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

Someone's got it right finally

It is a purely psychological thing that works on us here, not on that user as it is about our perception of luck, i.e. how we perceive it, not how it objectively exists (or doesn't, for that matter). But it should work on that user too. And even if statistically his chances are in fact pretty high to hit so high a payout after a few hundred thousand bets (inquiring minds can come up with the actual probability on their own, it should be on the order of a few thousand bets), it would still feel like a stroke of extreme luck. This is how our minds work since after hitting a few thousand losses, we would have long lost all hope (and probably stopped rolling altogether)

The question itself, well, actually both questions quoted are too broad to elicit any definitive answer, like a stringent no or an emphatic yes. For example, following the trend is statistically a winning strategy and finding a trend is surely the task for TA. But does that mean that TA is legit on the whole based on that premise alone? To put it differently, if some of the TA tools and methods are not working most of the time and when they do, they simply follow the broken clock pattern, does it render the whole TA invalid and useless? The point is, if TA helps you earn dough, stick to it. If it doesn't, stick to something else

As the saying goes, if it fits, wear it (and don't ask silly questions)

There seem to be a lot of ifs

If Libra becomes a sort of in-game currency (like many others out there in role-playing games) without a gateway to real world (read, we won't be able to convert it to fiat), it won't be of any particular help to all those users, shops and services. On the other hand, if it is exchanged freely to fiat as well as accepted everywhere on par with regular currencies (think PayPal, eBay, Amazon, etc here), it will be a game-changer for sure (and a cause of much pain in the ass for everything that it will compete with)


Should we thus be looking for libratalk.org soon ("make posts and earn")? Has one been registered yet?

Why does that feel like a wet blanket?

We all want to hope and we all want to believe in our luck, even beyond hope. Seeing someone being that lucky (as we perceive it) is what makes the game worth it for us personally. Otherwise, why would we want to bet at all? We all know that we are set to lose eventually, given the house edge and enough time, and it is only through luck that we can win. Well, you can also try martingale but your mileage may vary


See, there is hope for the better!

But how likely is that, really?

If Bitcoin was as stable as gold and remained as anonymous as it is (which is not given), it would definitely make sense. But since Bitcoin is as unstable as a chair with three legs, it may turn out to be too expensive a tax-evasion device. In other words, you may end up ever so much better off overall by paying these fucking taxes than trying to evade them with Bitcoin. But that doesn't mean cryptocurrencies don't get used for other criminal activities, of course (though the American dollar is the undisputed champion in this department)

That's what I call luck!





As they say, from rags to riches (and in just one lucky roll)! I'm curious if it is possible to set a higher payout or is it the highest possible? Regardless, congratulations to AlbertTrotta for making it (as well as giving us a bit of hope)


I would look into that

It is not our opinions that vary so much

I mean there are two groups of people advocating quite opposite views. The first says you can control your emotions freely at all times (i.e. stop a certain emotion at any moment) after some practice, the other insists that it is impossible as emotions are essentially complex chemical processes which once triggered cannot be stopped at will. But it doesn't mean that some people cannot be less reactive than others due to their internal chemistry

And while that chemistry could in fact be altered to a certain degree through conscious effort and continual practice, its basic specs remain unchanged as they are hardwired in us. All emotion-control practices essentially aim to affect the intensity of an emotion, i.e. how strong you react to certain events (read, if you get infuriated bigtime somehow, you still won't be able to keep your cool anyway)


It doesn't change the odds, so it doesn't really matter if you place your bets in fear or otherwise. At least, this is what statistics tells us (as some may disagree)

Чтобы было предложение должен быть спрос

Я это к тому, что у крипты весьма ограниченный круг (зачеркнуто) сфера применения в реальной жизни. Технически, конечно, можно придумать какие-то варианты, но они, как правило, утопичны и могут существовать лишь в облаках (зачеркнуто) пузырях, т.е. в режиме хайпа, когда людьми движет исключительно жажда наживы, а не желание что-то улучшить в этой жизни

That largely depends on your gambling preferences

For example, if you bet rarely but squarely (I mean, make big stakes), then Bitcoin might be the best choice for you. On the other hand, for people who prefer to run different martingale setups (like myself), Bitcoin would be the worst choice specifically of its expensiveness. We, simple martingalers, need a cheap coin that would allow us to start small and withstand long losing streaks without busting. So we choose Dogecoin, and its popularity among casinos pretty much speaks for itself even if it wasn't created with this purpose in mind

This issue has been discussed at length before

The addiction "disease" is completely curable only when a person suffering from it has it in him to fight it (read, no medicine is going to prevent a relapse as it is entirely on the person). The sad irony is that people who become addicts don't have it in them as otherwise they wouldn't develop an addiction in the first place because they would stop halfway as soon as they feel their wellness is being threatened by the misuse or abuse of something (i.e. excessive gambling). In other words, it requires dramatic and permanent shifts in the psychological makeup of an addict to really get rid of his addiction, once and for all (read, it is next to impossible)


Most such addicts (e.g. drugs or gambling addicts) are perfectly well aware of their addiction and they still can't do anything with it. This just shows how firmly our minds and thoughts are tied to our body and its desires

Honestly, I'm not very well familiar with the current state of affairs in this department

And while the Casascius coins may have fallen flat on their face, heads or tails (I don't really know but let's trust you on this), OpenDime devices seem to be quite useful if you want to transfer large amounts of coins instantly as well as anonymously, without leaving any trace on the blockchain

Yeah, I understand that these USB sticks (what they essentially are) don't look quite like paper bitcoins or actual coins, but technically, they are physical bitcoins as they can be used as such. As they say (actually, Shakespeare says, so no plagiarism intended), what’s in a name?

Well, it is not quite our business anyway

So we can only speculate here. As I see it, there is a certain window of, say, a couple of years when adding new games wouldn't hurt the image of the site. But after this window is closed, it might be better to keep things as they are. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the name itself (i.e. whether it has the word dice in it) but rather with the public perception of the casino that will be firmly established by that time


Why not try it out and see for yourself?

But aren't humans social beings?

Doesn't it mean that human society can exist with neither government sticking around nor taxes being levied? In my opinion, this is a pretty solid assumption with the conclusion being that it is impossible for the government (the state) to exist without taxes. But society can do pretty well on its own since quite a few had existed long before both governments and taxes came about

Indeed, it is valid to ask that we may in fact need a form of government at a certain point in the development of human civilization, but given that we didn't have such a need before (in prehistorical times), there is no plausible reason to think that we will always need it in the future (along with taxes)


It is not the taxes themselves which are at the root of the evil but rather how they are collected and spent that people disagree with

Кому требуется помощь с уроками (зачеркнуто) переводами - обращайтесь!

It is the same as transferring the ownership of private keys

The implication being that there is nothing wrong in this on its own. When you give somebody your private keys (and no, you don't necessarily need to know them yourself), quite expectedly nothing gets written to the blockchain. And in fact, it can be a good thing as far as anonymity is concerned. Or bad, depending on which side of the anonymity "fence" (or rather barrier) you are on


You don't need a central authority for that. In other words, if these paper bitcoins are backed up by real ones, we will be back to a form of gold standard (let's call it Bitcoin standard)

There is no cloud without a silver lining

If people prefer to spend fiat, say, the dollar instead of Bitcoin, it basically means that they value the latter higher than the former. And there should be a reason for this. So we can't actually say that Bitcoin is a horrible form of money per se. I agree that it sucks as a currency while fiat and more specifically, the dollar, shines in this department. But if we don't consider a currency aspect of money as the only one or the only important one, Bitcoin may not be that bad after all (for example, as a value transfer vehicle)