys probably know who I'm talking about it.
Complete baloney without any analysis. People are FOMOing right now for no apparent reason. These % gains are simply too good to be true to remain. I suspect that a ton of people are currently levered up and a long squeeze could occur if there was to be a correction incoming. These bull markets simply don't exhaust themselves in one go. They do so in phases, bit by bit. I'd say expect a major adjustment as opposed to an uninterrupted runup to $40k over the next month or so. |
|
|
|
These words are of a guy that I found rather interesting. What do you think about this?
Let's not be delusional. I know that Bitcoin maxis are commonly ostracized as too toxic, but they have been right about everything.
Bitcoin's dominance is at its early 2017 levels, and it keeps surging.
Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are dead. Craig Wright and Jihan Wu are over.
DeFi was a fad that lasted even shorter than the ICO craze.
XRP has always been a scam. Bitcoin maximalists have always been parroting about it, but very few took them seriously until the SEC lawsuit.
The S2F model, which was laughed off as tin-foil-hat nonsense, has been extremely accurate so far.
Institutions don't care about altcoins.
How is bitcoin maximalism toxic if it's just speaking the facts out loud? That part I completely disagree with. People tend to label common sense with extremism these days. There is good reason why holding BTC and BTC only is the right thing to do. Most other cryptos, if not all, are created for the sole purpose of benefiting the creator via an ICO or the like. They stop development as soon as they secure funding, and there is never an active user base. BTC is literally the only widely adopted CURRENCY. There may be other blockchain platforms that have adoption, but nowhere near the scale of BTC and they are not primarily mediums of exchange (think ethereum). XRP and others aren't even decentralised. It's just common sense. Stop calling it toxic when we're simply arguing with a bunch of manipulative conmen pushing their own agenda. |
|
|
|
I am giving up on Localcryptos, there's barely any sellers in my region esp for bitcoin, let alone any other crypto. I think at this point i might just have to lend into giving my kyc to localbitcoins. My hopes for a perfect exchange keep shattering by the day.  I don't know specifics for your country, but I found building a network of P2P traders very useful in conducting trades without KYC. There are still a lot of traders out there that are willing to do this, but they advertise on platforms such as LBC. Usually they will leave their contact details (Whatsapp etc.) on their profile, so if you see a reputable dealer at a good price, try and hit them up directly. I found that sometimes they are willing to open a trade on non-KYC platforms such as Localcryptos even if they don't have an account there, or do an OTC deal (which is a lot riskier since there is no escrow) at a lower premium. |
|
|
|
|
I suspect that the mainstream media is going to have a field day with this one and somehow attribute the scam to Bitcoin itself.
This stuff is so obvious and I doubt that people would fall for it anyway (although you never know how stupid some people are). But just like ponzis, pyramids and other scams that accept BTC, it has nothing to do with bitcoin itself. Bitcoin is simply doing what it's supposed to do - facilitating transactions.
It's fallacious to argue that BTC is somehow at fault for these scams. There are probably a ton of other COVID related scams that use fiat cash, but only this goes to the press for its attention grabbing headline.
|
|
|
|
It looks alright to me, but I'm not sure there's demand for such things nowadays. There are already enough sportsbooks and casinos around, and most just die out even though they're not that bad. Especially with the economic crisis we're entering, starting a business now is a very risky decision.
And you're saying that you're using lightning fast technologies, but I assume it has nothing to do with the Lightning Network?
Moreover, do you actually take no money for this stuff and only plan to take 7-9% share from GGR?
They're a B2B solution, so technically they don't need new businesses to pop up for them to gain clients. If their software is attractive enough and/or efficient enough, established sportsbooks could have reason to switch their engine provider as well. 7% of revenue is actually a lot if you think about it. If they secure a sportsbook of a decent size, that could be in the 6 figures daily. In fact, I would say that is actually quite high - even though there may be no costs upfront. The ongoing commitment will definitely drive some big corporations away who would rather pay a fixed fee upfront for a lower revenue share. |
|
|
|
|
No way they are worth $200m. They don't have significant market share compared to other more well-financed and established payment processors like Bitpay and Coinbase, and their entire infrastructure is built on a completely free, decentralised bitcoin network.
Their net assets consist entirely of IP and existing lines of code, which I suspect can be replicated by anyone for way less than $200m. If you're buying for growth and future cash flow, I sincerely doubt that any established institution is going to have much reason to select them over the aforementioned alternatives.
It's like the perfect counterexample to give when someone mentions "value investing", imho.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that people will tend towards live games, but obviously they're not provably fair right now.
Whoever comes up with a provably fair version of existing live games (e.g., Dream Catcher, Deal or No Deal etc.) are going to capture a lot of market share as long as their games' RTP aren't too bad. I think that is something that the market will seriously demand.
People enjoy the community interaction of live games just as much as the actual game itself. The RTP doesn't even have to be great - 98% or so will suffice to keep employing workers to handle the lives games feasible financially.
|
|
|
|
If something like this really works, it can be fun to use. I just never know if you can use something like that for the long term. And how stable and reliable is such a thing?
I always wonder about such tools. You can use bots extremely well if they are well put together.
Exactly! This bot works, but it doesn't do any magic. It will just play following the settings provided by the user. It's better than the "Autobet" embedded in the site because it provides more features and configurations. If you use it well, it can be a good help... The only way that you are going to remotely come close to making money through this bot is the auto-claim feature. Even then, your electricity costs of running the bot in the background are probably going to outweigh any satoshis that you manage to claim. As I've mentioned, betting on history is simply not going to provide you with any extra EV. Your EV is still negative, and very negative at -5%. This bot will only help entertain the player. You simply can't "use it well" and expect to make profits in the long run. |
|
|
|
There will be bets behind the site, but wouldn't it be better to use a different layout?
For example, you cannot find the registration button and registering also seems quite difficult.
Those are simple things that a customer needs. I can not judge about if it is scam or not, but the site itself looks cheap.
It's not that difficult to find... And I don't think that this site is even being actively advertised; they are relying on a niche player base that swear by the site and its predominantly non-English community. The site design is not the issue. JD has a similar basic design and it has survived for a decade now. You should be extremely sceptical of the legitimacy of this site, though. 0.1% house edge is too good to be true for all the costs of having the site up. There have been past dramas with the legitimacy of its provably fair system too. |
|
|
|
So if money is simply an agreed upon term of which each of us understand by the numbers of which the money issued is by a "Trusted" authority and the faith in them... Whats to stop someone from creating their own USDC or some form of fiat currency with no central backing and issuing it to every person in the world and told them collectively that this value will always valued to the USD or whatever. Would then people find a way to be able to use it? And if it was all collectively agreed (of course without seeing the actual treasury of issued funds because you know... "Fractional Reserve Banking") then couldn't that money now exist in USD? And if this were to happen , what would happen to the USD itself if everyone on the planet were to receive lets say 10000USD. Would that affect our current monetary system or is it made it up money issued by some random person on the internet?
That's actually the issue facing China rn with Antgroup controlling credit instead of the central bank. The reason why regulations have tightened is that China obviously wants to maintain a degree of monetary policy sovereignty as opposed to having to submit themselves to the arbitrary decisions of Ma who could have essentially been operating on fractional reserve since so many people use their Alipay "CNY" as default currency. To answer your question, yes, anyone can create their own "currency" that is fractionally backed, or perhaps not even backed at all. But your credibility has to stem from somewhere to create value in your currency. It's all about trust. If no one trusts that you have the reserves to back up deposits then your currency will not be valuable. Whereas if everyone trusts that you have the backing, then you could theoretically have more influence on money supply than even the central bank (something that could have happened if Antgroup were to be kept relatively unregulated). |
|
|
|
I'm seeing this particular topic on twitter today and it's got me a bit stumped. So I would like to ask my hero bitcoiners here for their advice:
If bitcoin's price and market cap continue to increase, and if a 2nd layer or off-network protocol allows people to subdivide their satoshis into smaller and smaller units, does the whole 21 million BTC supply cap even matter anymore?
What they're spewing is absolute nonsense and you should ignore it. Just because someone seems to be an "expert" doesn't mean that their opinion should trump your knowledge basic mathematical principles. Subdividing does nothing more than helping people transact when BTC prices go up further. Note the causal effect here - only when BTC prices go up is there ever a need to subdivide more. Subdivision does NOT cause prices to go up or bitcoin to become more abundant overnight. Just think about this analogy. If your bank has an accounting system that goes to 5 decimal places even when others only have 2, does that mean that fiat all of a sudden becomes more abundant? Absolutely not. It's just for the ease of accounting when values have appreciated so much to warrant it. |
|
|
|
What major differences, if any, are there between holding bitcoin on an exchange versus owning gold bouillon at a precious metals depository? They both appear to be IOU's for a commodity that would be costly to store on your own. Firstly, I would argue that it is entirely untrue to assert that BTC is somehow expensive to own on your own. Anyone can set up an electrum wallet with relative security with absolute ease, compared to the cumbersome storage process for precious metals. But I guess your question comes down to this - do you prefer legal entitlements, or physical/immutable network entitlements? Indeed, legally wise there is no difference. But you'd be trusting Coinbase and other wallet services to not run fractional reserve, and to keep enough equity to compensate for any security breaches/losses. Would you rather trust a company to do that, or not have to worry about it by holding BTC in your own wallet/holding physical gold/silver as opposed to IOUs? |
|
|
|
|
I'm still a bit skeptical as to how much of a boost an ETF approval can realistically give to bitcoin demand.
Sure, it will give mainstream investors another opportunity at investing in BTC. But I feel like that there are already a bunch of services that make the buying process very simple for retail investors, and institutional investors would probably want to retain custody over their own holdings anyway.
But yeah, if ETFs were to be approved at all, it would likely be in the next few years whilst the SEC is chaired by a pro-bitcoiner.
|
|
|
|
I still see many people being puzzled by BTC, saying it's a bubble, that it's going to crash, etc...
Taking advantage of the huge price rise, I think some early believers should team and buy an existing bank. Not Barclays, nor JP Morgan of course, but there are small banks out there. Imagine a bank owned by bitcoiners, for bitcoiners. It would become an exchange, and it would be the best exchange in the world with the full ability to make Swift and SEPA transfers without the need to use the service of a third party.
And how exactly what this be different to any hosted bitcoin wallet or exchange? It doesn't make sense for a bunch of decentralisation enthusiasts to be embracing the precise thing that they swore to replace in the first place. It definitely does not make sense to try and attempt to take over a bank and transform it into a non-efficient exchange when there are much more established alternatives (think Binance, Coinbase) that consumers will be more drawn toward for good reason or not. It really offers no benefits apart from a short term, day-long boost in mainstream media interest and probably attracting a ton of critique from commentators. Not a great idea at all imho. |
|
|
|
I deposited 0.097 BTC to Bitsler after I had won on another online casino. Typically I wouldn’t deposit such a large amount of Bitcoin, but since it was all pure profit I did. 9 minutes after depositing someone withdrew it. The owner of Bitsler told me simply, and I quote, “ damn all those scamers are really a cancer!” Gabriel is his name.
Support was helpful. They told me since I didn’t have 2FA enabled I was vulnerable. My question to them was why did I still have more than a Bitcoin in my wallet on the site from where My deposit to Bitsler came? I didn’t get an answer. In fact, I never enable 2FA. On any site. Yet once I deposited at the time what amounted to just under $2000 in Bitcoin it took all but 9 minutes for it to be stolen. What’s worse is I have a history of pure honesty with this casino. I actually returned 33 Bitcoin to them last May. Because I found a technique on their Roulette game that couldn’t lose. I told them early on. After I was up to 38 Bitcoin profit they took 32 Bitcoin back and gave me just over 6 Bitcoin as a bounty. Yet when I’m basically robbed of 0.097BTC all the owner, Gabriel can say to me is, “damn all those scamers are really a cancer!” My 2FA is enabled now.
Firstly, any proof of the 38 BTC roulette story? I find it a bit hard to believe tbh. 2FA should be enabled at all times. Just because your other accounts didn't get hacked isn't anywhere near sufficient proof that Bitsler is doing something shady from the inside. There is a small probability for each account that you have unsecured by 2FA that it will get hacked - it just so happens that Bitsler is the account in this case. You'd have to swallow this loss as it is entirely your fault. Bitsler has an excellent reputation on the forum, and I have played much more than that amount on their site and never had any issues. Your account's security is your responsibility solely. |
|
|
|
I've seen a couple of friends using such tools like a macro scripts or so. It's working fine but it might not guarantee that it will work perfectly or deliver cristal-clear profits. It might get stuck or it might drive you to huge losses if it glitches, no one knows for sure. The point is that you can use it with low balances, for experimental purpose and not for huge profits, don't get you ass slapped because of such tools.
No. It will NOT work in the long run. The reason being that the OP is confusing the law of large numbers with a finite sample size. It is a classic demonstration of gambler's fallacy - the false notion that past events have something to do with future events in games of complete chance. There is absolutely no correlation between rolls if you are using a provably fair dice site, which FreeBitcoin is. Therefore, your EV is precisely the same with or without this bot. In fact, your actual EV would be a lot more in the red considering the fact that you'd be betting much quicker on a site which has notorious house edges on its games. |
|
|
|
It's already priced in. XRP has been in essentially free fall in terms of BTC value ever since the SEC stuff came out. I don't think it is necessarily rational though, at least not to the extent that we're seeing XRP fall and the rest of the market rally. It seems like a definite knee-jerk reaction from the markets. We've seen regulations threaten to kill off even BTC itself (think back to China, 2016) before, but markets and decentralisation are much more resilient that people expect. I do think that XRP will make a full recovery as a matter of time - the fundamentals, apart from the US market, are still there. And the network infrastructure hasn't changed. |
|
|
|
|
WTF?
Why does it matter how many decimal places there are with BTC? How does that affect the immutable fact that bitcoin issuance will never exceed 21 million?
Is she saying that since gold can be subdivided down to individual atoms, it is not scarce?
Please. This is elementary maths. She's embarrassing herself.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
