|
In the past month alone, I must have seen more than five investment portfolio management type ICOs. It's a grand new world of possibilities, with ICOs for companies managing ICOs and tokenising tokenisation. Another thing they have going on for themselves is by laying claim to being the "world's first" in whatever niche they're settling into.
If I had any time, I'd be launching the world's first investment fund to manage only a diverse portfolio of crypto/ICO investment funds. Hmm, I'm not being sarcastic here...
|
|
|
|
|
The value of publications is a bit more difficult to determine these days. There's a crop of crypto players with sudden riches who have a lot of expendable crypto to invest in marketing and PR. I've seen featherweight startups and ICOs getting the Forbes treatment now, though the quality of articles on even those types of publications is in slight decline. It must still cost a bomb to get a sponsored write-up there.
A daily visit to this forum tells me that there are a lot more founders and CEOs in today's blockchain/crypto scene than there were in the dotcom boom. They each want their 5 seconds in the crypto limelight.
|
|
|
|
This is why I think that the Provably Fair concept introduced by Bitcoin gambling is the unsung hero of online gambling innovation. The most you'll ever get from non-crypto casinos are 3rd party verification of RNG systems. In the case of slots, that's only tied to the individual operators. Not only is this RNG not transparent, you have no way to verify for yourself if this is correct, you simply have to trust the certification. Provably fair is almost standard operating procedure these days with Bitcoin gambling - you can easily verify on your own that the bets you've placed are fair.
And those third-party verifications result in increased costs for gamblers in a form of higher house edge. Basically, fiat online casinos are less secure and much more expensive for players, and also require some document verification. The existence of cryptocurrencies and crypto gambling sites should be brought to attention in gambling community, to help players get better odds in their games and boost adoption of cryptocurrency. Maybe in next 5-10 years cryptographic Provably Fair will just become industry standard for online gambling. Correct. The overheads of land-based casinos are extremely high. Online conventional casinos cut down a lot on this but still bear the same burden of 3rd party verification and software licensing. The beauty of crypto casinos is low overheads. Not only does Provably Fair mean savings, it actually makes the need for 3rd party verification completely redundant. All these add up to lower costs, translating to lower house edges. Casinos doing this actually stand to gain more by focusing on low edge, high volume, instead of the other way round. |
|
|
|
|
Electricity has been virtually free in Venezuela for a long time now, but there's a lot more to being the world's favourite mining spot than just power costs. As can be expected from a collapsing economy, violent crime - already widespread since the 21st century - is now reaching unprecedented heights. We're talking kidnapping, armed robbery.
Police raids would be far from my mind when preoccupied with personal safety and security of my rigs. You could operate large farms in China with relatively low security concerns but even a small set-up is enough to attract unwanted attention. I hope those underground miners find success.
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd argue it's working exactly as intended. Some of the other people who also perceive that to be a problem have produced some code and released it into the open market to compete. Whilst others are working on some different code and will release that in November. Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.  We've literally never had it so good. At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use. And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork. You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow. I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin. The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following. As a user, you have control over:- Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
- Which software you choose to run
- The chain you wish to transact on
- Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your desired chain, or just rely on SPV
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do). As a developer, you have control over:- The code you produce and the rules you ideally want your own client to enforce
- Which direction in development you would like your own client to follow
- The chain you wish to develop upon
- Any repositories you might be in charge of
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do). As a miner, you have control over:- How much you wish to invest in hardware
- What you do with your block reward coins
- The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
- Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine
and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do). And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three. But that's about it. No developer overlords making all the decisions. No miner overlords making all the decisions. No user (activated softfork  ) overlords making all the decisions. If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one. As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control. That's how it should be. Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus. The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC. Well said! I guarantee you're not alone in this. There are still far too few camps to be the only one in any  By words and action, I see myself in the biggest camp of them all: users who wait, see, and choose the solution that works and is (or seems) easiest. And that actually works too, as developers and miners ultimately are influenced by what (they perceive) users feel is best. Like you said: we've actually got quite a good system that is actually working. Anyone is free to do as they will or are able to, and yet cannot dictate on their own what others must do. And as you point out, none of the discussions, arguments, even the whining, are forced on anyone. We're free to be annoyed by them, add to them, or stay oblivious. Bitcoin isn't broken, and no one is trying to kill it. It's playing out the way it was designed to. |
|
|
|
segwit is activated, so why no >1MB block has been mined until now?
Because SegWit has nothing to do with increasing the block size. Among others, it's a more efficient way to store data so that it takes up less space in the blocks. In other words, SegWit transactions are leaner (smaller) in size so you can fit more of them in the same 1 MB block. Looking at blockchain explorer now but can't quite see this happening yet. Give it some time, pretty sure most of the txs are not yet SW. Is there currently any way you can tell just by viewing from blockchain explorer btw? |
|
|
|
Hey everyone. How many of you play at a bitcoin casino? Do you play at mBitcasino? DO YOU GUYS FEEL CHEATED EVER SINCE BITCOIN PRICES SKYROCKETED?! If yes I would like to hear your story. Because I feel as if I have been CHEATED thousands of dollars. Roughly at least 10k.... and with such came a huge amount of never ending consecutive losing spins that are so consistent as it feels as if RNG is not applied, more like scripted is what I would recall it.
This is why I think that the Provably Fair concept introduced by Bitcoin gambling is the unsung hero of online gambling innovation. The most you'll ever get from non-crypto casinos are 3rd party verification of RNG systems. In the case of slots, that's only tied to the individual operators. Not only is this RNG not transparent, you have no way to verify for yourself if this is correct, you simply have to trust the certification. Provably fair is almost standard operating procedure these days with Bitcoin gambling - you can easily verify on your own that the bets you've placed are fair. |
|
|
|
This looks like the perfect solution for your problem: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transferring_coins_from_Bitcoin-Qt_to_ElectrumBasically, you'll have to sweep your old wallet into a new one. Recommended here for you is Electrum (which I also use) which is an SPV (simplified payment verification) wallet. This means it only connects to the nodes to get data, without downloading the blockchain. Your wallet balance is shown and updated almost instantly as long as you're connected. Got it! Thank you alot man !! Do you know how long it takes to confirm it since it stays on Balance: 0. mBTC [+16.92733 unconfirmed]  Glad you got control of your coins back! Not sure what you meant by confirmation but that doesn't depend on your wallet as it relies on the network instead. Whether your wallet is open or not, once your txs are broadcasted, they stand a chance of being picked up by miners and included into blocks that they find. This is how your tx is entered into the blockchain. Every block after that containing your transaction adds a further confirmation. |
|
|
|
Warren Buffett warned investors to stay away from Bitcoin, calling it "a mirage," saying that, while it may be a better way of transmitting money, the "idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is just a joke."
"The historical track record of old white men crapping on new technology they don't understand is at, I think, 100%," said venture capitalist (and younger white man) Marc Andreessen.
Warren Buffett has made his money in the old Fiat system and he does not understand new cutting edge technologies, so it is a natural response from someone who will most likely stick to something they know and understand.
Bitcoin has outperformed Buffett’s " Berkshire Hathaway for the last few years, so that must tell you something. ^smile^
This "too rich for tech" is a little too convenient to believe, even if there is an ounce of truth in it. Old white men crapped on the notion of personal computers, before taking a shit on the concept of the Internet. Bitcoin's the new crapper for most of them. But 100%? Plenty of vocal older white men have bought into Bitcoin. Bernanke (former US Federal Reserve Chairman) a few years back when I was dabbling in forex, Mr Bill When He Was Richest Man in The World Gates... Mr Cheapo Richard Branson. Then there're those secret "angel investors" backing blockchain startups, well past retirement age. Bitcoin only has a few years, so time will tell. Buffett had a tough learning curve and you still gotta respect the sly streetsmarts people like him had to have to make it in their world. |
|
|
|
This looks like the perfect solution for your problem: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transferring_coins_from_Bitcoin-Qt_to_ElectrumBasically, you'll have to sweep your old wallet into a new one. Recommended here for you is Electrum (which I also use) which is an SPV (simplified payment verification) wallet. This means it only connects to the nodes to get data, without downloading the blockchain. Your wallet balance is shown and updated almost instantly as long as you're connected. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not surprised that a lot of the smaller exchanges are doing this. Perhaps erroneous to call them HYIPs, but I would fully expect a lot of exchanges to use their substantial holdings for low-risk ventures. Those multiple alt air drops based on Bitcoin balances, low-interest services (like freebitco.in), intra-exchange loaning, for example. Some exchanges' wallets are known, others may be easily discovered. Pretty sure some of these wallets from OK and Huobi were linked to investment addresses.
Difficult to argue about what constitutes HYIP if this is a legal pursuit but OK's response indicates that they have been transparent about investing inactive funds. If private equity can't be forced to reveal their links, I wonder if the same confidentiality applies here.
|
|
|
|
if that's a bloodbath,then I don't even know....a small correction,the price dipped to 3600$ for a short time,only to go back to 4000-4100
10-20% is normal for bitcoin these days,nothing extraordinary not as Goldman Sachs predicted :1800$ sharp vertical dive, hope their analysis is not correct this time
I don't think Goldman Sachs people are really good in predicting the movement of Bitcoin. They are into the Bitcoin game late and they pretend that they already know everything about cryptocurrency as they tried to be an influential voice in the market. We don't have to listen to them because they are just capitalizing on the eyeballs they can get to boost their standing in the cryptocurrency market. We already have so many pretenders around and yet this firm wants to be added to the growing list. Honestly, I didn't think so myself and I can look at my post history in here commenting on Sach's very first Bitcoin forecast. Can't recall the exact numbers but they took out a bold prediction more or less against most of the analysis. Hit it spot on and then repeated the accuracy with their second and third (less-bold) signals. If it's really true they're looking at a $1,800 vertical drive now, I must say their early success has made them more brazen. That would have been a bloodbath! Still early days, but they've proven themselves at least as good as crypto experts. Made me swallow my words earlier, anyway! |
|
|
|
|
I think it's even standard practice nowadays that new accounts can participate in New Player free rolls, at least at the really large poker-only sites. Ignition Casino's got FreeRolls running all the time, and they've taken over Bovada so it seems to be gaining a lot of traction. I haven't tried Nitrogen Sports' poker but they look real attractive and have multiple free rolls tourneys.
The only freerolls I ever tried with Bitcoin actually were at Bit-Exo haha. There was one every hour, alternating between Omaha and Hold'em but it's been months since I played so don't know if they still have it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, just dropping by to say thank you for the tokens won from the last promotion you had.
Nice calls for the past three tips. Just a bit too late to take advantage. Are all the tips here within 8 hours of a game? Been incredibly busy past few weeks so dropped off the betting scene somewhat. Looking to get back into it and this looks like the thread I'll be watching.
Looks like your records are proving quite reliable (even doing well so far on the bct EPL pool league!). Also just noticed you had closed the previous promotion due to lack of participation. Tough but will keep looking out for your threads.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by "shut me down"? ICO operators are only doing this to protect themselves legally.
if they could prove you were american you'd be kicked out of whatever the distribution was and your money returned. they're gonna be more than a little more concerned with staying out of legal hell than keeping one american customer happy. So, worst case scenario is you get found out and your money is returned. Do you really think ICOs will do more beyond covering their asses with a T&C that prohibits US citizens? They don't have to do anything more at the moment and there is no motivation to weed out Americans who somehow bypass the filter. With the amount of US citizens participating in these ICOs, I really doubt the provider would waste their time and resources hunting down thousands of individuals who may have participated in their ICO. Especially with how anonymous the crypto market can be. The blanket approach is to just state you cannot participate in the ICO from the get-go, which the majority do anyways. They definitely know people will use VPNs to bypass this restriction. That being said, it is still a legal gray area. No law has been passed blatantly restricting US Citizen participation.
It's no different than exchanges that prohibit US customers, but don't require KYC. You can be damn sure that US customers will still be using Bitfinex 3 months from now (albeit through VPNs), just like they are using Bitmex and Okcoin through VPNs right now. This is the next phase as we move towards regulation. Service providers and, in this case, securities issuers, need to make a good faith effort not to run afoul of the US government. For now, it seems that asking users to confirm they aren't US residents and maybe banning US IP addresses is enough. Exactly. ICOs aren't the only ones who are blocking US customers. The majority of online casinos (and even a few anon crypto casinos offering investment options) do the same, but they aren't going to seek out and destroy Americans who slip through. Just look at the communities talking about these casinos, ICOs and exchanges. Plenty of Americans. And you're right, you won't see them disappear either from Bitfinex. |
|
|
|
I won ~60 BTC there, but it was some time ago, around when they first opened. If I remember right, they paid out 20 BTC, then quoted their T&C stating that they could only pay out 20 BTC per week and I played and lost the other 40. A 40 BTC win on Endorphina's Safari was advertised on their site still last time I checked. I was not asked to go through KYC at this time, I was using either a proxy or vpn, and I was never asked to fill out any personal information though I would have used false information if asked.
I don't think the Softswiss casinos were enforcing KYC as much at that point. It seems like maybe mid-late 2015 is when both Softswiss and the casinos that were on the bitcasino.io platform is when the KYC stuff started being enforced often. I have no first hand knowledge of this myself, but I've heard some people on this forum might be able to provide the commonly requested information for a KYC check, such as a scanned ID, utility bill, and a selfie holding said information. They might even be willing to provide custom documents with whatever name you choose for a reasonable fee. I've heard that Softswiss casinos will often allow cashouts if the documents are good, but bitcasino.io/vegascasino.io often won't. I can say that Softswiss casinos all follow nearly the same rules, and if you win less than 1 BTC you'll probably be okay withdrawing without KYC. I'm pretty sure they always require KYC if you accept a bonus and profit.
Overall, I'd recommend FortuneJack at this point. They have most of the same game providers as Softswiss (to include Softswiss games) but rarely pull the KYC bullshit.
To be honest, I doubt that casinos or even operators like Softswiss perform KYC strictly because of regulatory necessity. I think the early platforms were vulnerable to exploit and this gave cause for ridiculous post-deposit insertions of KYC. The problem with going on recommendations like "rarely pull the KYC bullshit" is that, you could end up being the unlucky one. As long as you are not willing or able to comply with KYC, simply stay away from any site that even has a whiff of it in their ToS. As long as you are not willing or able to comply with any term or condition, stay away. But to reiterate the point, no ToS can justify a site being unscrupulous. Taking someone's money is stealing, no matter who the person is or what they did. |
|
|
|
Don't think you need to worry. Verification for first time withdrawals isn't unusual at some sites and the message isn't telling you that you did something wrong. Also, I don't see how you could possibly have done anything wrong. You had only one account on each site, should never matter where and how you access them. Support from most crypto-only gambling portals may take a while to respond to your queries, so would suggest giving it a bit more time (assuming this only happened today?). You can also check out their own thread here and reach out if it doesn't get resolved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1268718.0 |
|
|
|
|
Once we get the false regulatory assumptions aside, this is yet another example of how casinos cherry pick when to enforce ToS. Detection systems, KYC, etc. should be done at the beginning, especially at the depositing stage. I'm pretty sure the majority of casinos who do this would otherwise be happy to accept losing wagers of multiple account holders.
Deposits should be returned. If winnings are forfeited, fair enough, for breaking the rules. Even their own ToS only gives them the right to reclaim, not confiscate a valid deposit.
|
|
|
|
Can we please do something to speed up transaction time and the high transaction fees?
This is getting absurd. I just spent $10 USD to send $7500 but my fee was too low. It may take a week for my transaction to process. Who knows. I should have spent 3x that figure to get processing within 1 hour ($30). With that same fee I could have just used a wire transfer from a bank online and it would have been just as fast as bitcoin. The selling point of bitcoin is that it was supposed to be 'better' than traditional banking services. It's not.
IMO, the following things need to happen.
#1) Block time decrease from 10 minutes to 1 minute. (and decreasing reward by / 10 per block)
#2) Difficulty readjustment period from 2016 blocks to 720 blocks. (2 difficulty readjustments per day with the decrease in block time from #1)
#3) Apply a system of master nodes where there are 10,000 nodes that receive an equal split of 1% of all bitcoins generated. (Comes out to about $200/month at current USD rates, enough to pay for a dedicated server or colocation space to host the node in a good environment almost anywhere in the world.)
#4) Reduce the amount of read/writes to disk on a bitcoin full node. I stopped running a full node because it lags everything else my computer tries to do. Not because of the disk space it consumes.
We just went 50 minutes between blocks as I was writing this!
Bitcoin is not necessarily "better" than traditional banking services, if you choose to compare it by cost and speed of transaction. But it is an alternative currency with a lot more advanced features and controls that banking does not typically offer, some miles better. I do think you're right to say that speed and cost must cater to average Joes like us but rest assured, things are being done to improve the network, just as banking had to increasingly improve theirs. However, you do realise you only paid slightly more than 0.1% of your transaction as fees, don't you? Had you spent $30 as you said, it would still have been 0.4%. You'd be lucky to find an international wire transfer that would cost you only $30 to transfer in one hour, or a remittance service charging you less than 0.4%. Also, average block times are still about 10 minutes, the way it was designed. As I am writing this, it was 15 mins between blocks, and I've easily seen three blocks within 10. |
|
|
|
|
Indeed, with these corrections few and far between, and lasting hardly a few hours, there really isn't a better time for latecomers to buy. I wouldn't have been surprised if the correction didn't happen, but it's no shock that it has. Bitcoin's beginning to show consistent patterns of having major events already priced in weeks before the actual.
Another rise to 4,500 at current price is not only imminent, but pretty much certain given that November is still more than two full months away. That's at least 15% profit even if you set your set your buys now at sell orders of the previous ATH.
Not quite a bloodbath, though!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
