Longest losing streak on a 50% roll? Or maybe worst single loss calculated as stake*win chance? So 0.1 BTC lost on a 90% win chance is worse than the same amount lost on a 50% win chance.

Yeah, in online tournaments, particularly freerolls, all rules and tactics go out the window for the first 10-20 hands. I would barely even call it bluffing - people going all in pre-flop and you knew full well that the majority of them had nothing spectacular, and were just betting on getting some lucky community cards.

Have a look at this list: https://www.anythingcrypto.com/fastest-exchange-deposit/binance

Right now, the fastest coin to transfer is Nano. ICX is listed as number one, but its decentralised network is not running yet so that's an artifical number. Nano is fastest at 3 seconds (and also free), followed by Stellar at 5 seconds.

Very interesting data, and proof that we are inherently awful at privacy. I think my personal favorite is number 72, "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood", which has held over 500 BTC.

You've missed a decimal point at entry 266 - it currently says it has held over 2 billion BTC. 

Neither.

You are correct in saying your VEN will be converted to VET at a ratio of 1:100. You will trade in all your VEN and have 100x as many VET returned to you. You will not hold both.

VET is worth 1/100th of what VEN is worth, and so the value of your investment will not change. You can see this right now by comparing exchanges - Huobi have not yet performed the swap and are trading VEN at 0.00032 BTC, Binance have performed the swap and are trading VET at 0.0000032 BTC.

You can get more info regarding the token swap here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vechain/comments/91yuoq/some_commonly_asked_questions_regarding_the_token/

2% of people who already have invested over $10,000, so presumably an even smaller percentage of people who have invested less than that or have no investments at all.

There is certainly the potential for a lot of new money, but I think we are looking at 10+ years until we get some semblance of widespread adoption.

Worth noting that Binance have already performed the token swap over to VET, so anyone holding old VEN ERC-20 tokens should NOT send them to Binance to try to claim this airdrop. Anyone who has not yet performed the token swap will unfortunately miss out on this airdrop and will have to wait until after August 10th to perform the swap in the VET wallet.

Exactly. Bluffing too much or too little becomes predictable - then everyone around the table knows how you play and will (if they aren't newbies) react accordingly to put you at a disadvantage. Change things up to keep your opponents guessing.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Until you post a single piece of evidence, I'm done wasting my time constantly refuting your made up drivel.

Glad to see you've finally changed your mind, since the source you just used for your argument also says this:



You are now two out of two for trying to provide evidence and ending up strengthening my case and weakening your own. You apparently are just Googling for random things that you think support your case, which you don't even read before posting, let alone understand.

I'll say it again - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. Continuing to post your unsupported and provably incorrect opinions is getting embarrassing for you.

I would agree that I think BTTS is the best way to go for these games. The outcome is too unpredictable with the teams sometimes completely changing at half time, but with the number of inexperienced defenders on the field, goals are more likely.

Haha, wow. If anyone wasn't already convinced not to buy this wallet, then this surely has to be the nail in the coffin? Why would you trust a company behind any product that show no interest in closing security holes and flaws?

Genuine question. Assume for a moment that we are working towards Bitcoin becoming a sigle, global currency, to the exclusion of all else. How then do we factor in the value of derivatives? Current estimates put the value of the derivative market at somewhere between $600 trillion and $1.2 quadrillion.

Wrong. We are currently in an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age.



Wrong again. Ice ages are caused by many separate factors, not just one. Also, the term you are looking for is Milankovitch cycles, not orbital perturbations.



What are you even talking about? "Graphs won't help you"? You realise the graphs are just representations of facts and evidence? Right? Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, since in your world facts are less valid than your technique of just spouting whatever nonsense you make up, here are some photos instead. Can't wait to hear how somehow these aren't valid either.











What has this got to do with anything? Or is your argument now "it can't possible be getting warmer, because once upon a time it was really cold"?


Honestly, I'm getting bored here. Your argument seems to have degenerated to "throw random somewhat scientific terms at the wall and see what sticks". And are you just ignoring that the one link you did provide actually hurt your case more than helped it? You don't even understand the terms you use or the data you are linking to. The facts on my side are overwhelming - if you have any actual facts/figures/evidence/data/proof to present for your side, then I'll happily discuss it. If, however, you are going to just keep spouting nonsense and made up assertions, then I'm wasting my time.

And another one who has fallen in to the classic newbie trap. Coin price is a bad indicator, and means nothing without considering total supply. Pay attention instead to market cap. $1 could be overpriced while $100 is a bargain.

I use GDP only a benchmark for how ridiculously large sums of money we are talking about here - I realise there is no link between the two.

I mean, I'm bullish on Bitcoin but that's never gonna happen. The marketcap of Bitcoin would have to reach $2,100 trillion - for comparison, the GDP of the entire world is about $75 trillion. 

You are completely missing the point here. The issue isn't how your prizes are structured, the issue is you can't afford to pay any winners. As soon as someone does win, you admit that you are relying on using future investors' funds to pay them off. That's pretty much a Ponzi scheme.

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.



I don't "believe" in global warming anymore than I "believe" in gravity. I understand that global warming is happening because I understand the facts and data. Using language like "believe" is commonly used by the scientific illiterate to create the illusion of controversy where none exists.



Most signature campaigns don't count posts in Politics & Society, so this is just yet more incorrect nonsense.



Excluding results exceeding 5 standard deviations is a perfectly reasonable practice when looking at trends. 5 standard deviations is actually a very generous cut off - 3 standard deviations would be more than sufficient. Regardless, the CRUTEM data also exclude plenty of results that are above average temperature, for example Riyadh, Feb 2002 (5.5 SDs hotter than the mean), Barquisimeto, August 2008 (6.6 SDs hotter than the mean), Diego-Suarez, Nov 2013 (7.8 SDs hotter than the mean). In fact, since 1990, they have excluded approximately 6 times as many data points for being too hot than for being too cold. If you include all the outliers, the trend upwards is even steeper.

The mere fact that you would post some nonsense ramblings  written by a non scientist on his pseudoscientific blog that actually prove my point even more as if that is an appropriate rebuttal to a peer reviewed meta analysis is hilarious. It is clear that neither you nor the author understand the data.

It is also hilarious that you are quite happy to refer to scientific data and when you think the data support your position,* but equally happy to ignore them all when they contradict you.

*They don't.



Correct. Also irrelevant. 10% of the world's land surface area is covered in ice, approximately 15 million km². This is known as land ice. When it melts, its volume is completely added to the sea. As an aside, even sea ice will raise the water level a little when it melts as fresh water is less dense than the salt water.



This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.

If you want an echo chamber, I suggest you sign up for Facebook.

If Bitcoin is not strong enough to withstand some criticism, then we should all be cashing out now.