Unless it gets mod-locked (possible but doubtful), this thread will probably limp along until everybody just loses interest. Then, Quickseller will eventually create another new thread accusing Lauda of kitten abuse. This cycle has repeated many times. If only we could agree that as a collective we should just ignore these threads. If we all stopped replying, he might get bored eventually...? (By replying I fully concede I am a rampant hypocrite.) |
|
|
|
|
You would then run in to "Should I buy bitcoin (Continued)" or "Part 2/3/4/5/etc" threads.
I agree that almost all the replies to topics like those are worthless, but limiting replies will result in duplicate threads, and conversely more spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Allowing only one merit per post would result in the spammers/merit abusers creating 50 posts to each receive 1 merit from their alt accounts instead of receiving 50 merit on a single post. It could paradoxically increase spam.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was a great segment overall, of a similar quality to all his other great segments. Gave a nice basic explanation of the tech, explained how the tech is changing the internet in ways we couldn't predict, and said how this could be like investing in a big company like Google early. However, also showed how some coins are obvious scams (Bitconnect), that some teams are very unprofessional (EOS), and that people are throwing money at ICOs with little knowledge of what they are buying. Ended with the classic advice "Only invest what you can afford to lose".
Nice, balanced presentation, with equal amounts of optimism and caution. Better than the vast majority of the media.
|
|
|
|
|
Tron is completely plagiarized and Verge is a "privacy coin" with no privacy. Neither of them deserve to be in the top 100.
I would get out of both ASAP and buy solid coins like BTC, ETH or NEO.
|
|
|
|
|
The fundamentals of Nano haven't changed. It is still blazingly fast and incredibly cheap to transfer, which you can see for yourself if you set up a Nano wallet.
The entire market crashed, and Bitgrail turned out to be a scam. Neither of these things were the fault of Nano or its team. In fact, the professional response of the Nano devs to this scam make the coin seem even better.
Nano is a solid coin.
|
|
|
|
I just got the nano ledger s at the moment. Ordered it from the actual website so it was sent from france to here. Had it expedited as well shipping. I noticed that it is actually wrapped in packaging as in you need to rip it open or take a scissor etc. Do you know if this is new? I heard from others there is nothing over it and its suppose to come with just the box? But those are only ppl who got it off amazon right? So the ones that come from france does have it in closed packaging like imagine you bought a new iphone and you have to rip off that plastic packaging?
I ordered mine straight from the website and iirc it did come in a shrink-wrapped box. However, Ledger does not use a tamper-proof seal, because the hardware does the tamper checking. This is correct. You can read more information about their security here: https://www.ledger.fr/2015/03/27/how-to-protect-hardware-wallets-against-tampering/. Also ensure that when you set up the Ledger, you generate a new PIN and 24 word seed phrase, to avoid any second-hand scams as seen here: https://www.ledger.fr/2018/01/12/scam-second-hand-ledger-device/. |
|
|
|
|
Some interesting points raised by this thread. There are many factors contributing to the USA's obesity epidemic, however it all boils down to 2 points - eating too much and exercising too little.
I would also point out as it has been mentioned several times in this thread, that there is no convincing evidence that organic food is "good" or GMO food is "bad". Organic and non-GMO is mostly just clever marketing, making you pay more for essentially the same product.
|
|
|
|
I have already made more than 0.02 BTC, and my bankroll is much, much lower than 1 BTC. Yet I have not gone bust... hmm... hmmmmmmmmm
Same as every Martingale variation - it works great until you go bankrupt. |
|
|
|
It's not ban evasion, it's a ban appeal. I think I have been wrongfully banned and I'm appealing theymos's decision. 25. If you get banned (temporary or permanently) and create a new account to continue posting / sending PMs, it's considered ban evasion. The only exception is creating a thread in Meta about your ban. |
|
|
|
Script var config = {
baseBet: { value: 100, type: 'balance', label: 'base bet' },
payout: { value: 1.08, type: 'multiplier' },
stop: { value: 1e2, type: 'balance', label: 'stop if bet >' },
loss: {
value: 'increase', type: 'radio', label: 'On Loss',
options: {
base: { type: 'noop', label: 'Back to base bet, noob' },
increase: { value: 2, type: 'multiplier', label: 'Increase bet by' },
}
},
win: {
value: 'base', type: 'radio', label: 'On Win',
options: {
base: { type: 'noop', label: 'Return to base bet' },
increase: { value: 1.02, type: 'multiplier', label: 'Increase bet by' },
}
}
};
log('Script is running..');
var currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
// Always try to bet when script is started
engine.bet(currentBet, config.payout.value);
engine.on('GAME_STARTING', onGameStarted);
engine.on('GAME_ENDED', onGameEnded);
function onGameStarted() {
engine.bet(currentBet, config.payout.value);
}
function onGameEnded() {
var lastGame = engine.history.first()
// If we wagered, it means we played
if (!lastGame.wager) {
return;
}
// we won..
if (lastGame.cashedAt) {
if (config.win.value === 'base') {
currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
} else {
console.assert(config.win.value === 'increase');
currentBet *= config.win.options.increase.value;
}
log('We won, so next bet will be', currentBet/100, 'bits')
} else {
// damn, looks like we lost :(
if (config.loss.value === 'base') {
currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
} else {
console.assert(config.loss.value === 'increase');
currentBet *= config.loss.options.increase.value;
}
log('We lost, so next bet will be', currentBet/100, 'bits')
}
if (currentBet > config.stop.value) {
log('Was about to bet', currentBet, 'which triggers the stop');
engine.removeListener('GAME_STARTING', onGameStarted);
engine.removeListener('GAME_ENDED', onGameEnded);
}
}For anyone not familiar with the code, what this script does is the following: Bets 1 bit at x1.08. If you lose, doubles the bet, still at x1.08. If you win, returns to the base bet of 1 bit. Repeat There are additional options to change the max bet and tweak the multipliers, but the script will run as above unless changed. It is laughably simple. It is just Martingale, but even worse since you don't even recover your losses after a run of reds (x1.08 multiplier rather than the usual x2). At a 1.08 multiplier, with a success rate of 91.67%, you are making an average profit of (0.9167*0.08)-([1-0.9167]*1)=-1%. Over the long term, you will then run in to the problem of any Martingale with exponentially increasing losses. In my personal opinion, to claim that this is worth 50BTC is nothing short of delusional. The most impressive thing is the amount of forum activity she has created surrounding a script that could be written by a middle-schooler, and equally proved to be worthless by a middle-schooler. This is incorrect. I gave specific values to aTriz to plug into the script (1.08x is correct but some other values are supposed to be changed, the 2x is supposed to be much lower and every 1 hour you are supposed to change some values). Luckily he didn't leak all of that. And here is a prettier version of the script,
let initialBettingValues = {
baseBet : 0.0000001,
baseChance : 91.851,
firstLossMultiplier : 4,
lossMultiplier : 5,
lossChance : 79.360
}
let nextBet = initialBettingValues ? initialBettingValues : "0"
let chance = baseChance ? baseChance : "0"
doBet =(win,currentStreak,previousbet)=> {
if(win){
nextBet = initialBettingValues.baseBet
chance = baseBet
} else if (currentStreak === -1){
//First Loss
nextBet = previousbet * firstLossMultiplier
} else {
nextbet = previousbet * lossMultiplier
}
chance = lossChance
}
I've also been watching her betting history and can confirm this is exactly the new script she is using. The only differences are you calculated the base chance and loss chance incorrectly. Accurate values are base chance = 0.99/1.08 = 0.9167 and loss chance = 0.99/1.25 = 0.792. This, as previously, is just another modified Martingale. This one at least recovers your losses after a run of reds, but has the same problems as any Martingale, in that bets grow exponentially on a run of losses, leading to rapid bankruptcy. You are right. However, it completely depends on your bank roll. If you have a BR of 1000 BTC and you run the script with 1 bit at a time, the chances of you ever going bust are nearly zero. You cannot possibly know the odds of me going bust without knowing my BR. Side note: @theymos you banned me for doxing, but all I did was post the name of aTriz, which was already plastered all over the forum by him. It's not a dox if it's public info made available by him. Please clear this up The numbers do not matter. Any variable of Martingale will lose money. Anyone with a middle school understanding of maths can see this. 25. Ban evasion (using or creating accounts while one of your accounts is banned) is not allowed. Good riddance to you, scammer. |
|
|
|
At a 1.08 multiplier, with a success rate of 91.67%, you have a 50/50 chance to hit a red every 8 bets, making an average profit of (7*0.08)-1=-44% 0.9167 * 0.08 + 0.0833 * -1 ≈ -0.01 average profit, as is the house edge Just spotted your post - had already made the corrections, but thank you nonetheless. Coming off a double shift with no sleep evidently impacts my mathematical abilities. |
|
|
|
And here is a prettier version of the script,
let initialBettingValues = {
baseBet : 0.0000001,
baseChance : 91.851,
firstLossMultiplier : 4,
lossMultiplier : 5,
lossChance : 79.360
}
let nextBet = initialBettingValues ? initialBettingValues : "0"
let chance = baseChance ? baseChance : "0"
doBet =(win,currentStreak,previousbet)=> {
if(win){
nextBet = initialBettingValues.baseBet
chance = baseBet
} else if (currentStreak === -1){
//First Loss
nextBet = previousbet * firstLossMultiplier
} else {
nextbet = previousbet * lossMultiplier
}
chance = lossChance
}
I've also been watching her betting history and can confirm this is exactly the new script she is using. The only differences are you calculated the base chance and loss chance incorrectly. Accurate values are base chance = 0.99/1.08 = 0.9167 and loss chance = 0.99/1.25 = 0.792. This, as previously, is just another modified Martingale. This one at least recovers your losses after a run of reds, but has the same problems as any Martingale, in that bets grow exponentially on a run of losses, leading to rapid bankruptcy. |
|
|
|
Script var config = {
baseBet: { value: 100, type: 'balance', label: 'base bet' },
payout: { value: 1.08, type: 'multiplier' },
stop: { value: 1e2, type: 'balance', label: 'stop if bet >' },
loss: {
value: 'increase', type: 'radio', label: 'On Loss',
options: {
base: { type: 'noop', label: 'Back to base bet, noob' },
increase: { value: 2, type: 'multiplier', label: 'Increase bet by' },
}
},
win: {
value: 'base', type: 'radio', label: 'On Win',
options: {
base: { type: 'noop', label: 'Return to base bet' },
increase: { value: 1.02, type: 'multiplier', label: 'Increase bet by' },
}
}
};
log('Script is running..');
var currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
// Always try to bet when script is started
engine.bet(currentBet, config.payout.value);
engine.on('GAME_STARTING', onGameStarted);
engine.on('GAME_ENDED', onGameEnded);
function onGameStarted() {
engine.bet(currentBet, config.payout.value);
}
function onGameEnded() {
var lastGame = engine.history.first()
// If we wagered, it means we played
if (!lastGame.wager) {
return;
}
// we won..
if (lastGame.cashedAt) {
if (config.win.value === 'base') {
currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
} else {
console.assert(config.win.value === 'increase');
currentBet *= config.win.options.increase.value;
}
log('We won, so next bet will be', currentBet/100, 'bits')
} else {
// damn, looks like we lost :(
if (config.loss.value === 'base') {
currentBet = config.baseBet.value;
} else {
console.assert(config.loss.value === 'increase');
currentBet *= config.loss.options.increase.value;
}
log('We lost, so next bet will be', currentBet/100, 'bits')
}
if (currentBet > config.stop.value) {
log('Was about to bet', currentBet, 'which triggers the stop');
engine.removeListener('GAME_STARTING', onGameStarted);
engine.removeListener('GAME_ENDED', onGameEnded);
}
}For anyone not familiar with the code, what this script does is the following: Bets 1 bit at x1.08. If you lose, doubles the bet, still at x1.08. If you win, returns to the base bet of 1 bit. Repeat There are additional options to change the max bet and tweak the multipliers, but the script will run as above unless changed. It is laughably simple. It is just Martingale, but even worse since you don't even recover your losses after a run of reds (x1.08 multiplier rather than the usual x2). At a 1.08 multiplier, with a success rate of 91.67%, you are making an average profit of (0.9167*0.08)-([1-0.9167]*1)=-1%. Over the long term, you will then run in to the problem of any Martingale with exponentially increasing losses. In my personal opinion, to claim that this is worth 50BTC is nothing short of delusional. The most impressive thing is the amount of forum activity she has created surrounding a script that could be written by a middle-schooler, and equally proved to be worthless by a middle-schooler. |
|
|
|
Sorry for the confusion, nullius is just a bot that I accidentally unleashed while being slightly inebriated. It seems to have devoured a Merriam-Webster and is acquiring sentience at an alarming rate.
Therefore I take full credit for any of its smart and positive actions but no responsibility whatsoever if anything goes wrong.
Nullius confirmed as 27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLRLYPiaAoA |
|
|
|
Can you guys just settle the case with Atriz and stop responding altogether to this alia chap??
If it was anybody else, they would have been buried and forgotten by now. She knows that no trusted member would skype with her but is childishly insisting on that.
Is anybody even interested in knowing whether she is real or not?? What difference does it make to the forum?? She is another potential scammer that has been identified. Case closed. End of Line.
If she attempts another one of her sophisticated e-whoring, betting scams, people would know. Stop responding to her altogether please.
We've been going in circles for 20 pages. Case is closed. Even if everything you say is true, and even if you are completely trustworthy, your brother is a known scammer across multiple accounts and multiple mediums, even going so far (you claim) to forge your ID in an attempt to gain access to your exchange accounts. You have publically stated that you share forum accounts, wallet addresses, and now payment accounts with him.
Even if everything you say is true, someone would have to be mad to trust you, knowing that a scammer has access to all your accounts. |
|
|
|
As for getting doxed, I dare Quickseller and his schizoid Sybil army to try. That’s not empty bravado: I say about that the same as I do about hacking. The NSA could probably do it to me; Internet troll canaille can’t.
I claim that your real name is Michael Cassio. There are now two potential outcomes: 1 - You don't deny it, and therefore it is true. 2 - You do deny it, provide proof it is not true, and in doing so, dox yourself. Either way, you will have lost your reputation of being un-doxable! Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have
lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of
myself, and what remains is bestial. I doxxed Nullius weeks ago. He has not denied it, therefore it stands as fact. You rogue! You rascal! |
|
|
|
anyone who states the future with certainty is a fool. As per the script in it's current form, this will work approximately 9992 out of 10,000 times |
|
|
|
The script works. Prove it. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Although, if you really want evidence that it doesn't work, just go here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0Also, spotted this, made me chuckle:  |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Today is 06.03.2018. bitcointalk account MarGo1 (u=1693900) belongs to this address
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
bc1qugke39hnnrnu4a56p00lpvv96mz9s6u5k5v5uv
IE7laYQJjfdsVubBm/0cnKpkK7rgRW+Ttu/zKmdgTDT8HjnKSmzz44m9pnLJTh7u9PZo4uCx/hMsPla3z5pM9EY=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quoted and verified using Electrum 3.1.0
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
user : morenod
date : 06.03.2018
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
bc1qe0qcw56qd8re9tz5jcrl0slklx6vl8vk7g8c6e
IOvzl1SeIdTAp7l52zusONsuEO6CLc4mt8IZrvLZOBIcbx8SaQvb7MMOWUFtjOTzAXP1bbkXMxJ/aWKGqKcYHYU=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quoted and verified using Electrum 3.1.0
Mine: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Today is 6th March 2018 Bitcointalk User ID: o_e_l_e_o -----BEGIN SIGNATURE----- 17SNtYscXsFC2eywog7QFBbBSqX1JwbXfv ILvQmD/e/VQHN07rVmaT9clHNE+/ME2BlI8DfL6ChvcEbQGywjWC4JU4fNHX/jMBPb71WGsv43kxh716hBWLew8= -----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
