Due to terrorist attacks there are many innocent people who are killed. If we need to have a peace full life what are the steps we must take....
After reading all the replies from you guys I understand that there is nothing we can do to stop terrorism until the people who are involved in these activity must die or be killed... YEAH! BEST STRATEGY EVER! BOMBS AND SHIT! As the whole USA Middle-East politics has shown us: "If you didn't manage to end a problem with bombs, it's just that you didn't use enough bombs"  What about stopping killing them by thousands? Maybe they would come to kill 200 of us if we hadn't killed 200 000 of them before? Nah. They're the bad guys clearly. Our bombs are very special they kill and destroy only the bad guys. So the poor people that lost their family should thank us. Clearly. I would partially agree with you. The Western powers must stay away from the Middle East. During the last few years, the NATO has managed to overthrow most of the secular regimes in that region, and has managed to replace them with Islamist governments. It is ironic that Bashar al Assad is the last remaining secular head of state in the middle east. And now the NATO is trying to topple him as well. Exactly. They kill the old dictator for "freedom" then put in place another dictator even worse (because yes it's possible) but who won't give a fuck about the huge companies like Total invading their country to take out as much oil as possible. We can't exactly pretend we're victims here. We're guilty, guilty as fuck. So we can go on killing and destroying everything on our path but stop acting like we're the one getting attacked for god sake. Terrorists are just a very normal and logical reaction to our international policies! 70 years ago we called such people resistance. Not true. A lot of the terrorism is local and regional conflicts completely unrelated to major powers combating terrorism. Another fraction is unrelated to the movement or actions of major powers, it is simply a religious protest against "the West." A third portion is anti-Israel and anti-Jew operations, done because "the Koran said for us to take those lands back." Look for yourself. http://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30No one was talking about local terrorism here. And for the rest... Do you really believe they would find so many suicidal volunteers without the different wars and attacks? You don't create terrorists only with religion. You create terrorism with poverty, despair, lack of education, destruction of institution, lack of political power... It's not just Islam, it's Islam + the consequences of the numerous wars. |
|
|
|
Yeah mister Cat-Pilot! But can we really separate banking system from its legal regulation? Both seems completely symbiotic don't they?
Bitcoin network is much less regulated than the banking system we know because banking system in our world needs governmental approbation to even exist.
But as you seem to have thought a lot about the question I have a question for you: what would be the point of a bitcoin bank?
I mean, a fiat bank has a very simple purpose, making money, and a simple utility for most of its users: providing a stock and exchange system. Banks were created for that, you use a bank not for the interest rates but because you NEED an account in order to send and receive money, because no company will give you your wage in cash, no government will make it easy for you to pay your taxes with cash, and even if all that was possible you would still want to stock your money in a "safe deposit". Of course interest rates are a plus, but you would use banks even if they had 0% interest rates!
But bitcoin already allow all of that. So what would be the main goal of banks?
I have already answered that question You seem to misunderstand what a Bitcoin bank would mean in practice. Most likely, it won't be a separate entity like web wallets are now but rather a service offered by regular banks (once they are allowed to make business with Bitcoin). Obviously, such a service could potentially include everything that web wallets are offering nowadays, and in addition to that, banks would offer services which they basically earn money with and which make them different from other financial institutions, for example, by loaning bitcoins at interest protected with real collateral They would be used for specific investments maybe, but who would put his money inside just to let it there? That would be stupid. No real benefit and you hand out your money to a private corporation which can do whatever it wants... Personally, you may not want to put your money there But you can't possibly discard almost 5 million users of Coinbase alone. And it is far from being the only pebble on the beach. There are quite a few other web wallets out there (e.g. Xapo, BitGo, etc). What makes all their clients hold bitcoins there? It is security, ease of use, and free of charge transactions, obviously. Now add to this an interest paid on coins held in a Bitcoin bank account. Would you mind getting interest paid on your idle coins (given how many folks are just hoarding bitcoins)? I've got to admit I don't understand people putting their btc in web wallets... But it seems I'm not representing the majority. I wouldn't accept putting my btc in a bitcoin bank even for interests, unless they're really huge ones. But the current interest rates in normal banks wouldn't make me putting my coins in a bank for example, it would need to be much higher. |
|
|
|
With Bush and Obama's tenure as the President of the USA, i will say that the USA is no longer the leader of free world, They go around acting as Kingmakers, dethroning and enthroning governments, why dont they go to Saudi Arabia.
Wrong! America has always been the leader of the democratic world. Trump is of course somewhat undermines the credibility of the United States, but that does not mean that the principles of American society will become less attractive for the whole world. No they have never been and will never be. Long ago, they were an example. Not leaders because at that time they hadn't started destroying everything yet so they were occupied enough with themselves. But long ago America was a source of inspiration. They were the first ones to accomplish such a gigantic revolution. They wrote a constitution that inspired France and led to the most changing times in Europe. But that was long ago. Now American culture is the one of deprivation, consumerism and war. They're leading yeah, but not as an example, as dictators crushing anyone disagreeing paying their monstrous tax. Monstrous taxes people have to pay because increase consumption rates. Compare the social benefits which have now the Americans and what they had in 18,19,20 centuries. It all costs money. Or do you not agree? You didn't understand me... I'm saying that countries have to pay a monstrous tax to USA! In the sense that invading countries private companies are taking control of the invaded countries. IMF give out loans to invaded countries and they go directly to those companies as they take the contracts to rebuild things that USA destroyed. That's what I mean by taxation. |
|
|
|
|
Don't take accounts as collateral. They will be tagged.
Forum policy is clearly leaning toward not allowing multiple accounts and selling of accounts.
Not that it's forbidden but it's just that members on DT list want to stop accounts traffic.
|
|
|
|
Due to terrorist attacks there are many innocent people who are killed. If we need to have a peace full life what are the steps we must take....
After reading all the replies from you guys I understand that there is nothing we can do to stop terrorism until the people who are involved in these activity must die or be killed... YEAH! BEST STRATEGY EVER! BOMBS AND SHIT! As the whole USA Middle-East politics has shown us: "If you didn't manage to end a problem with bombs, it's just that you didn't use enough bombs" What about stopping killing them by thousands? Maybe they would come to kill 200 of us if we hadn't killed 200 000 of them before? Nah. They're the bad guys clearly. Our bombs are very special they kill and destroy only the bad guys. So the poor people that lost their family should thank us. Clearly. I would partially agree with you. The Western powers must stay away from the Middle East. During the last few years, the NATO has managed to overthrow most of the secular regimes in that region, and has managed to replace them with Islamist governments. It is ironic that Bashar al Assad is the last remaining secular head of state in the middle east. And now the NATO is trying to topple him as well. Exactly. They kill the old dictator for "freedom" then put in place another dictator even worse (because yes it's possible) but who won't give a fuck about the huge companies like Total invading their country to take out as much oil as possible. We can't exactly pretend we're victims here. We're guilty, guilty as fuck. So we can go on killing and destroying everything on our path but stop acting like we're the one getting attacked for god sake. Terrorists are just a very normal and logical reaction to our international policies! 70 years ago we called such people resistance. |
|
|
|
Make or build small communities that aims to campaign for peace and the beauty of diversity, the minimum starting with people in the neighborhood. it is the easiest thing we can do. hopefully useful and produce something which we dream.
A small community will not be able to actively confront the terrorist threat. It seems to me that on the contrary we need to unite based on shared interests and to destroy all countries that are involved in terrorist activities. Ahahahah Yeah, let's "destroy all countries that are involved in terrorist activities" So where do we start? With USA and its subvention of terrorist groups? Russia and their trafic weapons? Europe and its role in multiple wars in Africa and Middle East? Or the whole western world for stealing every ounce of natural ressources available there? Oh and do I really have to precise that the 5 most important countries that are also at the security counsel of United Nations are also the 5 first weapon producers? And that they sell those weapons around the world? So where do we start? Might maybe start by killing yourself no? |
|
|
|
Banking industry is centralized and it defeats the purpose of using bitcoin, let's just admit that we cannot achieve big growth like making majority of people adopt with bitcoin as they certainly would choose the fiat system or any government regulated currency, and that's for security reasons We should separate the wheat from the chaff Fiat banks are centralized in a sense of being regulated by the laws passed by governments. A bank which breaks these laws loses their banking license and ceases banking operations. But banks are basically free in respect to how much money they can create (in certain limits, of course). In this way, they are decentralized even higher than Bitcoin miners which can create only as many bitcoins as firmly set by the current mining reward. On the other hand, the whole Bitcoin network is no less regulated than a banking system, I mean by the Bitcoin protocol. Some folks here claim that Bitcoin is even more regulated than any fiat system out there (if you are going to challenge that point, don't attack me since it is not my point) Yeah mister Cat-Pilot! But can we really separate banking system from its legal regulation? Both seems completely symbiotic don't they? Bitcoin network is much less regulated than the banking system we know because banking system in our world needs governmental approbation to even exist. But as you seem to have thought a lot about the question I have a question for you: what would be the point of a bitcoin bank? I mean, a fiat bank has a very simple purpose, making money, and a simple utility for most of its users: providing a stock and exchange system. Banks were created for that, you use a bank not for the interest rates but because you NEED an account in order to send and receive money, because no company will give you your wage in cash, no government will make it easy for you to pay your taxes with cash, and even if all that was possible you would still want to stock your money in a "safe deposit". Of course interest rates are a plus, but you would use banks even if they had 0% interest rates! But bitcoin already allow all of that. So what would be the main goal of banks?I have already answered that question You seem to misunderstand what a Bitcoin bank would mean in practice. Most likely, it won't be a separate entity like web wallets are now but rather a service offered by regular banks (once they are allowed to make business with Bitcoin). Obviously, such a service could potentially include everything that web wallets are offering nowadays, and in addition to that, banks would offer services which they basically earn money with and which make them different from other financial institutions, for example, by loaning bitcoins at interest protected with real collateral Well... Not so sure about why I would put my money in a bank for that... They would be used for specific investments maybe, but who would put his money inside just to let it there? That would be stupid. No real benefit and you hand out your money to a private corporation which can do whatever it wants... |
|
|
|
Due to terrorist attacks there are many innocent people who are killed. If we need to have a peace full life what are the steps we must take....
After reading all the replies from you guys I understand that there is nothing we can do to stop terrorism until the people who are involved in these activity must die or be killed... YEAH! BEST STRATEGY EVER! BOMBS AND SHIT! As the whole USA Middle-East politics has shown us: "If you didn't manage to end a problem with bombs, it's just that you didn't use enough bombs" What about stopping killing them by thousands? Maybe they would come to kill 200 of us if we hadn't killed 200 000 of them before? Nah. They're the bad guys clearly. Our bombs are very special they kill and destroy only the bad guys. So the poor people that lost their family should thank us. Clearly. |
|
|
|
Terrorism cannot be stopped. As long as there are victims of war and criminality and hatred spurs and develop itself then it becomes a juice for terrorism. When America for example bombards a country because they said many terrorist are dwelling there they did not just killed terrorist but also thousands of innocent people. This innocent people hungry for justice and revenge are perfect humans to become terrorist.
Terrorism occurs when terror is spread and experienced by people. So both parties the terrorist and allied nations both throws terror on both sides thus they are all terrorist, the producer of terror.
No to the above bolded. Terrorism as we know it does not need a cause such as injustice. Terrorism is a part of the Islam scheme for world domination. Therefore if Islam exists, you will see terrorism without any cause except to promote the particular Islamic views of the terrorist. Naaaaaaaaaaah suuuuuuuuuuure. No link between USA and Europe external policies and the creation of the worst terrorist movements of the world. I mean it's not like the vast majority of terrorists are coming from countries we were bombing and are still bombing. It's not like 99% of terrorism propaganda is simply telling the truth: West is destroying our home, let's destroy them It's not like our politic of destabilization hadn't help the rise of extremist Islam by destroying the educational institutions (no link between education and religion by the way of course). No it must be pure coincidence. Oh and of course THEY are terrorists but our bombs are the ones of freedom. It's not because we kill more civilians in one day than them in on year that we're terrorists. |
|
|
|
With Bush and Obama's tenure as the President of the USA, i will say that the USA is no longer the leader of free world, They go around acting as Kingmakers, dethroning and enthroning governments, why dont they go to Saudi Arabia.
Wrong! America has always been the leader of the democratic world. Trump is of course somewhat undermines the credibility of the United States, but that does not mean that the principles of American society will become less attractive for the whole world. No they have never been and will never be. Long ago, they were an example. Not leaders because at that time they hadn't started destroying everything yet so they were occupied enough with themselves. But long ago America was a source of inspiration. They were the first ones to accomplish such a gigantic revolution. They wrote a constitution that inspired France and led to the most changing times in Europe. But that was long ago. Now American culture is the one of deprivation, consumerism and war. They're leading yeah, but not as an example, as dictators crushing anyone disagreeing paying their monstrous tax. |
|
|
|
Banking industry is centralized and it defeats the purpose of using bitcoin, let's just admit that we cannot achieve big growth like making majority of people adopt with bitcoin as they certainly would choose the fiat system or any government regulated currency, and that's for security reasons We should separate the wheat from the chaff Fiat banks are centralized in a sense of being regulated by the laws passed by governments. A bank which breaks these laws loses their banking license and ceases banking operations. But banks are basically free in respect to how much money they can create (in certain limits, of course). In this way, they are decentralized even higher than Bitcoin miners which can create only as many bitcoins as firmly set by the current mining reward. On the other hand, the whole Bitcoin network is no less regulated than a banking system, I mean by the Bitcoin protocol. Some folks here claim that Bitcoin is even more regulated than any fiat system out there (if you are going to challenge that point, don't attack me since it is not my point) Yeah mister Cat-Pilot! But can we really separate banking system from its legal regulation? Both seems completely symbiotic don't they? Bitcoin network is much less regulated than the banking system we know because banking system in our world needs governmental approbation to even exist. But as you seem to have thought a lot about the question I have a question for you: what would be the point of a bitcoin bank? I mean, a fiat bank has a very simple purpose, making money, and a simple utility for most of its users: providing a stock and exchange system. Banks were created for that, you use a bank not for the interest rates but because you NEED an account in order to send and receive money, because no company will give you your wage in cash, no government will make it easy for you to pay your taxes with cash, and even if all that was possible you would still want to stock your money in a "safe deposit". Of course interest rates are a plus, but you would use banks even if they had 0% interest rates! But bitcoin already allow all of that. So what would be the main goal of banks? |
|
|
|
Let's remain realists and refrain from distorting the facts
Why don't you guys just make a mental effort and think about this a little better? Coinbase alone is reported to have some 4.8 million users and 10.6 million wallets (as declared by the IRS). This basically tells us that many bitcoiners are heavily using web wallets. And I won't be surprised to learn that actually a total majority of bitcoiners are using these services in some way. But web wallets are just one step behind from turning into a Bitcoin bank. So if people are massively using the said wallets, and they are paid essentially nothing (if we don't consider free of charge transactions), what makes you think that a Bitcoin bank offering, say, 1-2% annual interest is impossible and should necessarily be a scam or HYIP?
Few elements to go a bit further in what you say: 1/ I don't know the number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world. Maybe it's common knowledge so you didn't took the time to precise it but if we got 100 million users then 5 millions in Coinbase isn't much Did I not warn you from distorting facts? Now you don't even distort them, you actually contrive them and make your speculations look as if they were real facts. The numbers I provided (10M wallets and 4.8M users) are firmly established facts. Though you still reproach me for not taking time to specify the "number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world", but at the same time you yourself continue with a loose assumption that we might have got 100 million Bitcoin users. Why not 1 billion users then? Don't you find it at least not very fair on your part? I don't distort anything here! You say "Coinbase alone is reported to have some 4.8 million users and 10.6 million wallets (as declared by the IRS). This basically tells us that many bitcoiners are heavily using web wallets." All I'm saying is that you should consider that this number might be a low one! I'm not saying that there are 100 million users so that what you say is wrong, I say that what you say isn't a proof because we don't have anything to compare them that's all. "but at the same time you yourself continue with a loose assumption that we might have got 100 million Bitcoin users. Why not 1 billion users then? Don't you find it at least not very fair on your part?" My "100 million users" part was here just to make it clear for everyone that your figures aren't enough to reach a conclusion. If there are only 20 million users then what you're saying is very true. If there are 100 million users then what you're saying becomes much more arguable. That's very fair from me to put your numbers in perspective but not very fair of you to distort my words making it seems like I'm making an assumption while it was just an example ^^ But maybe I wasn't very clear.
You are not distorting the facts, you are thinking them upWe hardly have over half a million active users in Bitcoin (i.e. those who transact regularly, e.g. once a week). This number is obtained by doubling the number of transactions processed by the network daily (~250k), and it is not my idea (though I agree with it). There simply cannot be so many users as you claim (i.e. 100 million people). Perhaps, the total number of users who have or had at some point in the past a few coins is somewhere around 10 million people altogether. In any case, if you are an active user (say a trader), you will have to use a web-wallet (to save on transaction fees) as well as hold at least part of your funds in your exchange account (if you somehow forget, this is what the discussion is essentially about) Again no! I take an example! I literally say "what if we have 100 million users" and I follow this sentence with a clear statement of my ignorance "I don't know the number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world. Maybe it's common knowledge so you didn't took the time to precise". Your demonstration allows us to have an idea of the order of magnitude of the number of bitcoiners which I didn't have. It means we don't have much more than 10 millions of users so the fact that Coinbase has 5 millions users (though all are not active ones I presume?) is a good point. That's all was saying! That without the number or at least an approximation of the number of btc users around the world your argument wasn't complete. It is now. And you seem to be right. No need to be on the defensive like this or to overreact, I was simply putting your argument into perspective  |
|
|
|
Let's remain realists and refrain from distorting the facts
Why don't you guys just make a mental effort and think about this a little better? Coinbase alone is reported to have some 4.8 million users and 10.6 million wallets (as declared by the IRS). This basically tells us that many bitcoiners are heavily using web wallets. And I won't be surprised to learn that actually a total majority of bitcoiners are using these services in some way. But web wallets are just one step behind from turning into a Bitcoin bank. So if people are massively using the said wallets, and they are paid essentially nothing (if we don't consider free of charge transactions), what makes you think that a Bitcoin bank offering, say, 1-2% annual interest is impossible and should necessarily be a scam or HYIP?
Few elements to go a bit further in what you say: 1/ I don't know the number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world. Maybe it's common knowledge so you didn't took the time to precise it but if we got 100 million users then 5 millions in Coinbase isn't much Did I not warn you from distorting facts? Now you don't even distort them, you actually contrive them and make your speculations look as if they were real facts. The numbers I provided (10M wallets and 4.8M users) are firmly established facts. Though you still reproach me for not taking time to specify the "number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world", but at the same time you yourself continue with a loose assumption that we might have got 100 million Bitcoin users. Why not 1 billion users then? Don't you find it at least not very fair on your part? I don't distort anything here! You say "Coinbase alone is reported to have some 4.8 million users and 10.6 million wallets (as declared by the IRS). This basically tells us that many bitcoiners are heavily using web wallets." All I'm saying is that you should consider that this number might be a low one! I'm not saying that there are 100 million users so that what you say is wrong, I say that what you say isn't a proof because we don't have anything to compare them that's all. "but at the same time you yourself continue with a loose assumption that we might have got 100 million Bitcoin users. Why not 1 billion users then? Don't you find it at least not very fair on your part?" My "100 million users" part was here just to make it clear for everyone that your figures aren't enough to reach a conclusion. If there are only 20 million users then what you're saying is very true. If there are 100 million users then what you're saying becomes much more arguable. That's very fair from me to put your numbers in perspective but not very fair of you to distort my words making it seems like I'm making an assumption while it was just an example ^^ But maybe I wasn't very clear. |
|
|
|
Hello, After successfully predicting BTC moves in 2016 here on the forum, I have a new set of 2017 predictions that I'm using to trade the current move. 1. Rise to $1,200-$1,300 (Current move) 2. Correction to $800-$900 level and range trading for a while 3. Rise to $1,500 4. Correction to $900-$1,000 and range trading for a while 5. Continued rise to $2,000 by end of year tldr; BTC will double this year after making a couple of moves up and down. I think you were a bit optimistic (and probably still are). Btc didn't reach the 1200$ and by far (at least I didn't saw it). It reached the 1100 and that's already good! Correction isn't as strong as what you say though... But rise to 1500 is really a heavy one! And you suppose after reaching 1500$ it will lose a third of his value in a consistent way? But why? Why would it drop by more than 30% just like that? You're overestimating btc market fluctuations I'd say. Yes BTC volatility is high compared to traditional market. But still there is some logic behind it it's not just a game ^^ |
|
|
|
We are already our bank of bitcoin and crypto currencies, sure we do use some wallet from some companie, but they havent control over it, they allow the acess and to use and collect their fees, i dont see the point really to get a bitcoin bank, unless they provide interest of 10-20% years from the deposits, but those wont happen. I do like freedom, and i get interest lending or trading or making my sport bets.
Let's remain realists and refrain from distorting the facts Why don't you guys just make a mental effort and think about this a little better? Coinbase alone is reported to have some 4.8 million users and 10.6 million wallets (as declared by the IRS). This basically tells us that many bitcoiners are heavily using web wallets. And I won't be surprised to learn that actually a total majority of bitcoiners are using these services in some way. But web wallets are just one step behind from turning into a Bitcoin bank. So if people are massively using the said wallets, and they are paid essentially nothing (if we don't consider free of charge transactions), what makes you think that a Bitcoin bank offering, say, 1-2% annual interest is impossible and should necessarily be a scam or HYIP? Few elements to go a bit further in what you say: 1/ I don't know the number of bitcoiners and wallets around the world. Maybe it's common knowledge so you didn't took the time to precise it but if we got 100 million users then 5 millions in Coinbase isn't much 2/ The main point of bitcoin is to get rid of the fiat system which means that banks in bitcoin aren't impossible. You're right on that. 3/ You can have 5 millions users and 10 millions wallets, the important thing is how much btc you have? Because those wallets are maybe mainly used for small amounts. I, for one, have opened 9 different online wallets while I discovered btc. Today I use only one and i might have something like 20$ on it. My btc aren't here but in (relative) security on my computer, only very small amounts "just in case" are available on my online wallet. There is a difference between creating and using a wallet for 20$ and actually putting your money on it ^^ Btc banks might exist yeah but what would be their points? Main goal of traditional banks is to provide the fiat service. We need them only because we need to be able to receive money on our accounts and send to others and pay. With btc you don't need a bank to do that, so what would be the point of banks? |
|
|
|
The moment you realise that actually over 100 million people didnt vote  The moment you realize your flawed "democracy" is a system in which even if more than half of your population refuse the candidates it doesn't matter and there won't be another election with better candidates. When you realize that this shit isn't any near to a real democracy because people have 0 real power only to chose their next butcher. That they have no call when it comes to the three major powers which are legislation, executive and justice and that all those powers are in the hands of few priviledged people. And the worst part is when you understand that you can't know of which country I'm talking about because this applies to USA but also to UK France Germany Spain Canada Sweden... And every major "civilized" country of the West which are supposed to be democracies... |
|
|
|
beware of identity thefts...none in this forum would lend you accepting proof of identity....
Hmm... I would. But by "proof of identity" I'm expecting a signed message from an old adress, not a paper ID proof. Who cares about that? And I agree that loans without collateral aren't the most secure thing ever but Dudeperfect is asking for about 20$ with an account that is worth more than that in my opinion. He's got very good feedbacks from well known members and trusted accounts so dumping such account for 20$ is dumb as hell. |
|
|
|
Hey there! Just to tell you that the idea is good for sure. The design isn't perfect, it's very cheap but after all if the site is completely new it's rather normal, no problem with that. But 20% House edge... Wow, that's a freaking high fee. Especially for a new site! It's just that as you may know you are NOT the first one to create a jackpot kind of site but most of the other sites aren't taking so much, 20% is too much sorry. Oh and saying it's provably fair isn't enough you got to prove it ^^ But congrats on finishing your site I hope you'll succeed Thank you for the kind wishes. We agree that the house edge is too high, which is why we decided to remove it completely for the first week. After that we will decide a fair amount to set it at so that everyone is happy! That's a smart thing to do! I'll try your site tomorrow then. But just a little tip: you should buy a few boxes yourself. Indeed to attract customers you have to put some coins that other players might have the chance to win! I don't want (and nobody wants) to have to send money and then hope for 6 hours that someone else will pay and then hope again that it hit my boxe. Whereas if you buy for example 10 boxes yourself, then anyone who goes on the site will see what that they can win a 0.01 jackpot or even more if they bet here. And on average it shouldn't cost you anything =) And finally, to address the issue of provably fair. We have not implemented a feature for checking, but we will work hard to do this as soon as possible as well.
That's a strange thing but very important. Provably fair is a bit a magical word. I never checked myself if a site was provably fair but I only play on site that say they are. The stupidity of people yeah xD |
|
|
|
If some spots are'nt bought, is there a possibility that the selector will chose one of those as the winning spot? Also, you should probably add a chat to your site, it looks dead. I like the idea and the interface tho, the game interface is clean
Ahahahah xD Well, I'm not the site creator so I won't answer but the answer should be obviously no. Because if the script can select another spot then it's PLAIN AND PURE SCAM! Especially as the timer starts after 2 boxes were bought. That would mean that 98 other players have to enter the game (or at least that 98 other boxes have to be bought) in order to actually reach the 80% redistribution they're claiming (which is already not a really high redistribution). I didn't even think about that but it should be stated in the OP to be clear you're right. |
|
|
|
Hey there! Just to tell you that the idea is good for sure. The design isn't perfect, it's very cheap but after all if the site is completely new it's rather normal, no problem with that. But 20% House edge... Wow, that's a freaking high fee. Especially for a new site! It's just that as you may know you are NOT the first one to create a jackpot kind of site but most of the other sites aren't taking so much, 20% is too much sorry. Oh and saying it's provably fair isn't enough you got to prove it ^^ But congrats on finishing your site I hope you'll succeed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
