I laughed too much at this version with some music added: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63I0Oi18KAM

So you've posted essentially the same thread multiple times, and you've also posted the exact same thing to reddit multiple times: https://www.reddit.com/user/skilledguyfx

You've had replies direct from Binance support multiple times as can be seen here, here, here, here, and here.

As Binance have told you multiple times, you are currently being externally investigated for suspected fraudulent activities. Binance have no control over the speed of this investigation. They are also legally not allowed to disclose details of the investigation. This is all outlined in their Terms of Service which you agreed to upon opening your account.

Please stop spamming your nonsense. Also, keeping 1200 BTC on an exchange is insane.

This is true, and I agree with you here. I not infrequently see patients in the ICU who have a near zero chance of survival, and if they did survive, would be permanently disabled or brain damaged so severely that the resulting quality of life would be unacceptable to them or their families. Fortunately, in most of these cases the family agrees with the medical team and the focus moves to palliation and end-of-life care. There are a few cases, however, where the family refuses to accept the prognosis, and we end up providing very costly treatment to keep alive a patient who has no chance of recovery, while we apply to the courts (also very costly) to allow withdrawal of care. The usual cases are young people with either a progressive degenerative disease like Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy or an irrecoverable traumatic brain injury.

Screening isn't just about cost, however. We also need to pay attention to the test's sensitivity and specificity. Unfortunately, no test is 100% - there will always be false positives and false negatives. A test that is sensitive will not miss the disease if it is present, and so has a low rate of false negatives. A test that is specific will not come back positive unless the disease is present, and so has a low rate of false positives.

Let's say we have a test that is 98% specific and 98% sensitive, and we are using that test to screen a population of 1 million people which has a disease prevalence of 2% (some cancers in over 50s, for example). So of those 1 million people, there will be 20,000 with this type of cancer. Our screening test will correctly pick up 98% of those 20,000 people (19,600), and the remaining 2% of people (400) will be labelled as a false negative. Of the 980,000 people that do not have cancer, 98% of them (960,400) will be correctly identified as not having cancer, but crucially 2% of them (19,600) will be labelled as false positives. So we now have 39,200 with a positive test result, and only 50% will actually have the disease, despite our test being "98% accurate".

Now lets take that same test, and apply it to groups that are lower risk (the same cancer in under 30s, for example). The same disease in this younger population might only have a prevalence of 0.01%. If we run those numbers again, again in a population of 1 million people, we have 100 people with the disease, and 98 of them being picked up by the screening test. We also have 999,900 without the disease, but 19,998 of them being identified as false positives. So if you get a positive test result, you actually only have a 0.49% chance of having the disease, despite our test being "98% accurate".

This becomes an issue as there is risk involved as well. For example, if you test positive for the bowel cancer screening test (which is blood showing up in a stool sample), you will then go on to have a colonoscopy. Colonoscopy carries a 0.5% risk of bowel perforation. In our example population of 1 million young people, we would be causing more bowel perforations in people with false positive tests than we would be picking up actual cancers in people with true positive tests.

My point is that tests which are effective in a high-risk category of people can cause more harm than good if applied to a low-risk category of people. Although cost-effectiveness certainly plays a part, there are other factors to consider.

You will receive your coins as normal. Your Ledger generates a new address each time as a privacy feature, but your old addresses do not expire. As long as you still have control of your private keys (which are stored on your Ledger and can also be generated from your mnemonic phrase), you will always have control of those addresses.

Second hand hardware wallets are generally a bad idea. There was a well publicized case at the start of this year of a reddit user who used a second hand device that had been pre-initialized and had all their coins stolen, and this is not the only example. You can read about it here: https://www.ledger.fr/2018/01/12/scam-second-hand-ledger-device/

For the sake of $99, it's not worth the risk of losing all your coins. If you are using a second hand Ledger, then first make sure it is a genuine device by following the instructions here: https://support.ledgerwallet.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002481534-Check-if-device-is-genuine. Ensure you update to the latest firmware, and always initialize the device yourself and write down your own seed.

I'm not saying this is a scam, just that many people have been scammed by second hand devices before. Be careful.

I initially had United at a 3-0 win, but as I mentioned in a previous post, after their utterly dismal display against Crystal Palace in the League at the weekend, I downgraded them. It was a 50/50 toss up between 1-0 and 2-0, and unfortunately I picked the wrong one or I would have had 3 exact scores. Still, I should be happy with my change since it moved me from a 1 point "result" to a 1.5 point "close". I also moved up 2 positions and closed down 3.5 points on Trofo in first place. Let's see what today brings.

Only you and yatty98 got any points from the Lyon game, so yeah, 1.5 points is better than none.

Edit: Also, I think we have maybe hit peak Mourinho.

You didn't disclose your intention to bid, so even your cherry picked source doesn't actually support your position.

This has been discussed across multiple threads multiple times over the last several months, and unfortunately Anduck flat out refuses to even consider that he may be in the wrong here, despite overwhelming consensus against him. I'm not sure there is any point continuing this line of discussion.

Honestly Anduck, although the forum doesn't agree with your shill bidding, all you had to say was "You're right, I should have just set a reserve price or started the auction at a higher price. It won't happen again." and a lot of people would have been on your side considering your otherwise excellent trust history. Your ongoing arguing that somehow paying yourself to win your own auction is legitimate is making you appear less trustworthy the longer it continues.

How many times are we going to hear about "institutional investors". I feel like pretty much every day for a year or more someone is promising that big institutions, banks, hedge funds, Wall Street, you name it, are just round the corner.


Exactly. Given the market movements in the last days and weeks, these investors aren't coming near bitcoin for the time being. They might as well be taking their investments and dropping them all on black on the roulette wheel. If you want the price to rise, it can't be dependent on waiting for these mythical institutional investors to arrive. Price rise comes with widespread adoption, and widespread adoption starts with us using bitcoin today. Stop holding and start using.

We probably need to be on the lookout for this kind of behavior actually. As more and more spammers get banned and restart with newbie accounts, some may resort to this tactic when the realize they will struggle to get that one elusive merit.

The problem with this chart is that you can zoom in and out on the bitcoin graph as you like and fit it to any number of scenarios. It's been cropping up on here and various other crypto sites and forums since around March or April this year, along with literally thousands of charts that which we are going to moon to a million, dump to zero, and everything in between. I'm very much in the camp that these kinds of technical analyses, pattern recognition and fitting price movements to lines and graphs are inaccurate at best, and complete guess work at worst.




It absolutely is, and I really hope the wider crypto-sphere follows suit. There are coins in the top 10 by marketcap (don't even get me started on how useless a metric marketcap is) that are outright scams. The death of >95% of the altcoins would do us all a world of good.

https://github.com/bitpay/copay/issues/9346#issuecomment-441827353

https://blog.bitpay.com/npm-package-vulnerability-copay/


So Copay wallets from 5.0.2 through to 5.1.0 are vulnerable. BitPay apps are not vulnerable, apparently. If you are running one of these version of the Copay app, you should not open the app. Advice is instead to update to 5.2.0, and then use "Send Max" to transfer all your funds to a new wallet. You should not restore your wallet from your mnemonic seed, as that seed is linked to potentially compromised private keys.

It is currently unclear whether this affects other wallets forked from Copay (such a Copay Dash), or any other wallets in general.

True, but we can't rely solely on new money constantly coming in to maintain the price, otherwise that would just be the Greater Fool Theory in practice. And new money is unlikely to enter much for the foreseeable future given the ongoing price crash. The price has to come from bitcoin being used, and all the people just buying and holding waiting for the price to "moon" aren't helping that.



I agree that the comparison to the Japanese stock market isn't the most valid, for the reasons I states in my previous post, but writing off everything you don't like as "FUD" is neither smart nor helpful. Everyone needs to be aware that yes, we could rally again next year, but similarly this could very well be the start of a several year bear market. No one knows.

I mean, I agree with you tokeweed, but there was the greatest financial crash since the great depression in those 30 years which goes some way to explaining the slow recovery. And as we all know, bitcoin prices tend to fluctuate and swing much more significantly and rapidly than stock market prices. I know that past performance does not predict future behavior, and I agree that we are probably going to be waiting several years for the next all time high, but I think 30 years is a bit of a stretch.

Friendly reminder to get your picks in ahead of tomorrow's games.

Some big name injuries affecting a few teams over the coming games. Looks like Barcelona will be missing Suarez, Cillessen and Arthur, although Coutinho will be fit again. Manchester City are obviously still down De Bruyne, Otamendi and Mendy, but it looks like Gundogan and Bernado Silva are also injured now. Mane is in doubt for Liverpool due to an illness.

I'm sure this will come back to bite me, but I'm changing my Man United prediction following them struggling to hold on to a point versus Palace at home this weekend.

The bottom 7 teams are all within one game of the relegation zone. Funnily enough, Manchester United in 7th place with 21 points are closer to the bottom of the table (13 points away from Fulham with 8 points), than they are to the top of table (14 points away from City with 35 points).

Also, some unconfirmed reports surfacing today that DDG will be moving to PSG this summer. I would assume United would activate his extension for another year though. They badly need him since their defending has been so atrocious this season.

I mean, we are only on week 13 of 38, so technically anyone could still win if they really pulled it out of the bag. As slaman29 has said, it is very close and not just between the top 3 or 4. A few risky predictions which go your way could net you 9 or so points more than most others, which is enough to catapult you 6-8 positions up the table.

Can I put 10 bucks as a side bet on me not winning? That way I'm guaranteed a profit no matter the outcome.

We've spent the best part of a year listening to people complain about how they missed buying bitcoin when it was cheap, how they wish they could go back and buy more, how they wish bitcoin would fall again so they could buy more, etc. Now that bitcoin is cheap and a great time to buy, these same people are talking about how much they are panicking, are selling at a loss, and think bitcoin is dead. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.


If you had bought at the all time high of $260 in April 2013, you would have lost 83% of your investment in only 3 days as it crashed to $45. You would also have then had to put up with the long 3 year bear market. But if you were patient enough to withstand all that, you would be up 1500% in 5 years. There is no other investment on the planet that can even come close to 1500% in 5 years, and that was with buying at current all time high. If you've bought at $20,000, and you don't need to cash out to maintain a basic standard of living, then just forget about it and come back in 5 years.

This is an argument I frequently make when people talk about decentralizing medical records, and I am yet to hear a coherent answer. The entire point of a medical database is to be under tight control of one or two parties, and to give secure access only to those who need it. Spreading your database out across multiple remote computers and locations makes this security more difficult, not less.



It doesn't. Creating a single blockchain for all patients is completely unrealistic. The average patient generates approximately 80mb of medical data per year. A blockchain for all 300,000,000 US patients would grow at the size of 22 PETABYTES per year.

Currently where I work, we have a single Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for all patients in our district. We also have direct access to the EMR systems of all neighboring districts. Any patients from further afield than that, we simply email a request for their EMR to be transferred across, or phone to request the transfer if it is an emergency. All this is done with centralized systems, and it all works perfectly well. The entire system is continuously monitored to ensure you aren't accessing any records that you shouldn't be - family members, colleagues, etc. Given at any one time there are potentially thousands of records being updated by various staff, having one centralized database means everyone is always working from the most up-to-date information. Literally milliseconds after the lab tech confirms a set of blood tests, the results appear on my screen, which is crucial in an emergency situation where seconds count. If someone can tell me how a blockchain would improve on any of this, I'd be very interested. Instead, I usually just hear the same nonsense spammy answers like "it will increase transparency" and "it will remove corruption".

Payment received without issue as always, thanks again jeremypwr.