These are not just words, these are actual statistics:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782.msg52376236#msg52376236
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782.msg52524317#msg52524317
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782.msg52617625#msg52617625
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168782.msg52703467#msg52703467

Back then, I was running on a 37% win chance (now it's a little higher than that), and I started with the minimum bet ever possible with doges. And if I remember correctly, I set the increase on loss to something like 120% initially which allowed me to survive losses up to 33 losing streaks. Then, as my balance grew (I started with like 20 doges of free coins), I increased this parameter keeping the killing streak more or less the same. And as a matter of fact, the exact numbers had been disclosed in that thread (though, maybe, in a few posts scattered across the entire thread)

That's what you need to know to repeat my setup (if that is your goal)

Keep in mind that both of these theories had been developed with hard currencies in mind and circulation, i.e. paper money back in the day was redeemable for gold. With fiat money, the Cambridge cash-balance theory becomes obsolete, especially now when many people are living on credit (read, households have negative cash reserves)


Most people are here for the quick buck

It means that their primary incentive and driving force is speculation (otherwise known as "buy low, sell high"), and this is what gives Bitcoin (as well as other cryptocurrencies) its value through its speculative utility. If we could somehow make Bitcoin prices rock-solid, which would make it a real store of value (like gold), many so-called investors would quickly lose interest in this market. And that's basically the reason why prices cannot be stable for long


You're welcome!

Just before the 2016 halving the price crashed because people had been booking profits. But let's not forget the fact that prior to the crash Bitcoin had been rising for over half a year (since autumn 2015, to be exact). However, I agree with you, to a degree, that with each halving the law of diminishing returns starts to reveal itself stronger and stronger, so we shouldn't in fact expect the effect of the next halving to be mind-boggling

If the price is going to hit the new highs, it won't be because of the halving alone

That's how I got it

Anyway, introduction of new terms like this one is not a very bright idea overall, especially in the field with an already established and well-defined vocabulary as it only leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Regardless, the cost of mining a bitcoin, or as you put it, the cost to write a piece of information to the public ledger has nothing to do with its market value, let alone a store of value. Put differently, if you could render the information in the blockchain as immutable as it is now at no cost at all, Bitcoin would be as valuable, if not more, provided you kept it capped at the same 21M coin limit as of now

Why would they inform about the closure some random guy out there, and not the campaign manager here? Seems more like photoshop to me. But that doesn't take anything from their rather frivolous approach to paying the participants (and post counting, while we are at it)

Or we don't know something?

I read up to this point:


And it was enough for me to stop reading any further. It is utility that gives value to something, not its cost of production. No matter how much one bitcoin is worth in terms of production costs (electricity, time, effort, etc), if it loses its utility (right now mostly as a vehicle of speculation, and as a store of value, to a degree), its price will be zero, and no amount of scarceness will be able to fix it. In simple terms, when someone talks about scarcity without referencing utility at the same time, they are likely not very competent in economic matters

So value comes through utility, and scarcity adds a price tag to it

Nothing out of the ordinary is going to happen

People lose money everyday. Money gets stolen and money gets gambled away, up to the last penny. The world doesn't stop. Besides, for whales and the vast majority of investors you mention cryptocurrency investments is not the last money anyway. All in all, we will see what we had already seen before in the dotcom era with billions lost. Actually, they were not lost, they just changed hands. The same will happen to "those huge chunk of investments"

Is bot working? I've made 6 posts since morning (without this one), and nothing has been added today (as of yet):



Can anyone confirm?

Раз лайт покупают, значит, он кому-нибудь нужен

Но речь даже не о лайте в принципе. Я имею в виду, если исходить из такой предпосылки или целой парадигмы ("но глобально кому он сейчас нужен"), то тогда вообще никакая крипта не нужна. А как же спекуляции, поддержки там сопротивления, двойное проникновение, наконец? Если лайт никому не нужен, то логично было бы его зашортить в пол или вообще в дно, разве не так? Или дураков шортить лайт уже не осталось?

Wasn't I doing exactly this recently?

I advised you to read my martingale thread here but you seem to have already read it or so you said. Anyway, I increased my balance by hitting an outlier like 24 losing streaks. I don't see them very often but that's the exact reason I see longer streaks even less often, the implication being that it is hard to kill me, especially when I use some of the profits thus earned to actively postpone that moment

It may be technically impossible for now

But from an economic point of view, taxes are not a thing unto itself (read, they are utilitarian), and something which can be implemented in different ways. Taxes are the payment that some or all members of society have to pay for public services which should be equally available to all members of this society (like roads, education, etc)

And it just happens that a government levies and collects these taxes (that's basically why these mandatory payments are called taxes in the first place). In other words, if we can remove the government from the equation without affecting the financial support for the public good, we won't need taxes as we currently perceive them

But they are not professional gamblers, or are they?

I mean they are rich through something else (probably by being born into wealth), while professional refers to what you do for a living. You may do nothing as you might have inherited a fortune but that still wouldn't count as professional gambling unless we consider "professionally" wasting money as one's profession. But in that case it would feel as highly ironic. If not, it would sound oxymoronic to me

Короткая позиция - это позиция, открытая на заемные средства

Купить в долг вы можете точно также, как и продать в долг. В этом случае у вас будет короткая позиция на покупку. Слово короткая в данном контексте относится к периоду, в течение которого предполагается держать позицию, т.е. какое-то незначительное время, что связано со срочностью кредита

Зачем вам нужно торговать биток против битка, вам лучше спросить у себя, ибо вопрос о такой возможности был задам вами. Но, тем не менее, я отвечу (хотя я уже ответил в своем посте) - это используется для хеджирования. Объяснять, что такое хеджирование я уже не буду

What you are referring to here is correctly called an investment asset, not a store of value

Bitcoin has been able to grow like many thousand times but that only makes, or rather made it, an excellent investment choice provided you invested in it early (as its future is uncertain with respect to its price). But quite a few startups in different fields were able to gain as much or comparable. Does that make them a good store of value? I don't think so

It feels like a good investment doesn't necessarily make a good store of value, and the reverse seems to hold true as well. For example, gold is a goddamn good store of value proven in ages, but for the last 40 years or so it was a poor choice as an investment vehicle since it has been unable even to beat the US dollar inflation

It is about how posts are counted, not how their quality is assessed

Automatic or otherwise, there are different ways to count posts. Experienced campaign managers count the number of posts which you actually make within the required period. They don't pay particular attention to total post counts before and after as these totals can change arbitrarily (and dramatically at that) even without your posts being deleted (this is a nasty bug in the forum software) up to a point where you can end up with fewer posts at the end of the period than at the beginning of it while still making enough posts

Count me in and see the forum topics created by me here

So far it doesn't look that way at all

Today I deleted my daily bump post here, which I had posted yesterday, and then made two new regular posts. After a couple of hours I see in the panel that I have only made one new post. So by the looks of it, the bot just counts the difference between the post count at the end of the previous day (read, it saves that number) and the current number. It doesn't really count your new posts

In essence, it means that if some of your posts get deleted, even if they were made years ago, or your post count gets adjusted by the forum engine and you end up with fewer posts after the adjustment, you will have to make up for the difference if you want your new posts counted (read, post until your count exceeds the stored value). So the question still remains open (as I might be missing something)

Вообще-то очень даже можно

Открываете, например, на Фениксе две короткие позиции - одну на продажу, а другую на покупку, и будет у вас виртуальная пара битка к битку. А дальше может ездить на волатильности туда-сюда. Другое дело, открывать такие позиции на одной и той же бирже не совсем комильфо, поскольку получаемый таким образом хедж используется не столько для торговли, сколько для снижения убытка при возможном дефолте биржи

Trading volumes are a by far better metric

Indeed, we don't know how much of the reported trading volume is real as in the first half of 2017 (and before that) most of Bitcoin trading volume was fake due to Chinese exchanges showing simply insane figures (like the total supply of bitcoins changing hands a few times a day)

However, if they are pretty close to real, which seems to be the case now, it is in fact a useful metric as it represents the real activity of traders and their interest in a particular coin (Bitcoin is still the preferred choice, though). And trading volumes is not the only pebble on the beach anyway (as there are many others)

Market cap is a mathematical abstraction

As you may know, it is simply a product of multiplication of the amount of coins mined so far by their market price. In this way, no matter how much money you take from the market, it is not going to affect the market cap unless your sell order is large enough to change the price. If this is not what you meant, then the market cap is very misleading as it doesn't tell us anything about real liquidity of the market since this is what actually counts


If you are selling in the open market, that could affect the price (depending on how much you sell)