|
I've been playing the free roll portion of this site for a couple years, and reliably. (I would guess my average is 7 times a day, but I have stretches where I'm in the high teens for several days in a row.) I estimate that to be at least 5,000 thousand free rolls. I don't believe I've ever hit above Tier 3. So I'm happy for you guys who hit these rare tiers, but also jealous.
It's possible I've hit Tier 4 and forgotten, but I know for a fact I've never hit either of the top two tiers. Still, no complaints about a free game.
|
|
|
|
Go in with reasonable expectations. The house edge is 1% (less than?). That means in the long run, the house can expect 1% of the wagered amount in profits. Then divide the expected profit by your percentage of the bankroll. If you're investing a significant amount into the bankroll, perhaps that will be worth it. However, and this is a personal opinion here, being locked into a long term investment that's denominated in an extremely volatile currency for a (likely) small profit upside is extremely risky. Just be aware of how risky it is. Everyone is at the height of optimism right now because we've had steady price appreciation for a string of months. Remember that optimism is at it's highest point right before bubbles pop. Bitcoin in 2012, housing in 2007, dot com in 1999... None of these investors thought they could lose money.
Just be aware of the risks is all I'm saying, because they're much deeper than it appears on the surface.
Yeah, definitely good advice. Right now our turn over is pretty good (our bankroll is ~640 BTC and we do around 2000 bitcoin of volume a day). Obviously things will change considerable with outside investors inflating the bankroll, but hopefully there will also be a corresponding increase in volume as we can appeal to larger gamblers. Anyway, i think I'll call it "bankroll gambling" instead of "investing" to set proper expectations (even though it'll be +EV and +expected bankroll growth) as it's pretty insanely risky I like calling it "bankroll gambling" as an indicator that it's risky. People to tend to treat anything related to bitcoin investing like something that can't lose money, whether it be just buying the currency, or buying into a casino type business. The risks aren't because of bustabit exactly, the risk is more related to bitcoin itself. But the risk is pretty unique to the way you're structuring it though by incentivizing long term investments. I think that's a good thing for the site, but I think that a lot of the people you're going to get rolled up into it aren't at all aware of the risk they'd be taking on. |
|
|
|
Halving should help BTC price move up (on the average through time). Certainly The Halving likely contributed some to BTC's nice trajectory up in 2016.
Since a large component of an asset's value is the expectation of what it should be worth, it's interesting to me to wonder how much of that is because of fundamental economic law and how much is because of what people expected to happen because of an overly simplistic application of fundamental economic law. Appreciation related to the halving could just be a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. the price rises because everyone expects it to rise. |
|
|
|
Of course we are all waiting or will be really glad when bitcoin's price drops to 100$. If that would happen many people will panic buy and hoard it to sell it to higher price. But large whales would not let that happen. It is like trading where you always miss the right time to buy because you are having doubts to it. You will regret once you saw it is already in a high price and blaming yourself for not buying while its cheap.
I dont think i will be glad, if bitcoin drop that low its mean something wrong with bitcoin, nobody is spending bitcoin anymore, it can caused bitcoin to become no value anymore, i prefer bitcoin to stay in 700$ in a stable condition When bitcoin fell from $1200 to $200 over the course of a few years, was there something wrong with it? It essentially was unchanged, the only thing that changed was everyone's perception of it. There was nothing "wrong" with bitcoin, it was just a case of the bubble popping. I'm not unconvinced that the current $950 price level isn't another bubble, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the price collapse again. (Hoping not, but wouldn't be surprised still if it did.) That wouldn't necessarily signal anything is wrong with bitcoin if the price crashed again, it would just indicate that everyone once again got carried away with their expectations for the currency and its value. |
|
|
|
I think that a electronic currency like bitcoin can replace fiat easy in a few year.
For example look at sweden, they are paying now only elecronic, even small amounts,
they have now no normal fiat money anymore, so when this is possible in sweden, why not in every country?
The rise of digital fiat doesn't mean bitcoin is more likely to displace it. In fact, I would think it means it is less likely to displace it. One advantage bitcoin had over physical fiat is that it was digital and nearly instant. This advantage disappears with digital fiat, which is just as instantaneous, and further, bitcoin is not as versatile as fiat as a currency. Bitcoin has far too many obstacles to overcome to replace digital fiat. |
|
|
|
Some day I sure bitcoin can replace fiat, we know fiat is is not relevant to the economy and free trade.
But it is a basic true that bitcoin cannot replace fiat, fiat has been and will forever be the way to exchange money between people directly, bitcoin appeared first to make exchanging money over the internet much easier so it has always been related to the internet but if the internet goes down so is the bitcoin and then what is the thing that is goanna run the economy for sure it is the fiat money. i agree. physical money is still the way most transactions are normally done every single day. it's government ran. it's accessible to most people. it doesn't need online connection. bitcoin is good for transferring money and doing online transactions but it still is dependent on whether there is online access. compared to fiat, which as you've said is how most transactions were done, bitcoin would require a lot more to be fully accepted and i think with how things are going now, fiat would still be the major form of currency that we will all have even in the future Not really cash is being displaced very fast in the developed countries like Sweden where most of the transactions are electronic and not with cash, cash is still prevalent in places where you may not have a strong banking sector. I think we are at or nearing the point where digital cash is displacing physical cash in all western economies. America definitely has increased use of digital transfers over physical banknotes, and I would suspect it is just as true in most places in the west. (With a strong banking sector, of course. That's a prerequisite.) |
|
|
|
I do not agree with you completely. Among the sites you have mentioned here, is a mix of trading and casino sites. And I will not vouch for casino websites in any way as it is a great source of loosing your money.
The best investment for bitcoin is to store it and not to spend it. Storing bitcoin is a great investment and can fetch you a much higher return compared to any conventional investment. Also trading can be a great source of income but only if you know how to play it right. So yes, storing and trading is ok for investment but not p2p or casinos.
Buying and holding a speculative asset is just a form of gambling. It is no better than the casinos you say are a great source of losing money. And bitcoin is not a business. It doesn't generate any profit, so buying it in hopes of making money is speculation. (Same thing for gold, or any other precious metal.) Speculation is the riskiest type of investing, because it is essentially gambling. |
|
|
|
I also feel like 10% is a bit of a rough fee. People who invest bitcoin seem to often divest and cashout. Then later they would come and invest again. Maybe it should be changed slightly?
That's also rather intentional, as it is designed to create stable investors. If there's a ~10% entrance fee (which goes to other investors, not me) it makes it more difficult to "day trade" and attract investors who are more willing to weather a storm. I was also hoping (down the line) to do some stuff that is rather terrible for investors, without worrying about the smart/active ones divesting. Like one thing I was hoping to do is have a periodic "charity hour" where all profits from that hour will go to a charity (that takes bitcoin) e.g. "Red Cross Charity Hour". And any loses from a charity hour would be carried forward to the next. I think it'd be fun for players, good marketing, help good causes etc. But since during those times investors would have no upside (and only downside) it's nice to incentivize them to not just temporarily divest. Although I should try avoid getting too far sidetracked with that, but it's fun to think about =) Okay, I see your point there. Obviously only serious investors would invest in a case where they would be charged 10%. Guess I'll just have to make sure to invest early if I plan on doing so  Hopefully the returns will be good so that the potential 10% fee would seem even remotely worth it for new investors. Go in with reasonable expectations. The house edge is 1% (less than?). That means in the long run, the house can expect 1% of the wagered amount in profits. Then divide the expected profit by your percentage of the bankroll. If you're investing a significant amount into the bankroll, perhaps that will be worth it. However, and this is a personal opinion here, being locked into a long term investment that's denominated in an extremely volatile currency for a (likely) small profit upside is extremely risky. Just be aware of how risky it is. Everyone is at the height of optimism right now because we've had steady price appreciation for a string of months. Remember that optimism is at it's highest point right before bubbles pop. Bitcoin in 2012, housing in 2007, dot com in 1999... None of these investors thought they could lose money. Just be aware of the risks is all I'm saying, because they're much deeper than it appears on the surface. |
|
|
|
Without the halving at bitcoin, and allowing all people to get the same reward of 50 bitcoin block, we would be with all coins mined and the possible value of bitcoin would be around 100-300 dollars, i doubt we would see bitcoin achieving bigger values, soo yes the halving does have a huge influence over bitcoin value.
this doesn't make any sense because it is not just about mining all the coins as fast as possible, it is more about reducing the speed of the inflation and let the miners be able to earn a nice reward as the adoption grows. if we mine it all and then want to rely on fees for mining reward miners will end up with nothing and bitcoin is not yet adopted so price is still low. but with this way (with halving) the process is slowed down and miners are still gaining good reward. It's weird how excited people get over halvings as though it is an automatic guarantee of it being valuable profit wise. Yes, people take an overly simplistic economic idea (Bitcoin has far more variables at play than simple supply and demand), and an extremely limited number of available data points that support the assumption, and that equates into indisputable proof that price could never fall after a halving. To be fair, this failure of logic isn't unique to Bitcoin. It permeates every corner of the Internet. |
|
|
|
Eventually Bitcoin will halve to the point where fees will have to increase dramatically to offset the lost income from new coin fees. I can't see that being a good thing for the currency or adoption. A major advantage now is transaction fees relative to alternative methods of value transfer. If the transaction fees become unwieldy, Bitcoin could collapse.
It seems to me that this is a good process. This eliminates Bitcoin from devaluation and inflation. Yes, for the miners is bad. But do not forget that thanks to Bitcoin becomes more expensive Halving contributed to price increases of coins (in theory), but it also increases the the transaction fee miners demand to offset new coin generation rewards. The increase in transaction cost decreases bitcoins viability as a payment medium, which over the long run will hurt the price. |
|
|
|
Hi. I read fast this thread and i see that one user win 200$ . I want ask him if he deposit some considerent amount of bitcoin before he win big prize?
He won it on the free spin portion of the site. There was no need to deposit in order to win. It wasn't a gambling win, so even if he had deposited coins to gamble with, that wouldn't have had an impact on the hourly free spin portion. |
|
|
|
passive income would be earning through signature campaigns which would be beneficial to u.if u want to earn through gambling u can earn it then u can earn it otherwise u might get addicted to gambling.well if u get used to it ,otherwise go for cloud mining.
Signature campaigns may earn you some but they are not high payouts for a low rank account, you need to rank it up and improve the quality in order to get in a good one that pays, gambling is risky but rewarding, but the risk here is higher so the best way for me to ern some extra cash is looking for some micro jobs that are suited for my skills. You guys don't understand what passive income is. A signature campaign is an active income, you have to participate in the forum, contribute and you have to do it weekly, or no payment! It's a normal job, even if you like posting and you'd do it for free it still requires some time and effort. Passive income is for instance when you have a piece of land and someone decides to put a billboard on it and pay you each month for having it there. You can do whatever you like, even get drunk every day and grill out with your friends and the money will be flowing to your account. The one way I can kinda see what they're saying is if you're talking about a signature campaign on top of what you're already doing. So if you're an active participant on these boards and are reading and commenting anyway, if you slap a signature on your account and are then paid for generating content, which you would have generated anyway, in a sense you could consider that passive income. It's still not, because the the payment is directly related to an action, but I can at least see where some people are getting hung up on that distinction. |
|
|
|
I want to reverse the question and ask; If gold price is $10000, will fiat be worthless? Is there any difference? Moreover when someone bought two pizzas with 10000 Btcs was a clue that btc was worthless? Some people need to understand that fiat is currency and there are strong and weak fiat money. In addition there are strong and weak cryptocurrencies too. So, If people decide that a monetary system is worthless they will ban it from their life. I believe that after the next generation people they use only digital money not because of bitcoin price but because of internet and human needs.
Since gold (or any asset) trades relative to the underlying currency it is valued in, in order for gold to be worth $10,000, the dollar by definition has to depreciate. When gold drops in price, people generally say oh that's gold becoming less valuable, but it is also true that it is the dollar becoming more valuable relative to gold. When gold or bitcoin are worth $10,000, whether you see that as the asset becoming more valuable or the currency becoming less valuable, the fiat currency still is not "worthless." As for your last point, it is entirely possible for digital currency to become the norm without cryptocurrency being the norm. Consider, for example, that the majority of the transactions in western economies are already digital, it's just digital fiat. |
|
|
|
Further complicating was his screenshot of the chat where your mod seemed to concede that there are known issues with gambler-side disconnects. But since your site doesn't claim that there is immediate bet termination on connection interruption, that's not something gamblers can count on, and I am satisfied with the explanations you offered. It makes total sense that on player-side disconnect, the game runs based on the auto cash out value.
I didn't notice that conversation before, but I think Dexon was playing with an old version of the code that attempted to detect disconnects and cash people out, and was commenting about how unreliable it is (which is why it's removed). If you want to detect client disconnects, you need to keep pinging the client and based on a lack of response disconnect them. If you use 15 seconds for instance, there's very few false positives but it's almost useless (the game will have almost certainly already busted). And if you use a timeout of like 2 seconds, you catch most disconnects in time, but then players who got hit by false positives (e.g. temporary lag) and got cashed out would be infuriated and feel like they were cheated. ("Omg, it lagged AND i got cashed out early AND i should've won!) So I think what has works best, is just always relying on the "auto cash out" and players making sure to always use an auto cash out that they are comfortable with Yeah, thanks for the explanation. I get why you would have removed the code. For something like that to be a feature, it needs to work reliably, and anything less than that is a huge problem for you and the gambler. With a game that relies so heavily on precise timing, any lag issues are a huge potential problem, and are far more work than they are worth attempting to compensate for. |
|
|
|
Good explanation. I was also under the impression that if you disconnect, your game was terminated immediately, and so I was trying to reconcile this with what happened here. But it would make sense that on the server end, the game would continue to run to your predetermined bet cashout. Can Ryan just confirm that this is how it does work and how it is intended to work? That on player-side disconnect, the game runs until the predetermined cashout point? If so, the player has no legitimate claim for refund. (If the game did go past 100x on his disconnect and he was auto-cashed out despite being disconnected, I doubt he'd be offering the money back because that's what is "fair.")
Basically in bustabit you can be cashed out by one of three things: a) Sending a "cashOut" event to the server (e.g. manually hitting the button). b) Force cashout (basically the max profit gets hit, and the server forces you to take the money) c) Your "auto cash out" value, which is done server side (and there's no interference by lag/latency or what not). In the past, we used to have a forth option -- which was a "best effort" disconnection detection. However it was extremely unreliable (as there's no way possible way on the internet for a server to immediately and reliably know when someone disconnects). The best you can do is if they're not responding to pings for X milliseconds, then assume they've disconnected. However there were a lot of false positives, and people accusing me of cheating them with this (which completely wasn't the case, but I can understand why it might have looked like it) so I ended up just totally removed it. I've once had a user who hit something like 2.3 BTC due to hitting a 1100x due to disconnecting (while they were intending to play conservatively, with a small amount of money). Obviously they got happily got the money, and it would've been totally unreasonable for me to expect or want it back etc. The reality is if that if there is lag (or even disconnects) bustabit doesn't really make any more money, it just uses the risk/reward from your "auto cash out" value. So it's not really possible for us to give refunds (especially for a thing that is impossible to know from the servers point of view, so it would be abused by scammers). (I've spent a great amount of time an energy explaining and providing information to the guy about this, but he seems more interested in threats and getting me to to pay to delete his posts. I told him at the onset that I don't give in to blackmail, but I guess some people need to learn the hard way ). I really think it'd be best if we just collectively ignore him, to save everyone the trouble. I totally get that, it's clear now that this has devolved into a blackmail type of issue. Not that it matters for much, but as a neutral party, I totally agree with the stance you've taken. My only concern was that he might have had a point (although not communicated terribly well) to expect that on disconnect from his side, his bet would have immediately terminated. Since I thought that was how it worked too, I just wanted clarification on the issue, because it seemed from the public discussion that it could have been a misunderstanding of points (you having a zero refund policy for "losing bets" and his contention that it shouldn't have been a "losing bet" to begin with but for your software error) and I didn't see that basic issue being addressed, but rather both sides arguing further past it. Further complicating was his screenshot of the chat where your mod seemed to concede that there are known issues with gambler-side disconnects. But since your site doesn't claim that there is immediate bet termination on connection interruption, that's not something gamblers can count on, and I am satisfied with the explanations you offered. It makes total sense that on player-side disconnect, the game runs based on the auto cash out value. The risk of that happening is on the gambler, and small as it is, it can be mitigated by not setting an extremely high auto cash out threshold (e.g. 100x), and further by not playing from mobile when you have spotty reception, as someone previously rightly pointed out. |
|
|
|
So Just a Bit Of A Up Date on BUSTABIT AKA RYAN He Still Has not sent me a email trying to pay the .052 that was lost by his server connection issues. His own Developer Helper even stated when disconnected it should cashed out. Though i don't see how the 30k bet happend 2 bets later and i wasn't able to cancel nor stop it But, just went and made a report and will be sending to ican and a few other places. I will say this BUSTABIT does not fix problems if they occur they ignore them and try to justify it. Proof is in the puddin baby!! http://bustabit.weebly.com/discover.htmlHere's what I gather from your poorly written (seriously, if you want people to take you seriously you should try to write above a third grade level) site: You submitted a bet. The bet was 22k @ 100x cash out. You lost connection. When this happens, the game keeps running! The last input the game had from you was that you wanted to cash out @100x. If you aren't there to hit "Cash Out", you aren't cashed out. This isn't a flaw in the system, it's how the game works. You have to tell it when to cash out, it doesn't magically read your mind (or your internet connection). Your connection dropped (this is very likely on your end since I'm not reading anyone else saying that they were disconnected...this is why you need to make sure you are playing from a secure, steady connection) and the game crashed before it hit 100x. So you lost. Womp-womp. You got reconnected, saw that you lost, and decided to place a 30k bet @ 100x. You got disconnected again (I'd imagine it's because you were playing from mobile with 1.5 bars of 3g connection) and the same thing happened...the game crashed before it hit your designated (100x) cash out point. I'm failing to see how any of this is anyone's fault but your own. This is a good explanation. I was also under the impression that if you disconnect, your game was terminated immediately, and so I was trying to reconcile this with what happened here. But it would make sense that on the server end, the game would continue to run to your predetermined bet cashout. Can Ryan just confirm that this is how it does work and how it is intended to work? That on player-side disconnect, the game runs until the predetermined cashout point? If so, the player has no legitimate claim for refund. (If the game did go past 100x on his disconnect and he was auto-cashed out despite being disconnected, I doubt he'd be offering the money back because that's what is "fair.") |
|
|
|
Just to let you guys know a big crash is coming in 2016 in the economy. There is going to be a huge financial crisis but it will be worse than 2009.
The bitcoin price will skyrocket to over $10,000. However bitcoin will be banned in all western countries. If you are reading this living in the west you should make preparations to move to Russia or China they are the only places you will be safe owning bitcoins.
The crisis will be so big it will destroy entire countries and in 2017 there will be a civil war in the USA, UK and western europe. After this the world will never be the same again it will change so much by 2020 it will be unrecognizable compared to today.
May all of your economic crises be as bad as they were in 2016. I'm calling it early: Prediction FailIf you're going to be wrong in your predictions, you might as well be wrong huge. Calling for a market crash was the most likely of the outlandish predictions OP made. Market crashes are at least fairly common. You're not going out on a huge limb by predicting one of those in any given year. But look at the rest: Bitcoin to 10,000? Big nope. Bitcoin outlawed in western nations? Lol. Civil war in the USA? Well, came closer there than he intended with the election of Trump. |
|
|
|
My opinion is that bitcoin has more room to grow than gold. So it would be wise to go for bitcoin. If you wish to further diversify your portfolio, then add some gold to your holdings.
Its true that Bitcoin has a large potential to grow your wealth, but also nowadays, many countries are getting band and also its volatile and many other factors making it too risky. So, Gold is obviously safe sided holding. But a risk taker will always choose Bitcoin to invest in. We don't want to play safe all the time, gold is only good when you have a lot of money to invest as you are already satisfied even with small amount of growth. For people like us who does not have a lot but hoping your grow our money fast, we see that bitcoin can offer than to us. Gold is an investment which is suitable for anyone. It doesn't matter whether you have $50 or $50,000 with you. And it is one of the safest form of investment. From the market trends, at least a 5% annualized return is guaranteed with gold. The same can't be said about Bitcoin. There is a chance that you will lose up to 80% of your investment, if something goes wrong. The bolded part is demonstrably false. Gold is not a guaranteed return, and further, it's not 5% annualized! First, no return is guaranteed. Having a guaranteed return defies the laws of economics. All investments are varying degrees of risk, and that risk means a loss of capital. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment, not in gold, and not in anything else. More importantly, gold has lost significant value at times, and recently too. |
|
|
|
Lookit the stocka market an' how high it is lately. It don't take much brains or eyes to see dat a crash is overdoo. Lookit the DOW, it's almost 20,000! I thank these here low interest rates have done got niggas addicted to borrowin' cash. Then wit tha cheap money, they buyin' stocks, bitcoin, shit coins, SUVs, plastic surgery, illegal drugs, camoflauge underwear, and evverythin' else you can think up. Ain't no wonder bitcoin is almost a thousand smackers!
Looking at an arbitrary number (like 20,000 for the Dow) without any context isn't a fruitful exercise. You have to look at the fundamentals underlying the recent rise in equity prices. If the companies that make up the Dow index are more profitable, it makes sense for the Dow companies to post price increases. When we've had massive crashes, like the dot com crash for example, the prices of the NASDAQ did not track increases in profitability. It was a bubble because the prices increased despite all these companies not having any profits to show. Obviously, that isn't sustainable, and the market crashed, as it should have. That's not the same as what is happening now, as the PE ratios of companies are within historical norms. There's no reason to think that the Dow is due for a crash just because it's nearing 20,000. |
|
|
|
Selling everything is not good at all and I think it can really let you lose a lot of profit when you do this right now.
you are right that selling bitcoin is not good for right now because bitcoin price going to rise too much faster and maximum people holding their bitcoin for the future and i am sure they will be get a big profit from bitcoin in the next year when bitcoin more rise its price . yeah you are right that selling bitcoin is not good for now because bitcoin increasing its price too much faster so its good hold your bitcoin and people getting profit in big amount through holding their bitcoin. Wait until next year then sell  Next year is good because we know before the year ennds price of bitcoin it will pump so it is good to sell but if you really want to hold a little bit its okay i think next year it will pump but not like this year it is fast pumping thats why the price now is big I don't think that next year the pump is still guaranteed. I should say that if you want to sell, this time is already a good time to sell your bitcoins. But if you are just satisfied with the current price and if you want to sell all, then sell all. Or if you want to sell some and still save some, that's better thing to do. Because I think the major dump will happen this January or February. I garantuee you that the prices will be going to go up next year aswell, we have reached 900 in the hardest time of the year, christmas, THE time in which everyone spends all their money. I could agree with you that this is a good price to sell since it is one of the highest prices for bitcoin ever, but i feel that there is alot more to come, patience is key! Honestly i don't expect any big pumps unless something big happens (fiat crash etc) Imo Bitcoin prices are jsut steadily going to raise in the near future. At this point, it is institutional investors who are moving the price on a large scale. Bitcoin's market cap is over $14 billion USD. There are not individual "whales" large enough anymore to significantly move the price. Major buying by institutional investors (hedge funds), which are increasingly getting involved in crypto, are likely the reason it is moving. So people who buy bitcoin in hundred dollar increments through coinbase or other exchanges are increasingly becoming a smaller share of the pie. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
