Give me some advice and direction between: (Man United vs Sevilla).
I was completely wary this time. I think both of these teams are dark horses and you can expect any result in every match. The uncertainty is increasing due to the virus and the measures associated with it, so I would not bet if the odds for each of the teams were not approximately equal. On the other hand, if the bookmakers have a clear favorite in this pair, then it would be wise to bet on the outsider. |
|
|
|
Автор, а какие итоги по Aave в общем?
Инфа раскидана по топикам. Там ты купил, продал, потом продал, купил,встал в шорт, продал, купил, встал в лонг,ждёшь 10000 итд . А можно в виде дайджеста? Сколько сделок было сделано, какой профит с момента старта, какой убыток с момента старта ну и всё в таком духе.
Да, именно этого и хотелось бы, а то ведь были еще попытки с плечом 50 торговать и т.д. Надо все в кучу собрать чтоб можно было понимать промежуточный результат всех этих телодвижений. А то мало ли Богдан уже кит, а никто не поздравляет так как инфы нет  |
|
|
|
|
Interesting topic, thanks! (although the information is not new to me).
I thought about this: from the point of view of mathematics, all these systems are equally unprofitable. That is, if you take a long distance, then the result when applying these strategies will be the same. Roughly speaking, with the same amount of bets for each strategy, the losses will be the same, which means that it is impossible to control the loss/profitability of the game on the part of the player. Has anyone tested this reasoning in practice?
|
|
|
|
Купил обратно Aave, шорт закрылся в минус.
Что там по промежуточным итогам? Всю ветку читать времени нет, уже август, а первое сообщение темы обновлялось аж в феврале (с публичным портфелем тоже практически изменений нет). Есть какое-нибудь суммари плюс очередные подкорректированные цели? |
|
|
|
Много времени прошло с первого поста в этом треде, но бнб как мне кажется до сих пор перспективная монета, сейчас опять начинаются иеошки, spx аирдроп, стейкинг добавляют.
Это по типу как "эти пирожки давно уже свежие"?  Имхо с бананом давно ситуация стабильна: риски превышают возможный профит и держаться от него надо подальше. Давно уже не слышал чтобы что-то там толковое (в плане хайпа, в плане реально толкового давно ничего нет) происходило/предлагалось. |
|
|
|
Opening schools is more dangerous because 99.999% of children carry the virus asymptomatically, so one student infects the whole class and after that all older family members get the virus. This happens even if all safety measures are followed.
If I am not mistaken, the number of infected children already increased with the re-opening the schools in their area. It is very dangerous for the other children at the school because their immune is susceptible, and they can get infect anytime while they are in the schools. I think schools need to be closed for more, and the children can learn at home. Yes, you are not mistaken. But still, even if young people become infected, they get sick with this virus much easier than the older generation. It may be worth looking for some kind of compromise solution - for example, separating young and old people. This will keep schools from closing and keep older people from getting infected. |
|
|
|
But isn't the point of the Provably Fair system just to know for sure that everything is fair? As I understand it, any player with average technical knowledge/ability can check the fairness of the game on the history of their bets. I read that there are certain nuances and "loopholes" but in general the system works like this.
I think the gambling place that provides that sentence can be used to make players more sure about the betting system that is being carried out because usually when there is no writing like that the players think that the gambling place is manipulating the game, maybe that's what I know from the gambling place circulating at this time. In fact, all these fears of players came to gambling from earlier times when honesty was not controlled by mathematics and evidence, but by regulatory authorities (or no one at all) and, accordingly, there was a huge field for manipulation. |
|
|
|
If the reputable gambling website cheating the members, and the members know, they will get into the problem, and the member can chase the site with help from other people who know about the law. Yes, we don't know if the system cheats or not, but we can anticipate from the cheat by not using too big money for playing gambling.
But isn't the point of the Provably Fair system just to know for sure that everything is fair? As I understand it, any player with average technical knowledge/ability can check the fairness of the game on the history of their bets. I read that there are certain nuances and "loopholes" but in general the system works like this. |
|
|
|
JayJuanGeeI don't understand why you are writing to me old arguments from old discussions? I know very well the advantages and strengths of bitcoin and I am glad about them. But I see certain problems that will increase with the rise in the price of bitcoin. Do you deny them or consider them irrelevant? ~
Yes.. and what coin are you going to invest in at this time? bitcoin? or some other coin? You can make your choice right now based on what is available to you and if you do not perceive any future value in bitcoin, then don't buy it. Go invest in some shitcoin or store your value in some other asset class. Sure, if you have some value in bitcoin, you may well reasonably conclude that today, payment systems are not really practical on bitcoin, lightning network or other second or third layer levels, so therefore, you want to keep some or all of your value in more liquid avenues in order that you can make payments.
In the future, if bitcoin allows for more easy payments, then you might move some or all of value into bitcoin to make such payments... right now, there seems to be limits in bitcoin as a current payment system, but it still seems to be a very good investment.. even if it currently is not very good for payments, and even in the future, it might not transition very well into a great payment system, but it still might remain a very great place to secure value.. thinking about bitcoin as better than gold, it is more scarce, more verifiable, more portable, more divisible, etc.. getting stuck on the current payment abilities of bitcoin or its possible lackenings in the future as a payment system, could well cause some people to under invest into bitcoin, currently, because they cannot recognize why bitcoin is currently valuable or that bitcoin is going to retain its value. Hopefully, for your own good, you are not one of those short-sighted diptwats.
If we focus only on the profit from investments, then (unexpectedly) it will turn out that some shiTcoins (I don't know which ones, however) are more promising than bitcoin. But I am not interested in profit, I am more interested in ideology and I would be glad if bitcoin in the next 10 years was stable in price, but at the same time its acceptance in the world was growing. And for this, it seems to me, it is necessary to improve the properties of bitcoin and to solve/eliminate problems in advance that will increase as the price of bitcoin rises. Isn't that what the whole 2017 scaling debate was about? And why we pursued Segwit and Layer 2 solutions instead of issuing a blank check on increasing block size?
It's been a while since I've heard people market Bitcoin as "cheap" or "fast." People seem a lot more aware of its limitations now compared to 2017. Maybe we've talked about it enough, and now we just need to see through the slow grind of development and adoption of upper protocol layers.
Yes, I remember those times when commissions reached tens of dollars. And I think at that time a lot of crypto users went to other cryptocurrencies and I consider this a loss for bitcoin. Accordingly, to avoid this in the future, we need to prepare in advance.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that these elementary security measures, although effective (in terms of reducing the rate of spread in the initial stages of the epidemic), after a certain threshold, they mean little. Check out the statistics for one of the most disciplined countries: https://i.imgur.com/Pj7NTCS.pngA sharp surge in the number of diseases occurred after schools were opened (but children cannot study online all their lives). I repeat - this is a very confusing and difficult situation, it is absolutely unclear which solution will be the least bad (in principle, there are no good solutions anymore). Yes, maybe it does not work if people still don't care about their health because if people can pay attention and seriously want to prevent the virus, they must follow what their government suggested. Yes, a sharp surge will happen when the public area is open again, not just in the schools because people gather and meet each other in one large place or room, and they talk for a long time. After all, people can forget to take care of their health, and they will say "Ah, it doesn't matter for me" or else. But we must take care of our health, and if people don't want to do the same thing, let them see what will happen later. Here, my people are also underestimating the virus, and it seems, they choose to do what they want. Opening schools is more dangerous because 99.999% of children carry the virus asymptomatically, so one student infects the whole class and after that all older family members get the virus. This happens even if all safety measures are followed. |
|
|
|
As far as I understand, these antibody tests are highly controversial. In addition, even 75% of the total population is a huge figure. Plus, I heard that even those who were sick with the virus can be re-infected. How to deal with this? I see everything here is very confusing, and the risk is very high, since the possibilities of this virus and, most importantly, the consequences for the bulk of people are still unclear.
The prevention is to take care of our health by washing our hands, wearing a mask if we go out, and not hanging out for a long time in the public area. If we can do that, I think it can help the government reduce the number of people who will get infected. Every government needs to explain the situation so far, so people know the real things that happen in their countries. The vaccine still needs to test for some volunteers so people can see the result. It seems to me that these elementary security measures, although effective (in terms of reducing the rate of spread in the initial stages of the epidemic), after a certain threshold, they mean little. Check out the statistics for one of the most disciplined countries:  A sharp surge in the number of diseases occurred after schools were opened (but children cannot study online all their lives). I repeat - this is a very confusing and difficult situation, it is absolutely unclear which solution will be the least bad (in principle, there are no good solutions anymore). |
|
|
|
I wonder how they will implement their limitations when there are tons of casinos around especially online casinos. If they will set limit in depositing, one can try other casino and so on and so on. It will only be possible if they will block websites which I doubt can happen at all. All we need to do is really be responsible in our losses and just accept it or be rehabilitated in a mean time.
You are asking the right questions. That is why, seeing the ineffectiveness of their actions, the government, instead of stopping to make stupid decisions, requires more authority and more control. As a result, everything turns into a totalitarian state where a person must ask permission from an official for even the simplest action. |
|
|
|
Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system.
Are you suggesting that high prices are going to make bitcoin less useful or that bitcoin should only be considered valuable as a payment system? Furthermore how about the many other coins and even second or third layers that also could be used as payment systems. ~ High prices will make the transaction cost more expensive - won't you argue with that? This is undoubtedly a negative impact on bitcoin as a payment system. Moreover, the presence of second and third layers does not improve this situation in any way (miners will receive their fees even with zero transactions in the primary layer). At the base layer, I expect transaction values and costs both to rise significantly. Long term, I don't think Bitcoin is optimally designed for low value payments since fees will be increasingly required to incentivize miners.
There will be other layers (like LN) with different security models, and there will also be trust-based and custodial models that cut down on those user costs. But these days where you can transact on-chain and only pay 1 satoshi per byte are numbered.
Yes, but for some reason many people do not see this problem and do not want to talk about the prospects. If we believe in bitcoin, then we must think about the future and those problems / shortcomings that need to be corrected. |
|
|
|
Can we take any period? What do you think about 2018?
Take that period, but you would be thankful for that period once Bitcoin is priced at $100,000, and you zoom out. You don't believe it? Nicely said, but I think such arguments should be given when this price is reached  Yes, such levels seem extremely doubtful to me. Even taking into account the upcoming halving (next), the earnings of miners will be huge (and these are the costs that the system incurs during its operation).
The revenues of miners would be huge, but that would be offset by increased costs of mining. Why does that make 6 digits so doubtful? Years ago, nobody expected the price or hash rate to be at these levels. It's user and investor adoption that's driving the price. The hash rate is just following for the most part. Do you understand that this will affect the cost of transactions? And not only for that, but even if only this is taken into account, such changes will undermine the value of bitcoin as a payment system. |
|
|
|
As practice shows, government agencies are absolutely indifferent to the effectiveness of their work - so you think about such details, but those who promote such regulation do not. That is why I am in favor of reducing government regulation in all areas (and in gambling too), since it is ineffective.
Of course the government can do it, but they dont want to change the rules they have made. Many rules from all lines of government must be changed, but who cares. People are those who have to comply with government regulation and anyone who violates them will be sanctioned. I would also argue that if thats for the best, reducing the rules might be a socially acceptable solution. This is the main problem of officials/bureaucracy in any country and system of government: in the end, they are only interested in people needing them. In fact, they are interested in creating problems that can be solved only with their help. |
|
|
|
In part, I agree with you. But what do you say to this: what is the overall percentage of the population who have had the virus? My answer is scanty. How many deaths will occur even if we take the decreased mortality rate but apply it to the majority of the world's population? My answer is tens of millions. Therefore, strict quarantine measures are inevitable.
I don't have any idea about the other countries. But here in India, there have been mass antigen tests in some of the cities, where it was found that close to 25% of the population possess COVID 19 antibodies. But officially, the infection rate is less than 1%. It seems as if millions more were infected, but since they were asymptomatic, these people were not included in the official count. As far as I understand, these antibody tests are highly controversial. In addition, even 75% of the total population is a huge figure. Plus, I heard that even those who were sick with the virus can be re-infected. How to deal with this? I see everything here is very confusing, and the risk is very high, since the possibilities of this virus and, most importantly, the consequences for the bulk of people are still unclear. |
|
|
|
1.) I agree. Economic problems are the only reason why all the strict quarantine measures have not yet returned. But I think their return will be inevitable in the fall.
2.) These are good wishes, but unfortunately, in practical terms, each individual is practically defenseless against a pandemic. I mean, even if you follow all the precautions, you are more likely to suffer from less careful and responsible citizens.
If you look at the numbers closely, then you may notice that the fatality rates are going down. The number of new infections remain at the same level, but it looks as if the mortality has decreased. If you ask me, I would say that the general population is moving slowly towards achieving herd immunity. At this point, I am of the opinion that lockdowns are not the way to go. Economy may get destroyed if the government impose any further lockdown measures. And even if they implement them, they will be only partially successful (since community transmission has spread to every nook and corner of the globe). In part, I agree with you. But what do you say to this: what is the overall percentage of the population who have had the virus? My answer is scanty. How many deaths will occur even if we take the decreased mortality rate but apply it to the majority of the world's population? My answer is tens of millions. Therefore, strict quarantine measures are inevitable. |
|
|
|
I wonder how they are going to implement this is this through surveys anyone can lie of course, and if casinos are they going to use lie detector test this is vague and unclear they do want to protect but to the point of proving is like changing the behavior of the gambler totally, they can recommend consultation but not to the point of imposing it to gamblers.
As practice shows, government agencies are absolutely indifferent to the effectiveness of their work - so you think about such details, but those who promote such regulation do not. That is why I am in favor of reducing government regulation in all areas (and in gambling too), since it is ineffective. |
|
|
|
What about the bear market? A large number of people continued to deny this even when it was as obvious as possible.
Convert daily price chart to weekly, zoom out to maximum, and ask ourselves as humble plebs, "Where's the bear market"? Can we take any period? What do you think about 2018? In general, this reasoning is good after the fact - I think at the moment no one will be able to say how long this positive will last and perhaps tomorrow (as well as on any other day) the price will start falling steadily.
You don't believe Bitcoin's price will have 6 digits by 2025? Yes, such levels seem extremely doubtful to me. Even taking into account the upcoming halving (next), the earnings of miners will be huge (and these are the costs that the system incurs during its operation). |
|
|
|
я еще тогда говорил что чимка гандон но мне ни кто не хотел верить
кстати и лауда появилось после месяца молчания, что то мне кажется что овнер сменился
Сильно вряд ли. Аккаунт с таким прошлым никто не купит. Как раз на такой аккаунт желающих (специфических) отбоя не будет имхо. "I did it just for loolz" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
