Bitcoin is probably more susceptible to panic selling than stocks. In the stock market, you have many metrics from the company by which you can help determine what is an appropriate price, ranging from revenues to profits and everything in between. When the prices drop in stocks, you an mathematically determine if the price should be dropping based on changing fundementals or if the company has become less efficient so that the price should decline. With Bitcoin, large price drops always carry the risk that this is a new normal since there are no earnings or business underlying the price movements. This could lend to much more panicky investors since there's no way to judge whether the price movements are appropriate Panic selling may be a one-shot event and fatal at that For example, if it becomes known that the company whose stock is being traded is basically producing and selling air (like many "start-ups" of the DotCom era). I'm not engaged in trading stocks but I think there are 10(0) trash stocks per 1 worthy stock (if not more). Therefore, we can't just compare Bitcoin with stocks as such without specifying which stock specifically we are talking about. Indeed, IBM or Apple stocks are not as panicky as Bitcoin, but overall stocks are panicky as hell too. Really, if a company goes bust (which happens every other day), its stock becomes downright garbage, but what are the chances that Bitcoin is going to collapse beyond any hope? . The reasons you cited all wouldn't be panic selling to me because selling in each of those instances has a sound reasoning behind it. If a company were found to be "selling air" (which is fraud, mind you), it would not be panic selling to dump that stock immediately. That's rational to get out of a stock mired in fraudulent activity. Panic selling, at least when I use the term, is making a knee-jerk action to a limited amount of information. For example, you see a stock you own drop 20%, and you don't have any other information as to why. You immediately sell out of it. That's panic selling to me And what does it change in practice? Some folks may freak out even if the stock goes down just a few percentages (why they are buying stocks in the first place is another question, though). I guess the very fact of buying trash stocks has already plenty of irrationality in it built in. If you were rational, you would most likely stay away from such stocks altogether (unless you have insider information, of course). People are eager to hope for something out of nothing (just look at ICOs), and when the stocks they have bought in mostly futile hopes of future hefty profits invariably crash, they panic sell them High risk stocks carry the opportunity for high reward. That's not irrational; it's a question of your appetite for risk. If you're looking to take on a lot of risk in hopes of high gains, that's rational. But I am saying that my definition of panic selling necessitates an element of irrationality of thought. The things you listed, (selling out of a company that was found to be fraudulent, for example) would not be an irrational selling, so it would not be panic selling. For me, fast selling and panic selling are not synonymous. The differentiatior is whether or not there is a degree of rationality. Selling out of ICOs (or IPOs, or any stock holding for that matter) because the price is dropping (and solely without consideration of anything else) would fit my definition of panic selling. But selling out of an ICO (or anything else) because the price is dropping and you have no expectation that the coin or company serves any market function and the economic prospects are therefore impaired, would not be, because it's based on a rational investment thesis. |
|
|
|
Banking stocks can be pretty risky because of how complicated their businesses are. They don't merely take deposits and make loans anymore. They have very convoluted trading operations and deal heavily in derivatives. During the financial meltdown in 2008, many banks disappeared because the actions they were taking were so risky, and the banks that didn't go under suffered monstrous losses. Because of how interconnected they are, there weren't many banks that escaped unscathed. Banking is definitely one industry I am not interested in as an investor. If you want stable dividends, REITs are far more predictable and far safer, plus their tax structure necessitates paying out 90% of their income in dividends in order to maintain a tax advantaged status.
Yes, sorry, I did overgeneralize a bit too much. However, events like the 2008 crash are few and far between, and if you really pay attention, can be foreseen. While the crash was fairly sudden, the build up happened over time; something had to give eventually. Also, from the POV of a Canadian, our banks were fine  Events like 2008, specifically, may be fairly uncommon, but banking scandals are actually quite common. The 1980s was mired by the Savings and Loan scandal that wiped out over 1000 banks. Even currently, some of the largest banks in the world are dealing with scandals. Wells Fargo was caught creating millions of fake accounts under their customers names and then billing fees to the customers without their knowledge. Bank of America is still dealing with the adverse effects of their misconduct during the great recession. Deutsche Bank has been teetering on the edge of insolvency related to their own scandal, and will need to raise capital in order to stay in business. As for seeing it coming, there were a few who saw it coming and took large short positions (at phenomenal risk) to eventually profit off of the collapse. But they were largely dealing in theories of what should happen based on information they had or theorized should be. It was incredibly speculative. Because of how opaque bank dealings are, the case for saying that people can see a collapse coming if they are paying attention is incredibly thin. Canada and Australia are two notable exceptions to banks getting hammered by the great recession. But both those countries have much stronger banking regulations. The US, unfortunately, lags in this critical area. |
|
|
|
I think the best way to have guaranteed passive income (if we aren't talking specifically Bitcoin) is to invest in bank stocks. In general, they give 3-5% yield per year in dividends, and the value is very steady. Plus, investing in something like a bank provides a lot of security; they'll always be around.
That's more of a low-effort method. If you are willing to spend a lot of time and energy, then looking into something like app-dev is definitely worth it.
And of course 3-5% profit per year is a very profitable investment. Suppose that you have $10k allotted for investment and then you invested it in bank stocks. After one year, you would just get $50. $50 can be earned by you in just a day or two of working. Is it worth investing a huge amount of money, waiting for a huge amount of time, just to get something that you can make for a short period of time? I'm sure your answer would be no. Investments aren't supposed to be 100% safe. You should take risks so you will make better profit. If you can't do that, then investing is not for you. Investment income is on top of you're working income. It's not an either-or choice. Just because you can make $50 easily by working doesn't mean you would turn down making $50 in investment income. It's a question of risk and investment objectives. If you don't want to take on risk, either because that's your nature or because you're near retirement, then you should not be investing in high risk high reward investment scenarios. If you take on high risk in search of high reward, and the venture fails, you haven't exactly done yourself any favors by forgoing the safe $50 profit, have you? |
|
|
|
Yes certainly, fiat money is used, bitcoin used no more than 0,005%, I am sure there are many countries that are 100% not using bitcoin. so impossible that bitcoin replacing fiat money.
In order for bitcoin to replace fiat, it should be introduced by the government to their people, but if we are just going to wait for normal adoption, it will take forever, and some of us have already left bitcoin and new comers enters, so no increase in number, only in numbers of people who have experience using it, and that won't be good for bitcoin...  Just to be clear bitcoin will never replace fiat even if bitcoin is being used or almost used by everyone and I'm sure government will not introduce bitcoin in a way that it will be able to replace their own currency, sure bitcoin can become more popular than fiat but replacing fiat! no, it is impossible! but you know what is possible bitcoin being replaced by another digital currency created by a government! There's hardly any need for the government to create a new digital currency when the fiat currency we currently use is effectively already a digital currency. People keep writing on here about the threat of the a government digital currency without realizing that they're talking about something that already exists. There's far more electronic dollars than physical dollars. And the ratio of electronic transactions to cash transactions grows year over year. Cash is already a smaller part of the economy than ever before. The threat to bitcoin isn't a superior system springing up; bitcoin is in fact a new system trying to displace a system that is already superior. It's just not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Fiat can never be worthless even if price of bitcoins goes that high as we know the fact that we cannot spend bitcoins directly and whenever we want to spend them we need to convert them to fiat first so till this scenario doesn't change I don't think fiat is going anywhere as people will need fiat to convert their bitcoins.
No matter what happens fiat will never be worthless. It is the foundation of the financial system for each country [1]even bitcoin is going to reach up to million dollar it will not affect the worth and usage of fiat. Because it's decentralize government cannot trust bitcoin [2]but they can just collect tax from it from the goods and services we consume upon using it.[1] How sure are you of that? Bitcoin reaching a million dollar would mean the mass adoption is happening and it's affecting the world's economy since billions of fiat money are already converted to bitcoins. The usage of fiat would surely not be affected at that time even though, since most people are using bitcoins, most establishments are already accepting bitcoins as payment. [2] How, though? The whole point of bitcoin isn't being free from the government and that includes being free from paying taxes. If the government would somehow successfully be able to get tax from us, a lot of us would be disappointed. In regards to [2], look at how income taxes are levied. The onus is on businesses to report and withhold taxes for employees. It would be exactly the same under a bitcoin economy. If you think that businesses are suddenly going to start disobeying the law, where they have every opportunity to do so now as well, just because bitcoin is used... well, that sounds overly naive to me. Businesses could pay everyone in cash currently, but they don't because there are laws on the books about income and FICA taxes that they are required to withhold. There's no reason to expect you're going to be an effective tax dodger in a bitcoin-denominated economy. |
|
|
|
my best investment strategy with Bitcoin is to store Bitcoin in a secret place. Remember storing Bitcoin is also and investment which can give you a much higher return then any other conventional investment. So instead of wasting your Bitcoin for mobile recharge or grocery billing you better store it.
I have tried p2p lending as well but most of the time people used to scam. So I am currently active in Bitcoin trading and storing which I believe will take my life style to a different level in future.
I don't quite agree that it is considered wasting your bitcoin if you use it as a currency, because that is what it is primarily created for. What I do is allot a portiin of my bitcoins for holding and a portion also for spending. If everyone just holds their bitcoins andcthere is nothing leftcin circulation, it would defeat the purpose of its creation. What it was created for and what it is used for has diverged. It was intended as a currency, but use and interest in bitcoin largely falls in the realm of speculative investing and profiting off price volatility. By volume, you could say that nobody seriously considers it as a currency. The business transactions it is legitimately used for are often to get around gambling restrictions placed on state-issued fiat currencies, or national anti-gambling laws. Most merchants who accept bitcoin only offer it to meet a niche demand, they do not hold or deal in bitcoins. They use third-party services to accept bitcoin on their behalf and instantly exchange it to fiat so they don't suffer any price volatility that plagues bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin believers are sure it will definitely see a huge price increase in the future. If you aren't a believer you must convince yourself by looking at how much better Bitcoin is than the current financial services offered by banks and others. You'll realize that the future of Bitcoin is gold plated I agree with you! Because as of this time the price of the Bitcoin is getting higher, what more in the near future. And it's also having a name in the business, maybe 5% in out country is using it now, so what more in the next 2 years. Most especially it has an advantage because of the technology today. I also agree with you. Now Bitcoin has a very big potential. Many people have realized that Bitcoin has many advantages. In the future, his popularity will grow and this will lead to higher prices Correct but we still need investors we need buyers and merchants. You cant just be popular but no one else buy you. We need to risen up the demands so we will all be going with the wave of a high price. And it takes courage to that because some are still afraid just hearing the word "investment". This is most of the problem. You want other people to buy in so it will push the price up from where your purchase price was. But of those people buying in, they will also need more people to buy in in order for them to profit as well. Needing ever increasing buyers is a pyramid scheme. Nobody is interested in using bitcoin as a currency, they are only interested in the price of bitcoin going up so they can have more money than they had before. This is what is wrong with bitcoin. As long as people are only using it as a speculative investment vehicle, it will never be a good currency. Bitcoin's utility as a currency and its status as a speculative asset are at odds with each other, and they are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Many people are thinking that bitcoin will be paper money but i thiknk we have already a paper money which is our paper wallet contains private key. but bitcoin will never be the same as fiat that has paper money.. since bitcoin is just alternative payment processor we can only use it online and now many sites are accepting it even here in my school i found someone now are studying bitcoin and they are earnings few bitcoins ..
I also never heard of it. many people who say that perhaps bitcoin will be released in a form of paper money, and I also thought like that. but, basically bitcoin has had the best form, ie as cryptocurrency, and it has become a tool of the best deals on the internet. Well, I believe that paper money will only be used for the fiat, not for bitcoin. I think it would be a setback for the technology when bitcoin bitcoin create a paper version. because as you've said cryptocurrency or virtual currency has been the best form of a currency Paper bitcoins (otherwise known as bitnotes) can be useful too As with everything else, Bitcoin faces the last mile problem. To transact with it, you need Internet access (just like with Internet banking). Bitnotes can effectively solve this issue if they are issued in a unified way as well as accepted by major Bitcoin payment processors (Bitcoin protobanks) which have physical presence. As to me, the advantages of paper bitcoins heavily outweigh possible drawbacks and problems that could arise. But these may not be possible until governments universally accept Bitcoin as a legit means of payment How could physical bitcoin (bitnotes, or otherwise) ever be secure? They would be massively easy to counterfeit and anyone accepting one could never be sure they actually own the value denoted by the physical note, because the true ownership of bitcoin is dictated by an electronic ledger. I could hand you a physical bitnote, and then use the private key for the bitcoin it represents and go and spend those bitcoins electronically. You then would not own the bitcoins the note represents, because you have no ability to move them in the blockchain. I don't see a way to ever have a secure physical bitcoin, because the private key dictates ownership, not the physical note. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is probably more susceptible to panic selling than stocks. In the stock market, you have many metrics from the company by which you can help determine what is an appropriate price, ranging from revenues to profits and everything in between. When the prices drop in stocks, you an mathematically determine if the price should be dropping based on changing fundementals or if the company has become less efficient so that the price should decline. With Bitcoin, large price drops always carry the risk that this is a new normal since there are no earnings or business underlying the price movements. This could lend to much more panicky investors since there's no way to judge whether the price movements are appropriate Panic selling may be a one-shot event and fatal at that For example, if it becomes known that the company whose stock is being traded is basically producing and selling air (like many "start-ups" of the DotCom era). I'm not engaged in trading stocks but I think there are 10(0) trash stocks per 1 worthy stock (if not more). Therefore, we can't just compare Bitcoin with stocks as such without specifying which stock specifically we are talking about. Indeed, IBM or Apple stocks are not as panicky as Bitcoin, but overall stocks are panicky as hell too. Really, if a company goes bust (which happens every other day), its stock becomes downright garbage, but what are the chances that Bitcoin is going to collapse beyond any hope? "Panic" selling in my mind has a value of irrationality to it. It's emotional, and not grounded in rational thought. The reasons you cited all wouldn't be panic selling to me because selling in each of those instances has a sound reasoning behind it. If a company were found to be "selling air" (which is fraud, mind you), it would not be panic selling to dump that stock immediately. That's rational to get out of a stock mired in fraudulent activity. Panic selling, at least when I use the term, is making a knee-jerk action to a limited amount of information. For example, you see a stock you own drop 20%, and you don't have any other information as to why. You immediately sell out of it. That's panic selling to me. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can possibly the future fiat although it will not totally eliminate fiat still it is a great thing if you still have bitcoin on hand after 10 years or more. Just imagine how bitcoin's price we have right now? What more after 10 years, it could possibly times 10 of the current price now or more.
For me its not a good idea to stay hold your bitcoin for a long time and i think bitcoin will never be fiat it will be still as alternative payment online. since bitcoin is just like the same as other payment method paypal or vcc online is actually the same as bitcoin but the different bitcoin is not instant and anytime the payment can be reverse.. that is why they are waiting for 3 confirmation thant vcc its really instant.. For me if i have bitcoin if the price is increasing i will sell few bitcoin and the rest i sell it if the price continues to increased.. Bitcoin transactions post instantly, just to clear that out. It's the confirmation times that makes you wait. Or you simply didn't include an appropriate enough fee which makes pools ignore your transaction for a while. When it comes to the reverse aspect, you as normal person don't have to worry about that unless you deal with millions every time like is the case with exchanges for example. That's why they require 3 confirmations before your deposit posts. It's set like that because exchanges have a lot to lose. In general 1 confirmation is safe enough. I don't believe they "post" instantly either. Don't they still need a node to broadcast them out? I'm a bit hazy on how this part works exactly, but when there was all that congestion in the bitcoin network last year due to the refusal to increase the block size, there were always tens of thousands of transactions sitting in a pool waiting to be broadcast, but I think the nodes were only broadcasting the transactions that paid the highest fees. So it's not that the rest were waiting to be "confirmed." They hand't even been "posted" yet by a node to start the confirmation process. At least I think that was the issue, if anyone can provide any clarification on this, I'd appreciate it. If you put it that way, then in some cases it's not instant as there are nodes not willing to broadcast certain transactions, but that's mostly only the case when transactions have almost zero chances of getting confirmed. I once sent several low value transactions without any fees (for testing purposes), and then I checked everything through various block explorers. Funny thing was that one explorer, blockr.io, actually showed everything like it was doing usually, while other explorers didn't recognize the tx id like it didn't exist. In this case they simply ignored these no fee transactions. After that I double spent these transactions with fee where they got noticed instantly by all explorers. Right, well that's my point then. You can broadcast a transaction with zero fees, but the nodes can filter them out because there's no point in broadcasting a transaction that results in no payment for broadcast. The end result is that transactions aren't "posted" until they are recorded in the blockchain, and they won't get recorded in the blockchain if they don't get picked up by a node. So making a transaction is not instantaneous. A transaction doesn't occur (in effect) until it is recorded in the blockchain. |
|
|
|
If you tell the truth, I think that is a very good option to get a good income, is a tandem with gold and bitcoin. And it is when you earn on the sale of bitcoin as a result investiruesh money into gold. This option seems to me a very good and high quality.
Neither gold nor bitcoin provides an income. Both are speculative investments and only provide the opportunity of capital appreciation. This is should not be confused with income, which are actual payments to you. Neither gold nor bitcoin pays you anything. The only way to realize your gain is by selling the asset. Contrast this with an income earning investment like a savings account, dividend stocks, a REIT investment, etc. All of these actually pay you a stream of money for holding the asset. That is income. |
|
|
|
I think in 5 years Bitcoin will be known to almost everybody on this planet, but will they be using it that's a question. I think most of them will but can't say for everyone.
That's the reality they may know bitcoin but also another is that, they will know it for good reason or with bad? Because many are already have knowledge in bitcoin but their knowledge into is very bad, thinking that bitcoin is just something that is being used for bad things, illegal activities and other types of crimes which is very unfair but its the reality. Knowing bitcoin to everyone for its beneficial purpose is important and i dont think everybody in the world be introduced to bitcoins even after 5 years. I can say that bitcoins will be used in majority of the nations if not all. Most under developed areas still not having Internet cannot use bitcoins without infrastructure of Internet and computers. This is what I think too, many are still going to be lack of knowledge on what is bitcoin and 5 years is not going to be enough from now on to let the world know that bitcoin is existing. But still it depends on how the developers or us will use technology since there are social medias and other platforms we can use to advertise, it just really depends on how we are going to attract people or unless the government will force people to use it before 2022. and specially in third world countries and backward area, where people even do have their basic facilities like electric city and education, the education ration in such countries are very low. they even do not have access to computer and internet. therefore i do not think that is such an easy task i think may be less that 10% of the total population may be using bitcoin as optional. while rest will still depend on their fiat currencies. Bitcoin without any doubt has a very strong appeal and given the abysmal state of most fiat currencies, the awareness and adoption of Bitcoin is sure to soar, but getting to be adopted by the about 7 billion people that presently inhabit the earth by 2022 is like day dreaming. All the same, it ought not to be an issue whether everyone embraces Bitcoin or not, just a significant portion of the world's population is just okay for Bitcoin to be all it could possibly be. Come to think of it, with the user base at present, we are beginning to experience crowded network and so much delays in confirmation of transactions, how worse can it get if drastic measures are not taken now? I think our primary concern now show be to have Bitcoin truly ready for mass adoption, because it is sure to happen someday given the goings-on in the finances of many countries across the globe. Bitcoin needs a stable value before it has mass appeal. Nobody wants a currency that they ant have a reasonable expectation what the value will be day to day. Bitcoin routinely fluctuates 5% in a single day, and 20% movements are not uncommon. This is anathema to a currency. The usd, which devalues very slowly over long periods of time, is far superior for transactions that a currency whose value is a giant question mark every day. You are right, stability in price is highly essential especially when it comes to buying goods and services, but I think it has got to attend mass adoption first before we can have stability in price. When the coins are spread in the hands of many more bitcoiners, the strength in number would really start to play out and the coin would become more liquid. For speculators however, those fluctuations in price turns out to be good news, because that is the tonic that creates the profit making opportunities. I think you have it backwards. Bitcoin needs a stable value before it will be mass adopted for use as a currency. When you have wild price movements, like it currently has, the only people attracted to it are speculators looking to make fast, easy money. People looking for it to transact businesses aren't interested because there's no confidence of what the value of btc is going to be on any given day. That's horrible for businesses and consumers to have a currency and not know if the value you have stored in it is going to be worth more or less the next day. The USD does not have this concern, which is why it's good for transactions. So a stable value is almost necessarily a prerequisite to mass adoption. |
|
|
|
|
People accusing PayPal of being a scam are often those who violate the TOS or deal in illegal activities, and then face clawback of their funds when PayPal wises up to them, or the counter-parties they are dealing with report them. As a large financial institution, PayPal is regulated. There are plenty of remedies for anyone feeling "wronged" by PayPal, be it through regulators, or by filing a civil action to recoup their "scammed by PayPal" funds. The reason this doesn't happen is because PayPal is following the law, and the aggrieved users are not.
|
|
|
|
I don't think so ! Dollar has already been part of the economy and it was created for a specific reasin I dont think that it will be abolished just because of Bitcoin! Implantation of Bitcoin as a currency is very hard because not everyone have an access to the internet and informing every citizen about Bitcoin will be a great challenge especially those people who are not familiar about the technology
The dollar standardizes trade that happens whether or not there is a dollar. Trade happened long before fiat currency. Trade through barter is inefficient. A currency allows for a standardized value to be used as a medium of exchange, and it serves as a stable store of value. Currently, bitcoin is not a stable store of value because the value fluctuates so much and so quickly. It is the largest barrier to bitcoin being a usable, mass-adopted currency. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is probably more susceptible to panic selling than stocks. In the stock market, you have many metrics from the company by which you can help determine what is an appropriate price, ranging from revenues to profits and everything in between. When the prices drop in stocks, you an mathematically determine if the price should be dropping based on changing fundementals or if the company has become less efficient so that the price should decline. With Bitcoin, large price drops always carry the risk that this is a new normal since there are no earnings or business underlying the price movements. This could lend to much more panicky investors since there's no way to judge whether the price movements are appropriate.
|
|
|
|
No, Bitcoin will not replace Dollars. Bitcoin only will be a secondary payment option since most of people in the world even dont know to operate a computer in developing countries.
Bitcoin has already replaced dollar in the deal of world’s most expensive pizaa so there are many bitcoin users who prefer bitcoin over dollar or other fiat currencies but I don’t think bitcoin will vanish the dollar or any other fiat currency. On individual level, bitcoin has already replaced our fiat currencies (at least online). That pizza story gets a lot of attention, but it's not an accurate way to think about it. At the time that guy bought the pizza, those bitcoins were only worth the price of a pizza. It wasn't a million dollar pizza. It's the same thing as looking at a gambling website that had 1000 bitcoins wagered on it when Bitcoin was only worth $200. The value of the wagered amount is $200,000. A couple years later, if Bitcoin is worth $1000 each, it's not accurate to say that the website has had $2,000,000 wagered on it, cuz the amount wagered was only $200,000 at the time. |
|
|
|
I want to share my yesterday's winning:  I started to win 3rd tier prizes quite often, almost every month. But I never had luck to win higher tier prize. But maybe one day I will be lucky... Good shot! But everything is about main faucet. As i know, till now nobody hit $200. In Hi-Lo game i have even 10000 but in main game i never hit even third reward  Edit - oh sorry! Now i understand that IT IS main faucet! Well done! I'm jealous! In this case I would like to reiterate the fact that till now I am the one and the only winner of the 200$ big win from the freebitco.in faucet. I still consider myself to be extremely lucky for winning that prize. I have posted the details of the win and the payment previously in these threads. As for other people here, the site's faucet is a proper and legit one - try claiming and one day you might even win the 200$ win. Good luck to all. Wasn't there someone else in this thread that won $200? I thought I remembered that, but can't find it now. I was under the impression there was a couple of those winners floating around. If not, that is a bit more depressing that there's only been one. When you figure how many millions of spins there have been on the free faucet, to only have one winner makes the odds of hitting it like the odds of hitting the real lottery. |
|
|
|
But is it not high?just to get 1 withdrawal you already spend that much. If there is a big money to be withdrawn may be it is worth but low amount will never be worth. And I ever saw other site that offer around 0.001 btc for their instant withdrawal fee and we can directly get our withdrawal. Compare to 0.003 is really a little bit high too
Btw sorry for my mis calculated bits to btc
Bustabit currently has instant withdrawals for 0.0003 BTC (300 bits) and we use quite generous fees to make sure your withdrawals don't get stuck, like is happening at a lot of other sites. This is already pretty reasonable (it's actually a money loss for us), but in the next update: it's going to be even cheaper! Well, there will be the option to have your withdrawal cheaper if you don't need the money right away. The way we can offer that is by putting your withdrawal into a queue, and tack it onto the next (instant) withdrawal. Both "pre-credited deposits", and "queued withdrawals" are just going to optional enhancements. For people who want to wait for 1 confirmation, or people who want instant withdrawals -- they won't be disadvantaged at all. Just out of curiosity, when you pay mining fees for a withdrawal, is that amount reflected in the website's stats page? I'm assuming it would be added to the withdrawal number and also decrease profit, however the only inputs there are "total wagered" and "total won" which gives you the net profit. Doesn't seem like your withdrawals fees paid are reflected in the site's profit, but should be since it's a cost of business. |
|
|
|
That's interesting. I would have figured the calculation for transaction fees would be pretty standard at this point, and since I've never noticed any real lag when making transactions (outside of last summer when it seemed like the whole damn network was slogged down with congestion), it furthered that notion that something as basic as calculating an appropriate transaction fee was not an issue for any of these services. What online wallets would you recommend in lieu of blockchain.info's wallets?
I strongly think the best wallets for normal users are mobile wallets, I've had good experience with mycelium (android) and breadwallet (ios) and can recommend both. Most people seem to not like the idea of mobile wallets as they're worried about losing their phone, but making a recovery key that's not an issue. For instance, on my (non-rooted) mobile I regularly have 50+ bitcoin and have installed a huge amount of random apps. That's something I'd never even dream of doing on a desktop for instance. For sums larger than that, it's probably worth investing ($100) in a hardware wallet (I use a trezor, and am quite happy with it). Haha, if I ever get to 50 bitcoins, I'll give that some serious consideration. I'm small time though, and that amount seems utterly ridiculous compared to my wallet balance currently. Good to know that the iOS wallet is recommended though. I've just been relying on using blockchain.info's wallet via the mobile web browser. I'm not a heavy user, so I've not noticed problems. Good to be aware of alternatives though. |
|
|
|
Freebitco.in is a fraudster site, their auto bet system plays big fradulent games. It purposely makes u take loss though u won the bet, I lost thousands of satoshi due to these fraudsters. Their auto bet Roll records show their true colors. when I went through the records i found more than 20 records within secods where in i have won the bet but the autobet has still marked it as a loss and made me go for a loss. I bet there are 100 more such records if you just go through them.
Please dont go for Freebitco.in they are such fraudsters. I also have the required proof but unable to attach here.
You're gambling on a site with a 5% house edge. Not to slam wetsuit, because it's one of the best free sites in the bitcoin word, but anyone complaining about gambling losses here can't be taken too seriously. The gambling edge is just not competitive with many reputable sites, and that's the gambler's fault. Not exactly a lot of barriers preventing you from gambling anywhere else. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
