I've been telling that since as early as 2015

And back in the day I was ruthlessly attacked on all fronts. People were euphoric and ecstatic about the future prospects of Bitcoin as a universal means of payment, and they couldn't bear a thought that it was mostly wishful thinking and pipe dreaming on their part. My opponents came up with all sorts of contrived reasons and arguments why Bitcoin should necessarily take over fiat in a not so distant future

I asked them to bring forth real-life examples which would prove genuine expansion of cryptocurrency, and all they had been able to bring to the table were exotic cases like an obscure car dealer accepting crypto, which was actually an exchanger with no crypto involved in the actual process of buying cars from the manufacturer. Today you can pay with crypto with the help of payment processors but it is just a front-end and a fiat gateway

That's an interesting observation

Einstein is credited with the saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. And while I certainly agree with the man on his definition of insanity since this is what most of us are doing most of the time anyway (known as behavior patterns), I can't quite agree that you should stop looking for something which you feel is your thing - let's call it true calling

So if you fail, it may just mean that you are using wrong tools and employing wrong approaches, or simply not properly prepared or motivated. So how's gambling really different in this regard now that we seem to have found a way to beat the house (even if only for a small profit)? The point is, there is false hope, but there is also false hopelessness. And the latter is generally considered much worse than the former

I actually support this view (in general)

However, if someone speaks (writes) fluent English (which can be easily seen from their posting history here) and to whom the English language is not their mother tongue, you could rightfully and reasonably expect that their native language skills would be at least as good. Typically, they are much better (than what you would expect from an average native speaker)


You'd be surprised how many so-called native speakers ain't quite good at speaking and deep understanding the intricacies of their own language (despite what they might think or claim to the contrary)


Being a native speaker and having an English-language proficiency (English as the second language) are pretty good "validators" or indicators on their own if you ask me. This seems to be the case where words speak for themselves. But we can always weigh in and give our unbiased opinion (peer review)

You can think of it as a sort of standing committee or panel of trusted and recognized translators

If anything, gambling allowed me to discover the true power of randomness

And how far it can go and take us, in both negative and positive directions (in terms of wins and losses). Speaking in more concrete terms, it is the extreme variance of random events (remember, random is not uniform) that we should be well aware of and particularly careful with when dealing with such events. It is not regular outcomes that typically make our lives difficult and unpleasant but statistical outliers (black swans in Nassim Taleb's terms) that ultimately come to ruin us. Simply put, randomness can be your best friend as well as worst enemy

One prime example would be dice and an approach to playing it known as martingale. Most players massively underestimate the power of variance in this game when using such a strategy. They can play for a day or two, and then proceed to erroneously assume without critically evaluating the assumption that they are never going to see longer losing streaks. So they continue to stake more and more in pursuit of greater profits until variance finally catches up with their greed (which knows no limits) and gets them completely unprepared


Absolutely agree with this point unless you know how to change the odds in your favor

Randomness doesn't protect the casino

On the contrary, it is randomness in and by itself that allows a smart player to override the house edge and win more or less consistently (as first explained and then proved in this thread). If it were not for randomness, which is the opposite of the house edge in a sense, you couldn't exploit the variance in bet outcomes (which is how randomness reveals itself in real life) and ultimately beat the house

And that's also the reason why so many casinos are limiting betting speeds as well as minimum bets (more specifically, with doges). A smart and experienced player knows how to use the power of randomness against the house. It is through statistical outliers, which are possible only because the bets (rolls in case of dice) are random. If they were not random, there couldn't be outliers, and thus there'd be no chance to overcome the house edge

Вообще говоря, аудит - он разный бывает

Разный по глубине и масштабу проверки. Та нью-йоркская фирма, которая Феникс изначально проверяла, выдала честный отчет, но тот отчет никого из серьезных специалистов не устроил, поскольку он был больше для галочки, а потом они и сами отказались дальше с биржей сотрудничать. Может там еще какие нюансы были, но я не особо слежу за этой темой, ибо и так понятно, что рыльце у биржи в пуху (это выражение такое, из басни Крылова, кто не знает)

I'm curious as to why you refuse to look beyond speculation

Since this is what ultimately determines whether speculation is synonymous with a Ponzi scheme (as its modus operandi). So it is definitely not like I'm just equating "Ponzi scheme" with "speculation", or some exotic variety thereof. Put differently, if it is only about speculation and nothing else, then you can be certain that you are dealing with a fraud. Okay, you disagree, I understand, but would you disagree that most altcoins (aka shitcoins, for the record) as well as the best part of ICO's are a form of fraud functioning in a Ponzi-like manner and environment, where profits can only come from later investors?

I post in two languages (English and Russian), and you may choose which one better suits your needs and in what ratio. Can be very active in the Gambling section (see here, here, and here)

Username: deisik
Current Post Count: 22783
Current Rank: Legendary
Bitcoin Address: bc1qhdl0cte0eapjaqftrmf07sgh88kngjru827cvg

Will update everything if accepted

Нужно понимать китайскую специфику

Что китайцы, что японцы чужих не любят в принципе. Чужих вообще никто нигде не любит (это только у нас остался менталитет извращенный со времен Совка), но эти не любят с особым цинизмом, поэтому у Мавроди в Китае было бы без вариантов. Ну а для местных китайцев могли создать совсем другие условия, особенно с учетом того, что коррупция у азиатов существует практически на официальном уровне. Поэтому баловаться пирамидами там вполне могло быть оформлено на определенном уровне местной партократии. Принимая во внимание, что это была криптопирамида, где каждый сам за себя

Там вроде как прояснилась ситуация

Не конкретно по тезерам (горбатого могила исправит), а по пампу в целом. Как выяснилось, какие-то продвинутые китайцы в то время замутили мощную финансовую пирамиду, а участвовать в ней можно было только криптой. Вот народ и побежал скупать битки, что и спровоцировало взлет ценника почти до 14 килобаксов

Потом пирамида ожидаемо рухнула, а следом за ней полетел вниз и курс всей крипты. Ну а поскольку часть криптоманов разумно переложилась из альтов в Биткоин, последний потерял не так много (как мог бы) по сравнению со всей остальной криптой. Так что ждем следующей пирамиды

Саудиты (зачеркнуто) аудиты у них левые были

Потом и сами аудиторы отвалили, когда поняли, что их пытаются втемную использовать (как прикрытие для разных афер). Но сейчас за Феникс плотно взялся нью-йоркский окружной прокурор (прямо как в том сериале), точнее прокурорша, плюс им еще засадили два коллективных иска охочие до судебных тяжб американцы (class action), так что Фениксу сейчас точно не до тезеров. Как говорится, не до жиру, быть бы живу. Но их тело (зачеркнуто) дело точно живее Ленина

As a currency, Bitcoin is not a competitor to the dollar

So it can't possibly destroy the established financial system as represented in this day and age by the American dollar. It can compete with the latter as a very unconventional store of value due to its complete disconnection and separation from the mentioned system, but there are many other classes of assets which are as independent and self-sufficient as Bitcoin (for example, precious metals, to name but just a few)

Ну вот зачем начинать совершенно ненужный диспут?

Пусть будет две маржинальных позиции - одна на покупку, а другая на продажу одного и того же актива. Вам от этого легче стало? Это делается, например, чтобы использовать запаздывание между торговыми парами с одним и тем же базовым или котируемым активом (пусть будет биток в паре с евро и долларом).

Такое запаздывание есть всегда, только им, как правило, сами биржи и пользуются - в свою пользу, разумеется. Получается что-то типа внутрибиржевого арбитража, поскольку по сути торгуется один актив против самого себя. А торговля с плечом как раз и позволяет увеличить прибыль при минимальном уровне риска

И кто он, это таинственный и могущественный заправила крипторынков?

Впрочем, совершенно неважно, ибо если бы желающих продать по текущим ценам было действительно валом, мы бы легко это увидели по сумасшедшим объемам торгов. Ну а поскольку объемы торгов отнюдь не впечатляют (даже при мощном движняке), то вывод прост и однозначен - нет в реальности никакого суслика (зачеркнуто) манипулятора. Да и как-то  не очень вяжутся ваши нынешние доводы с озвученными давеча ("миллионы битков лежат без дела"). Они либо лежат без дела, либо их выкупает манипулятор - вы бы там определились, что ли (ну типа нельзя быть немножко беременной)

You can ask around here

I for one don't think it is so much about volatility itself

On regular markets you can get comparable volatility as there are a multitude of investment instruments that are specifically designed to be volatile (for example, so-called volatility indexes, abbreviated as VIX). The difference between regular markets with their volatility tracking indexes and cryptocurrencies is twofold, and neither aspect or factor has anything to do with volatility as such

First of all, cryptomarkets are easily available to regular folks which is not the case with regular markets (the ironic pun seems to be inevitable here). And then, the instruments that such markets offer have a rather short life span as they quickly expire forcing you to liquidate, no matter whether you are in the red or in the green. With crypto, you can just sit on your hands and patiently wait out the bad times (not always helps, but the option is available at all times anyway)

It looks more like the other way around

I've seen people complaining about forced KYC when they were trying to withdraw their winnings, and still more so if they have won handsome amounts (don't really know how you can line up UI and KYC next to each other). On the other hand, I haven't seen too many people questioning the fairness of the games, at least as far as established casinos are concerned (like PrimeDice and its likes)

The point is, nowadays KYC seems to be a lot more intense pain in the ass for players than the games being provably fair, with provably fair becoming or having already become the de facto standard and established practice in the field. As I suspect, most gamblers don't even bother to check if they can check the fairness of the game for real, let alone actually going for it and checking it

I mostly agree with this observation

I had been sticking around back in the day. In fact, I got to know crypto since October 2013 (due to Coinbase ads all over the place), and I'm 100% sure that I was not the only one who became aware of Bitcoin around that time (as it had been only about Bitcoin at the time). So the 2013 rally was definitely due to explosive demand, some part of which stayed after Billy had kicked the bucket


This is where I tend to disagree

If we analyze the price action in 2015-2017, we will see that Bitcoin started to rise in the fall of 2015 from below 200 dollars. Then halving had come, and the real price action began in late 2016 and early 2017, i.e. before Bitfinex started to pump the market with tethers. And in late 2018 we crashed to lower 3k's, basically to square one if you ask me (read, we shouldn't really take current prices as a point of reference) 


You don't know if the demand is real. Besides, even if it is, it doesn't mean that the growth is not speculative in and of itself, which is what makes it a bubble

I'm okay with this list as long as I'm on it

The most important thing is that it should be in the first place

Fake or not, as long as we can make dough, it's okay with me (more or less). With that said, though, what makes you think that the previous bubbles were not "fake" enough? Willy the Bot or Bitfinex the Tethers doesn't cut it, or what? Ask me and I'll tell you that any bubble is inherently fake. Also, I've heard rumors that a certain NYAG is looking into this matter now, apart from the two class actions filed on essentially the same assumption. Or should I better say accusation? As they say, what goes around comes about