Exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain. It will depend on the understanding of every member of the "society", the meaning of "organized" as a "society". AFAIK, every person has their own point of view on things. Since there's no "law", as there's no acting "government", e.g. if one member doesn't agree on the decision of the majority, the said person will tend to do either commit a crime or just accept the situation whatever it may be In fact, there is law And it has always been there. The codified law you implicitly refer to in your post is only a subset of a wider system of unwritten laws and traditions existing in society. So it is not the lack of law as such which would be at the root of potential problems that a society without government would likely encounter but rather the lack of law enforcement, which is part of the government (and therefore, part of the problem). In other words, as soon as we are able to solve this little hindrance, we can happily live without any government and don't sink into lawlessness and chaos soon thereafter This will be possible. But it will only be applicable to very selective-people--people who are as sympathetic as you are, I guess. If these conditions are met, then this "society" will exist We can hope for that, even if it would require a quantum leap of sorts. But at least we don't need evolution for this leap anyway (read, we don't have to wait another few million years) |
|
|
|
Why deposit addresses expire after 24 hours? All gambling websites and exchanges I know allow users to use deposit addresses forever. It's not a big problem. Just curious to know the reason.
Not all IMO, there are still some sites that changes the deposit address after there is one transaction on the address. One of the site is sportsbet unless they have changed the system lately, but indeed most other sites lets users to use one deposit address only so it will be easier for them to make deposit as they do not need to check the deposit address anytime they want to make deposit There is another issue with disposable addresses While most altcoin transactions get confirmed pretty fast (within minutes), it is not uncommon for a Bitcoin transaction to get stuck (due to a low fee, network congestion, or whatever). Sometimes, and I mean it, you have to wait a couple days till it finally gets through. I don't know what happens at wolf.bet in this particular case (i.e. when your address expires with the TX still not confirmed by the network), but this is definitely not what most users would like to check or experience anyway |
|
|
|
It actually goes the other way of the other way, that is, in the original direction toward prices rising (long-term) due to forthcoming halving. I don't think that miners play a significant role in Bitcoin price formation. However, if they do (in some mysterious ways), the halving of the miners reward could in fact be considered as a positive circumstance for Bitcoin since it is assumed that miners can somehow influence the price. Obviously, if their reward goes down, they will be highly incentivized to push the prices up
Whether it is actually so is subject to discussion
No they don't play a major role in price formation of BTC instead they are the ones most affected by the price movement in BTC because only if the price of BTC goes up makes a chance of miners rewards rising up Personally, I'm inclined to think along the same lines But the opponents of this view can be quite vocal and pushy in claiming the opposite view. I can't even recall all their arguments right now (as it was pretty complicated and illogical stuff anyway related to mining costs) but I very well remember how some of them had gone as far as to assert that Bitcoin could never ever drop below 5k. Small wonder, it first dropped below 5k and then 4k shortly thereafter (in November and December 2018, to be exact) But the drop was due to the hash war that time between BCH (Roger Ver and cohorts) and BSV (Craig Wright). The reason behind as others have said, is that some miners switch their gears to either of the two coins, thus affecting the price negatively And why did it affect Bitcoin? I mean the regular one, true and only? Besides, the price had been staying below 4k for too long to indiscriminately attribute that dynamic (or rather static, given the lack of price action at and near the bottom for a couple of months) to the hash war between different Bitcoin copycats, which was mostly an isolated event, in both effect and time On the other hand, Bitcoin had been spiraling down all 2018 since the very beginning of that year and continued to fall well into 2019 (till March, if my memory serves me right). So the hash war was just a small accident and insignificant episode which was unlikely to trigger first the fall of Bitcoin and then its rise |
|
|
|
If you are running the automatic bet, then it does not require you a lot of time. You will just leave it according to the setting you personally prefer and set. Finally, if you claim that you are always winning, I can say 100% that you are bluffing He is not necessarily bluffing If he is sticking to the safe side of things, he may indeed be winning all the time. I mean at the end of each sequence of losses, obviously, as he is using a martingale setup. Honestly, I don't quite understand why people are so unfriendly and hostile in this case. You could in fact win all the time The real problem which people don't see with that is the fact that your winnings will be small bordering on outright pathetic, and you can't make them great (again) as in that case you will expose yourself to the risk of irrecoverable losses and thus stop winning all the time |
|
|
|
And crime rate will increase without tax . The tax is needed by the government not only for insfrastructure , but mostly to help people who cant afford to pay for health services ,piece tax use for as payment for soldier and police . Education for public teacher government will also pay for thier salary.
I don't think the crime rate will be increasing, the chaos might be Chaos is what makes crimes take over society Whenever there is failure of authority and ensuing lack of law enforcement people quickly turn into beasts (Mad Max scenario), so if the reduction of taxes leads to less effective law enforcement, criminals of all sorts will definitely take advantage of this opportunity to get away unscathed with their criminal activities. But overall, it is a complex issue as more law enforcement (read, more taxes) doesn't necessarily lead to more law and order. There should be a balance, middle ground or golden mean of sorts |
|
|
|
And call it a proto-government, leadership, or whatever. But it naturally (as opposed to being forced) comes about only when there is a need for that, i.e. when a certain society becomes too big and complex, making solving issues directly by the consensus prohibitively expensive in terms of effort and time. Thus, they are solved by a group of selected individuals ("government") who are delegated such authority by the consensus. I don't consider the case when this authority is taken by force as we have assumed that it should be natural ("self-inflicted"), not imposed
So, what you're saying is, when it comes to "proto-government, leadership", and ("self-inflicted"), we will rely on trust? So you believe that since a ("government") is unavoidable such as this case, it'll come out naturally? Well, technically, forming a government needs (trust) even if its delegated, but I am not worried about the leader, government whatever ('cause they are "the selected" people) but the other members of the society (the common people). Do you honestly think a society could be as "organized" or even better without an acting "government"? Could you please rephrase your thought? You speak in so vague terms that it is hard to get what you are actually trying to say. Anyway, if something is unavoidable, the issue of trust becomes kinda irrelevant as what is unavoidable will inevitably come about in a "natural way", trust or no trust. Regarding a society being as "organized" or even better without an acting "government", that obviously depends on your understanding of "organized" You might think that I may be against the idea but actually, no. I'm having thoughts on the consequences if this would ever happen. I genuinely think that this could only work if the "society" is comprised of people who respected and trusted everyone, which in case of a human being is quite impossible That's not necessarily so And we don't need to change a human animal in certain ways (think eugenics here). As I'm inclined to think, we could get there when we have a certain level of integration between people as a whole that would allow to have a form of distributed government but without the typical drawbacks as well as overheads of a regular one (think taxes here). Indeed, some things should remain centralized but more and more could be taken and re-delegated back to "people". And it can also be a natural process (read, more or less inevitable and unavoidable) |
|
|
|
It actually goes the other way of the other way, that is, in the original direction toward prices rising (long-term) due to forthcoming halving. I don't think that miners play a significant role in Bitcoin price formation. However, if they do (in some mysterious ways), the halving of the miners reward could in fact be considered as a positive circumstance for Bitcoin since it is assumed that miners can somehow influence the price. Obviously, if their reward goes down, they will be highly incentivized to push the prices up
Whether it is actually so is subject to discussion
No they don't play a major role in price formation of BTC instead they are the ones most affected by the price movement in BTC because only if the price of BTC goes up makes a chance of miners rewards rising up Personally, I'm inclined to think along the same lines But the opponents of this view can be quite vocal and pushy in claiming the opposite view. I can't even recall all their arguments right now (as it was pretty complicated and illogical stuff anyway related to mining costs) but I very well remember how some of them had gone as far as to assert that Bitcoin could never ever drop below 5k. Small wonder, it first dropped below 5k and then 4k shortly thereafter (in November and December 2018, to be exact) |
|
|
|
And now, you're also leaning on not having, as much as possible, any contact with everything the government needs you to do I actually like how well you put that, in a true Orwellian way I refer to that last piece about "everything the government needs you to do". Needs you to do, huh. In real life, it is more like "do it or otherwise". I leave it to you what kind of punishment you can bring on yourself if you don't Well, I can sympathize with that one (it's a pain in the ass). So, you really value anonymity that much? I was leaning on "transparency" by the government, so that fairness on both parties could be realized (more work for them) That's another interesting example Well, if you ask me (since you ask me anyway), I wouldn't call that "fairness" as it is actually a complete reinvention of the term ("we are 35 years late, but we are well on our way"). Fairness assumes somewhat equal conditions (at least, that's how it feels) but the idea of a government pretty much excludes this assumed equality Seriously, why should I care about being fair to someone who is supposed to be inferior to me by my own definition and volition? Wouldn't it be a sadistic turn to ask for fairness in these very unfair circumstances? Regarding anonymity, I don't think it is so much an anonymity issue when you just want to move your wealth around hassle-free I'm really starting to think that you don't like everything that the government requires you to do, and everything about the government trying to do to you I can't prevent you from thinking that (but you are on your own here) |
|
|
|
Теоретически это хорошая идея, я правда не уверен в КПД. Там надо бы что-то такое, чтоб гоняло тепло с минимальными потерями. И неприхотливое в обслуживании, ибо на Венере грустно будет и оборудованию и обслуживающему персоналу Я про Меркурий писал (изменил свой пост, чтобы убрать двусмысленность) Хотя и на Меркурии будет далеко не айс, ибо если на Венере просто тупо жарко, то на Меркурии сначала жарко, а потом холодно (ну или сначала холодно, а потом жарко). И еще надо посмотреть, что лучше, а что хуже - просто высокая температура (в относительно разумных пределах), или ее зверские перепады от +450 градусов Цельсия (такая же как и на Венере) до почти -200 градусов (почти как на Плутоне). Потому что день длинный, а ночи короткие (зачеркнуто) ночи тоже длинные |
|
|
|
A thing I liked at wolf.bet it's subsatoshis in balances, I never seen it in dice, actually it makes it more profitable to play with uncommon multiplier That's definitely a nice feature Especially when you want to build your own betting strategies using tables and need to know exactly how things get calculated with these subunits. But technically, if you don't see lower denominations at other casinos, it doesn't mean that they are not using these subunits internally before rounding up the outcomes to the lowest possible denomination as they then get displayed. I read somewhere that certain exchanges (not casinos but still) actually use 16 digits after the decimal points for their calculations |
|
|
|
Куда рациональнее уже солнечные батареи на Меркурий кинуть и тоннель построить длинной в пару тысяч(или даже десятков тысяч) км длиной, чтоб достать до уровня минусовых температур и азот там гонять Туннель - это, как говорится, геморрой (зачеркнуто) overkill На Меркурии нет атмосферы (сдуло), в отличие от той же Венеры, которая дальше от Солнца, но в целом горячее за счет парникового эффекта. Поэтому за ночь та половина Меркурия, которая находится в тени, успевает охладиться до лютого холода (ибо день там длится чуть меньше местного года), поэтому достаточно просто иметь кабель с одной стороны планеты до другой. Можно еще сделать элемент Пельтье, только наоборот (как он там правильно называется). Хотя элемент Пельтье, наверное, тоже можно сделать Ты хочешь им охлаждать асики? Я не юрист (зачеркнуто) физик, но разве (теоретически) нельзя? |
|
|
|
Вот ты знаешь, EOS реально очень ликвидная монета, торгуется более чем на 100 сильнейших биржах. При том что суточные объемы всегда выше 1 млрд дол. Я бы EOS отнес к недооцененным Альткоинам, на данном ценовом диапазоне можно закупиться Ликвидность Йоси действительно высока Но тому есть простое объяснение. Суть в том, что транзакции на этой монете очень быстрые и бесплатные, т.е. ею удобно пользоваться как обеспечением на таких биржах как Феникс. Например, у нас открыта солидная маржинальная позиция на бирже, которую мы обеспечиваем минимумом средств (в целях снижения рисков третьих лиц, т.е. потери средств по вине бирже) В том случае, когда цена идет не в нашу пользу, с помощью Йоси мы можем быстро добавить необходимое обеспечение. Соответственно, при движении ценника в нашу сторону, мы можем это обеспечение уменьшить за счет бесплатного вывода ликвидности. Наверняка, есть еще какие-то подобные сферы применения, где такие особенности имеют важное значение (арбитраж, например) |
|
|
|
As for halving, it is far from the fact that the price will rise, halving can play the other way, given that the hash rate is constantly growing, and the reward to miners will fall by two It actually goes the other way of the other way, that is, in the original direction toward prices rising (long-term) due to forthcoming halving. I don't think that miners play a significant role in Bitcoin price formation. However, if they do (in some mysterious ways), the halving of the miners reward could in fact be considered as a positive circumstance for Bitcoin since it is assumed that miners can somehow influence the price. Obviously, if their reward goes down, they will be highly incentivized to push the prices up Whether it is actually so is subject to discussion |
|
|
|
This is the main difference from the last bull market to this time round - the introduction of institutional investors. The reason why BTC dominance was so low was because retail investors are more prone to FOMO, and seeking quick profits, without restraints in terms of risk I think we should first define institutional investors here Who are they and whom do they represent? Regardless, institutional investors should be buying, right? So why are the prices falling now when they should be rising? What I mean to say is that there are unlikely any new institutional investors apart from those who have been in crypto since long ago (like the Winklevoss twins and their likes). The bottom line is that Bitcoin is still too speculative to interest big guns big time, and it will remain like that for the times to come (until it gets somewhere beside relentless speculation) |
|
|
|
Прямо перед мной стоял продуманный мужик лет пятидесяти, который долго и упорно пытался расплатиться телефоном. Сначала он на нем что-то набирал (пароль, видимо), потом он его стал прикладывать к терминалу на кассе. И так и сяк прикладывал, ничего не получалось (возможно, не той стороной прикладывал). Потом плюнул и стал пытаться расплатиться банковской карточкой. С карточкой такая же фигня приключилась (потом вроде расплатился с третьей попытки). Я прямо спиной чувствовал, как очередь позади меня была готова порвать этого мужика на американский (зачеркнуто) британский флаг
в данном конкретном случае технологии совершенно не причем. виноват сам мужик, а если быть точнее, его руки, произрастающие из неправильного места. и глупо было бы изза одного вот такого индивидуума очернять всю суть шикарной(как по мне) технологии бесконтактной передачи данных на небольшие расстояния(NFC) Ну так я как бы с этим особо и не спорю Другое дело, что у 146 (зачеркнуто) 99 процентов остальной переписи местного населения рук тогда вообще нет. Ну неудобно расплачиваться телефоном, неудобно. Сколько раз это нужно повторить (зачеркнуто) увидеть своими глазами, чтобы понять эту нехитрую истину? Ну это примерно как бухгалтера заставить считать на калькуляторе Windows, когда проще, удобнее и быстрее считать на счетах (зачеркнуто) нормальном калькуляторе (на МК-85, например) Конечно люди не идеальны ведь им свойственно ошибаться, а вот машины не должны ошибаться, тут вопрос в человеческом факторе Думаю, есть некий условный предел сложности, который не позволит использовать определенную технологию в массовом порядке не потому, что она плоха сама по себе, а по причине как раз человеческого фактора (слишком интеллектуальна для бездумного использования в автоматическом режиме) |
|
|
|
Min bet on wolfbet is 0.00000001 DOGE. If you had 10 doge from free faucet you can survive up to 29 losing bets in a raw and still go into profit after next bet. If I'm not wrong Its 1: 500 M (or 250 M). It means that killing strike has probability of 1:250 M. Extreme unlucky gambler will hit killing strike after first bet I'm still very far from any of these (1T, 1B or just 250M bets) Regardless, as long as you don't bust, the killing streak doesn't get closer either (the direct inference from bets being independent of each other). It doesn't mean that you can't or won't bust, it means that when you do, it shall be an extreme outlier. But before you see such an outlier coming your way and wiping your balance away, you will see quite a few smaller ones through which you can postpone that final one further into the future by lengthening the fateful streak. Anyway, you can always try it out for yourself and see if it works for you This is not example of luck with regular martingale:
Having 4 M losing bets and 6 M winning bets out of 10 M bets (with 50:50 probability) Just in case, I never meant it to be a regular martingale setup Saying that you are free from luck factor only because you have survived 12M bets is wrong I'm not lucky to survive, I'm not unlucky to bust. That seems to be the point of discord between us |
|
|
|
Yesterday people were overly bearish, today people are overly bullish. Make sure to keep an eye on the moving averages to see where we close today. No bullish close means that it isn't likely going to be followed up by more increases This is called overreaction, isn't it? Don't pay attention to perma bulls who always rehash the same bull crap narrative---people need to be made aware of the different phases in a market, and that it doesn't always look rosy in the short to mid term The same is equally true with respect to permabears Who are eager to reshuffle their old stories about Bitcoin going down to zero soon. And so what? Even if so, enjoy the ride while it lasts (taxi drivers' motto). We are heading to the next Bitcoin halving, and if anything, this is a strong fundamental (unless it is going to fall flat on its face like it happened with Litecoin's halving last time), no matter what moving averages are telling us right now. Fundamentals rule the world and conquer the markets |
|
|
|
~snip
Now this is what you called "Lack of Financial Management". I wish all the winners in gambling can learn how to manage their money if they win. This is just one of the stories of people who won in gambling but used all of it in the wrong way. This is a lesson from him but I don't think that it will happen to him again that he will win that huge amount of money. If he knows how to spend his money then he can be sleeping all the time with his money beside him but that wasn't the case. He is a garbage man and most of the time these are the people who doesn't have any learning when it comes to handling money. I'm not saying all but most of them. Things like this needs a good financial advisor after winning a huge amount of money, people who don't have knowledge about handling such amounts of money will only over spend same with how this garbage guy did That's why winning a lottery should also include professional financial management services But you can't actually force people to use such services even if they were required to hire a financial advisor after winning a lottery since who would be buying tickets then? If you win and are obligated to follow some financial expert's advice on how to spend your money, technically, it won't be your money at all. The latter makes the whole idea of lottery somewhat weird and contradictory It's very important to look for good advice in putting up businesses in order not overused your money, this should be an open example to those who have a chance to experience the same luck with this guy You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink |
|
|
|
Libra is a centralised cryptocurrency just like ripple, somehow it can disrupt the financial system because of their big influence in the social media world by Facebook. They have a lot of criticism specially from the government because of their previous controversies including the data leak or mishandling the users data. I doubt the adoption of this coin will be as healthy as Bitcoin and other crypto. I am not a big fan of the shitcoin Ripple and I have criticized it on many occasions. But that said, at least we can say that Ripple is different from fiat currency. It has its own exchange rate, no matter how manipulated it is. The Ripple exchange rates are not dependent on any fiat currency, although it may be influenced by the fluctuations in the Bitcoin exchange rate Well, maybe I'm missing something here But frankly, I don't see how Ripple is much different from other fiat currencies for the reasons stated. Yes, it has its own exchange rate and it is not dependent on any other fiat currency. But that's exactly what makes it one such currency itself (and its centralized nature, of course). As I see it, the distinction between fiat and crypto lies in who or what controls that currency. If it is one entity like Ripple (or the FED, for instance), it can be considered a form of fiat, public or private, digital or otherwise However, Libracoin is just a stablecoin similar to Tether and the numerous other coins out there. It doesn't have an exchange rate of its own, as it is pegged against the USD In this way, Libra is a token, a currency derivative (perhaps, that's what you wanted to convey) |
|
|
|
Link only shows that after 5 M bets you had half the profit from 10 M bets Yes, that seems to be correct It also shows that I started small and at some point in time earned only 10 doges. My setup didn't change much since then apart from making my terminating strings longer as well as letting variance more leeway without changing my exposure (all of that has been explained in the thread). But quite honestly, I don't see what you are getting at here and what you are trying to get across Just post here how much doge you have now (current balance + withdrawals) and i will know everything - starting balance, profit % and i can even code for you how much lucky you are I may be lucky in earning so much, but I'm not particularly lucky at gambling that long for the simple reason that no luck is involved in that. The primary goal of my system is to let me last as long as possible. In other words, there is little luck involved in me playing all this time without busting. Regardless, you can collect like 42 doges within a period of 7 days (the so-called 7-day streak). I missed a couple days, so it should be relatively easy to calculate profit margins Other than that, you seem to be missing what I'm specifically looking for with my setup |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
