I ordered a chicken and an egg from Amazon. I’ll let you know

Internet down means Bitcoin is down too, as simple as it can be

It may be down for you personally or more globally, temporarily or more permanently, but the outcome will be the same, and it can have pretty ugly consequences if it is to stay. I really don't see any plausible reason why anyone would want to question that. It can happen tomorrow, it can happen in a year, or it can never happen, but just the possibility of it, which is real and palpable, should make every Bitcoin holder think twice. That's basically the reason why everyone should have ready cash on hand (gold is somewhere down the road). It is just common sense and street wisdom. Shit happens, and ironically, when it happens, we are more often than not caught completely off guard as the coronavirus pandemic has revealed abundantly clear

I agree with all of this

And I think no one would argue that Bitcoin is better than gold in most all of everyday circumstances. With that said, however, I don't think that anything would be able to beat gold before Bitcoin has long been beaten out of the picture, and not just as a store of value but completely wiped out -- in case things go massively awry. That's probably a sufficient reason why gold is better, and will always be better than Bitcoin as a store of value on longer timeframes. In fact, Bitcoin is quite fragile, while gold, physical gold, is virtually indestructible

As much as I would love that to come true, it's highly unlikely
 

So why did it not start with gold?

I mean, long before Bitcoin? Gold is also scarce and has been scarce since day one (apart from two events in the very remote past when it wasn't), so it should have done the trick long ago. Why didn't gold strip other assets off of their store of value functions? If we proceed from the assumption that it didn't, what is it in Bitcoin which gold lacks? Yeah, you can transact with Bitcoin but somehow it doesn't feel like its killer feature that would make it reign supreme among other such assets. You don't need to transact (much) with a store of value (as the term itself suggests)

I don't think gamblers belong to this group

You essentially assume that protesting is about violating the established ban or something to that tune. But this is not always the case. If you disagree with a certain law, you can protest in a lot of ways without necessarily breaking it. Such a form of disagreement makes sense only when everyone and his dog and his grandma (read the majority of population) are violating the law together. Then the law is repealed while the ban lifted. However, we are far from that anywhere across the globe, at least as far as the current quarantine is concerned

Я думаю, не совсем правильно говорить об оттоке инвесторов

Инвесторов как раз хватает - их всегда на самом деле хватало. Поэтому более правильно, на мой взгляд, вести речь об отсутствии толковых проектов, которые бы действительно закрывали ту или иную объективно существующую потребность. На всякий случай уточню, потребность в спекулятивных активах уже давным-давно закрыта и на этот рынок входа нет. Конкуренция, понимаишь!

Then it is irrelevant to the point in question

We are not talking about infinite bankrolls on infinite timeframes. We are talking about a very determined range of concrete parameters, e.g. base bet, increase on loss, multiplier, and, yes, timeframes too. This puts us in a very probabilistically determined environment where statements like "or you will lose 100 times in a row. Or 10, or 2" simply make no sense. You can lose 100 bets in a row with a 50% win chance, but the probability of such an outcome would be infinitesimal (read, you won't see it during your lifetime), and thus it is discarded for entirely practical reasons as a purely hypothetical construct

There's another thing about derivatives (options and futures alike)

Futures contracts as well as options have expiration dates. This is kinda obvious, but when you feel it with your skin in the game and your money on the table, it feels totally different (I've been there). The point is, if the price of the underlying asset doesn't move much, you will still be losing money, i.e. the premium you paid to the seller of a futures or options contract. Simply holding a certain amount of cryptocurrency is a total win in this case -- you don't owe anything to anyone, and don't have to worry about rollovers and similar stuff

Life without love is meaningless... Love without life is necrophilia

Can you please post the link to the text of the order in question?

Just in case, I was writing about public gatherings, i.e. not meeting someone in private. Does visiting a grocery store count as a public gathering if there are other people over there? I think it does. Does visiting your grandma count as such? I guess it doesn't. However you may look at it and whatever regulation you may come up with, this is not a public gathering. But if it is not, and gambling, or, more specifically, gambling on private premises, is not prohibited, can you legally and legitimately stop people from enjoying this activity?


That's the exact reason why we should distinguish between illegal gambling and gambling made illegal due to the quarantine laws limiting public gatherings

It is irrelevant as long as your base bet can be any. In other words, "a big enough bankroll" is only as big as you base bet is. Put shortly, "big" is relative here, and depends on very specific parameters


Your "final" bet will always be half of your balance (or something to that tune), when you stake all of what is left. Indeed, I calculated the rolls in such a way that I would be able to win back everything with this last all-or-nothing roll and earn as much (actually, more as my win chance was below 50%)


Without any additional info, proper adjustment assumes linear change. This is not what I observed. If variance changes abruptly (like spikes exponentially), and you don't know by how much exactly, there is no way to lower the increase on loss that would match this spike. Finding it out empirically would probably mean busting in the process

Your "wise" point would hold only on an infinite timeframe (and then it would remain to be seen)

However, as soon as we are talking about limited amounts of time and time spans like a month, a year, etc, it all comes down to evaluating probabilities. If your odds of losing are 1 to 100, then you'll be losing only once every 100 rolls or series of rolls on average (what average actually amounts to in a real gambling environment, you can learn here)

Whether you are talking about a probability of a single roll or a series of rolls, you can't get around this. With this in mind, if your chances of hitting a losing streak of 20 rolls in a hundred years are not high, it essentially means that you are not likely to see such a series in a hundred years (you still can, but that would be called ill luck). As simple as it gets

Has it never occurred to you that it works both ways?

As much as bets are independent of each other, exactly the same can be said about the overall probability of losing. No matter for how long you have been rolling, the odds of busting remain as they were before you started rolling, and they don't increase despite what so many people erroneously assume (I call it the Gambler's Fallacy in reverse). Further, even if the outcomes are independent of each other, this probability does nevertheless depend on the number of rolls, surprise!

Spooning leads to forking

Bankroll as such is irrelevant

What you need is the capacity to endure a long enough losing streak for a given multiplier. For example, at ~40% win chance it is pretty much a safe bet if you can survive 35 losing rolls in a row. If I remember correctly, at 37% win chance I've seen a losing streak of 30 rolls only once. I have no explanation how it is ever possible, but winning chances below 37% bring about an exponential surge in variance, and martingale no longer remains safe. I can't come up with any plausible reason for this phenomenon but I've read about it before and can confirm it (call it broscience or a gambling street wisdom of sorts, or whatever)


I can tell you straightaway that it is not possible. I tried and I failed miserably, losing one hell of a lot of money

Well, that remains to be seen

I think we should distinguish between illegal activities no matter the circumstances from illegal ones which are made illegal according to temporary regulations. For example, cockfighting can be outright illegal in certain jurisdictions, and for good reasons so. However, casino gambling can be made illegal in circumstances like these, which are temporary in nature

It is not so much gambling itself that is illegal but rather gatherings at public places. So if a group of people does something not illegal per se at someone's home, how can it be considered a violation of law and which law exactly? Curfew, quarantine? Then, are you going to report on the people visiting their relatives, friends, and neighbors?

The answer is simple, while the question has already been discussed at length before

Typically, when people come up with such ideas (just in case, it is always the same idea, give or take), they are putting the cart before the horse. In more concrete terms, businesses are not accepting Bitcoin because consumers are not willing to pay with it, or, as I would say, part with it. Steam (of Valve fame) had been accepting Bitcoin in the past (Microsoft seems to accept it), but later they dropped that payment method, and most likely due to a lack of demand from their users


I'm not sure what you mean by mind billionaires here

Probably, you meant brilliant minds? But no one can stop you from shorting Bitcoin and earning millions if there is no value here. So what are you waiting for? Or should I rather ask, afraid of?

Actually, this matter has been looked into before

Many psychologists have been studying how much time you need to become an expert in any field of human activity. The conclusion? You have to spend at least 10,000 hours to reach a master level at anything, which translates to 4 hours a day every day for 10 years on end

And I would also add that in certain domains it is a lifelong journey, whether you like or not (and you'd better do). Put differently, it should be your true calling since otherwise you can't possibly spend so much time and effort on something which you don't like deep down inside. You would start procrastinating straight away

That's the idea behind rolling on so high a multiplier

It is not like you are going to win once in a thousand rolls as it goes well beyond that. The higher the multiplier, the more variance you are likely to face and overcome. So if you are rolling on x2 multiplier, you will see around 500 wins in 1000 rolls (give or take), but on x9900 multiplier you may not see a win in a million rolls due to extreme variance. And if you win before making as many bets as expected on average by the probability on that multiplier, you are a truly lucky person (for the time being)

Well, I meant something above the base amount, obviously

However, thinking in that direction leads us to the inevitable conclusion that hitting zero should either wipe the balance or take something from it (though the latter should be reserved for negative outcomes). In fact, wetsuit implemented many things I had talked about in his topic over here (in this board or its parent). For example, sharing the referral commissions with the referred users was entirely my idea, so he may take a note


Never got even close