The idea should also be based on the likelihood of all scenarios, including the possibility of these two or more current mining pools to collude. I find this highly unlikely. What would they gain? Several hundred thousand coins possibly before the attack is discovered and miners disconnect from their pools? Even if they found a way to sell those coins, what next for the colluding pools? Their losses would quickly eat up whatever gains they made from the attack. They wouldn't want to jeopardise a business model that already works for them, simply not enough golden eggs to make killing the goose worthwhile.

This makes the only possible motivation being a desire to see the world burn.

 

Of course they are scammers if they do that when they aren't "Trying to comply with regulations". Take a look at the casino - they aren't regulated, not even licensed... accepting US players, what regulatory jurisdiction could they possibly be under? It's the same modus operandi for many casinos - allow deposits, give issues at withdrawal. KYC is an excuse, because they're not even regulated.

Blacklisted on askgamblers and with multiple complaints lodged on this forum.

@OP not sure how much you deposited but you're probably not getting it back. Lesson learnt, hopefully?

Trust me, these primary reasons are a lot more secondary than you might think. It's not that governments want to control flow of currency because of money laundering, though those are quite useful and convincing arguments since the sentiment can be quite strong behind them. Governments will use security, safety, terrorist funding, money laundering, to scare you into believing that you can and should give up your rights for the greater good.

But yeah, you have a point. States see Bitcoin as an existential threat. And they should.

Proper wallet-only services like Blockchain don't refer to a "minimum payout", or "withdrawal" only a minimum "spend/send", typically dependent on current network fees. You're definitely not using a wallet service but attempting a withdrawal from some service. A screenshot or exact url of the website service you're asking about would help greatly.

I don't want to say it cause the last time I even dared to think it with Suarez and co, I told myself, it was now or never. And it didn't happen then, so it should be never, but that was me jinxing never... I know it's complicated but I think most football people understand!

If Salah leaves it will be after he gave his best at least another season. Torres, Suares, Coutinho all did their dues. But anyway...


I know, right? And if Alisson really did come for 85m, it'd be a record breaking GK fee but still be good value. I really don't understand the market any more!

Just avoid this. Here's a few scenarios possible:

1. OP thinks he can manipulate odd adjustment systems to ensure everyone bets on both sides and gain whatever profit (small) by whatever outcome happens, so you get a team of people to bet heavily on one side, bookies adjust odds and make it higher on the opposite outcome, same team bets on those higher odds. A bit more complicated than that but that's manufactured arbitrage and you can be sure Bet365 will clamp down hard on that.

2. OP offers "insider tip" to these 2 players, but on opposite outcomes. Whatever happens, 1 side wins and thinks wow, OP really does know the game so well. If OP is lucky, it's the high odd outcome, and then the winning player is confident of the insider tip, bets big on following match or pays for the next tip.

I can think of so many more scenarios. None of them is good. There's no easy way to make money, there's no way you can consistently game the house even if you found a loophole.

That's not exactly the right assumption to make. If these are guys who held since 2010, or even 2015, they still count as long term holders. What's $30 billion in December 2017 and January 2018 was only $300 million if you take a growth from $100 to $10,000. Just so many variables to look at. Take into account so-called Mt Gox trustee selloffs, court legitimised, take away all the Jamie Dimon et al sells who bought in when they caused temporary slips in mid-2017, and we're left with what? Not much.

Holders didn't dump. Those who did, got out at what they set as hold targets.

Wasn't surprising how the finalists progressed for Men's, just that I didn't expect either to win in straight sets just like that. Thiem's always been good to me in betting, since Australia anyway, and I'm really happy he'll make his first Grand Slam final. Nadal's the undisputed king of clay though, so it'll be a fool to bet against the grain here, in which case I'll lay a modest sum on Thiem to win his first Grand Slam @4.74!

A little more pragmatically, over 36 for 19/10 is all right. Can't let Nadal win so easily, can he?

Am I the only one who can't find the link?

It's always funny to see how articles and people need to justify what should be common sense. Arbitrage in ANY market exists, but is more difficult to take advantage of in reality. Outside of exclusive arbitrade and insider trading that we all know goes on with these centralised platforms (yes, Coinbase/GDAX, I'm looking at you), the arbitrage opportunities you and I can see are difficult to manage and still require trusting the intermediary in the other country.

Would I love to take advantage of arbitrage right now going on in Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Iran, where Bitcoin is in demand? Sure. Do I want to trust some guy over there to help me take advantage of prices? Sure. Do I want to badly? Not badly enough.

Point of failure is painfully obvious. No player wants to try for the jackpot knowing that 20% goes to the site owner. It's far too high in an industry that considers even 10% normally taken by centralised gaming companies as "unfair".

What's the point of a trustless system if you have to lose so much of the cut? And what's stopping the devs from just buying those tokens back, knowing that 20% goes to them anyway?

Always reading with interest and happy to see that people are always trying to work on this problem of pool centralisation, although I'm not sure any of the direct threats (51% attacks for example) would really happen since pools themselves, no matter how large, have historically understood the fine balance they need to maintain to avoid miners just disconnecting from their pools to join others.

Nevertheless, it is at these finely-maintained balances that centralised pool decisions are a concern. I just wanted to share something else I read (a BIP draft) yesterday that looked instead to just change the protocol to give a bit less power to pools when it comes to creating block templates.

Your suggestion of a way to somehow make individual miners count for the work they contribute, as well, is something a lot of people would support. This makes me wonder if anyone has ever calculated the cost of wasted work (work that never counted), I'm sure it's a LOT.

And on the sixth second of the seventh minute of the eighth hour of every Golden Lotus lunar noon, Bitcoin price starts a movement more than 1 dollar either up or down. It has happened with startling accuracy since Bitcoin hit $500, I put a lot of research into it.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. If anything, with BTC, it's a guarantee that old patterns will be discarded as soon as people find them.

I feel left out I missed your original post, deisik!

I come from an international non-profit background, and could share that the trend for a new international language was definitely Chinese for commercial opportunities and Arabic for work in the Southern Hemisphere (especially in the past decades taking into consideration refugee-producing countries). This might not seem relevant to the blockchain world if one forgets that it was actually these masses of people that Bitcoin also targeted for "financial revolution" - and already we see evidence in countries like Syria, Iran and Venezuela where Bitcoin's ideal is truly being embraced. These would be 2 languages I'd learn if I were 10 years younger and still had a career, and were more deeply involved in Bitcoin.

I would actually also add Malay (almost unknown but among the fifth most-used language in the world!) that includes a huge unbanked population.

I'm not sure I'd agree that "probably" most mixing is for "evil" purposes. We know already that at least since 2016, Bitcoin's use for illicit purposes was scarcely significant. Two years later, in 2018, we have further evidence from the likes of Elliptic (blockchain analytics firm) and even academia that show Bitcoin use for illegal purposes is growing even smaller, far less than 1%, and there is some decent effort to look into mixers, (oh yes, blockchain forensics can still dig up the dirt from mixed coins) and some initial findings that it is also not as "evil" as presumed.

I've used mixers before and will continue to mix them. But hardly for any other purpose than privacy. Same reason I will start calling up companies to remove my personal data once thanks to GDPR.

You're not being paranoid at all. We all see cries for help every day on every exchange but when it comes to proper complaints with what seems to be legitimate evidence, time to sit up and pay attention.

If the exchange can't even do a simple listing for the amount it charged (527 ETH btw!) then we know for sure these are simply amateurs. Look at the way they responded too. No different from amateur exchanges.

Anyway, this proves listing does take 100s of thousands of dollars. So all you investors know where your token sale funds are going to...

Nice to see support coming in here to respond. As I mentioned above, I was previously a verified user and am disappointed I cannot verify due to my country not listed on supported verifier lists. Isn't there a way around this?

While it's good to hear that crypto deposits are still possible, and the limits so far are not too bad, it's still a risk to use an exchange that could make changes without warning... I hope Bitpanda doesn't do this, the way other exchanges have in the past.

So, GitLab it is? Or will we see a resurgence in SourceForge?


Yeah, it's generally good business sense if you're not looking to liquidate and cash out. Microsoft stocks still have a lot of potential to grow over the long-term, and can find ready buyers should a later need come to liquidate that. With MS pursuing blockchain itself, there's no reason to think GH's acquisition will also propel the stocks later on.

Smart moves can be expected from MS, Bill Gates or not, his acumen seems to have been inherited.

Oh, Salah is definitely going to stay with Liverpool. Source: my gut. I know, we're a selling club but only if the player insists on going, and Salah isn't to me the type of player to leave so quickly the club that brought him his fame and all those multiple awards - he's a humble guy, and he will want to do his dues before moving on, if ever. And that's really what I like about Liverpool, plus Klopp, in that they're buying players as much for their potential as for their personalities. I'm REALLY liking the personality of our new guy Fabinho, not yet sure about Fekir. Keita's got a few red cards since signing to move, but otherwise I like the guy.

Yes, I actually do care about personalities in the team. You don't want toxic superstars.

But agree. I like all these players coming in, but we need huge cover. Two more CBs at least, because Lovren is... well he's Lovren. Hope Alisson really makes a surprise move too. I really have had enough Mignolet/Karius nightmares.

Just read a little on Corallo's draft BIP: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki that seeks to separate pool payout info channel from work info channel.

Summary of main motivation:
- more diverse block templates with miners allowed to construct their own - less risk of pool restricting protocol upgrades

Stratum is "difficult to implement and poorly documented" - you guys agree?

Of course Bitcoin is not going to be the panacea to every financial and money ill ever conceived. But it doesn't need to be any of that to become a global currency. In some ways, it already has achieved this. I could possibly sell my US dollars in most countries I go to, but would need a money changer. The number of people willing to buy my currency decreases as I go from national fiat to national fiat. But I bet I could sell my Bitcoin in all and any country I visit. I'd just go to localbitcoins or Bisq and someone will always be ready to buy them, if not accept my BTC as payment.

If that's not what global currency is, I don't know what is.