22 был минимальный ценник на Фениксе и Эксме

Я еще с дуру пару лайтов на рубли зачем-то поменял на самых низах, а откупиться на Фениксе уже не успел. А так в целом согласен. Коварные пампы лайта случались и в прошлом (и по битку и по доллару) и не произошло ничего такого, чтобы исключить их в будущем. Даже богом забытые и практически никому ненужные доги и те время от времени пампят. С учетом того, что сокращение награды за блок сейчас станет сказываться все сильнее и сильнее на предложении лайтов, после дампа стоит ожидать очередной брутальный памп этой монеты - это всего лишь вопрос времени и терпения

You probably meant resistance, right?

Regardless, Bitcoin entered, let's call it, no-man's land, an area where there is not enough supply as well as demand to stabilize prices at their current levels above 10k. Hence we see the levels of volatility that we haven't seen with Bitcoin since 2017. The practical importance of this phenomenon is that we are unlikely to surge way above recent highs and stay there. On the other hand, there seems to be real support (yeah) piled up at 9k, so why not ride these waves of volatility while they last?

I think we in fact fail in planning most of our daily activities. And that's not because we are so bad planners ourselves but rather because we are living in a fantasy world created by our imagination where things are not what they really are. It just so happens that the mistakes we make in real life can be easily fixed in a semi-automatic way without a lot of thinking and contemplating. They don't lead to massive financial losses, either. That's why we don't particularly care about them, so they mostly go unnoticed by us

But gambling (as well as trading, for the record) is totally different in this respect

I tend to disagree with this view

If anything, it is politicians who determine the economic policy of a country and ultimately its fate, not economists. Politics has the upper hand in the economic matters, and to prove that is in fact pretty easy. Most wars turn out an economic disaster for the belligerent countries (it has been so for millenia), while the questions of peace and war are in the hands of a few people who may not have a damn clue about economics and how the economy works. In other words, it remains to be seen whether political decisions are actually aimed at strengthening the economic conditions of a country as it may well be to the contrary

You can think of it this way

For example, if you consider earning 1 satoshi on a 10 BTC balance a good deal and mostly safe irrespective of the losing streak length, then with a balance of 100 BTC and the losing streak of the same length (or keeping the chances of losing the same), you can change the martingale settings in such a way that you earn more than just 1 satoshi at the end of each streak

You can start with a smaller balance, of course, you just need to keep the probabilities of losing that balance the same as with earning 1 satoshi. But what's even more important here, your earnings will be the greater the farther you go along the losing streak before you roll a win. If you ask me, this is a by far better setup to run martingale, which doesn't increase the odds of losing (though it needs a bigger balance)

But how are we going to do this in practice?

As the saying goes, you can't solve a problem relying on those who created it. But given how corrupt the current political landscape is (in any country of your choice), you wouldn't really expect the government to embrace decentralization, for example, in the voting system in order to make it completely transparent and "provably fair", so to speak. Elections are an instrument of power and they won't let it go

Further, those more powerful will always have more options available to them for making their financial transactions anonymous and keeping them that way. That's basically why they are against anonymity in general. It is only through someone more powerful who they were unlucky or unwise to lock horns with that their little financial shenanigans become known and publicized (read, it doesn't change anything in the bigger picture)

Essentially, you are hoping for a big fat free lunch, but why would anyone want to give you one? It is the same with other holders who hope that Bitcoin will miraculously surge to the moon in the future (like a few million dollars), and they will all become insanely rich one day for basically doing nothing

But as the (in)famous con artist of the first half of the 20th century, Joseph Weil (aka Yellow Kid), noted, "each of my victims had larceny in his heart" and "the desire to get something for nothing has been very costly to many people who have dealt with me and with other con men" (as per Wikipedia article)

So who is going to pay for the party?

Weak and wise look similar

Many wise people say that if you can't change something (e.g. your past and your past bets), your best option is not to hit the head against it (as you can as well hit it against a brick wall, with the same level of success) but to give in, accept the sad fact and move on. This is probably what OP meant by accepting defeat as there is essentially nothing you can do other than to embark on revengeful gambling which will only incur further losses

Why would Trump all of a sudden start to care about the volatility of cryptocurrencies?

There are enough assets which also have tremendous volatility and quite on par with crypto (like trash stocks). Even crude oil can be as volatile as fuck. There are financial instruments which are purely speculative, for example, volatility indexes, and they are named after volatility for a reason. Why nobody tells this dude about it? Or maybe, it is him who is not telling us the whole truth? But half-truths are often even worse than outright lies

I generally support this view

But with a small reservation, though. More specifically, if you like a certain game which requires skill along with luck (a lot of such games have been mentioned in this thread), that may turn out to be your true calling. If you feel that way, you should certainly stick to your liking, and one day you will be able to make a living out of it. People become chess champions not because they want money (though money definitely plays an important role here) but because they happen to like chess before anything else - unless you are one of the Polgar sisters, of course (who were forced to play chess by their headstrong farther)

There are visible holes in your theory

As it doesn't explain why we actually saw major altcoins surge way stronger and faster than Bitcoin just after the latter had started to recover in early 2019 (i.e. this year, not 2017). I'm not even talking about Litecoin here with its monumental gains (as I have already mentioned it earlier), but other major altcoins easily outperformed Bitcoin too at first (and their 2019 gains are still not broken by Bitcoin). For example, Bitcoin Cash rose from below 100 dollars to over 550 (which is a 5.5x gain, for starters), Ethereum rose from 100 dollars to over 360 (quite on par with Bitcoin)

But there is a very simple explanation which I already hinted at here and elsewhere. The truth is, there is actually no such thing as lack of confidence in the future of altcoins, there is only lack of pump, which Bitcoin enjoyed till recently (and hopefully, will continue to enjoy in the future), while major players in the altcoin field enjoyed it earlier this year and are now being dumped. There is no reason to think that things are going to remain this way in the future simply because all cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin are pure speculation

As I've written above, there is a lot of in between

Indeed, you can be significantly increasing the chances of losing all. However, you can still play on a safer side while giving some leeway to variance in profit potential since, as you said yourself (and which I totally agree with), you are risking your whole balance anyway. So why not make this risk worth the effort (and your balance)? Well, at least a little bit worthier that just earning 1 satoshi at the end of each losing streak. Basically, we are having two extremes - one of earning the least possible (1 satoshi), the other of quickly losing the whole balance (10 BTC) in half a dozen bets

That's why they started their signature campaign here early on

And that's why it doesn't make a lot of sense to stop it now only to restart it later in a couple of weeks (as what seems to be the casino's intention with their signature campaign). In fact, this matter had been discussed at lengths in the past, and the consensus has it a new casino, mixer or exchange need constant presence, month after month, in order to make their name known and recognized as well as to attract new clients as is the case with major players in the respective fields (ChipMixer, FortuneJack, CryptoGames, etc) which run their promotions for years on end

I'm not sure I understand what you refer to here

Okay, you have a capital of 1000 dollars, and what exactly prevents you from successfully trading this capital with Bitcoin? How could you lose 50 dollars with Bitcoin and not lose it with some altcoin? Somehow, I have a feeling that you are actually talking about gambling, not trading. Apart from that, Bitcoin has recently shown quite a good amount of volatility on par with or even exceeding major altcoins. But perhaps I'm just missing something and you would like to expand on your thought a little further

I also remember him saying that

But I think it is more because the majority of his first fights were with opponents being mostly journeymen and their likes. As soon as he encountered real competition with guys having a far wider reach and who were able to keep him at bay at all times (think Evander Holyfield here with his almost 2m reach, not even speaking of Lennox Lewis), this tactic was no longer available, quite literally, as he couldn't get in close ranges and use his power "from inside" with these boxers

I agree it is impossible to make decent daily profits in gambling

But that's mostly because major casinos have installed artificial barriers to that and not because it is impossible in itself. If you have a few thousands of bitcoins, you could have earned pretty handsome amount daily using safe settings for martingale if the casino hadn't set their limits on the max bet amount equal to just a few bitcoins. Thus you won't be able to earn anything but dust if you take into account this limitation (and definitely not with Bitcoin)

This is not the whole story

If your balance grows fast enough, your losing streak will grow too (all other settings being the same obviously). The latter means that you don't in fact need an infinite balance, it just needs to be growing so that your chances of losing your balance are decreasing with time. Further, you are unlikely to bet indefinitely long and that also turns in your favor. It doesn't mean that you can't lose because whether you will actually lose or not cannot be known in advance

You seem to have gotten it wrong

What really happened was a so-called dusting attack, i.e. someone sending small amounts of lites (in this case it was 0.00000546 LTC) to some wallets (probably with a rich transactional history). The purpose of the attack is not to compromise the blockchain itself (like what the 51% attack is supposed to do) but rather track down certain users and their transactional activity on the blockchain. I don't know how it is meant to work in practice, so anyone more knowledgeable is welcome to chime in on this matter

Yeah, it is easy to be wise after the event

But let's try walking in OP's shoes for a moment. Bitcoin lost two thirds of its price (i.e. of the price at which OP bought his coins) with the overall market sentiment being monumentally pessimistic, while some "analysts" predicting Bitcoin should crash below 1k in a couple of months if not weeks. So from this perspective, he had essentially nothing to lose as he probably felt that Bitcoin was set to fall lower but if he had luck on his side, he would have gotten back his investment (in dollar terms)

I don't necessarily say or imply that it was not a rash act in itself as it certainly was (in hindsight, of course), but if we consider the possibility that Bitcoin was actually to lose another 90% of its remaining value (I mean, for real), that move kinda makes sense

But this is definitely not what day trading is about

Day trading is not about selling and buying after reaching a certain percentage of upward or downward price change. Most importantly, it is about riding the wave which means trying to sell at its peak and buy at its bottom. Indeed, you can't always time the market in this way, but if you make a mistake and misjudge the market, you buy back or sell forth immediately (the latter is also known as a stop-loss)

In other words, day trading done right is more complicated or even sophisticated than most people think of it. What you refer to as a day trading strategy here is correctly called averaging up or down, but that's not day trading (read, it is a different approach to making profits)