ETH można wybronić tym że samo posiadanie ethereum nie gwarantuje udziału w nagrodach za walidację bloków bo tak naprawde dostajesz nagrody za prowadzenie noda, nie za sam fakt posiadania ethereum. Wymagany depozyt to 32 ETH i, jeśli sie nie mylę, przy stake'owaniu solo udział w nagrodach nie jest proporcjonalny do posiadanego depozytu (tzn. dostaniesz tyle samo czy masz 32 eth, czy np. 50 eth).  Oczywiście inaczej to wygląda przy stake'owaniu w poolah czy na CEXach.
Dodatkowo sieć Ethereum jest zdecentralizowana i cena tokena nie zależy od wyników finansowych żadnej organizacji.

Otwarty atak SEC na ETH czy na tokeny giełdowe jest/byłby nieco dziwny bo crypto oparte na PoS czy tokeny giełdowe istnieją już od bardzo dawna przy cichym przyzwoleniu SECu.

Ja osobiście postrzegam SEC bardziej jako narzędzie do działań politycznych w szerzej pojętym interesie USA, niż jako instytucji której nadrzędnym celem jest ochrona inwestorów. Dlatego nie spodziewam się żadnych konkretnych deklaracji co do tego czy ETH jest, czy nie jest "security" - bo wygodniej im stać w rozkroku z bacikiem nad głowami i czekać jak sytuacja się rozwinie.

Atak na BNB jest o wiele bardziej prawdopodobny w ramach rozgrywek USA Vs. Chiny (wg teorii że Binance powstał i rozwinął sie dzięki wsparciu chińskiego rządu). Nie sądze żeby Amerykanie byli specjalnie chętni pozwolić Binance'owi na przejęcie kontroli nad światowym rynkiem krypto.

This is just a simplified, easy-to-understand example of a potential real-life scenario, such as e.g. a sports bet with miscalculated odds (as mentioned in the discussion somewhere above), where you don't have any guarantee that a similar opportunity would happen ever again.


The EV formula presented is widely used in many areas, not only in gambling (i.e. as a business decision-making tool), and does not only work when you have an unlimited number of attempts and does not represent a guaranteed outcome.

But yeah, if you want to see +BTC1.04 average profit on each bet, you'd need to be able to place an unlimited number of bets. But that's not what this thread is about.

I agree, if it's a major problem for campaign manager, they could just add an extra rule in the campaign post. But I vaguely remember from the past that some managers would auto-disqualify applicants who applied for other campaigns simultaneously. I was away from this forum for a few years so just wanted to check if there are some unwritten rules nowadays.

Works fine for me, so it has to be something on your end. Try the usual - clear cache and see if it helps. If no luck, try a different browser, I use Brave and occasionally I have problems with some websites not loading properly or at all, but freebitcoin is not one of them.

Just an update for those interested. I knew there must've been some formula for determining bet size and I wasn't wrong. The good old Kelly Criterion could be helpful here (something I completely forgot about) and the formula goes:

f = p-(q/b)

f - is the fraction of the current bankroll to wager.
p - is the probability of a win.
q - is the probability of a loss (q=1-p).
b - is the proportion of the bet gained with a win

So in this case:

f = 0.17 - (0.83/11) = 9.5% of the bankroll

That's much lower than I expected. And of course, applying Kelly Strategy is not a guarantee of making a profit, and the strategy is designed to do better than other strategies in the long run, so not necessarily the best way of determining a single, non-occurring bet.

What's the current consensus on participants applying for spots in multiple campaigns at the same time?

Is it frowned upon or acceptable?

I could argue both ways:
From the managers' perspective - it's probably a major inconvenience if accepted participants are actually not interested as they went with a different campaign.
From the participants' perspective - applying for one at a time could mean available spots in other campaigns can run out while they're patiently waiting for a response from campaign manager (which can take ages, or they could not respond at all) - which also doesn't sound very fair.

Thoughts?

Looks like the Hunnyplay campaign was re-launched with updated payment rates. That's a significant pay cut compared to original rates, but still quite decent.
As per the description, it's OFNP but only if some of the currently accepted participants decide to leave. Edit - it's now CFNP.

Source:

Hey icopress. I'd like to apply for a spot, for both signature + avatar (whichever's available):

Username: pawel7777
BTC SegWit Address: bc1q79vqvnghljgu926g7gtuhnncq560kc24cur43t


I'll wear the signature/avatar once accepted.
I will edit this post and cross out the above if accepted spot in another campaign.

Not to sound rude or anything, but if you can't scrape together a $100 maybe you shouldn't be thinking about investing just yet and instead focus on developing skills to increase your earning potential. Just saying.

That being said, I think eToro allows deposits of less than $100, I think the minimum was $10 (depending on your location and deposit method) but not sure - but might be worth checking. And remember that majority of traders on such platforms would lose money.

I wouldn't necessarily put this one up as a good example. I have some sympathy for Bukele, but so far, the decision to purchase bitcoins at an average price of around $31k was not a good decision. He would get praise if bitcoin shot up, so, on the same token, he should be to blame if the bitcoin price takes an adverse direction.

There's a big difference between having the balls to take risks with your own funds and wealth and risking someone elses' funds (aka taxpayers' money) pretty much without any responsibility in case of loss.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Of course it does matter (a lot) if you only have one opportunity of making a single +EV bet. If you could do it multiple times then it's a no brainer - absolutely everyone would take such chance.

But when there's no guarantee that similar opportunities will ever arise - that's a whole different story, after all, you are still more likely to lose than to win, so there's also a logic behind not taking that bet.

As mentioned in the posts above - I'd be definitely in favour of taking a bet, but not sure what would be the most sensible approach in determining the right stake for it (or for mispriced underdogs in sports bets).

Quick question - does the affiliate program also work for UK sign ups? They would sign up to Stake.uk.com rather than Stake.com, which doesn't seem to support cryptocurrencies at all, doesn't have an affiliate program, and credentials from "uk.com" do not work on ".com" site, so almost looks like they're separate sites.

Another update just got in:


Link to the amended notice (pdf download) here

As per info on Kroll's website, the Debtors' representative must attend the meeting to be questioned under oath. Creditors (aka BlockFi's customers) may attend, but are not required to do so.

Current number of registered claims: 728. I'm still waiting for the promised electronic version of the claim form though.

Pretty impressive, not gonna lie. Well done, enjoy your winnings.
Do you make such predictions regularly (I got back on this forum after a long break, so am a bit out of the loop)? If so, it might be worth looking out for them.

If the payout was x1 million then I'm sure you'd bet at least $1 despite 83% chance of losing, right?
I'd say it would be a shame not to take advantage of the positive EV opportunity, it's just a matter of choosing the appropriate stake.

And even though, in this scenario, you can only roll once - making decisions based on cold, mathematical analysis rather than giving in to unreasonable risk aversion should make a positive impact on your wealth long-term (be it gambling or other aspects of life).

Obviously don't expect to see any such offer in any casino, but real-life examples close to that scenario would be i.e. incorrectly determined odds in sports betting. I think we can find it most often in MMA betting when some underdogs are given way too little chance of winning (therefore better payout rates). So the question is, what's the best method to determine the stake if you spot such opportunity.

You're taking spamming to the next level sir

"Boxing day" is a 2nd day of Christmas and a public holiday in the UK. It's got nothing to do with boxing, the sport.
OP is discussing football matches, it's not hard to figure out if you actually read the post.

But I'm glad you can appreciate the boxing skills of Stoke lol

Agree, not taking advantage of positive EV is irrational. So it boils down to how to determine a reasonable stake for such bet.
Probably a good rule of thumb would be, for a bet with 17% chance of winning, to not risk more than 17% of available funds. But that's an oversimplified approach.


Good spot. I've corrected the calculation in the OP. Thanks for pointing this out.

Some updates from BlockFi:


As per the embolden part - this would be great news for those who held their funds in "wallet" accounts, but I don't think the court would allow this, as it would be simply unfair to other users who held their funds in "interest" accounts (and other creditors). So I wouldn't get my hopes too high for this one.