Onchain data from GlassNode illustrates the truth that 66% of the TOTAL Bitcoins in circulation have stopped moving for the last 12 months. I believe it's the highest in the whole history of Bitcoin's existence?  Bitcoin in exchanges are also going down and DOWN since the crash of FTX. Less Bitcoin in exchanges = less panic selling.  |
|
|
|
So you actually believe that a regular user in the forum with only his/her laptop, and with limited capital can actually out-trade the market bots developed by some of the most experienced traders/smartest math-people in the world? Who also has a larger capital, and who has more access to more market information than plebs like us. Perhaps drawing lines on a chart will not work against that. By that logic no one should be looking just for TA to make money with trading except few people on the top? And they would be somehow successful most of the time? If you're a pleb like us, you could remain to be hopeful, try to probably "get lucky" and make a profit large enough to start trading for money. But those who "get lucky" are very few, and those people are mostly the hardest workers, and the smartest traders. By that logic, you can try to "get lucky", but plebs like us should also know when to accept to stop day trading, and start buying the DIP, and HODL. |
|
|
|
Reducing block time is bad for security. Just look at exchanges: the faster the block times, the more the confirmations they want for deposits.
Bitcoin ~10 minute blocks were pretty well thought and I would not expect that to change in the near future.
If one wants fast transactions, he should look at LN, not try to change a perfectly working bitcoin.
Plus not many people, especially newbies, have considered that it's about settlement assurances. Other blockchains might be "faster", but the settlement assurances are lower. If compared to Bitcoin, 1 confirmation would be equal to 50 or more confirmations for that other blockchain, neutralizing the "advantage" because Bitcoin blocks have more accumulated miner-costs. |
|
|
|
At the present time, most of the technical analysis indicators do not work, for example, all moving averages have been broken during the past months, and therefore it has become useless to rely on them as points of support and resistance.
Therefore, publishing such analyzes is more waste of effort than benefit.
They are merely guides, that "may" help the "trader", but it isn't a crystal ball that can make you trade with 100% accuracy. If there was such an indicator, then why would the user share or boast about. He/she would keep it secret, and simply trade. The more traders that know/use of a profitable indicator, the effectiveness it has will go down because those traders would adjust and counter-adjust. |
|
|
|
It should be more about to choose games to play, and the strategy in how to play them to lower house edge. The profit will come by themselves through consistency and good strategy.
How can you lower the house edge? Is there any strategy you tried yourself and helped you achieve this? By playing games that allow you to use strategy to lower house edge. I can't speak for BlackJack from actual experience, but as an illustration, doubling down in BlackJack decreases house edge by 0.2%. For Craps, a game which I always play, you can play with a lower house edge if most of your strategy plays around the No. 6 and 8, or if you play a strategy that uses the Don't Pass line and the Come Bets in combination. Although you might not win big with that strategy, you also won't lose big. You can research Craps betting guides/strategies, and find them in YouTube. Don't you play BlackJack? I thought you already know this. There are many BlackJack players in forum, but not many Craps players. |
|
|
|
Not really a "must" to have a lot of money to reach those levels. Sure you still need a good amount of money, but I have seen people do 2000x which means 1 btc could be a good enough level.
I am not saying that's how you can do it, maybe you will fail and not be able to do it, but for 2000 btc wagered, that doesn't require 2000 btc as well, it requires maximum of 10 btc and that's still a lot but that's about 160k dollars lost, we have seen people losing hundreds and hundreds of bitcoins in the crypto world even when bitcoin was a lot. Just last year when it was high I saw someone losing 300 btc, so it is not really a shocking result to me, it's normal in the crypto world.
But we're talking about the famous whale, named Real Winner. He's a regular in BlackJack.Fun, a high roller player who plays almost everyday in the casino. Rolling BTC2000 with just BTC1 as your capital, he would need to be very lucky not to lose it all. I'm sure he can win and/or lose more than BTC1 in a week. Plus if you're a regular player, and having just BTC1 as your capital, you must follow some strategy for capital management to protect from big losses. I believe Real Winner is a BlackJack, and a Plinko regular? |
|
|
|
~ Does anyone have any analysis or website with this kind of info statistically laid out?
It looks like you are treating gambling like a serious business. Don't do that, lest you become a victim of various scammers that will promise you the "highest RTP possible", "best daily, weekly, monthly rewards" and stuff, while in fact you won't be able to withdraw any of your money after depositing. Treat gambling as entertainment and play the games you like rather than those where you "can win more". If you have a real job, do not look for additional income, especially through gambling. Make money with your job, and use gambling for relaxation. I believe it's OK for the user, especially us plebs, to treat the act of gambling more seriously and as a business. It will make us lose less, give is a higher probsbility of winning, and reclaim back some of the advantage the casino over us through house edge. BUT I also have the same opinion as yours that it shouldn't be about "the highest RTP", or "the best daily/weekly/monthly rewards. It should be more about to choose games to play, and the strategy in how to play them to lower house edge. The profit will come by themselves through consistency and good strategy. |
|
|
|
That must be nice to have accumulated a large amount of capital exclusively for gambling. They have wagered it, and talking about 100 BTC or 2k BTC, I think it totally depends on the current price of Bitcoin? If not, the wagers will be different at different prices each time they were played. But to reach 100 or 2,000 BTC wagered, they must be having larger betting amounts, and to do that, must also have a much larger amount of capital than plebs like us.
What advice can you give small players like me, who struggle to build enough capital exclusively for BlackJack and Craps? Is there any other skill, outside of the games, that we should learn? A mental toughness to develop? Probably discipline?
Just take out your capital once you double it, it's possible as it is gambling. Play with your winnings and you will do great. Don't overdo it, win after win, the cycle of luck won't stay for longer, so you must know a point where you should stop doing it. Hahaha, that's very easy to say, but it's definitely very VERY hard to do. Plus what if you doubled your capital, withdrew your original deposit, then lost everything in your account? Should you send the original deposit again? here is mine!
1 I suggest creating a sort of "olympiad" or a "decathlon" of games.
users compete on different activities, blackjack, roulette, slots, video poker, mines etc and the winner is chosen from those who are able to achieve certain triggers in all games in the shortest time possible!
2 trivia! general knowledge questions / bitcoin theme give bonuses to players who are active in chat and provide the right question.
3 happy hour. at a certain random moment of the day, the possibility of playing some games with cashback/loss back promotions is offered.
4 insert a "points" system . every mbtc played allows you to get points that can be redeemed for cash prizes or physical prizes (gadgets / amazon vouchers etc)
5 head to head game. why gamble/play against bj admin? create match between players. it would be fun have a blackjack game between two random players (of course a percentage from each game is provided to admin...)
And CRAPS! |
|
|
|
Isn't $1.5m is way much too expensive for a $47k in 6 months average revenue or $94k annual revenue? Or let's just round it off and say it is a $100k a year.
For $1.5m the estimated ROI date will be 15 years. Isn't it way too long for having business? I'd bet 3-5 years ROI is considerable for any business.
Plus if someone had $1,500,000 to invest to build an online casino, wouldn't it be more capital-efficient and cheaper if the investor starts his own from nothing? How much initial investment do cryptocurrency casinos need, with the games imported from existing game providers both for non-live games and live games? I believe it would be enough to start with 25% of $1,500,000. |
|
|
|
Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.
..
OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?
-Snip-  I'll ask again, does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space? This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.
Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser. You also need to consider cost of the resource (such as storage in $/TB or internet speed in $/GB) usually going down over time. Although waiting time for IBD (initial block download) probably only become worse, especially if block size limit is increased and block remain mostly full. The trolls are speaking with situational premises, and OK, but I can also speak about other situational premises too, like not every user has the same access to cheap hardware, cheap bandwidth, and so increasing these requirements would be centralizing for the network. Let's avoid that. Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing? |
|
|
|
-Snip-
Relax, franky1, no one is crying. Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize.
This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying. Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization. Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser. Plus since you accuse me of "lying", why not come out and use your real account. Who are you? It's just a friendly debate, there's no such need for sock puppetry. I'm talking about is REAL network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network.
It seems to me that you are not quite accurate in using the word "real". If we had increased the block size by 2-4 times in 2017, then perhaps we would now have 2-4 times increase in the number of transactions. And that would definitely be real scaling. Instead, you are suggesting that we all hope for some other imaginary "real scaling". Which in practice can be just an unsuccessful experiment. I settled more comfortably on the couch. I want to hear from you a cheerful report on how much progress you have achieved in your "real scaling" over the 5 years since 2017.  OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space? |
|
|
|
You do need a lot of luck to hit 40x but if you are going to play a lot then might as well take it.
It would be waste if you won't take it if you can afford it since it's a bonus after all. I would say that bonuses is just a promotion for their site to attract gamblers or should I say to trap gamblers. After all, Casino is a business platform and its service is to help people get what they want and it depends on the gamblers on why they gamble in the first place. You could say, some people want to feel the thrill, have fun, excitement, entertainment and what most people want is for a chance to win lots of money if ever they are that lucky. Some people would become greedy and others are also becoming an addict in gambling. . Yeah I also think it traps people from the casino especially if they are near to claim the bonus, there is a high probability that they will deposit more to achieve that bonus and at the same time making them spend time on the casino for an extended period of time knowing that they are chasing the bonus. I don't remember myself from playing on a casino because of deposit bonuses, I don't feel attracted to it because I know there are hidden strings behind it. It's not worth it for me. Welcome bonuses/first time deposit bonuses are only good for the first deposit. If you lose everything, I believe the next deposits won't be allowed to clear the bonus. Plus at the standard x40 for many casinos, it's better not to activate them, especially if they're a sticky bonus. They are also exploitative on the user, it's not only bait, it's also a trap, and I haven't seen a casino that offers fair terms for the user concerning welcome bonuses/first time deposit bonuses. I believe it might also be a trade-off taken by the casinos to protect from being exploited themselves. |
|
|
|
I want everyone's opinion for this question. Can those bonuses that are truly just "baits" can also be called "scams"?
Casinos can choose not to give you anything. After all, it's paid entertainment. But some might seem more bait-y especially if they force you to wager on the requirements first. I have been looking at different casinos offering first time/welcome deposit bonuses, and currently the best offer I have seen is a x40 wagering requirement with a time limit of up to 30 days. That's not achievable. If I wanted to deposit $50.00, to get the 100% welcome bonus, I need to roll my deposit and wager a total of $2,000. ANYONE will lose the deposit of $50.00 in one week. Hahaha.
On the other hand, some have no-sticky ones so you're free to wager whenever you feel like it
What casino? For example BC.Games... when you make a deposit your bonus money is locked. Of course, with wagering, you are unlocking your bonus money. It's not a "sticky" bonus, you can withdraw your deposit (with winnings or with losses) at any time. But, there is always some "but", wagering requirements are a bit higher, in this particular case: Unlock = Wager * 1% * 20%
Minimum required to claim: 10 BCD When you do a math it's a lot higher than x30 or x40, but you can do whatever you wish with your deposit, it's not sticky! Ler me understand that more clearly. Does that mean that most casinos will not allow you to withdraw your deposit until you unlock the welcome bonus at x40 or more wagering requirement? That's not how a good business works if that's true in my opinion. I believe I might stay with the casinos I know that will take care of their users, like BlackJack.Fun. There might be some small complaints sometimes, but my experience in the casino as a whole has been very good. |
|
|
|
It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha. “Bigger blocks make it harder to scale the network” Therefore, we will freeze the block size - which, in fact, CANCELS the network scaling. Iron logic. You mention "network scaling". I believe you didn't truly review your thoughts. Increasing the block size will require more resources from each validating node, it will force some nodes to drop out, and also cause the network to centralize. If you're talking about something else, what I'm talking about is real network scaling. To increase the functionality of the network, WITHOUT sacrificing decentralization, and to let the network continue to expand/scale out/increase in validating node count. Isn't the whole point of Bitcoin censorship-resistance?
-Snip-
No one is crying, franky1. |
|
|
|
meanwhile
- Snip -
It doesn't change the fact that what was posted in your trust rating by achow and gmaxwell are not true. Plus it also doesn't change the fact that with bigger blocks, besides making it harder to scale the network up, it also increases/widens some attack vectors against the network for bad actors to exploit. We actually had anti-Core developers who proposed unlimited block sizes, leaving block size regulation to the miners. Does anyone remember Bitcoin Unlimited. Haha. |
|
|
|
all windfury can do is insult and play victim
- Snip -
Ser, I am neither making an insult, because I, and other people, know I'm telling the truth, AND nor playing the victim because, I and many people, know the facts. Newbies, that's the kind of gaslighting franky1 is very good in. Plus I have noticed this very recently, read his trust rating and read who made it and what was being said. He tricked many newbies like me before, that should not happen again. |
|
|
|
windfury you are wrong again. and i laugh when you just shout insults but never back it up with data or actual facts
stop getting your opinions from doomad.. he is not a source of information in the slightest
the participants of the NY agreement aligned with the core devs actually
they were the economic few but are part of the main decision makers
do some research. i know you like things spoon fed to you but do some research for once
the DCG funded blockstream devs who have merge/maintainer status in cores github (DCG funded the devs involved with segwit)
heck even check out the DCG portfolio. notice that lightning is listed as their portfolio
do you know who the CEO of DCG is .. barry silbery
do you know who headed the NY agreement.. yep barry silbert. with his sister company like coinbase and other exchanges in his portfolio spreading the word to other exchanges and pools that if they dont follow suit the pools blocks will be rejects and exchanges wont see their block rewards or subsequent spends. thus it was a blackmail.
DO YOUR RESEARCH
if you cant be bothered to check the blockchain for the flag data, if you cant be bothered to check the code linked to the flags that show the mandatory crap.. atleast realise who was involved in the NY agreement
you do realise doomads rhetoric he teaches you make you look more like a idiot by repeating his hymn sheets right..
try for once some independent research. not of social media of buddy opinions that match your own. but of actual data and time events of the period.
give it a try
Newbies, that's the kind of disinformation that troll uses. He simply types anything and pretend that they're "facts", and then tell those who do actually tell the truth "to do their research". That's called gaslighting. I won't debate him anymore because it's not good for my mental health. I'm only telling everyone, to be careful or learn the HARD WAY. If you believe Roger Ver is telling the truth, OK, that's up to you. Be on that side, the side of the Flat-Earthers of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It's probabky more effort than it's worth and fairly unnecessary.
There's less resources on learning to trade in this forum than there could be but it doesn't need too much putting into it to get something that works.
Also, anyone experienced in this sort of space will know people who treat trading like gambling and will take loans to go all in on positions - and that's never a winning strategy. Even if someone made a thread here where they gave calls and spent the first few posts giving instructions on how to manage capital, is everyone going to read it AND follow it or do you still have the chance to cause problematic behaviours?
If let's say that that person day-trades/swing-trades, but doesn't "gamble" all in on positions, but follows some good trading rules/strategies that he she learned from books and videos. Does he/she truly believe that he/she can out-trade those professional traders with their bots, and with their large amounts of capital? Plebs like us will lose all our profits and capital if we continue taking on active positions. |
|
|
|
Guys, just reach 100BTC wagered  Guys, just reach 100BTC wagered Congratulations Zb big achievement. Am right after your tail. 😊 Guys, just reach 100BTC wagered Congrats. Let's make it 1000 BTC I'm bored at 2000 BTC, someone catch me. The Whales of BlackJack.Fun are here! That must be nice to have accumulated a large amount of capital exclusively for gambling. What advice can you give small players like me, who struggle to build enough capital exclusively for BlackJack and Craps? Is there any other skill, outside of the games, that we should learn? A mental toughness to develop? Probably discipline? It's a cycle for me. I deposit small, make some amount in two weeks, then in one day lose half of that amount, lose everything the next day. |
|
|
|
I want everyone's opinion for this question. Can those bonuses that are truly just "baits" can also be called "scams"?
Casinos can choose not to give you anything. After all, it's paid entertainment. But some might seem more bait-y especially if they force you to wager on the requirements first. I have been looking at different casinos offering first time/welcome deposit bonuses, and currently the best offer I have seen is a x40 wagering requirement with a time limit of up to 30 days. That's not achievable. If I wanted to deposit $50.00, to get the 100% welcome bonus, I need to roll my deposit and wager a total of $2,000. ANYONE will lose the deposit of $50.00 in one week. Hahaha.
On the other hand, some have no-sticky ones so you're free to wager whenever you feel like it
What casino? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
