Well, it doesn't affect me at all because I don't own any centralized shitcoins. Good luck to any US regulators trying to stop bitcoin being mined or trying to freeze my wallets.  When I said you and me I didn't really mean you (o_e_l_e_o) personally, but I get your point. Bitcoin isn't vulnerable to attacks in that way. I see potential problems in pressuring the community of volunteers in doing or implementing something they don't want to. Arrests, prosecution, and that sort of thing. Other experts can take their place and resume the work in that case. I haven't heard recent talks about large-scale mining bans. But I have no doubt that certain proposals lie in drawers in dark offices waiting for the perfect opportunity to be drawn out. Don't forget that the Arctic Ice is melting and banning bitcoin or Bitcoin is the way to do that.  From what countries do you have no doubt proposals lie somewhere, and "waiting for the perfect opportunity to be utilized" for an implementation of a ban? I believe one country's loss will be another country's gain. Bitcoin as a tool for weakening political strongholds, will be supported by anti-West regions, namely Iran, North Korea, and Russia. El Salvador has already announced their support, although building the basic infrastructure for mining will take time, but other regions will definitely follow. Do I support the political agenda of those anti-West regions? No, but I don't support war and violence either, which the West is also guilty of participating. Plus I'm merely illustrating the possibilities because of Bitcoin's essence as a censorship-resistant, decentralized cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
Does that encourage old clients to switch to new version, since they might hear on blocks that are likely to reorg?
Miners especially, yeah they should upgrade, or else their blocks will be rejected by full nodes that enforce Segwit. For Users/Full nodes, a question, "Are non-Segwit nodes still considered to be full nodes"?
What could be the excuse of a non-Segwit node to stay in non-Segwit?
I would like to read a technical post/discussion from n0nce, d5000, or DooMAD about valid excuses to stay non-Segwit. Because many of the reasons why currently some groups' want to stay non-Segwit are political/philosophical reasons like Mircea Popescu and his followers. |
|
|
|
In each trading strategy there are certain segments that correspond to their own: the bottom of the price and the highest point of the token value. Ideally, you need to simultaneously judge by several time periods. It depends on the periods themselves what is the bottom and what is the top point for you. I am looking at the market chart in the period of a year and five years. I think these are great ranges to set the bottom and top.
"In trading strategy". We're mere plebs. "Trading" will make us more susceptible to mistakes, and it might make us have less Bitcoins in our wallets instead of having more if we simply Buy the DIP, and HODL. Don't actively "trade" with your Bitcoins. You might see your own blockchain transactions, and see all of your stupid risks taken and get mad at yourself for taking them.  |
|
|
|
If you are planning to sell eventually, then adding an amount whenever there is a pump in the market price would be a good idea but if you plan on holding it for a long period of time, wait for the pull back then and if not, just let is stay in that amount. Because instead of profit, it will just be lost trying to increase your asset halfway once a correction occurs; happens a lot and without certainty of its occurence. It is indeed good to desire a bigger profit but if it will just add risk and if it is not supporting chances of bigger profit, then it won't be worthy doing so; the bigger your asset, the bigger your partial loss could be once there's a dump with the market prices.
Plus if eventually planning to sell, but the amount is not large enough to have a positive impact in your life, then I believe OP should continue HODLing, and also continue to support the Bitcoin Movement. There definitely would be no harm in HODLing the money of the Free People in a CBDC World which is possibly coming within 10 years. |
|
|
|
My suggestion for how to make the wagering requirements more "equitable" for whales and plebs, plus the casino, is to release the bonus/cashback at some amount, for example $0.01 per some amount of wagers, in this example let's say $5.00. That's only 0.2% of the $5.00, which is the total wagered in the example.
It will encourage the users to play more, and more consistently to clear the bonus, than discourage the player from clearing the bonus, making him/her either play somewhere else, or stop entirely.
Agree on this. As pleb gambler, I understand and support this kind of idea to encourage plebs to pursue claiming bonus because the current wagering requirements is so high and plebs will not gonna extend their budget just to claim that. Btw is there a news regarding the duration if this locked bonus? Having time duration will give the bonus system a major turn off since they already increased it to x70 if I remember correctly. Also do you already claimed your locked bonus before with x40 wagering requirements. I think it already grows a lot since Bitcoin price increase. It's not just for plebs like us, it's actually what's fair for ALL gamblers, whether it's a pleb or a whale. Admins, to test the suggestion, pehaps give access and try it for a few players to see if it's a fair adjustment for both the users and the casino. I believe a casino having such an offer would attract a lot of users. It might give less profit for the casino, but the increase in new sign ups might add up to the profit "sacrificed", and it will also probably make the site scale more. |
|
|
|
I'm blaming the miners. Seems that they will benefit the most from this whether it hurts bitcoin or doesn't. They'd be fully aware of the potential pitfalls too.
We can't and shouldn't demand for miners to control the type of data stored on-chain / to censor anything. It is their job to just mine blocks and nothing more or less than that. Also, blaming anyone doesn't help us right now. We should think about solutions, instead. It's not just "we can't" blame the miners, it's very stupid to suggest that they are "blamable". Everything that's making everything stick together stems from the miners being continued to be incentiviized by the network. As long as the block rewards are enough, as long as there are users willing to over-pay in network fees, the miners will be there to include ANY transaction into the blocks. If a miner decides not to include a transaction, it's another miner's gain. That's good for the network, but what it's also doing is it's neutering Bitcoin from a network for Hard Money that could weaken political strongholds, to a network cloud storage of dick pics and fart sounds. |
|
|
|
Personally, I began to see that all that was happening was promoting that application. It was just an application that used artificial intelligence in the background to enhance search results, and not a miraculous tool to solve all your problems. Likewise, if you were so desperate to believe that an application would help you be rich, you are scamming yourself.
Therefore, trying to use it for other than what was allocated for it and promoting it as an effective tool is a waste of time.
It's actually just like a search result. ChatGPT is also used by bloggers to produce those generic blogs that no one reads, but could earn them some ad revenue. It could also be used to produce forum posts as well. Look for those forum topics that have generic information posted by the OP. There's some probability that it might be made by using some kind of A.I. program, or an article generator. We're off-topic, plus most of the posts look like they don't know, or haven't researched, what ChatGPT is. |
|
|
|
I have not tried Chatgpt with trading, but I have some experience with Chatgpt and my opinion. Chatgpt works best when we are looking for work related knowledge, and it is suitable for people with marketing jobs that need to write content and programmers. For trading, trading means we need to make predictions about the future, and I think Chatgpt is not a crystal ball, so it cannot replace us trading.
Like you, I have not tried ChatGPT for trading, or anything else actually, but like I read and have understood, ChatGPT is an Ai bot which one can learn a lot from, including how to trade, OP probably didn't phrase his question properly, I think what he should have been asking is whether anyone have tried learning how to trade the market by asking questions through the bot, as we all know and some have mentioned, ChatGPT is not a trading bot, but an artificial intelligence bot through which a lot can be learnt from with proper application. Because you can't use it for trading. ChatGPT is a layer around the actual A.I., the source from which ChatGPT gets output from user input. It functions more like a search engine, which makes this topic a little stupid. Mods should probably lock the topic, or OP should probably change "ChatGPT" to "A.I.". |
|
|
|
Thus the original one would have to be the one that has the earliest 'block' time on any chain.
Alas you can fake the block time ...
You'd simply have to watch for a new NFT on bitcoin, then mine it into a scamcoin chain and timestamp the scamcoin block earlier than the bitcoin block ...
Your statements are based on the false assumption that people care about uniqueness of a token they buy (they don't even care about their utility). People who buy tokens are buying them to make profit from their pump, wishful thinking of course but they don't care if the duplicate of the same thing existed in the same chain let alone existing on another as long as that little hope for profit exited. But "they care". They care that it will have more value than the value they have bought it for. Greed is what makes the market work, with each person incentivized by their actions, whether buying or selling. I'm not debating you, I'm merely telling you, and actually everyone, that perhaps we shouldn't miscalculate the present situation. Plus I can't prove it, but I believe there are "Bitcoiners", who want to see it fail. Their statements are made because of their "Anti-Maximalist" motivations, not necessarily they truly believe that Ordinals is a net-positive for the network. They might have fell from the path, and lost it. |
|
|
|
For me it doesn't matter, but it would probably better to be credited the rakeback every 30 days, during the end of the month to have something to expect, and welcome in our balance every month. I believe users would have a tendency to manually claim, then gamble with them as soon as they can if given that choice, which might also make them feel less willing to play next time if they also lose the rakeback.
Cashback is usually have this kind of duration since it’s the percentage on the amount of loss done by the player. Rakeback is just part of the house edge and that’s is just so small to be hold for 30 days. @Sujonali, is there plan to have another cashback event but this time for all players including low bankroll. The last event focus only on whales but I remember last time that Blackjack.fun has some deposit bonus event based on tier that varies wagering requirements. Maybe this time the new cashback event will have a tier that varies the percentage based on the user bankroll/loss value. My suggestion for how to make the wagering requirements more "equitable" for whales and plebs, plus the casino, is to release the bonus/cashback at some amount, for example $0.01 per some amount of wagers, in this example let's say $5.00. That's only 0.2% of the $5.00, which is the total wagered in the example. It will encourage the users to play more, and more consistently to clear the bonus, than discourage the player from clearing the bonus, making him/her either play somewhere else, or stop entirely. |
|
|
|
OP, buy more during the DIP, especially the DIP of a bear market. Why? Because it's giving us plebs another Golden Opportunity to buy Bitcoin with a > 50% discount from the last ATH. When the bullish cycle returns, for front-running, you'll be told that you "just got lucky". Got lucky for buying the DIP, to HODL, that no one wanted to buy?
Luckily I only started investing in Bitcoin when it crashed to $17000 in June last year and looks like I bought a nice chunk at the bottom too. Like a lot of us I am sure I didn't expect it to pump this much over the last month but hopefully we have at least one more crash back to around $19000 again before the bull run starts so we can all buy more. During the real lows in November/December I was more focused on altcoins but have seen quite a few pump at least so I am putting most of my profits into Bitcoin now. No one can blame you. Gamble in shitcoins if you believe that you can profit from it, but for most of the plebs like us, it's better not to take risks because we could never out-trade the market all of the time. There's always a trader who's smarter than you, who's well capitalized, and who has an army of bots programmed to take your Bitcoins away from you. They can't do that if you're just HODLing. |
|
|
|
|
OP, buy more during the DIP, especially the DIP of a bear market. Why? Because it's giving us plebs another Golden Opportunity to buy Bitcoin with a > 50% discount from the last ATH. When the bullish cycle returns, for front-running, you'll be told that you "just got lucky". Got lucky for buying the DIP, to HODL, that no one wanted to buy?
|
|
|
|
70% Rakeback is now activated. This will last for an hour so make sure to make a bet as mich as possible. Good luck folks! See you there.
Yes, It's now there, and this will run for 1 hour between 14:00 CET to 15:00 CET. But the first day it was run for 2 hours   Some new updates that happened recently are, the landing page is now looking so nice. The graphics in the landing-page looks like BlackJack.Fun is planning to launch its own NFT collection. Am I right?
The 20% Rakeback is now working well. It's crediting the user's wallet automatically after the cut-off time, but what do you think is better? crediting the rakeback automatically to the user's wallet or user able to claim it manually from the rakeback page?
For me it doesn't matter, but it would probably better to be credited the rakeback every 30 days, during the end of the month to have something to expect, and welcome in our balance every month. I believe users would have a tendency to manually claim, then gamble with them as soon as they can if given that choice, which might also make them feel less willing to play next time if they also lose the rakeback. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that we should do everything that is technically possible, though? Or that because something was always possible, it is automatically good / right?
That's the real question. I'd say we should continue fighting to keep the network healthy. Whether it is to protect it against hostile takeovers or bsv and bcash like attacks or spam attacks. It definitely won't stay healthy on its own if we ignore it. Plus spamming as a network attack to cause for fees to surge would discourage the use for Bitcoin's actual utility that could cause the weakening/breaking-down of political strongholds, and that's a permissionless, censorship-resistant network for hard money. The "spam" won't be just a another costly attack anymore, it's actually incentivized spamming because the attackers will get some profit from those people who actually value dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain. |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0047These are payment codes that could be used, AND reused, with all of transactions going in are going to be sent to different public addresses after each transaction, making transactions close to impossible to track on-chain. It's a very smart way to keep your privacy, especially if a user/group of users are accepting donations for a cause/campaign that the government wants to censor. Perhaps something like the Canadian Truckers' Protest? Why did we forget to make this suggestion?
|
|
|
|
I think it's an "Intel refusing to build chips for the iPhone" moment for us. So if anyone of us wants to benefit from this in the long run (considering that the announcement of ordinals came from this very forum), then we better get into this market now, otherwise we will be lumped with all the rest of the mainstream adopters and laggards, and miss out.
I believe we should not. There's a risk because it might open attack vectors by bad-actors in government, to find a narrative to "shut the whole network down". It could be something like, if bad-actors inscribe millions of child-porn in the Bitcoin blockchain, then politicians can have a cause to demand miners to stop processing those transactions, "or else". The narrative can also perhaps be used as an attack vs. full nodes? Because our computers are storing child-porn, the government can probably confiscate them from us? |
|
|
|
|
OP, I'm not very familiar with ChatGPT, but from what I read from the internet, ChatGPT is merely a layer interacting with the AI. You can ask it questions, and if ChatGPT doesn't like the answer from the AI, it will "filter" the answer and prevent it from doing "wrongthink".
BUT trading bots, and building back-tested systems trading rules for the trading bot is, probably the closest you can get to an "AI for trading". That's perhaps what plebs like us are currently trading against.
|
|
|
|
The solution?
The "Real World" of CBDC/digital account is what's making Bitcoin have real value, which also gives logic to the HODL = never converting your Bitcoin back to the fiat system. With Bitcoin, you are self-sovereign, they can't censor your transactions, and they can't take away your wealth from you.
Like you said, but to illustrate more, let's pretend that it's a CBDC World with NO cash/paper-money. How can you buy Heroine from Mr. Drug Dealer? It's a risk because your identity is tied in your every transaction in CBDC, plus a central entity can censor the transaction AND lock you out of your account because you made an illegal transaction. I am very confident Bitcoin will have value, REAL VALUE in such a world.
I think you are directly playing to opponent's hands with arguments like that. Like only usage for confidential small transactions would be heroin. There are people who need confidentiality because they just don't want someone to see what they are buying or are embarrassed about their purchases. No, because in a CBDC world without cash, what can you use to pay Mr. Heroine Dealer? Plus it's just a mere example, an extreme one, showing the fact that Bitcoin will be the last taken path to transact freely in a CBDC world. That must have some value in such a world, no?
Thing is, there won't be a full proof AML surveillance system because people need privacy and there are other forces in play then just people who want full 24h surveillance. People in democratic countries will be still electing people who see privacy as human right.
That's simply not true anymore. It's slowly becoming more and more intrusive.
FATF travel rule for money will just be more difficult for criminals, but it won't eradicate money laundering. It will just make it more difficult. So most likely platform for CBDC will be privacy preserving because the majority of people will demand it. Only way i can see this happening to use ZK based platform as everything needs to be confidential but auditable at the same time.
I will respect your opinion, but let's just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.
Censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer electronic cash. It's as if you stopped your sentence half-way through. It has never been about censorship-resistant cloud storage. Big distinction. I can't debate against that, and I don't disagree, BUT the point is, is it right for the community to demand that miners censor those transactions containing data? It would be against permissionlessness and censorship-resistance. Plus we already know that the miners won't listen because they're incentivized to mine those transactions and include them in blocks. Especially if users are overpaying to have their dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain. |
|
|
|
what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit.
This is tall order. For starter, full node software isn't even aware of Ordinal protocol. The mere suggestion itself is very foolish. Plus wouldn't that cause a fork? If the Core developers implemented a "red button" for full nodes to reject blocks it doesn't want, but not the whole network agrees to the upgrade by refusal to upgrade their nodes, then it will not only fork the network, it will also split the community. I thought he said we don't do our research. It wasn't, but there are users who can currently use them to inscribe dick picks and fart sounds, because of a hack in Taproot that a developer discovered. I'm with your side of the debate, but we also can't demand for censorship.
We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens.
That's debatable at best in my opinion. Its main ethos, main value-proposition, is and always will be censorship-resistance.
--Snip-- Stop the social drama, franky-101. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
