That's called an outlier

Well, 3 times in a row on 1.01x may not be what a real outlier would look like (since something like 10 and more would be one such) but if such things are happening more often on 1.01x than on 9900x (normalized to some metric to allow for valid comparison of the frequencies) or vice versa, that would make a dramatic difference. From what I read about other people's experiences and what I come to think myself, the higher the multiplier (payout), the more you are exposing yourself to the impact of outliers

Okay, I will try a different approach to convey what I'm particularly curious about

If you run 10 million bets on 1.01x, your average losing streak will be equal to 1 since it can't be equal to 0 by definition and it still can't be greater than 1 plus some small fraction since the chances of winning are pretty high. On the other hand, if you bet on 9900x, the length of your losing streak on average can be like 1000 (I don't really know, it's just a hunch and a number to show what I mean). But neither average tells us anything about outliers. Is the frequency of outliers normalized to some common denominator (i.e. variance or deviation from the mean) going to be the same for these two multipliers? That's what interests me so much

But this is not what I'm asking

My question is not about profitability. If we take your example (10 Satoshi 10 million times), we will see winning and losing streaks of 10 satoshi at each step. Obviously, with 1.01x you will see more winning streaks than losing ones and vice versa (it doesn't really matter). So, will variance in the length of, say, losing streaks remain the same for both of these options? To put it differently, we will inevitably see outliers (like 15 losses in a row for 1.01x) but will their regularity, i.e. how often they appear (if we measure them in some relative terms to make them comparable for different multipliers), be the same?

This seems to be a different case

The sender was authentic because emails came from a legit source which had been hacked (at least, as far as domain names are concerned). In this manner, it is not a typical phishing attack (if at all) as you would find no difference in domains. That likely explains why people fell victim to this attack as they saw that the source was authentic but they didn't expect it to be compromised (hacked). Really, if you trust the casino with your money, you would trust emails received from them unless they ask you something which they explicitly made clear in advance that they would never ask under any circumstances

This is the kind of question which has been bothering me lately

I even wanted to create a separate topic dedicated to it but didn't dare. While it definitely looks like the odds don't matter on their own (as far as the house edge is concerned), can the same be said in respect to variance? I mean would variance remain the same for both 1.01x and 9900x if you used these payouts in a hypothetic martingale setup?

In more mundane terms, are outliers going to happen equally frequently (infrequently) in both of these cases? This is important. Statistically, variance should also be the same as long as the bets are truly random, but practically, it may be different due to various physical factors involved which make the outcomes not so random


With so little amount it's not going to pan out. I've been doing that for a few months already (since July, to be exact). And guess what? I'm in the second hundred (and never made it to the top ten)

Personally, I don't think it would be an issue

In regular, bricks-and-mortar casinos you don't play with your cash anyway. The point is, if such a casino were to enable cryptocurrency gambling, they would most certainly require you to deposit a few bitcoins before you are even allowed to enter the casino's premises ("proof of wealth"). Well, it is essentially the same process as with online casinos where you are required to top up your balance before you can start playing. So, this is not an issue really

What is an issue, though, is the fact that there is no demand from the gambling public for Bitcoin land-based casinos as this public can easily gamble at home without moving their ass, or exchange their bitcoins to fiat if they wanted to visit a regular casino, Las Vegas style and flair, hookers and all

This is certainly possible

Ultimately, it all depends on how successful these people are at warfare and ensuing dominion (remember, the winner takes it all, the loser's standing small). The most conspicuous example of this kind is the Roman Empire (first Republic, or how it was called before it became an empire). It led quite a number of successful wars through which it expanded its territory manifold and promoted economic wellbeing of its citizens

And when it finally collapsed, it was mostly due to internal corruption and discord, not wars of conquest as such. As a matter of fact, the Roman Empire even began to shrink near the end of its rule as it was no longer able to protect its lengthy borders due to continual economic and political failure of the state (e.g. Romans withdrew from Britain in the late 4th century about a hundred years prior to the fall of Rome herself)


Well, technically, centralization of power doesn't necessarily mean centralization of economy through monopolies, etc. Although such centralization definitely creates certain incentives, you may still have a kind of monarchy with a properly decentralized economy

You're welcome too!


This issue, i.e. third party risks, can also be alleviated to a degree

It is called hedging, and I explained how it works on numerous occasions already (even in this very thread). In fact, you can use hedging not only for reducing your risks in this realm (i.e. someone hacking the exchange and stealing the money) but pretty much as an effective and efficient substitute for stable coins themselves (though it is not applicable to every exchange out there). In essence, hedging allows you to kill two birds with one stone (and then pick up that stone for further bird shooting)

Dogecoin is that coin, absolutely

It may seem as something unimportant or insignificant, but Dogecoin is certainly one of the top cryptocurrencies out there with most real life adoption, even if this adoption is only about gambling. It is cheap as dirt which means you can build pretty sophisticated martingale strategies with it, and it is extremely fast as far as transaction speeds are concerned. Nowadays its price is pretty stable in dollar terms (for an altcoin) and doesn't depend too much on the overall cryptomarket volatility:



In simple words, if you are looking for an altcoin to bet with, don't look any further

That's not the only possibility

For example, you are being post limited, i.e. only a certain number of posts per day is counted (like 20 for the campaign in question) but you feel like you can post more for that day (and probably less for the next), so you compose your posts today for different threads and post them one after another tomorrow (so there's nothing even remotely resembling a world record in doing that)

And every post you thus submit contains a constructive reply or detailed explanation on some interesting and important topic (read, no shit posting). Indeed, you can stretch them out (what you should normally do), but would that count as burst posting if you don't? Just curious (don't shoot the messenger)

Investing in cryptocurrencies is as risky on its own

And I'm not sure about the debt part. How are you supposed to get in debt by margin trading? In the worst case scenario your position gets forcefully liquidated which might potentially lead to a complete loss of balance, though not necessarily as you could just have insufficient collateral to keep your current margin positions open (for example, when price moves against you). Honestly, this is the first time I hear you could get in debt with margin trading (unless you mean something else, of course)


But why would anyone want to trust an inexperienced trader with her milk and honey, so to speak?

You're welcome, bro

The problem with stable coins is that they are not tested in extreme market conditions yet. That mostly refers to stable coins based on cryptocurrencies since we don't really know how stable they are going to be when the underlying cryptocurrency loses like 90% of its value overnight (or just fast enough). In other words, putting your entire wealth in one such coin is like playing with dynamite. If things go massively awry, you are likely to fare a lot better in the long run if you just keep the underlying cryptocurrency (say, Ethereum)

The case with centralized stable coins like Tether seems to be pretty obvious on its own as the stability of these coins depends entirely on the company issuing them (read, whether they are in fact backed up by anything). And as recent events have shown (I refer to Bitfinex "borrowing" dollars backing up tethers, which effectively meant that the latter were only partially backed up by the former), third parties cannot be trusted in these matters because it is only a matter of time till they start to abuse people's trust in them

Whether withdrawing to Tether is of any use to you personally depends on your use case

Indeed, if you want to purchase something, then withdrawing to Tether doesn't make a lot of sense unless your seller is willing to accept tethers. But this is not what tethers and, more broadly, stable coins (both centralized and decentralized) are used for. There are two major uses for stable coins. The first is to effortlessly move funds between exchanges without exposing yourself to volatility, while completely bypassing the banking system as a nice bonus of sorts. And the second use is about preserving the dollar value of your cryptocurrency stash without exposing yourself to third party risks (that mostly refers to stable coins based on cryptocurrencies like DAI)

There was no such man (and need not have been)

As explained in the first posts of the thread, the casino had been using a third party email service. That means, first, they ("the third party") knew the email addresses of the players (as all emails were going through them), and, second, the emails sent to these players were technically authentic as they were coming from legit BitCasino addresses (read, it was not some typical phishing stuff you see every other day). Hacking the email provider allowed the hackers to look and feel like they were the real casino

I always thought Bakkt was for institutional investors

Indeed, you can say that fund managers are computer illiterate as well as some of them boomers but that's likely not what you actually meant. It seems you can't reliably expect a surge in the influx of institutional investors (like pension funds) until they are officially allowed to invest the money they manage (including the money coming from these two cohorts) in cryptocurrencies. And we are not there yet (at least, as far I know)

Actually, you could say that

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


No, I definitely didn't mean the Mad Max scenario

What I meant could be loosely construed as a government-less society, technically, a form of anarchy (but without the lawlessness of the latter). This is mostly a theoretical construct still. No government means no taxes, i.e. what counts as taxes now could then be just a regular price for a service just like any other service out there

Well, I'm not sure about those laws at all

As far as I understand it, the laws which are in place do not only fail to prevent the government from accessing this sensitive information but explicitly allow such access for special services (which are part of the government, by the way). Indeed, specific laws and their scope may be different across various jurisdictions, but generally, you wouldn't really expect those writing these laws to limit themselves in so important matters (see Patriot Act for one such example). In simple terms, do you really think that the US government (represented by whatever alphabet agency) doesn't have access to Facebook servers and their contents, digital or otherwise?

But that's not exactly what I'm trying to get across

My point is that the owners may not have the resources to add new games all the time while they still have to weed out existing bugs and add new features to what they already have (read, dice). Indeed, it would be nice to have all these fancy games that other such sites entertain, the sooner the better, but this option may simply not be available due to reasons mentioned. Dice is essentially a simple hi-lo game but the stuff built around it can be quite complicated and demanding in terms of time and effort (which seems to be the case here)


The whole of wolf.bet itself has been around for less than that (or around that time)

But then nobody should be using Facebook, right?

Actually, it doesn't really matter since "when money talks, bullshit walks". I mean people will turn deaf and blind as soon as they start to smell the easy money that Mark is going to offer them (or they come to think he is going to). They won't care about the dangers of losing their privacy, personal data being misused and sold to companies without their prior consent, or whatever. People are greedy and that's what would count and make all the difference in the end


In fact, governments might be happier with that than with plain vanilla cryptocurrencies. If anything, it is the government that will get the first-hand access to all this wealth of personal information. So why should they resist if only for this reason alone?

The relationship between Donald and Bitcoin may be more complex than it first appears

As a relentless and quite ruthless capitalist in the worst, Marxian sense of the word, Trump can easily say one thing, think another, and then do a completely different one. What it means is that he may love and hate Bitcoin at the same time. I know it is kind of schizophrenic but who said he is not one deep inside?

More specifically, Trump may in fact hate Bitcoin after all, but he may hate it less than any other regular currency out there (other than the American dollar, of course). In this manner, he may unwillingly and unconsciously come to love Bitcoin as it is not a real threat to the dollar but can be one in respect to other fiat currencies