Yeah you guys should be staying far away from betting on WWE, it's fake as hell but also for 9 year old boys. Who the hell likes watching that crap let alone betting on it when it's fixed.
Avoid!
Well sometimes real sports are fake too because of fixed matches, and they are very unpredictable as well so there is a great way to make money by gambling. Undertaker used to win everything and John Cena too. I didn't watch that shit for years now but when i was a kid it used to be pretty fun. I wouldn't bother tho, i stick to boxing and ufc. |
|
|
|
|
I was considering this coin just like a lot of other potential investors and it was a total flop, the coin has dumped all the way down to high 200's, right now is at high 300's.
What the hell man? Im glad I dodged that bullet, I would have lost half of my bitcoin.
I hope it recovers but I always had my doubts about this thing.
|
|
|
|
Lots of hype builing up for segwit in litecoin, hope that everything goes well, it could both help the litecoin price since it improves the coin, and the bitcoin price too since it would prove that activating segwit only brings good things. If we had bitcoin activated we would be sitting at 5 figures no doubt. |
|
|
|
I have a friend who is holding a lot of litecoin and he believes that when the SEGwit fully activates, Litecoin prices will increase significantly. Last week, the percentage was only 3%, but today, it has increased more than 10%. Will you buy Litecoin if it's the segwit percentage reach 50%?
Litecoin will influence the Bitcoin if this event happens
That's a nice bump. Since Litecoin is a tiny coin compared to bitcoin, the hashrate is smaller so that means changes are reflected way faster. Maybe the tides shifts if we get close to 50% and the rest of the miners wake the fuck up and activate segwit. I may buy some LTC. |
|
|
|
Jose Aldo was destroyed by Conor in less than 20 seconds, which is why Jose Aldo vs Conor 2 is not really a main attraction anymore. I think Jose Aldo has a lot of anger and wants to prove that he is a good fighter, so he will have to win this, then aim for a second Conor shoot, but I think Conor will not give him a rematch.
I would like to see Khabib vs Conor in Russia for the inauguration of UFC Russia, that would be huge.
Conor Mcgregor is the biggest champion in the history of MMA and he has won multiple championships in Featherweight and Lightweight in Cage Warriors and UFC and he might be the only champion who never defended any of the belts he won in both organisation  and now he is not even bothered or interested to fight anyone in MMA but wanted to fight Floyd Mayweather .I like to see a rematch between Aldo and Mcgregor and Aldo really deserved a rematch because he was so dominant during his reign. Let me tell you one thing he wont face Khabib anytime soon .  That is because Conor knows Khabib has a good chance to win versus him. It would be a wise move for him to avoid fighting Khabib or anyone until he finds an advantage. Since he is risking everything in every fight then Conor should pick his battles. Every potential future fight for Conor is a potential loss for him, that's what happen whe nyou raise the bar too high. Any of the big selling fights, will present him big difficulties. A Nate Diaz rematch, a Khabib match, a Tyron Woodley match... a Floyd in boxing match.. all are big risks for Conor. |
|
|
|
Jose Aldo will definitely win this fight against Holloway. He has face tough opponents before and Holloway will not be a big challenge of Jose I think. Max better be bringing his A-game, because this is Jose's town and love there. Aldo is still eager to fight Connor so this fight will be his stepping stone to be in the limelight again. Aldo by KO round 2.
If Jose Aldo fails to deliver his chances to fight Conor McGregor will be next to 0. As discuses above, Conor has too many options which are more lucrative than an Aldo fight. Conor would need to get beaten a couple times for him to give him a fight. |
|
|
|
Do you think Bitcoin needs some Rebranding? Rebranding is the creation of a new look and feel for an established product or company. The usual goal of rebranding is to influence a customer's perception about a product or service or the company overall by revitalizing the brand and making it seem more modern and relevant to the customer's needs. First off, the name is a bit confusing? - Most people see the name and associate it with some physical coin. The media is also not helping with this perception, because with every article about Bitcoin, pictures are shown of physical Casascius bitcoins. The other aspect of Bitcoin that can be rebranded is it's bad reputation that has been built up and shilled up ..over years. Every company gets to a point where they need to re-think their original goals and future plans... Why not Bitcoin? We have come a long way since 2009 and making small changes will help us to take this into a new future, without the baggage of the past.  What would the pro's and cons of this be, and also the impact? Let's discuss. No. Bitcoin network effect is too big, the brand is strong enough to keep growing. Bitcoin sounds cool, it's short and sharp, the logo is also good. Internet had bad reputation at the begining too, it means nothing. All cutting edge technology that poses problems to the status quo will get bad reputation no matter what you do about it. |
|
|
|
There will never be "massive onchain scaling" overnight without massive node centralization. but there can be natural consensus growth onchain scaling over months-decades.
where NODES decide what they can cope with and it scales with what NODES can cope with to avoid the fake doomsdays of centralisations
fixed that for you Wrong. Onchain scaling on a decentralized network backed by an huge amount of hashrate to guarantee top tier security while remaining decentralized as bitcoin delivers, will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS lag behind the centralized solutions such as Paypal, VISA, and other centralized payment networks when it comes to speed, cheapness to send the transactions and volume of the transactions. It's a losing game trying to outcompete them onchain in speed, fees and transaction volume, it will never happen, stop being delusional, this is just physics. We NEED a second layer to compete on that field, those are just simple facts of life. Stop being children about it. You can't have it all. |
|
|
|
Jose Aldo was destroyed by Conor in less than 20 seconds, which is why Jose Aldo vs Conor 2 is not really a main attraction anymore. I think Jose Aldo has a lot of anger and wants to prove that he is a good fighter, so he will have to win this, then aim for a second Conor shoot, but I think Conor will not give him a rematch.
I would like to see Khabib vs Conor in Russia for the inauguration of UFC Russia, that would be huge.
Conor Mcgregor is the biggest champion in the history of MMA and he has won multiple championships in Featherweight and Lightweight in Cage Warriors and UFC and he might be the only champion who never defended any of the belts he won in both organisation and now he is not even bothered or interested to fight anyone in MMA but wanted to fight Floyd Mayweather .I like to see a rematch between Aldo and Mcgregor and Aldo really deserved a rematch because he was so dominant during his reign. Let me tell you one thing he wont face Khabib anytime soon . The only big sellers for Conor McGregor: -Khabib Numbwhatever -Tony Ferguson -Tyron Woodley Those 3 guys are the biggest selling points against McGregor nowadays. And of course, Mayweather would be a total success in a boxing match, probably biggest selling fight in history. |
|
|
|
|
Jose Aldo was destroyed by Conor in less than 20 seconds, which is why Jose Aldo vs Conor 2 is not really a main attraction anymore. I think Jose Aldo has a lot of anger and wants to prove that he is a good fighter, so he will have to win this, then aim for a second Conor shoot, but I think Conor will not give him a rematch.
I would like to see Khabib vs Conor in Russia for the inauguration of UFC Russia, that would be huge.
|
|
|
|
@cellard: Indeed, Bitcoin Unlimited has fewer full-time developers than Core. However, there is less work to do, as first-and-foremost Bitcoin Unlimited was intended as a patch-set on top of Core to permit node operators and miners to more easily adjust their node's block size limits and signal their preferences to the network. Should we get larger blocks, then clearly all of the good developers presently contributing to Core aren't going to simply disappear. Some will patch Core to be compatible while others will move to BU, Btcd, etc. So the idea that larger blocks would lead to fewer developers doesn't make much sense. In fact, since larger blocks would permit Bitcoin to continue to grow how it did during it's first 7 years, larger blocks would likely result in more developers. Hopefully we end up with both more developers and more implementations, helping to decentralize development. Regarding your comment about BU making improvements beyond the block-size limit patch set, BU was the first client to successfully implement thin blocks, significantly reducing the amount of time and the number of bytes required to communicate a block.  There will never be "massive onchain scaling" without massive node centralization. Why is it so hard to understand? Also, such flexibility on the setup may seem like a nice thing at first, but upon deeper inspection, it opens a nasty can of worms and all sorts of attack vectors. Same blocksize for all is actually a strenght. We need a strong set of rules. Im sure someone like gmaxwell can give a deeper technical answer and also explain the game theory and possible attack vectors that such such flexibility to change the blocksize on such level would mean. (yeah, im sure franky1 the resident coding genius that never coded anything relevant hates gmaxwell and knows better so he will ignore anything he says) Unfortunately, I don't see ANY possible way to scale onchain anywhere near what we would need to conquer the world as a viable payment transactor that can replace the existing centralized options. Want to compete with VISA? then get it throught your skull: we need a second layer solution, there's no way out, unless a time traveller or an alien from outter space with super advanced technology comes up with the actual next bitcoin that will make us overnight billionaires by buying in the first day. Until then I hope you understand the mistake of not supporting Core devs and LN. So far they haven't fucked up bigly enough to risk a god damned hard fork. We don't want a Buterin event... that is what could kill the network effect forever (and im sure everyone that has an anti-bitcoin agenda is aware on this, hence why they push with BU so hard) Ps: I've heard the Roger crew pushing for way less than 94% so the hardfork would be nasty. They know they would never get anywhere near 94% no matter how many millions they invest in their propaganda. |
|
|
|
Why does Bitcoin need to scale? There are plenty of alt-coins for quick/micro payments. Leave BTC alone!
The big danger is that if people start using alts to move money, they will switch permanently to the alt, and at that point, bitcoin will sink. A bit like how Facebook defeted MySpace even though it was the second-mover. If people start using alts to move money, and if any amount of money starts being really moved with those alts... then guess what: those alts will have the same damn problems as bitcoin has. Alts are fast BECAUSE NO ONE USES THEM!!!!! See how it makes no sense? bitcoin is king and will not stop being king, because people know if they go to an alt, it will start having the same problems and you will not have the security of the bitcoin network. |
|
|
|
 Whoops. Looks like BU team cannot get anything done without Core team. Next time anyone pretends to think turning bitcoin into an ETH/ETC armageddon is a good idea, remember about how not only you will crash the thing into 2 different coins that will never recover, but you are doing this by gambling with a team of amateurs that are lightyears away from Core. Wise up. Bitcoin + segwit + LN = the future. BUcoin = delusional amateurism. All experts agree: http://bitcoinist.com/nick-szabo-bitcoin-censorship-resistance/http://bitcoinist.com/hashcash-antonopoulos-segwit-best/So let's get this done, or keep complaining about bitcoin's lack of updates. |
|
|
|
Yes it's true but the ETC CRIMINAL COIN supporters don't want you to know the true. Anyone hodling a bag of this shite deserves to be fleeced by the criminals.
ETC is the ethereum chain. You are supporting a hard forked Piece of Shet coin due to ETH own fuckup. At the end of the day, Ethereum as a whole is what lost. It doesn't matter if you are supporting Bailouthereum or Classithereum, bottom line is: Vitalik Buterin fucked up big time. The lesson of the story is: Don't hard fork, you will only fuck up the coin. |
|
|
|
|
It's clear to me the best time of the day to gamble is at night when you are having some drinks with friends in las vegas its cool to gamble sometimes and have a laugh at our bad luck.
If you do it at home its more dangerous because you are not aware of how much money you are losing in the comfort of your home at night half asleep.
|
|
|
|
I would watch out for calling things fixed fights
that leads down the road of blaming "fixed fights" for your lost bets
in any case we have to take into account NYC judges and refs the next time a fight happens there.
Yeah it's a dangerous thing but there is no other way to explain what happened with that referrer. But then again, what necessity would the UFC have to make Silva and Holms lose? they are bigger names in the UFC that sell more, so I doubt if there was a fix the UFC was involved. Anyway this is just conspiracy so if anyone lost money better luck next time. |
|
|
|
|
Yeep, the referrer was so stupid and out of his mind. He should have stopped the fight at the second time De Randamie punched Holm out of time, or at least deduct a god damn point, that was uncalled for.
Im glad I didn't took any bets. Both wins a total gamble, very diffuse wins.
|
|
|
|
I was getting this error again and again The server seems to be overloaded right now. Please try again in a little while.
If you are getting this error while trying to post something, press the reload/refresh button in your browser and accept the browser warning. Keep doing this until you get a non-error page, at which point your post will be made. Leave at least a few seconds between each attempt.
It is normal for this error to occur every once in a while. There is generally no need to report it. However, if you get this error so often that it becomes especially disruptive, post to the Meta section of the forum about it.
504 via master1 Hope this is normal one but every other refresh was showing this 504 error, a few seconds ago. I am posting in Meta section to let the concerned staff know about it. I was about to post about this too myself because it has been happening to me for a while today. I use Tor in order to bypass firewall on work, but apparently everyone gets this too? Remember to copy paste your comment before clicking post so you dont lose it. |
|
|
|
Hello there!
What do you think is going to happen after Ethereum change, completely to PoS?
ETH price will skyrocket? ETH price will stabilise? What do you think and how this may affect Bitcoin BTC as well.
Thanks for your opinions
I guess ETH is a good medium term pick, those sort of events tends to create hype, but long term, i just can't trust the thing, because after the DAO disaster we saw how much of a fuck up this technology can be. I dont want to have money in a coin that is prone to hard forks every time someone fucks up their smart contract. |
|
|
|
I think we will see it before bitcoin, but as mentioned before, it doesn't really prove anything if it happens in litecoin. We need it on bitcoin, segwit on litecoin is cool but is just anecdotal, we need the real deal in the capital B blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
