Should it be construed in the way you think that the distribution of galaxies in the Universe is not random?


Indeed it is patterned, but it has only one pattern, while in a random distribution you can see plenty of them. They are random too, but it is exactly their randomness (which leads to them being many) that distinguishes the latter from the former. If you remove these patterns, you will get a uniform distribution, which violates the assumption of randomness (though the opposite is not necessarily true). So any way you twist the semantics of it, a random distribution without patterns (as in plural) turns into a uniform distribution (with just one repetitive pattern), and thus stops being random


There's not only one pattern in a random distribution as there are many, and their very existence makes a random distribution somewhat less random, from a practical point of view (superstitions or otherwise)

What about running the entirety of the forum on its own dedicated blockchain?

For example, as a backup option? Say, we have the full nodes which keep the copy of the forum database (some part thereof) and the lite nodes which are used only for posting? The concept seems viable, even though it would mean giving up certain rights over the forum to the forum community. It is not about tokenizing the forum for its own sake but rather for making things more decentralized while the forum itself more open to the world

Something to that tune at the root of it


However, it is not about reputation as such

If you have a record on the forum distributed ledger (represented by your digital token), you can prove you are a certain member of the forum (reputation and merits included). This is a bare minimum but in and of itself it is pretty much useless unless it serves as a foundation for other things which can be built on this blockchain, for example, smart contracts for jobs, escrow, etc. It is not possible to say right now what you can build on it but if you read in the linked piece above what Nornickel is trying to do, it makes sense


Voting and polling are two other areas where the idea of a distributed ledger fits perfectly

Metatokens are not for sale (one metatoken per forum member)

They will be digital passports of the forum members in the world beyond the forum. So when someone wants to deal with a forum user in the forum-related matters, he can see if a certain person is really the one who he claims to be. This won't violate privacy since you can always choose not to respond if someone sends you a message first, otherwise all info is already available in the forum account details. But if you want to reach out to someone as a forum member, it handles the issue of proving you are the one. Simply put, the forum blockchain will open the forum to the world in the way that can be useful both to the forum and to the world outside the forum

You don't get it guys, seriously

But mentioning merits (in the context of tokens) was probably a mistake on my part as it seems to be utterly misleading. The forum blockchain in the form of a bitcointalk.org client (like Bitcoin's client) is to be run by the forum members, and its purpose is to extend the forum into the world (as I wrote in the OP). You could do fancy things on it

As such, it won't affect the forum itself from the inside (read, everything here will remain as it is, merits included). Think of it as bitcointalk.org taking over the world beyond what it has already done (and taken), as a further expansion. The idea, if done right, is certainly worth it. You will remember me when someone implements it elsewhere

This is just a thought which seems to me worthy of discussion here

If you are a regular visitor to such news outlets as Cointelegraph, Forbes, and their likes, you probably know that many companies the world over are now tokenizing their goods. Here's the recent piece about the Russian mining and smelting giant Nornickel that is now testing their blockchain platform for trading the stuff they produce (namely, metals). Even European soccer clubs like Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain are going this way by creating fan tokens that allow their holders to "participate in voting and polling"

So why not tokenize bitcointalk.org in a similar way? For example, every Legendary member (or just any member with earned merits) could receive a certain amount of tokens (think of them as an extension of merits) that would allow them to extend their authority in some way beyond the forum (since the platform should be conceived as an extension of the forum itself into the outside world to be of any use). The possibilities are virtually limitless, and many of them cannot be thought of right now (or even dreamed of, for that matter)

Please share your opinions below. Also, be sure to read the following:


So before you jump to conclusions keep in mind that tokenization in general is not limited to creating a new coin as it goes way beyond that (read, this topic is not about creating another shitcoin)

If they were to cheat, you would be losing either way (or rather any way)


But isn't it what I mean exactly? If something happened once, then expect more of it (read, rare is relative). Actually, it is not like I have invented this as there are quite a few witticisms and pieces of common wisdom regarding this phenomenon (e.g. an evil chance seldom comes alone, troubles never come singly, etc)


Indeed galaxies are bound by gravity

But what makes galaxies in the first place? Why are there many and not just one conglomeration of stars, all tightly packed together? If this is random (in fact, it is kinda a scientific fact), you have to accept that patterns are a distinctive feature or property of randomness. The Universe has innumerable billions of stars, and that's more than enough to evaluate its properties

Besides, you can't have it any other way from a purely mathematical point of view (the approach which you seem to be particularly fond of). How come? The reason is simple. If it were not for patterns, you would have a uniform distribution which is not random by definition, as simple as it gets. Stated differently, you can't have a random distribution without patterns given sufficient sample size

I wouldn't call that a safe bet either

However, if you have enough money in your balance to play the same game again and again (like over 1000 times), it will be a safe bet overall as you will soon see that the outcomes of your bets quickly approximate to the house edge. With so high a multiplier you are not going to see a lot of variance anyway, so you would need a rather small sample size to get there (safe game by and large)

Ironically, while rolling once is a far cry from being a safe bet (which I totally agree with), rolling 1000 times (and more) is pretty safe as you are unlikely to lose more than the house edge in the end. It is as unlikely you will be able to earn anything indeed, but as far as safe bets are concerned, that's pretty much it. In fact, it could be the exact thing you might be looking for (as in contests or something similar)

But what is choice really?

And how much of it comes through actual thought and self-control? As much as I would like to agree with your view, I don't think we are as rational as we think we are. Most of our decisions are made on the spot without thinking twice (or even once, for that matter). It just happens that our instincts and urges that "guide" our decisions in everyday life are working more or less fine most of the time. And when they don't work, the consequences are not serious, so the negative effects of our actions can be easily corrected or alleviated

But this no longer works in gambling. If you lose money, you can't claim it back. Indeed, you can start chasing your losses, but how much of that decision is rational and thought-out in itself? Not much, I daresay. As it turns out, it is not that easy to master ourselves. We more often than not fall victim to our gut feelings, desires and impulses

But who doesn't want to "get rich quick"?

Let's cut the crap here and be honest to ourselves, we all want to get extremely rich overnight (okay, let it be within a year or so). This is a dream, and it is totally fine to have dreams. It is what we actually do (and abstain from doing) to reach them that matters. If we are reckless and irresponsible when trying to get there, we will suffer. On the other hand, if we wisely take advantage of the moment ans opportunity, it is possible, at certain times

People who invested in Bitcoin earlier and had patience to wait enough (but not longer) were in fact able to get rich, and get rich fast at that, within a couple of years or even less. It was the case with the dotcom rush as well, and same with cryptocurrencies some 15 years later. The bottom line is that the cryptocurrency was actually the way to do this (not sure about now, though)

С лайтом (как и другой топовой криптой) не имеет смысла связываться

Почему? Ответ не очень сложен на самом деле. Потому что перспективы такой атаки совершенно не очевидны, а ее стоимость - высока. Другими словами, можно потратить миллион долларов (или даже сто миллионов) на организацию подобной "провокации" и тупо их потерять, так ничего в итоге и не добившись. С этой точки зрения, выгоднее атаковать мало кому известную крипту, где шансы на успех намного выше, а затраты в целом - ниже, что и показал приведенный пример с Vertcoin (не знаю, что это за монета и зачем она вообще нужна)

I can explain to you what happened

And what happened is actually quite in line with the idea set forth in the OP. More specifically, you noticed a pattern, and had been exploiting it for some time. But since bets are random (allegedly), the patterns are random too (necessarily), so it shouldn't in fact have surprised you (had you been aware of this intrinsic property of genuine randomness at the time) that your "strategy" stopped working after some time as another pattern had most certainly revealed itself (which you failed to discover and take advantage of). Patterns are random, but their existence itself is not random at all. It is a feature of a truly random distribution


No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying, though, is that true randomness destroys itself at a higher level by always being randomly patterned (given enough sample size, of course). And, more importantly, this feature can be taken advantage of in certain circumstances (with some precautions)

Mods should probably lock this thread as there are enough martingale topics already


Isn't it the same with land-based casinos?

Personally, I don't see a lot of difference between online and "offline" casinos, at least as long as bets are not rigged (in either). I mean land-based casinos are as "digital" (in terms of outcomes, like odd or even, black or red, etc) as online ones. If you refer to bet outcomes and their randomness, then I would likely agree with you. However, if an online casino uses a hardware random number generator based on some physical process, there should be no particular difference in this regard, i.e. how random the outcomes are (if that was your point)


Was it not worthless "back then"?

I think as long as you don't go for free coins, you should be okay. It is the massive abuse of faucets and similar giveaways that make casinos demand that you use only one account, so they will likely turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to your "account farming" (if I can say so) as long as you play only with your own coins (to be clear, I don't endorse account farming in whatever form anywhere)

With that said, though, if your pack of accounts starts to bleed the casino bankroll dry (since this is what you seem to be after anyway), they will likely use this as a pretext to ban all your accounts and lock you out of your money even if multiple accounts are explicitly allowed in the casino's terms of use. People have reported some casinos demanding that players provide personal info when the latter wanted to withdraw their winnings

The bottom line is that don't let them become suspicious of your activity at all times (but you already know that)

In fact, I can confirm that

But you consider only one variable, which is generally a good idea and the correct thing to do, though not in this case. Simply put, you don't have to keep all other settings the same from the outset of your martingale journey. And I don't do that either. Since the "likelihood of hitting an (n+1) losing streak is increasing faster than your balance is doubling", you can easily counterbalance this increase with other adjustments

Personally, I increase the win chance, and that gives me some peace of mind. You can do that too, but it still will be only in your mind, and purely psychological in nature because technically, this probability doesn't increase at all, no matter how many rolls you have made so far. In other words, you rolling for 30 years doesn't make the killing streak any closer for the simple reason it remains as far in the future as ever before (statistically speaking)

I'm not sure I'm able to follow your thought through (I tried, really and hard). Care to explain in more layman terms what it is about?


22248573. Yeah, you read it right, I rolled over 22 million times at WB since July 24 (just in case, I'm still rolling). I think I can safely assume that during this rolling marathon I've seen quite a few outliers. And you know what? They definitely come in packs (maybe that's because of the casino's prime theme, if you know what I mean). For example, you can roll for a whole week and see nothing of interest. Then you witness 2-3 massive outliers within a single day that will give you jitters and make you sweat. You kinda come to expect them in series, and that's a real thing with your skin in the game, not something to be discarded as inconsequential

So much for the so-called randomness

But does it really matter?

Well, it does indeed, though not necessarily in the way you describe it in your post. What I mean is that it all ultimately comes down to whether it (in this case TA) helps you earn dough or not. This is what counts in the end, at least as far as profits are concerned (forum discussions, debates, and fights aside)

My point is, if people say that something like TA doesn't work while it does (for you personally, or in general), why would you give a slightest fuck about their opinion to the contrary? In fact, you should be happy when they say such things as there will be less competition for you, right?

The better question to ask here is why some people think that way in the first place

I mean what are their true motives for claiming that hiding under the "hidden" status should be "outlawed" (if I may say so)? Personally, I don't feel that way at all (read, I'm totally cool with high rollers not wanting to go public), so I can't come up with anything that would explain their incentives through comparison or analogy. So what is actually driving these people? What makes them come up here time and again with the same idea worded differently?

We have already seen quite a few explicit as well as hidden (yeah, sounds like a pun to me) accusations that the casino is cheating, while the "hidden" players are the casino itself. But you needn't be an Einstein to understand that it is a stupid assumption (bordering on slander) as the casino can easily create as many visible accounts as they see appropriate. I mean if they were to cheat (to be explicit, I don't mean they are). Then what is it?

Well, let's discuss it


It is not like I just saw that picture and decided to start a discussion here

It means I came prepared for a thorough clash of opinions. Here's my story (for the sake of "practical use of randomness"). I have an acquaintance which I hadn't seen since like 2012 till this summer. We met in last July, and we both made a point that we hadn't seen each other for about 7 years. Then he said that we would likely not see each other again for another 7 years

Obviously, I expected better as I was already well aware that random events of the same type have a tendency to come together, one after another. And what do you think? In a week or so I met him again in a totally different place under totally different circumstances (even at a different time of the day, for that matter). He was surprised but I definitely was not. In fact, I actually felt like we were going to meet again pretty soon (this is the practical part of all it)

But then it was my turn to be surprised as in a couple of days we met once more in a completely different setting (needless to say that my acquaintance was completely flabbergasted). Me, I didn't really expect that such an event was going to repeat itself again, either, as I thought these two encounters in so short a timespan was more than enough. And we haven't seen each other since summer (and probably won't for another 7 years, right)

That said, I don't know how it can possibly trump "human perception of randomness" as this perception, as you call it, allows to override the randomness of something, and make decisions precisely based on that randomness (or rather its override). I don't know either how that can be construed as an impractical use of randomness as it is quite the opposite. To sum it up, if you encounter something ostensibly random and seldom, expect more of it in about or around


Then what about stars being grouped in galaxies? This grouping is said to be entirely random as otherwise the whole theory of the Big Bang doesn't hold. I think you can't go beyond that as far as randomness is concerned as there is no manifestation of randomness of a larger scale. Is this an optical illusion too according to you?

Martingale plays this urge to perfection

You make a roll, and you expectedly lose. Well, maybe after a couple of rolls, or even a dozen, it doesn't really matter (you get the point). Then you double or even triple your last bet so as not only to recover what you lost at a previous roll (a series of rolls) but also earn something above that

If you ask me, this is the right way to handle your losses in case you are actually going to chase them. In other words, martingale is the way to deal with your emotions as you come prepared for the losses (even though this approach doesn't guarantee you won't bust later, of course)