I actually never knew that. All I remember from the Segwit days was that Bitmain CEO who refused to activate Segwit on his pool and it created a lot of drama and ETH almost flipped BTC on the market cap before he finally caved in. Never knew Barry was apart of it.
With Genesis I am pretty sure they will just go and claim bankruptcy. In their point of view they will benefit the most that way. They don’t care about their relationship with Gemini or Gemini Earn customers and won’t want to upset their board members. Only question is when they will claim bankruptcy.
It would have been very easy not to have come across the topic if you were not very active in the forum during that time. I admit, I too was just learning, and I actually thought Bitcoin Unlimited "might be a good upgrade" for Bitcoin. But, after going through all of it, it was probably all just hand-waving, and trying to convince the community to join them in forking Bitcoin away from the rightful stewards of the Bitcoin network, the Core Developers. Gavin Andresen wanted his "block size increase" with Mike Hearn, Roger Ver had his own with Jihan Wu, and Barry Silbert organized the "New York Agreement". All of them had one thing in common = Core Developers excluded. THE NEW YORK AGREEMENT Meanwhile, the block size debate raged on. Another software client to increase Bitcoin’s block size limit per hard fork, Bitcoin Unlimited gained traction among Bitcoin’s mining community. Endorsed by Bitmain’s Wu in particular, the project appeared to be heading toward a potential (and controversial) hard fork. This looming threat, and the possibility of a “split” in Bitcoin’s blockchain, was reason for DCG founder and CEO Barry Silbert to organize a meeting ahead of the Consensus 2017 conference in New York. Initially announced on a private email list for Bitcoin entrepreneurs and other prominent industry members, the meeting would bring together a significant chunk of the Bitcoin industry, including miners — though, notably, no Bitcoin Core contributors. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality |
|
|
|
Is this campaign paused? Just a typo?
It's not typo. Campaign manager said that his escrow wallet was "drained" after few hours after transferring money to escrow. He said he got scammed.We believe he just stole our escrow funds. We'll hire new campaign manager and create new topic a bit later, for now you can remove your signatures. julerz12 started a reputation thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433643.0He said he got hacked. I don't know him that well (or in fact at all) and if I was you I'd be pretty pissed off as well, but there's a big chance he's telling the truth. Looking at his activity, the damage in reputation could likely cost him more (long term) on the lost earnings than the $5k that got stolen. The sad reality is, we'll never know the truth. But the result is the same. Yomix and Coinomize lost their coins. It's going to remain hard for merchants and services to trust him/her as a campaign manager. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcointalk Username: Wind_FURY
SeqWit BTC Address: bc1qtt3pwkxzd7r842dxtghh2w6y04nzr36l2j64yc
|
|
|
|
ok quick lesson
M1=coins and notes.. this is going down
M2=coins notes and demand deposits(debit/credit cards) this is small decrease due to M1
(counting just debit credit cards(electronic payments see a rise)
M3=coins notes demand deposits and savings accounts, money market deposits this is increasing
(counting just a savings accounts would see a larger rise compared to debit cards)
(counting just money markets accounts would see an even larger rise compared to savings)
money supply is always increasing. just the form and where it is can become the mystery to some
so ill reveal the secret..
less coins and banknotes but more being put in the savings accounts and money markets
money printing still occurs, people still use credit cards, people still take mortgages there is still more money being created and the supply still increases.. all you proved is less people want to mess around with paper bank note forms of money
I'm merely talking about M2 because it's what's being used as a key economic indicator to forecast inflation. I'm talking about it in terms of their rules, franky1, not yours. Plus I'm also talking about a cycle of deflation based Year on Year on M2. as for the windfuryism that he thinks there will be an event of a 60x (2015:$333-2017:$20k) in 2023..
There you are again, trying to disinform and gaslight people into believing your lies. Have I said of 60x event in 2023? IN 2023? Haha. Newbies only need to look at your trust rating to know. I said in 2023 there will be a period of deflation, which means there will be low demand and maybe NEAR ZERO interest inflation rate. How will the cabal behind the Federal Reserve react? I believe they will over-adjust like what they have done in the past, and do massive QE, which will bring Bitcoin surging like it did during 2015 - 2017, OR probably 2011 - 2013?  |
|
|
|
|
Username: Wind_FURY
BTC SegWit Address: bc1qtt3pwkxzd7r842dxtghh2w6y04nzr36l2j64yc
|
|
|
|
fiat will never deflate
recession does not mean deflation. recession is just calming down of excessive inflation
it just means reduced inflation
instead of 10% they want to still money print but at a 5% rate instead of 10% rate
going from 2% to 10 to 5 is not deflation, especially if they can then go 5 to 7 later.. where there will always be more creation
deflation is going from 50, 25, 12.5, always getting less and less than previous until there is no creation
Zoomed out to the maximum, it doesn't deflate, BUT there could be cycles of deflation possible, especially if the cabal behind the Federal Reserve over-adjusts with QT. Percentage Change, Year on Year illustrates that the money supply is dropping. It's currently -0.70%. It's possible that inflation rate will drop quickly too, probably near ZERO PERCENT by June, 2023, and deflation by the end of the year. I know it's debatable, it's also laughable to discuss "deflation" in the middle of an inflationary period, but I'm the stupid one. |
|
|
|
more profitable in trading IF you programmed the bot with a good trading strategy.
The problem with all bots is, no one could code all the strategy or a strategy for all market conditions. So, bots also will book losses. It means bots cannot be the final destination. There's no strategy for all market conditions, but there's always a strategy for each market condition. The programmer's job is simply to identify the market condition, then use the right script. Plus you're wrong in believing that no trader has successfuly ultilized bots for profit because there are many of them in the top 10% of the most profitable traders. Plebs like us can't compete against them, with their large capital, and their army of bots. |
|
|
|
That's obviously a statement you don't hear many people say, but if we review the history of the cabal that decides if they should implement QE or QT, the cabal has the susceptibility to over-adjust in one side causing inflation, and probably deflation after over-tightening. When one act causes an outcome, they over-adjust to stop the outcome, which causes the opposite outcome. I'm not an economist, but if deflation happens in 2023 that causes further recession, what would the Federal Reserve do? MAXIMUM ORDERS OF BRRR-MONEY PRINTING. Prepare to experience a big surge for Bitcoin like it was 2015 - 2017 |
|
|
|
|
Current number of post (Including this one): 8961
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1qtt3pwkxzd7r842dxtghh2w6y04nzr36l2j64yc
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 77
|
|
|
|
|
Current number of post (Including this one): 8960
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1qtt3pwkxzd7r842dxtghh2w6y04nzr36l2j64yc
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 77
|
|
|
|
|
OP, isn't the user to be the one who programs a script for OpenAI or a bot to function? If that's true, then your bot would only be as good as your trading strategy. But what's probably good about it is it will remove human emotion from trading, and it will absolutely follow all the rules of your trading strategy, making it have less mistakes, and therefore probably also make it more profitable in trading IF you programmed the bot with a good trading strategy.
|
|
|
|
Well, cashless gambling would make life more difficult for some people.
I think many people would be against that, so I reckon it wouldn't pass.
We're talking about huge amounts of money, and governments get their cut as well, so I don't think they're going to implement it.
Otherwise they would not have opened the casino in the first place.
Casinos are probably the very best places to try a "cashless system", with government interest starting to grow in digital payments, and CBDC. What I want to know is, under such a system, would it be possible for the casino to attach identity with a transaction and have an ability to cancel transactions? It's probably for the benefit of some gamblers to control their irresponsible spending, but giving up the ability to spend your money wherever you want it is a basic human right. It should be respected. |
|
|
|
I used to respect Barry alot. I think he did lots for crypto. Especially getting the GBTC up and running so there was some retail that could hold Bitcoin in their retirement accounts. However after reading these tweets from, https://twitter.com/zhusu Ser! You continued to respect Barry Silbert "a lot" after he tried to organize the top Bitcoin miners, exchange owners, and top Bitcoin merchants in New York to co-opt Bitcoin, and fork it without any agreement with the Core Developers or reach consensus from the community?
I am not so sure what to think. I know that Zhusu can't be fully trusted after what he did however why would he be making this stuff up? Also it doesn't help since he is saying all of this after its too late.
Wondering what everything here thinks of the FTX and Genesis situation?
I don't know Zhusu, or his opinion towards Barry Silbert, but I know what to think = Barry Silbert is a BAD ACTOR! |
|
|
|
Ser, you cannot be more inaccurate in your post. Gambling companies are centralized entities that are regulated by another centralized governing entity. That itself makes it very impossible for a gambling company to be permissionless UNLESS it was built and implemented directly to use the Bitcoin blockchain, like DirectBet. But if you're demanding for BlackJack.Fun to be "permissionless", no, that can't be possible.
Yeah. Even instant withdrawal feature of casino still needs approval by the admin and some companies is just using a bot to automatically approved withdrawal with just some parameters like max/min withdrawal. But all this withdrawal will still undergo first to the casino admin before it will go out to the casino since casino balance is not on-chain and they are just using hot wallet balance to payout customer withdrawal. But the withdrawals that I have made in BlackJack.Fun have always been instant, during the time when I was in their signature campaign, and after the signature campaign. Although all those withdrawals were small that never went more than $500.00. I believe withdrawals of more than $10,000.00 in any given period from new registered players would warn the admins.
Even games web3 still not permission less. I agree that directbet is the best example here for the real permission less game because it automatically payout on the sender address once the bet wins.
Centralized casinos currently in BitcoinTalk probably should build part of their site to function like DirectBet and give their users a new UX. |
|
|
|
Hey admin. I want to request for the withdrawal to become automatic again. I believe the withdrawal process becomes manually approve by admin since the new version release. This is frustrating in case there’s no admin around during weekends or holidays.
Withdrawal requests should be approved and proceeded automatically. Manual approval should only be applied for very big withdrawal requests. Blockchains are permissionless for people and gambling companies that accept blockchain and cryptocurrency should give users permissionless experience except big withdrawals. Ser, you cannot be more inaccurate in your post. Gambling companies are centralized entities that are regulated by another centralized governing entity. That itself makes it very impossible for a gambling company to be permissionless UNLESS it was built and implemented directly to use the Bitcoin blockchain, like DirectBet. But if you're demanding for BlackJack.Fun to be "permissionless", no, that can't be possible. |
|
|
|
-Snip-
 There was literally nothing in what you said that proves Luke Dashjr was compromised. LITERALLY NOTHING. You merely said his religious beliefs, which many people already know, is very conservative to put it mildly. But that doesn't prove he is compromised. You continue with Segwit and start to try and gaslight everyone again with one long, senseless post. The franky1 we know. Haha. |
|
|
|
They blocked my account and took my money. They accused me of creating multiple accounts. Even though I signed up for the first time. Terrible casino, I lost with them, and when I won a little, I tried to withdraw money, they immediately blocked it.
Why is it that it's always, ALWAYS a brand new account that's always "accused" of multiple accounts, always has KYC problems, and always has withdrawal problems? I believe many people in the forum would be very patient in handling each of their situations. Where did the brand new accounts come from? |
|
|
|
Have you ever thought of a government implementing a Cashless gambling?
-cut-
Well as days for anonymous physical cash are pretty much numbered now, i see it only a matter of time. In finland we now how kyc for lottery and slot machines as a temporary solution. Soon i am guessing cash is irrelevant because it's supposedly these days only used by criminals and people who got something to hide "Cashless gambling" is just an experiment. KYC will be easier with CBDC because your identity will be attached to each CBDC transaction. What does the future hold for casinos in a CBDC World? A world that a nefarious cabal, a centralized entity that doesn't have your best interests at hand, has absolute control over money.
But i completely understand why they are doing this. This is FATF on action and fits their narrative of tracking money as a part of tighter AML laws. This is however just a start.
That's what they want us to believe. Haha. |
|
|
|
Should he be removed from bitcoin development team? It seems this could have a negative impact on bitcoin as a whole. Just my opinion.
The person just lost his livelihood, it's not his fault/he was a target by hackers, then you want him, an experienced Bitcoin developer who has written thousands of lines of code, to be removed from Bitcoin Core development team? I believe not. i think that comment was a tongue in cheek hint about the fact that gavin was removed from core when he was compromised(targetted and bribed by altcoin scammer CSW) "Compromised". If there was proof that Luke Dashjr was truly "compromised" and he's working for the Flat-Earthers, then remove him from Bitcoin Core. OR if he starts a public declaration that Craig Wright is the "Real Satoshi". But currently, Luke Dashjr is simply a person who had his Bitcoins stolen from him. A mere victim of a hack. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
