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)

There is definitely some misunderstanding here

First off, you do risk your whole balance when you commence on your martingale journey. That I agree with and I think I made it abundantly clear in my previous post here. However, it doesn't follow that you are necessarily earning 1 satoshi at the end of each streak (which you also seem to implicitly assume) as this setup is pretty useless, and I'm not sure anyone would seriously consider using it

Then, typically, you do not just cover your previous losses after hitting a red but also earn something, something better than 1 satoshi. Personally, I earn twice as much as I lost at all the previous rolls (thus covering the losses and earning as much). So, even if you start at 1 satoshi and double after each losing roll, you can still set the multiplier in such a way as to give some leeway to variance (and your potential profits) and still keep the risks bearable

Both Bitcoin and Litecoin are purely speculative assets. If we cut the crap and face the facts, Bitcoin gets pumped and dumped in pretty much the same way as the last shitcoin out there (you name which). So, in a sense, we are all short-term traders even if you hold some coin with a long-term perspective in mind. If you do and do not hedge, then you are effectively turning yourself into a potential bagholder


Well, it was not me who said that Litecoin is the exact copy of Bitcoin. If anything, Litecoin is Bitcoin's copycat with a few parameters tweaked here and there (no one actually argues with or denies that), but at least it doesn't steal the Bitcoin name or claims to the Bitcoin (unlike Bitcoin Cash and its derivatives). Other than that, iPhones made by Chinese with the Apple logo on them can in fact be real iPhones since this is where iPhones are made

Disclaimer: I don't really know where iPhones are produced as I don't use any

Agree with this point

We may want to recall how Lennox Lewis lost to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman in his first fights with them. His losses were completely unexpected by KO's (especially with Rahman). So it came as no surprise that he massively overwhelmed them both in the subsequent rematches as the losses made him only stronger

This is not the case with Joshua as he seemed reluctant to continue fighting in the last rounds after the first knockdown by Ruiz (who visibly showed balls after being almost downed himself), and lost more psychologically than physically to his opponent, the meaning being that it may be very difficult for him to recover, psychologically

Technically, he wasn't knocked out but rather surrendered, and it looked like he was no more interested in boxing at all just like Mike Tyson after the loss to Lennox Lewis in 2002 (whatever fights he had afterwards) or even Lennox himself after the elder Klitchko (unlike Tyson, he knew better and retired)


He may be stronger as far as physical conditions are concerned, but in boxing it is not all and far from being all. Judging by his fight with Ruiz, Joshua didn't show himself as a tough fighter at all, the Corrie Sanders style (or even the elder Klitchko who proved he could withstand a lot of heavy beating)

Personally, I'm playing with free money

And just want to see where that will take me (just in case, I'm still running my setup and have't lost my balance yet). So if you refer to me personally, I think I know where to draw the line as I lost a few bitcoins in the past and learned my lesson hard (even though Bitcoin was not that expensive back in the day but still)

Besides, I wouldn't quite agree with your point that most gamblers are not lucky. They are in fact as lucky as their odds are (minus the house edge), but after they try out their luck for the first time, they try it out again and again and this is where the house edge massively kicks in and starts to overwhelm luck until there's nothing left of it

Yeah, that's what I was trying to convey

And that's basically the reason why most traders, especially wannabe traders, are losing eventually. They sell at lows because their instincts tell them to sell, as well as buy at highs because the same instincts tell them to buy even if they are fully aware that these instincts may be pushing them into making rash decisions and moves. We are built to trust our instincts without unnecessary reflection or hesitation so as not to get caught and eaten by the proverbial lion (a pride of lions). But they don't work in trading. Well, they actually work quite well but against us, simple folks

Personally, I choose Litecoin any time of the day (even at night)

It is famous for its brutal price action, probably the most brutal among all major altcoins as you can often see price swings on the order of dozen percentages within just a day or two (sometimes even a few dozens, in both directions). So if you are looking at it as a short-term trader, Litecoin is definitely a preferred choice irrespective on which side of the trade you are on. You can short it as well as go long and you won't be disappointed with its price action

Do you really think today's world is different from prehistoric times?

I don't think that much as far as social relations and interactions are concerned. Essentially, we are still the same folks as early hunter-gatherers from the stone age, and we quickly return to that state of mind as soon as there are no more authorities and law enforcement (which technically proves my point)

But I don't necessarily disagree with your point that the more people around you prosper the better it may be for you personally (and it works in reverse as well, of course). This just shows how complicated things are in social interactions and relationships, where both competition and cooperation can very well coexist (which this forum proves)

You are right. No one knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is and whether he is still alive (or was alive, to begin with)


But this argument can be easily reversed

And while it is certainly true in respect to PoW cryptocurrencies (well, technically, I don't know whether it is in fact true but let's just assume that you are right), but the PoW model is not the only kind of consensus mechanism in existence today. My point is, Bitcoin is not necessarily the most resistant coin to an external attack (51% or otherwise). There are coins based on other technologies of reaching the consensus in the cryptocurrency network as well as coins not based on the blockchain at all. They may be even more secure than Bitcoin

There's another thing which somehow escaped my attention

Which is, it looks like a false dichotomy to me that you risk 10 bitcoins in exchange for a few bucks daily. In fact, there is a great deal of in-between ground in terms of how much you can earn before actually catching the killing streak ("a little left, a little right, a lot of in between"). There would be plenty of variance obviously (as well as a few mighty outliers), and in reality you could earn anything from several bucks and up to whatever multiplier you are using in your martingale setup at a point in time when you risk your whole balance before losing it in case you don't make it


I wouldn't call it a waste of time if you get something in return, even if it is just entertainment and fun

It is not so much about choosing the right coin

As it is about the precise timing when you should enter that coin (and leave it, for that matter). In other words, even if you had chosen and let the right one in (e.g. Bitcoin) but at the wrong time buying it at its ATH (e.g. at 20k per coin), you would still be deep in red no matter the past dynamic. On the other hand, if you bought some trashy coin but right before the pump and got rid of it right before the dump, you would reap profits. But profits are profits, and it doesn't really matter what investment they came from. Indeed, investing in top coins is less risky and more bulletproof (or even foolproof if you please) but as I said, it is the timing which wins the game, not the coin as such

The harsh truth is, Bitcoin is not very different from same Litecoin

Or any other altcoin from the top 10. Technically, it is just a matter of personal preferences ("there can be only one") and nothing more. Bitcoin is as speculative as any altcoin out there. So if these preferences change one day, some altcoin will get pumped instead of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will be stagnating or even going down. Litecoin and its price dynamics prove exactly that

And at its recent highs, it made like 600% gain (from some 22 dollars all the way up to over 140). But what's more intriguing in the context of this opinion piece is the fact it can easily get there again, in a couple of weeks or so. Also, I didn't quite like OP referring to or insinuating Ethereum as scam, which instantly discredits the whole article

You can arguably expect any price

Well, not literally any price in the range of, say, 0 and all the way up to 1M dollars but rather any price massively beyond what we can reasonably imagine and not be "flabbergasted" by our own imagination at that. The point is, whatever reasonable expectation of future price may turn up in one's mind, it will most likely be surpassed and with a vengeance at that. Yeah, it happened many times before and will happen again given enough time. Well, in fact, it doesn't even need "enough time" as it almost always happens sooner than expected or could be seriously expected (so even in the case of timing most expectations end up broken and by a substantial margin)

We can hope for that, though I don't quite like the way you put it. If we are to rephrase your thought and draw a few disturbing conclusions from it, it would sound like we should get rid of older generations (maybe, even help them die faster) to accelerate Bitcoin adoption. And while busy at this task, why not also get rid of those who are slow at understanding or not capable of using Bitcoin at all?

But maybe that's not the right way to do it, after all

This assumes "they" are in fact interested in Bitcoin

In bringing it down, or taking it under control, or whatever. But even if they could buy up all bitcoins (which they simply can't), it would make no sense as many more "Bitcoins" would quickly spring up like mushrooms after the rain. Bloody hell, we already have so many coins flooding the market even without anyone actually going to buy up just a single one of them. So seriously, why should they care?


They were right as this question was asked more times than it has been replied in this thread


Whether they abused their monopoly of printing money or in fact saved the economy from imminent collapse depends largely on how you see it

The world would be a terrible place then

What you basically suggest comes down to everyone telling the world everything they know, i.e. a society in which there are no secrets. I don't think that such a society is possible in the first place but even if we assumed that it were, it would quickly disintegrate and atomize because it will be impossible to make a simple social contact between two persons. People would know what other people are actually thinking about them by openly declaring their thoughts and attitudes, and that would wreak havoc in social relationships. In other words, some things are better left unsaid, and this is where anonymity, or rather the need for it, kicks in