Well, that's the point of this topic, to figure out a way to determine the sensible stake for such bet. The only non-emotional approach is probably just to use kelly criterion which suggests the optimal would be 9.5% of your bankroll.
So your 10% call seems spot on 

Easy fix, we could just filter out untrusted sites, or instruct it to only use whitelisted ones.

Depends on what kind of bets are we talking about I guess. But yeah, generally speaking you'd need a large number of bets for your average profit/loss to be in line with expected value. Which doesn't mean you can't be profitable in just a few bets.

Side note: sometimes millions bets may not be enough. Looking i.e. at the BitVest's stats even after 4.7 billions bets, their profit is only at 47.6% of EV (assuming those stats are correct).

I wouldn't recommend it, but technically speaking you could still get rich by trading bitcoin with leverage (margin trading). Or just by active trading, accumulating at the bottoms, and selling the tops - you don't have to time the market perfectly and it may take years (if not decades) to get 'there' - but wherever there's a market, volume, and some price actions - there's also an opportunity to make money.

But yeah, the only way we could see another x300 is either in an apocalyptic scenario when fiat systems collapse and Bitcoin jumps in to replace them, or when it first drops to a few-hundreds range and shoots back up.

What was the whatsapp version called? Was it God in the box? It was working fine for me but they limited it to only 10 messages per month for the free trial, so not much joy there.


It's pretty impressive indeed, but don't get carried away into thinking it's some sort of all-knowing computer that is always right. It has a lot of limitations and that's not going to change anytime soon.

To play a devil's advocate, Charlie Munger is 99 years old investor who spent his entire career chasing stocks with good "intrinsic" value. You can't really expect him to pivot on his approach at this stage in life.

He has a lot of interesting things to say, which doesn't mean he cannot be wrong.

And I don't get the "100% edge for the house" remark. Who would even be the house here? Satoshi? Early investors? 2nd wave of investors? Devs?

Biometrics could work well but only as a second layer of security (i.e. as a 2FA), but generating wallets from fingerprints or eye scans is probably a horrible idea. They could be easily replicated, or you could lose access to it i.e. if you burn or cut your finger, leaving scars that change your prints etc.

All he'll get will be a slap on the wrist.

Considering how connected he was and all the political donations that he made, he'll probably get ~4-5 years in a comfy prison, with luxuries not available for any common inmate, and he'll be out in 1-2 years, enjoying the stash that got "hacked" after the shit hit the fan.

Just look at other crypto figures who got sentenced: Charlie Shrem or Mark Karpeles (who coincidently also happened to be God's Chosen people, which can make you go  "hmmm"), they got out in no time and the time they did seemed almost like a summer camp (judging i.e. by Shrem's posts from prison, describing his life in there).

Thanks, I did not know that. That's a big, red flag for me. I do understand that any business operator can experience some liquidity issues once in a while which can cause delays but I can't relate to people owing money to others and just staying quiet and not responding for prolonged periods of time.

I understand that all the participants (and staff) got paid eventually, but LL still has some negative feedback which probably won't go away, as the reason for that feedback was the way he conducted his obligations, rather than just a fact of not making payments.



Maybe that's the reason LL is not active on bitcointalk anymore...

I find it pretty hard to make sense of what's written in this article. After reading it, I still don't know whether you can or cannot hold or trade crypto in Bangladesh, and whether statements from their central bank are only recommendations or are they interpretations of existing laws and are legally binding.


This literally says that you can't hold any cryptos but it's not a criminal offense if you trade them  

To be fair, it's probably not the author of the article who's to blame, but just the Bangladeshi regulatory mess.

To nie był pełny audyt, co sama firma Mazars oświadczyła. Co śmieszniejsze, kilka dni po tym Mazars wycofali się całkiem ze świadczenia usług w branży krypto:
https://time.com/6241755/binance-mazars-halts-crypto-work/

I tu możemy mieć mały paradoks, gdzie Binance (czy inne giełdy) nawet chcąc zrobić pełny audyt (który chyba muszą mieć robiony), mogą mieć problemy ze znalezieniem firmy z czołówki która by sie tego podjęła. Zgaduje że dla dla audytorów z tzw Big 4, krypto to wciąż zbyt śliski temat i zbyt duże ryzyko reputacyjne gdyby coś poszło nie tak.


W Big Short chodziło o agencje ratingowe a nie o audytorów, o ile mnie pamięć nie myli.

I don't expect there's a high demand for that. The popularity of the Oscars (and the Hollywood garbage in general) dropped drastically compared to past years. Most people were only aware of the last year's one because of Will Jones slapping Chris Rock.

Your fear does not increase the actual risk. The risk is the same whether the mixing takes 10mins or 3 days.


Well, they do have Time Delay slider, which you can just set to 0 minutes if you wish to.


Either I don't understand your question, or you don't understand the benefit of time delay. It doesn't matter how long coinomize holds funds before sending them to a new customer's address. What matters is the time between you sending to coinomize and coinomize sending to your new address(es).
i.e. if you send 1.2345btc to mixer and 10 mins later a new transaction of 1.2345btc goes into your wallet, then even if there's no "hard" connection between those 2 amounts and the coins have different origins - it's not hard (for anyone analysing all bitcoin transactions) to make a logical conclusion that those 2 transactions may be linked and are not coincidental.

If the best you can save up, in the long run, is an equivalent of ~$2,300, then your best bet would be to acquire some marketable skills and boost your earnings. That 0.1btc is unlikely to be a "make it" stack - meaning you won't be able to retire on that and will still need to have some other source of income.
So hold some bitcoins but don't put all your hopes in it. Focus on increasing skills and earnings.

On a side note, it only takes BTC0.262 to be in the top 1% of holders of the world population (BTC21 divided by 1% of the total current world population)

89 - pawel7777

Thanks!

Heh. Nie mam pojecia. Rzeczywiscie cos tu sie mocno nie klei.

Stan na 10 listopda 2022 opublikowali, razem z adresami, wiec na upartego mozna sobie manualnie te zmainy przesledzic (choc mogli dodac nowe adresy ktorych nie znamy):

https://www.binance.com/en/blog/community/our-commitment-to-transparency-2895840147147652626

A wygladalo to tak:

BTC (~475K BTC)

ETH (~4.8M ETH)

USDT (~17.6B USDT)

BUSD (~21.7B BUSD)

USDC (~601M USDC)

BNB (~58M BNB).

Tak na marginesie, sam stan rezerw niewiele nam powie o wyplacalnosci gieldy jezeli nie znamy jej zobowiazan. To moglibysmy potencjalnie wiedziec z rocznego/kwartalnego raportu finansowego dla calej grupu, ale Binance takowych chyba nie publikuje.

I wouldn't expect a massive number of new countries to declare Bitcoin as a legal tender, especially not any from the top-developed ones, but I won't be surprised if we see a growing number of countries deciding to keep some small portion of their reserves in bitcoin.
When thinking about it, it actually makes no sense not to hold at least a little bit. The risks of price fluctuations could be lower than potential benefit in the scenario that BTC becomes a world's reserve currency, which is unlikely but not impossible, or when it just massively appreciate in value. But for that to happen, there would have to be some sort of an international, trusted fund acting as custodian, as having public officials responsible for keeping private keys doesn't sound like a good idea.

They would have to do something eventually. You can't solely rely on old, loyal players to keep playing forever. People go broke, stop gambling for whatever reason, get bored, move to other casinos, die etc. I don't think organic traffic from search engines will be enough and the activity will start to wane (if it hasn't already).

And marketing actions don't necessarily have to be big and expensive. Some small things can turn very effective, i.e. posting signature code(s) in the first post, for any investor/referrer to use (if they're not participating in any signature campaign) could drive some decent traffic in. That's something just-dice did successfully in the past and they didn't even have a referral programme.

No, I haven't seen your previous post and was not familiar with those detectors. Thanks for sharing.

Looks like they have significantly different algorithms. i.e. the one I was using, contentatscale.ai thinks that your post, that I'm quoting, is only 42% real, whereas openai-openai-detector shows it as 87.65% real. That's a pretty big difference. It may take a while till a truly reliable AI detector is developed, if that's possible at all (for a long-term - I doubt it).

Investors are there for profit, not loyalty. If there's no activity, then there's no profit to be made and they'd be just keeping their funds with 3rd party for no reason just taking unnecessary risk. Plus, from the site's perspective, having a "few" key investors is highly undesirable, as there's a risk of some of them pulling out at the same time, meaning the max winning would have to be massively reduced, to the point of site becoming unattractive to play.
Active players and their loyalty is what really matters.
No idea how is BitVest generating traffic though. Word of mouth could be a powerful tool, but probably they would have to launch some marketing campaign once in a while, for brand awareness and to bring more people in.

It's all about convenience and whether or not you have any income in bitcoins. No one is going to buy bitcoins just to spend it, and on the other side, it doesn't make much sense to convert btc to fiat to buy something, if you could buy that something directly with btc.
i.e. If you wanted to buy a pair of new pants from your sig campaign earnings, you would just use btc if pants-merchant accepted it, without exchanging it to fiat at all.

But as long as only a tiny percent of people earn in btc, we won't see any mass adoption. The closest we get is bitcoin powered debit cards.