I would guess that the difference is that women have been getting the short end of the stick historically in most regions and there are places where men still overrule women politically and decide for their life. If you look at what is going on in Iran right now, you can see an example, or how we congratulated Saudi Arabia for "letting women drive".
In a world like that, when there are more scary things out there for women, I am pretty sure that the emotional roller costar that we go through when we are trading as men, is nothing to the women because they face harsher reality when they step out of their houses, and that's the risk they are willing to take.
I would be guessing you're just repeating the feminists' propaganda in which women are painted as forever victims and men as oppressors. Historically speaking, everyone had it rough in the past, but men were (and still are) far more likely to die (wars, hunting, accidents, by suicide or being murdered) or be victims of violent crimes. DNA research suggests that only a third of our ancestors are men, meaning the majority of men would never even pass on their genes. And to say that it's harder to trade for women in the West because of some collective trauma or constant danger is bizarre and illogical. If anything, facing constant risks would force you to develop a thick skin and you'd be unfazed by trivial things like trading. |
|
|
|
pawel7777 my friend you can blame those making such assumptions since the ops have abandoned this thread without replies to several hundred of questions and complaints here for a while now, light lord the official of this business have been online a couple of times but did not reply to anyone here on this thread and that has given room to so many speculations as to whether the casino is still active or the operators is not able to effectively run it the same way he runs this thread.
And from some couple of events that happened in the past with covid -19 which is the period since this casino issues started and have not been restored till now, with the long absence of the owner during that time, this and many more gave room for all the speculations around the owner health but no one has any information about his true condition and there is no time lightlord himself announce that he is not feeling well.
So we can choose what to believe now in this situation and know how to act with the casino going forward.
As it has been said before, they're not in any way obliged to be active on this forum. The official way of getting support is by submitting a support ticket on the site, which seems to be working fine (as far as I checked). Sure, they could've done better job in making it clear that this thread is no longer monitored (or they could've just locked it), but to draw a conclusion that the site is dead or abandoned by devs just because they're not active here is a bit of exaggeration. Same for LL not feeling well - not sure what exactly did he say, but the site has active support and the other owner, Zodiac, is reported to be active, so I see no issues here. Unless we're concerned that LL might have passed away without leaving anyone the access to the private keys? |
|
|
|
Actually you are a little bit wrong.
They jackpot is not their money because it's 100% funded by the players. There are special jackpot tables where you pay more rake which goes into the jackpot.
On every other table other than these special tables this promotion doesn't count if you lose AAAKK or higher.
Lol, on the same token you could say the site belongs to the players because it's funded by the rake paid by players. Or that any business belongs to "the people" because it's their money that makes the profits of the business. Playing jackpot tables means you have a chance to win the Jackpot and nothing more. And if you think SwC does not own the Jackpot pool, then how do you expect them to change any Jackpot distribution or rules? Shouldn't you be appealing to the players instead? Come on. LOL. If you don't know the facts you should not comment here. " Playing jackpot tables means you have a chance to win the Jackpot and nothing more.
", did you even ever play at SWC? Seems like you didn't. Jackpot tables are taking more rake than normal tables.  For over 2 years people sit at these tables paying extra rake, and it never hits. And even if it hits only 70% paid out and the rest kept by the site, lol. So next time please inform yourself before even trying to come at me. What are you even talking about? Extra rake is completely irrelevant. Paying rake (extra or not) does not make you an owner of the jackpot or any other site's funds. That's just not how things work. The pool belongs to SwC, not to you. That's why you're asking SwC (not players) to change the Jackpot rules and distribution, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Well, I had an experience when I made a deposit and nothing happened, here's the point of online you take all the risks. The most unpleasant thing is that you can still be blocked by everything.
What site was that? Did you deposit fiat or crypto? Have you contacted customer service etc? With fiat credit/debit card deposits, you should be able to report it to your bank and reverse the transaction, that's one advantage of fiat over crypto deposits. When trying out new sites always conduct due diligence and see if it has been operating for a while, if it has good reviews, and if it has a license in your jurisdiction - that's a massive plus. |
|
|
|
Wydaje mi się że masz rację, ale chętnie przyjmę zakład dla zabawy, ale o to że dojdzie do 30k (a nie 32k).
Daj znać czy akceptujesz w przeciągu kilku dni (powiedzmy do końca Marca).
Nie jestem w stanie dokładnie przeanalizować, czy gdzieś nie czai się ryzyko jakiegoś flash-crasha, pompy dzwigniowej, short squeeze itp i tego jaki rozmiar to moze osiagnac dlatego dodalem te 2k zapasu, bo glupio byloby przegrac tylko dlatego ze btc bylo przez 2minuty na jakiejs gieldzie po 30150 usd a potem zanurkuje ponizej 25k... Jak dodalem, alternatywnie moge sie zalozyc, ze tych 30k nie przekroczy na dluzej niz 4godziny, pasuje Ci taki uklad?  Niech bedzie. Zaklad oficjalnie zaakceptowany. Choc osobiscie nie przepadam za niezbyt sprecyzowanymi warunkami, np. ktore gieldy sa "poważne" a ktore nie sa, albo co jesli BTC przekroczy 30k na 2 godziny a potem znowu na kolejne dwie - liczy sie jako 4 godziny czy nie? Ale przy takim malym zakladzie nie ma co sie martwic na zapas. Dzieki  Mysle, ze mozemy tak zrobic, jesli beda 2 podejscia na 30k001 usd/btc i lacznie cena utrzyma sie wiecej niz 4godziny, czyli np 1 raz bedzie przez 2h30min drugi przez 1h43 min to wygrasz zaklad Człowiek się budzi i taka miła niespodzianka z rana, BTC powyżej $30k  . Wygląda na to że już mam zakład wygrany bo trzyma sie powyżej $30k już ponad 4h (łacznie) na Bitstampie i dalej idzie.  Wygraną możesz mi wysłać na adres w profilu: bc1q79vqvnghljgu926g7gtuhnncq560kc24cur43t Dzięki. Trochę szkoda że nie podbiliśmy stawki |
|
|
|
Actually you are a little bit wrong.
They jackpot is not their money because it's 100% funded by the players. There are special jackpot tables where you pay more rake which goes into the jackpot.
On every other table other than these special tables this promotion doesn't count if you lose AAAKK or higher.
Lol, on the same token you could say the site belongs to the players because it's funded by the rake paid by players. Or that any business belongs to "the people" because it's their money that makes the profits of the business. Playing jackpot tables means you have a chance to win the Jackpot and nothing more. And if you think SwC does not own the Jackpot pool, then how do you expect them to change any Jackpot distribution or rules? Shouldn't you be appealing to the players instead? Come on. |
|
|
|
Seeing company keep on stockpiling Bitcoin makes me feel secure of the future price of Bitcoin. For me, this means the company even though not performing well in their operations believe that Bitcoin will make them recover their losses and even give them profit in the long term. This means if we go with the flow of buying Bitcoin today, there is a huge possibility that Bitcoin will give us huge profits in the future.
I do not think that the company will dump its bitcoin prematurely. Before they do this acquisition I am sure they have enough fund for their operation until the next ATH of BTC (where they probably dump part of their holdings).
Nope, currently their net book value is negative. It doesn't look like they bought bitcoins with the excess cash, but rather went into debt to buy it. Unless they're able to turn things around quickly, looks like their only bet is on BTC going up in the near future.  What's more, if nothing changes, this means they will likely be dumping large amounts whether BTC goes up or down: - if it goes down, they will be facing liquidity problems and will be forced to sell. - if it goes up, shareholders will want to realise their profits at what they'd consider a top, rather than seeing their long-awaited gains being eaten up by unprofitable operations or risking going through another dump. So what actually makes you feel secure here? |
|
|
|
Are you referring to slot games when you say that the games basically make the casino win almost all the time and give users only small wins and the ratio is mostly in favor of the house? Because that is what happens in slot games but if you look at the stats or conduct a survey, slot games are the most favorite of all gamblers and they are the most played games in any casino.
The main reason why most people play these games is the engagement and enjoyment they provide, some also like their graphics and display elements, and only some play for profits which is very hard to get in them.
Yup, that's a good example of the fact that we, as humans, are primarily driven by basic hormonal instincts rather than by cold-calculated rational decisions. I'd argue if the slot-machine playing actually provides the "enjoyment", it's probably more related to getting addicted to the dopamine rush they provide and to satisfying that addiction. It's probably in the same category as young men being addicted to porn. Both behaviours are very destructive in the long-run. Reposting the video link, can you spot a sign of joy on any of those faces?: https://www.tiktok.com/embed/v2/7161651825425354026 |
|
|
|
...
PS the photo you posted is fake and edited
You don't say! I don’t think bringing up gender inequality in the crypto space helps bitcoin or the cause, it’s an unproductive political argument imo. There are no stats to back anything you’re saying so it’s all based on assumptions right now. I think if you truly want to make a difference, you can start teaching young women in your area about bitcoin and how to utilize the opportunities in the crypto industry.
As Bitcoin is open source and anyone is free to join (and no one really asks you for your gender), talking about unequal participation by gender is pretty pointless, as there's no central entity that could do anything about that (if we recognised that as a problem, which is not). The problem could start when bitcoin-related companies/projects could be pressured by their local regulators to implement some idiotic gender/race quotas, which could result in a drop in the quality of the services they provide, potentially reducing security etc. Other than that, measuring participation by gender could provide valuable information and be a decent indicator of Bitcoin (or crypto as a whole) achieving mainstream adoption. I'd say if roughly 50% of crypto holders/traders are women, we're likely already there. |
|
|
|
Requires the same old solution, always read the Terms and Conditions, this is the main mistake that almost everyone makes when trying to gamble on an online casino, read the terms and conditions, there is probably something you will come across that you won't like and this will safe you your time and some problems, however, if you have found yourself in this mess you have to comply with the rules to withdraw your money.
ToCs are usually generic garbage that is often unlawful, i.e. casinos' would waive themselves of any responsibilities and restrict players' legal rights. And one of the standard practice is that almost all would grant themselves the right to change their ToCs at any time, meaning whatever you agreed in there, could turn meaningless. Point is, ToCs do not supersede the law. From the legal point of view, the site is bound to comply with the laws of the jurisdictions they provide their services in. But in practice, if the site is registered in some exotic country, taking any legal action is virtually impossible. |
|
|
|
Coming soon to every country in the world: "Vote for me, and I'll give you cash $$!"  This has been going on since forever. Buying votes with voters' money by promising more social benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure if I qualify in terms of being active on Sports betting and/or Sports betting discussion (no worries if not), but am pretty active in gambling board so will have a go:
13. Israel Adesanya
12. Gilbert Burns
11. Adrian Yanez
10. Santiago Ponzinibbio
9. Raul Rosas Jr.
8. Chris Curtis
7. Luana Pinheiro
6. Joe Pyfer
5. Lupita Godinez
4. Steve Garcia
3. Jaqueline Amorim
2. Karl Williams
1. Ignacio Bahamondes
NOT go the Full Distance 7
|
|
|
|
Hi friends, I have some questions for you guys about online casinos
What will you do if you don't know that a online casino will ask you for KYC after winning over 8,000$ on the platform? And you now manage to process with the verification and they failed to pass you? Can you consider such a casino a scam?
Depends on how you identify a "scam". If you mean an operation that was designed to defraud players out of their money - then it depends. To give them the benefit of the doubt, it could be that they require some additional KYC above a certain level of deposit/withdrawal. But in such case they have to provide an alternative way of verification (assuming the player is able to produce all required documents). They cannot just say "our verification system says No" and take someone's money. That would be a 100% scam. But even if they do pay out those $8k eventually, not properly informing players (upon signing up) on any KYC requirements is highly unethical. People may simply not wish to share their sensitive information with gambling site and they cannot keep their funds hostage. Also, imagine you get attracted to an online casino because of the bonuses they offer and you open an account and make your first deposit then you didn't receive the promised bonus, is this an act of scam or not?
I am trying to solve such an issue for someone very close to me and that the complaint he gave, I have no answer than maybe the bonus was canceled already before he made the deposit or there was a minimum deposit requirement.
Any other reasons?
If this relates to the same person that got denied their withdrawal, I would focus on getting that money out and be done with that site and not worry about any bonuses. But yes, if someone was promised a bonus and they didn't receive it, that's an unethical practice for sure, but not necessarily a scam, provided you could withdraw your initial deposit (with no extra fees). Care to share the name of the casino? |
|
|
|
Yeah that makes it even less likely, even if it's just a little bit.
Some people in the swc chat already accused swc of not paying it on purpose saying whenever they choose to close the site it's convenient to take then jackpot with them, 6.4 btc for a site with such a small player base is a good extra.
That doesn't make much sense to be honest. They could just discontinue the jackpot offer now, take that BTC6.4 and share that among themselves, without closing the site. At the end of the day it's their bitcoins and they can do whatever they want with them. Same goes for the jackpot distribution model, you may not like it, but that's not your money and not your decision. Jackpot surely has some marketing effect, but it's not like anyone is playing there solely for the purpose of winning it. And if someone was to win it but didn't get paid - we would almost certainly see some shitstorm (scam accusation, negative trust ratings etc), which doesn't seem to be the case. I would agree that it can be seen as a bit misleading, as one could get the impression that you would be paid a full 6.4 if you lose with AAAKK, but I think it's pretty standard to have some more complex distribution structure (i.e. the jackpot pool should never get completely depleted). 10% house fee is definitely bad optics, especially since they could just slightly reduce the amount of rake that goes into the jackpot, effectively taking the house fee automatically. It would indeed be good to have that taken out. |
|
|
|
Microstrategy has become a way for funds to get exposure to Bitcoin without having to hold it themselves, declare that they’re holding Bitcoin, or create new divisions of their company to handle crypto. They just have to add Microstrategy to their portfolios, and they are. I wonder if a spot ETF would have the major holders sell and buy the ETF instead.
How would creating crypto-division make any difference though? When you buy MSTR stock, you're buying shares of the entire group. And that would be a very unattractive way of investing in Bitcoin, since their stock price is also largely dependent on the performance of their principal activities. |
|
|
|
Notice in those financials that there is a line for digital asset impairment. Because the rules for holding cryptocurrencies on the balance sheet had not yet been established so a company is forced to actually include paper losses from cryptocurrencies as real losses on their financials.
So of the $1.469 billion "loss" they took that year, $1.286 billion of that was bitcoin paper losses. Which means the company actually took a $183 million loss for the year, not $1.469 billion.
Still, not great they took a loss for the year of course, but they aren't losing anywhere near as much as the financial numbers make it sound like.
Notice they made about $300 million the previous year when you account for the bitcoin impairment "loss".
In 2022 you can see their revenue went down slightly, their cost of revenue went up slightly and their operating expenses went up slightly. None of that is too bad. Their interest expense doubled which presumably is from paying interest on loans for bitcoin, remember they just paid off their Silvergate loan so this year their interest expenses should go down significantly.
The main difference is the line called "Provision for (benefit from) income taxes". I have no clue what that is but that went from helping them by $275 million in 2021 to hurting them by $147 million in 2022. That's the main difference between the years right there, though I don't know what that is. If you exclude that they made $20 million in 2021 and and lost $36 million in 2022. But since I don't know what the "Provision for income taxes" is I have no clue why that changed or if that will continue to be a problem in the future or not.
I'm not quite sure why is the Bitcoin holding impairment loss included in the operating results, unless crypto-investing is considered a part of their normal business operations. But that loss is very real - they bought in higher than the current price, so the value is lost and they have less money than they had before. There are no accounting rules that would allow keeping such loss off the records. And if you propose that BTC impairment loss should be ignored - then, consistently we should ignore the btc asset in the balance sheet, which would increase the Total stockholders’ deficit from ~$383 millions to ~$2.2 billions, making their shares worth less than a toilet paper. I guess your point was that they could keep going even when bitcoin keeps dropping, but I don't think that's the case. That would only be true if they bought bitcoins with some excess cash that they didn't really need, but currently their total liabilities exceed their total assets by $383m and that's including their $1.8b btc holdings (at 31 Dec 2022). Link to press release with complete quarterly and annual figures: https://www.microstrategy.com/content/dam/website-assets/collateral/financial-documents/press-release-archive/microstrategy-announces-fourth-quarter-2022-financial-results_02-02-2023.pdfps. "Provision for (benefit from) income taxes" is just a funny wording for "tax charge/(credit)". It simply represent corporation tax (+ deferred tax), and as it includes multiple elements (i.e. tax losses carried forward, tax reliefs etc) it sometimes can result in credit for the year rather than charge. |
|
|
|
Microstrategy bought more bitcoinI'm a little uncortable with a thought that if things go further south for them, they might be forced to dump it all on the market.
Can it go south to the recent lowest price of bitcoin during last year ending? Bitcoin was at $15500 or so at the time. Yet, Microstrategy survived. I wasn't talking about the BTC price that would force them to sell, but about Microstrategy's poor performance. Let's not forget their not some fund that just holds bitcoins but an actual business offering services, that also happens to hold bitcoins. If they keep making huge losses, then it's inevitable that they will be forced to sell eventually. And their recent results do not spark optimism:  Note - the results are presented in thousands, meaning they recorded a net loss of $1.5bn for the year ended 31 Dec 2022. |
|
|
|
Its not really different if you are betting. The major difference would be less betting options compared to some regular sportsbook that you are used to bet on. Aside from that, the differences would be on the odds because you could get better odds on least favourites team compared to regular sportsbook but the odds on favourites should be worse most of the time but yeah its a difference experience of betting for sure
The major downside for me is that you don't really know what the final odds are going to be + there's no option to place combination bets. But yes, this type of betting is a good business model for freebitco.in as they don't care who wins or losses, so they don't have incentive to cut down on odds (or to ban players making consistent profits), meaning players will often get better payouts than with regular sport betting sites, which makes up for for all the downsides. |
|
|
|
unfortunately the women's share is in the minority in the crypto world, and it can also be seen in this forum,(...)
Why "unfortunately"? I can't understand why some of you seem to be bothered by men and women making different choices. You don't need anyone's permission to be part of the Bitcoin community or to participate in this forum. In fact, no one really knows (or cares) if you're a man or a woman. These options are equally open to both genders. If women, in general, decide that's not really something they'd be interested in and they prefer to focus on other things instead - that's perfectly fine by me. I don't have a problem with it. I look to a future perspective, if bitcoin ever becomes a recognized currency all over the world and there will be a certified mass adoption, it will be a pity that women find themselves in the minority! this is my thought, obviously I don't criticize any woman if she doesn't believe in bitcoin, each of us is free to make our own choices I wouldn't worry about that. If mass adoption happens, then women will certainly be on board. Women are a bit more cautious by nature and less trusting of new things, but once something gets popular and gains the approval of the mass population, they would become way less skeptical. We have already seen a massive influx of women into crypto when crypto broke into mainstream i.e. during the last bull-run. Plus, at a level of mass adoption, we would likely have much more user-friendly bitcoin wallets, which would also help. Adoption of Bitcoin is open to both sexes; Satoshi Nakamoto did not specifically mention using Bitcoin only by men in any of his writings.
Are you sure about that?  jk |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
