windfury i gave the data
The data that you gave, asking where was the capacity "promised" by Segwit. If there's not enough demand, then what do we need bigger blocks for then, franky1? A hard fork to bigger blocks would only make the Bitcoin network go through all the risks, with little benefit to the network. Do you actually believe the disapproval of the Core developers for big blocks is "because politics"? Or is that what you want everyone to believe? Stop the social drama. Roger Ver, and your community have your big blocks with BCash. You should be happy and promote that, to prove that bigger blocks actually are needed. Not the social drama that you have been posting, attacking the Core developers. |
|
|
|
Is the game with low house edge like Dice, Roulette and Cards that gives draw result is credited to the wagering requirements to clear the bonus? I still have 1mbtc reward left on my wallet but I'm hesitant to play just to claim it because x40 is not joke for small player like me. I might lose more than the potential bonus that I can get while the reward is not actually fixed but random based on slot profit when I received that bonus. The only way to claim the bonus without hurting much my balance is to play only on low house edge games but I remember that doing this will not count towards wager based on last update that I know before I quit.
This freespins reward of blackjack.fun is really awesome because you can get it for free. The only thing that makes it unappealing is the wagering requirements. x20 is more manageable than the x40 current requirements. Thanks btw for summarizing the current reward of the casino.
I believe a better trade-off for small players like us would be for BlackJack.Fun to release the coins from the bonus wallet at $0.10 per $10.00 wagered. Waiting for the user to wager the full amount of x40 of the bonus would make him/her lose his/her entire deposit before clearing the whole bonus, requiring another deposit. It will make users feel defeated and leave. Plus I believe the free spins won from the votes, and the free spins from playing should be treated separately. Free spins earned from playing should be treated like a cashback by the casino with no wagering requirement. |
|
|
|
~ 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. Well, I can see you point. If for someone it is more entertaining to treat gambling like business, let it be so. Indeed, free people can choose to entertain themselves however they want, unless other people don't suffer from it. Only if we start treating gambling like business, especially when playing purely luck-based games, we may possibly lose so much money that our close ones can be affected. And that's what I'm warning against. But the topic is about finding those casinos that are "really most rewarding", not about whether we should treat gambling more for entertainment, or more "like a business". Plus I don't agree that because a user is trying to look for better casino rewards, he is simply treating gambling like a business. No, a user SHOULD always look for better rewards for losing all his money in the casinos. If the reward is not that good, why lose money there? Lose it where he/she will be rewarded better.  Actually can note gambling as entertainment and so people seems gambling as also a business which is partially correct the look of the things, so gambling the methods and mindset of gambling currently are varies and that is why everyone is being it's concept of understanding and defining gambling with their own ways of understanding gambling, so it depends of what you have in mind in gambling will determine your plans over gambling. You're post is confusing. Haha. Looking for the best rewards is not about whether the person is gambling for entertainment, or treating gambling "as a business". I'm very sure ANYONE would really like playing in the casino that's giving more/better rewards/incentives than the casino that's giving less rewards. It's practical, and sensible. Before BlackJack.Fun imposed a wagering requirement for the free spins won in the casino, it had the best incentives for users to play. |
|
|
|
The bad thing about this is that I am sure that the majority of the population will believe it. The digital euro, with which they are going to control all payments and be able to put an expiry date on it or block it if they feel like it, they have started to sell it as something that is convenient for the population, of course. Digital euro: a common European projectOn the subject of privacy, I'm laughing my head off: The first one is privacy. In our public consultation, 43% of respondents ranked privacy as the most important aspect of the digital euro, well ahead of other features. So it is clear that if we want the digital euro to be attractive, it needs to be designed in a way that meets people's privacy expectations.
We seek to ensure high standards of privacy for digital euro users. But full anonymity – such as offered by cash – does not appear a viable option in my opinion. It would contravene other public policy objectives such as ensuring compliance with anti-money laundering rules and combating the financing of terrorism. And it would also make it virtually impossible to limit the use of the digital euro as a form of investment – for example via holding limits or tiered remuneration – for which identities of users need to be known.
We should at least provide a level of privacy equal to that of current electronic payment solutions. So, no privacy. NONE! How can you trust a centralized entity who says that they will give you your privacy. The cabal behind Central Banks WILL LIE to you, and make everyone believe that CBDC is good for society, and WILL LIE to you and convince everyone that Bitcoin censorship-resistance = "bad". BUT CBDC should be encouraged by the community because it will make Bitcoin self-sovereignty and censorship-resistance more valuable. The majority of the population doesn't really suspect what else is there when the government tries to experiment on them. I believe many people/users of CBDC won't suspect anything during the first implementation. Everyone will be astonished in how "covenient", "fast", and "frictionless" CBDC usages are until one day the first iterations of censorship start to happen. Will I be using CBDC? I will be using CBDC because everyone may never have a choice, BUT I will always have my Bitcoin if I need censorship-resistant, hard-money. |
|
|
|
The bad thing about this is that I am sure that the majority of the population will believe it. The digital euro, with which they are going to control all payments and be able to put an expiry date on it or block it if they feel like it, they have started to sell it as something that is convenient for the population, of course. Digital euro: a common European projectOn the subject of privacy, I'm laughing my head off: The first one is privacy. In our public consultation, 43% of respondents ranked privacy as the most important aspect of the digital euro, well ahead of other features. So it is clear that if we want the digital euro to be attractive, it needs to be designed in a way that meets people's privacy expectations.
We seek to ensure high standards of privacy for digital euro users. But full anonymity – such as offered by cash – does not appear a viable option in my opinion. It would contravene other public policy objectives such as ensuring compliance with anti-money laundering rules and combating the financing of terrorism. And it would also make it virtually impossible to limit the use of the digital euro as a form of investment – for example via holding limits or tiered remuneration – for which identities of users need to be known.
We should at least provide a level of privacy equal to that of current electronic payment solutions. So, no privacy. NONE! How can you trust a centralized entity who says that they will give you your privacy. The cabal behind Central Banks WILL LIE to you, and make everyone believe that CBDC is good for society, and WILL LIE to you and convince everyone that Bitcoin censorship-resistance = "bad". BUT CBDC should be encouraged by the community because it will make Bitcoin self-sovereignty and censorship-resistance more valuable. |
|
|
|
At this point, we should start an effort to make LN nodes easier to use.
You should be able to run them and then it goes on autopilot like Bitcoind. I have ran c-lightning before: I am not quite sure whether it does channel balancing or even whether it automatically opens channels by default.
But average people wouldn't bother run a node even if it's easy to setup. For them, it's more convenient to run lightweight LN wallet such as Electrum, BlueWallet or Phoenix wallet. Even though there are some trade-off depending on software they choose. If there's an incentive to run a node, then I believe more people will run one. Is it about "human greed"? No, I believe not. It's simply human nature. Decentralization works/has been working in Bitcoin because there's an incentive structure that's making everything stick together. Remove the incentives, then what's the point? Bitcoin cannot be a multi-generational protocol through altruisim. Participating in the network must make practical sense. |
|
|
|
|
While the troll ignores the debate based on the hard data shown by him, and forces the issue that Bitcoin needs bigger blocks. He questioned where was the extra capacity "promised by Segwit", and he wants a hard fork to bigger blocks?
1. Segwit didn't promise more capacity, it was a fix for transaction malleability and had other upgrades for the network.
2. If average capacity is low, then why the need for bigger blocks?
BCash and BCash SV, which both claim to be the "Real Bitcoin", have bigger blocks. Where is the extra capacity they claimed that "their Bitcoin" needed?
Plus social drama? There is no social drama, franky1. It's the people like Roger Ver, and trolls like you that made social drama. You're merely gaslighting. Read the red trust rating given to you by gmaxwell and achow.
|
|
|
|
The information OP provided here are the same information from the site you also provided that means the op is marketing the site for the broker. And for the price or amount placed by the OP which $1.5m to sell the casino site is not too expenses because if the buyer is a genuine person and he handles the casino company very well with his customers, he can gain his money back within the 15 years stipulated time. But what I will consider is that after the purchase of the site, the new owner of the site will still spend enough to set up the site therefore, the seller should also consider those expenses and reduce the price. I believe you mean "not too expensive"? OK, but the question, how much capital would a person need to start a new online casino, and how much would be the difference from OP's $1,500,000 asking price for his casino? If it's still a "growing casino", I'm sure the new owner would be required to spend more for marketing to scale the business more, and the cryptocurrency online casino business is very competitive. Check how many Official Threads we have in the gambling subforum, all competing for our attention. It's sometimes very hard to keep updated because there are many of them. |
|
|
|
For sale is an online growing casino website, generating in the last 6 months an average of $47,259.96, and growing. The website has 27 income sources. Low operational costs compared to the revenue generated. Included in the sale are: - The main revenue-generating website
- 3 extra domains
- Social media accounts: Pinterest, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts
- Support will be provided
- Seller can help with opening new affiliate accounts
- Seller might consider business financing
Firstly I would like to talk about the reasons for website sale, for reason number 1 you can work on improving as per the customer's requirements. For numbers 2 & 3, I can say that you can quickly achieve your goals if you pay full attention and focus on your site. Also, for number 4, you can hire a good SCO resource to manage your SEO load. Also, your demand of 1.5 Million dollars is way much high. That's easy to say, but it's definitely "more complicated". Starting a business, running it yourself, then trying to scale it in very competitive conditions during a BEAR MARKET is not easy. OP wants to sell it because he probably sees NOW as an opportunity to get his ROI faster + future profits now. A short cut. Although OP might be telling the truth about his casino having lower operating costs vs. revenue generated, I believe his selling price might be too high. |
|
|
|
~ 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. Well, I can see you point. If for someone it is more entertaining to treat gambling like business, let it be so. Indeed, free people can choose to entertain themselves however they want, unless other people don't suffer from it. Only if we start treating gambling like business, especially when playing purely luck-based games, we may possibly lose so much money that our close ones can be affected. And that's what I'm warning against. But the topic is about finding those casinos that are "really most rewarding", not about whether we should treat gambling more for entertainment, or more "like a business". Plus I don't agree that because a user is trying to look for better casino rewards, he is simply treating gambling like a business. No, a user SHOULD always look for better rewards for losing all his money in the casinos. If the reward is not that good, why lose money there? Lose it where he/she will be rewarded better. |
|
|
|
I don't think that there's a solution for that. Casinos that ask KYC will always stop gamblers to withdraw their balance until they passed the KYC which it's purpose is entirely about AML. The problem with that is even though a gambler won huge amount and wanted to withdraw and yet they still ask KYC when you can check the gambler's record when that person won in that bet. As far as I noticed, those who open an accusation thread is that the person who won provided an information about the winning bet and yet the casino ask for KYC to withdraw (some cases not get paid until they open a scam accusation).
But THERE IS a solution, just like Bitcoin was designed to give the user the capability to go around regulations, building a casino to process its transactions directly onchain can also give the casinos the same regulation-avoiding capabilities. DirectBet was a true onchain Bitcoin casino. The was user never requires to make an account, or required to make a deposit. Everything was done onchain. Although, it was slow and inefficient during high network congestion. I would like to see it built on "faster" blockchains, like Litecoin/Dogecoin. |
|
|
|
Hello Guys.
Yes. Today morning we had a time frame where site was down because of some technical failure. We are very sorry about it. As soon as we discovered it got it fixed.
Meanwhile thank you all for a great ideas. Soon we will start rewarding them.
Can anyone apply as an affiliate, and use the referral link in another forum, or in Twitter/Facebook. I believe I have some friends who might want to try Bitcoin, and what are the best things to do to have fun with your Bitcoins, if not gambling with Bitcoins? Hahaha. Plus truly no changes in x40 wagering requirements for the coins won through free spins/continue treating them as bonuses instead of treating them as cashback for users? |
|
|
|
You should ask the manager, or probably also the participants of BlackJack.Fun's signature campaign, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422422.0They were required to make an account as an affiliate to participate in the campaign. If they were allowed to join as affiliates without being connected with a casino/company, then I believe you should join their campaign too. Perhaps you'll also be allowed to use your referral link outside of the forum. |
|
|
|
I heard that the banking system of P2P transfers works much worse in Europe. To confirm transfers, you need to call the bank or send a fax. CBDC will give more opportunities for people to easily and quickly make P2P transfers and exchange cryptocurrencies for CBDC.
Read "The Last Stand" in OP. Why would you trust the government with a protocol for programmable money which they can do how, and whatever they want. CBDC will not be like cash, ser. Cash which is hard to censor. A CBDC will be a currency which CAN be censored, with your I.D. attached to every transaction. If the Central Bank wanted that NOT ONE SINGLE CENT would go to Bitcoin exchanges, then for them it has never been easier. |
|
|
|
An essay written from a standpoint of someone who actually understands what Bitcoin truly is, but writes something disingenuous to gaslight the readers, OR it's written by someone who is utterly oblivious.
Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions
Transactions are transactions, what's the point? Fiat has been used for many many years for illegal transactions before Bitcoin.
Regulation can be misunderstood as approval
They missed the actual point of why a true, decentralized, censorship-resistant cryptocurrency exists, which is to be used whether there is, or there is no regulation.
Promoting Bitcoin bears a reputational risk for banks
If you don't like it, IGNORE IT. But they can't ignore it, no? The European Central Bank's "Last Stand" against Bitcoin will be their way to promote their CBDC, a CBDC with the users' Digital I.D. attached to it, controlling where they can spend, and not spend a form of money that they don't truly own. |
|
|
|
Hey guys,
With all the KYC talk lately I wanted to open up a thread and ask about your opinion.
The side of the user:
- Prefers no KYC
- Prefers anon coins as a payment platform
- If a KYC is triggered, they want to trust the brand with their documents
The side of the casino:
- Regulators are asking them to do KYC, but they need to find a balance on when it's triggered. E.g. to keep a portion of the user happy, they can rise the trigger to a certain amount.
- They are tied to a payment provider, either because of the license or CMS, and can offer only a certain portion of cryptocurrency.
- Users are abusing them if there's absolutely no KYC matrix in the system.
What would, in your opinion, be the best balance here?
"Balance" is looking for a solution that's impossible with the current system of centralized services, using a decentralized cryptocurrency. You will always be entrusting your coins into the custody of another entity. There will never be a perfect balance in such a system, merely trade-offs, and often times it will be more advantageous the casino because they hold your money. I believe the only solution that would be advantageous for the user was something like DirectBet's system. No accounts needed, no deposits and withdrawals necessary, everything done through blockchain, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=393147.0 |
|
|
|
Thanks to the minimal block size increase of the Segwit soft fork.
............... 5 years on.. still waiting for the extra tx on chain capacity segwit promised  so what are you thanking segwit for exactly?? That's because of actual average usage/demand. If that's your debate, then WHY do we actually need a hard fork to bigger block sizes? Was it probably all a red herring to hard fork the protocol away from the Core developers? The debate for bigger blocks did start from Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, which Mike Hearn FUD that if Bitcoin didn't hard fork to bigger a block size "Bitcoin will die". What implementations/proposals did you support with jonald_fyookball?
Plus didn't you try to gaslight people into believing that Bitcoin and BCash "bilaterally split", and therefore according to you, BCash is not an altcoin?
ok you wanna poke some social drama rather then discuss the "resource" debate at hand in this topic -Snipped gaslight about Segwit- It's not social drama, it's a FACT. You actually said it. |
|
|
|
I have done nothing wrong here and I will happily dox myself publicly to prove you are in the wrong.
It's just coincidence you bringing this problem after the recent problem has resolved, you created this account today and brought your problem. How did you know about this forum and just contact owl.games after Cryptostuneris's problem just solved yesterday? Too much coincidence IMO I believe, that because some users play with large amounts of money in online casinos, it would be for the best for all of those users to be warned that using VPNs "might put them in more problemetic situations" when asked for their documents/I.D. Anyone who probably has played in casinos regularly, OR has tried day trading in different centralized exchanges, has always experienced KYC. More than 90% of them probably has not alarmed the casinos/exchanges, but why do some of them make a brand new account, and complain more loudly than usual in the forum? |
|
|
|
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? I agree on what he said because even me I can sometimes wager a high amount using only a small capital but I think it doesn't happen at all times but most of the times I can only wager sufficient amounts because it will be a loss to the casino if they make their games easier for the players because you know, we can also get rewards through wagering and amount of it can base on how high or low we wager. Whales have big budgets so it is more possible for them to wager that high even at all times because once they lose their deposits, they can always redeposit again and again till they hit their desired wager amounts. I'm merely saying, that if someone reaches total wagered amount in the casino that high, it's more probable that it's a whale than a pleb. A person with small capital can't expect to win/beat the house edge consistently if he/she doesn't follow a strategy for capital management. Rolling a capital of BTC1 to BTC100 or more total wagered will definitely risk the player to lose some of that Bitcoin, or maybe all in some situations. |
|
|
|
There are Bitcoiners, such as Peter Todd, who are starting to believe that there should be continued block rewards through a "tail emission" for Bitcoin to support the system. I made a topic asking about it before, but no one joined. Hahaha.
Where did you make such topic? I can't find it. There was a 9-page discussion on this in summer, though: "Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not Inflationary" -- A post by Peter ToddI can't find it too, maybe it was just a post in one of someone else's topic, but the "shower thought" behind it was not essentially a tail emission, but a soft fork to decide, yes or no, to a hard fork for maintaining the block rewards by cancelling any future halvings. For example a hard fork, starting on 2048 block rewards are maintained to be at BTC0.04882812 per block until all the coins are mined, cancelling all future halvings. I'm trying to find it. I found another post of mine, posting about it, but I can't find the original, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5357973.msg57847458#msg57847458 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
