I just now read the whole article and I was amazed to read that there are others in this list who actually wagered small amount and won. I will call them lucky ones as rarely it happens that someone wins a huge amount by just wagering a few pence.
This is better if true. But the Large wins (millions of dollars) for one small bet is abit too extreme in my opinion. I see similar opportunities(in local fiat) on national television lotto or as text messages... and I'm beginning to think that the rewards should be split to more people... especially if they bettors are not that rich. |
|
|
|
|
Is it illegal for two law-abiding persons to exchange currency/properties in anonymous/private manner in the country? If it's not illegal, why then the "gradual fade away" of online anonymity with cryptocurrency?
If the purpose of "gradually fading away" anonymity is to prevent crime, you could still use decentralized anonymity/privacy setup that can be attached to users unique cryptic identifications... In this way you are not breaking any of the country's law.
|
|
|
|
Crypto will never crash the system and replace money, at least not in north america.Everything is enforced by laws, like a law that tax needs to be paid in cash, on all items, no matter what the person pays with.Sometimes it feels like people think if we all go crypto, money is somehow going to be free, and life is going to be so much easier, I don't think that's true. Imagine if you could only buy bread with crypto, and some billionaire buys a large amount of crypto the night before, the next morning your bread will cost twice as much. In other words its a rare resource, basing prices on crypto doesn't make sense.It can represent money all day long, and have value based on the dollar, but I don't think it can be money, unless governments just make digital cash for us, that doesn't jump too much.
Imagine you buy 10 loaves of bread with fiat currency for $5 total, save the money in your savings account and the next day a billionaire buys up and hoard most of the basic things in the market and those basics things double in price due to scarcity... [Printing too much money than is needed can also cause such inflation.] And the little savings of the poor saver is devalued. Or Imagine selling your cherish bike for $3,000, you keep the money in your savings account long-term, and next 7months the currency loses value due to inflation of basic goods and services. I think deflationary currency will be best for both the bread and bike savers. A moderate deflationary currency can function as both "stablecoin" and normal cryptocurrency |
|
|
|
More below (first posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263883.msg54850600#msg54850600 ) [July 22, 2020, 07:48:51 Pm] In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets are needed to participate in governance? *Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding. I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions. By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section? Majority of the community members simply do not care about these governance protocols. They are only after those sweet yields. To attract lots of quality participants/contributors, my incentive or reward models would be to rank participants up according to the value of their contributions, how long they participate with the community etc... As participants rank up in the community, you keep promoting or granting them additional privileges, opportunities, increased earning power on their contributions, etc.. Reputation/trustworthiness can also be used to incentive participants. This will ad to their overall decentralized Network/Blockchain reputation I think every good contribution by all members should be rewarded. The community could create lists of agreed rules and principles and automatically reward members who do not break them during their important community contributions. Members should automatically earn rewards after being active doing something useful or contributing to something good, but if someone or bots downvote you for breaking some rules/principles (with proofs), you lose part of the rewards, depending on the seriousness of the rules/principles violated... both the upvoters and downvoters would be rewarded manually/automatically based on the accuracy of their votes, or better still based on the correctness (with proofs) of the reviews left by the upvoters/downvoters. There should be very qualified/honest/accountable people who give their final verdicts on the reviews after verification and canceling of wrong or undeserved downvotes/upvotes... Rewards can then be distributed to participants after the final assessment is completed |
|
|
|
I wanted to write abit more about better Consensus Mechanism and governance system later in the future but I noticed that people are quickly already showing interest in alternatives to existing/developing consensus mechanisms. I had to write part of what I have on this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263883.msg54850600#msg54850600Here is the post(a reply to thread in the link above: In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets needed to participate in governance? *Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding. I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions. By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section? Majority of the community members simply do not care about these governance protocols. They are only after those sweet yields. To attract lots of quality participants/contributors, my incentive or reward models would be to rank participants up according to the value of their contributions, how long they participate with the community etc...
As participants rank up in the community, you keep promoting or granting them additional privileges, opportunities, increased earning power on their contributions, etc..
Reputation/trustworthiness can also be used to incentive participants. This will ad to their overall decentralized Network/Blockchain reputation
I think every good contribution by all members should be rewarded. The community could create lists of agreed rules and principles and automatically reward members who do not break them during their important community contributions. Members should automatically earn rewards after being active doing something useful or contributing to something good, but if someone or bots downvote you for breaking some rules/principles (with proofs), you lose part of the rewards, depending on the seriousness of the rules/principles violated... both the upvoters and downvoters would be rewarded manually/automatically based on the accuracy of their votes, or better still based on the correctness (with proofs) of the reviews left by the upvoters/downvoters.
There should be very qualified/honest/accountable people who give their final verdicts on the reviews after verification and canceling of wrong or undeserved downvotes/upvotes... Rewards can then be distributed to participants after the final assessment is completedMy previous post on proper voting on decentralized system: ✔ A more proper way to vote in decentralized communities https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224322.msg53800187#msg53800187 |
|
|
|
In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets are needed to participate in governance?
*Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding.
I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions.
By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section?
.......
I'm just someone who helps them spread the word but I think your ideas are really great. You should join the community on t.me/coinbreederDAO. I think your proposals could work well with the community. You could share them with the community. I hopefully (by HIS Will) will join later. Our good ideas are for true/safe decentralized systems/communities at no cost. We just have to stick to and improve on good Satoshi Bitcoin standards/principles |
|
|
|
|
Depends on where you live. Or maybe dead is an extreme word. Things were pretty difficult for medium scale businesses in the beginning though, but it seems to have returned to normal where I live after reasonable amount of business/social activities resumed. I guess cities and big towns are mostly affected where lockdown are still in place around the world?
|
|
|
|
Decreasing, no I guess because chess game is easy to play and everyone could learn to play. I agree that the live stream will help this game to gather all individuals who are fun in playing chess. There are many of them actually and here in our place. Before the pandemic I can see many of chess players playing in the busy streets others like in the terminal specifically public transport drivers and operators play this game often.
The rules of chess are simple, that is true enough, but the game is incredibly deep and it is really difficult to become good at it, I really think that is probably one of the main things that detracts from its popularity and when we add that even if it is difficult to become good at almost anything but people are still willing to watch it as long as is entertaining it is not really difficult to guess why most people do not find chess interesting as it is not very exciting to see two people sit down for hours just to move a few pieces on a board. And such deep games would take alot of time, energy to understand and process. Would be best suited for people who have lots of time and understand or interested in the game. Am not too surprised that the commenter you quoted his/her post says public transport drivers and operators often play the game. I notice they play similar games, like draft when they don't have much customers or are waiting for their buses/cars to be filled. |
|
|
|
Interested to know this too. Is it hard/expensive to implement the provable fair feature (or better provable fair feature) on their systems, or they just choose not to?
I guess honest opinion from the owners would be one of the best way to have an idea why.
Yea, we can only guess about it. Perhaps it's not important since they can void/disqualify the bet anyway, so what's the point of provably fair... Plus user's action can influence the result, maybe it will make the RTP and volatility calculation more difficult. If you interested in conspiracy theory, well, maybe the game isn't fair (with near miss and stuff to encourage players to spend more). Well, perhaps the games are not very fair (maybe not more than 80% fair) because they are not decentralized or fully decentralized? And the need to void/disqualify bets will be drastically reduced on well decentralized betting system. |
|
|
|
In regards to *number one* (Earn $BREE for holding DeFi assets), does it mean if you don't hold those defi assets you won't be able to fully participate in governance? What is the minimum amount of the DeFi assets are needed to participate in governance? *Number two* (Earn $BREE for proposing/voting) sounds good in my opinion. Maybe make it optional for those who don't have defi assets. Defi assets holders will probably just stake & earn more tokens/coins for merely holding. I think everyone should be able to participate (whether staking or not), make valuable contributions and earn rewards/coins/tokens for their contributions. By the way, why impose limits (with the use of delegate governors) on those who can propose new ideas? If it's for quality reason, why not allow everyone to propose ideas on "Unfiltered section", then the best ideas on the Section automatically get moved to Filtered or Main section? Majority of the community members simply do not care about these governance protocols. They are only after those sweet yields. To attract lots of quality participants/contributors, my incentive or reward models would be to rank participants up according to the value of their contributions, how long they participate with the community etc... As participants rank up in the community, you keep promoting or granting them additional privileges, opportunities, increased earning power on their contributions, etc.. Reputation/trustworthiness can also be used to incentive participants. This will ad to their overall decentralized Network/Blockchain reputation I think every good contribution by all members should be rewarded. The community could create lists of agreed rules and principles and automatically reward members who do not break them during their important community contributions. Members should automatically earn rewards after being active doing something useful or contributing to something good, but if someone or bots downvote you for breaking some rules/principles (with proofs), you lose part of the rewards, depending on the seriousness of the rules/principles violated... both the upvoters and downvoters would be rewarded manually/automatically based on the accuracy of their votes, or better still based on the correctness (with proofs) of the reviews left by the upvoters/downvoters. There should be very qualified/honest/accountable people who give their final verdicts on the reviews after verification and canceling of wrong or undeserved downvotes/upvotes... Rewards can then be distributed to participants after the final assessment is completed |
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere on this forum in the past that the freshly mined ones are sold abit higher than the normal Bitcoin price to certain investors who are avoiding so called tainted coins. I am not sure where transactions take place. It's probably called virgin/clean coin or something.
|
|
|
|
10K tokens per minute? How much hashrates we need to achieve this potential mining!  Surely the mining will get difficult one miners found this as more profitable than mining most popular cryptos because they can convert into any cryptos as they wish on exchanges. Read it's mined with gpu, on window, mac, and Linus. And the total supply is uncapped/unlimited. 10,000coins per minute would be 14,400,000 (fourteen million, four hundred thousand) coins every 24 hours. Wonder if it has strong usecases to keep it going, other than memes and trading on price. |
|
|
|
No and never! If IPs are stored, then bitcoin wouldn't have been used for illegal things! But it's not! You can get a good idea of what is stored in bitcoin block from the below article, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.aspIt says, - Blocks store information about transactions like the date, time, and dollar amount of your most recent purchase from Amazon. (NOTE: This Amazon example is for illustrative purchases; Amazon retail does not work on a blockchain principle as of this writing)
- Blocks store information about who is participating in transactions. A block for your splurge purchase from Amazon would record your name along with Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN). Instead of using your actual name, your purchase is recorded without any identifying information using a unique “digital signature,” sort of like a username.
- Blocks store information that distinguishes them from other blocks. Much like you and I have names to distinguish us from one another, each block stores a unique code called a “hash” that allows us to tell it apart from every other block. Hashes are cryptographic codes created by special algorithms. Let’s say you made your splurge purchase on Amazon, but while it’s in transit, you decide you just can’t resist and need a second one. Even though the details of your new transaction would look nearly identical to your earlier purchase, we can still tell the blocks apart because of their unique codes. Hope this clears up your mind! Depends on where or how IPs will be stored to prevent Bitcoin from being used for illegal things. Any kind of Companies and people having access to people's IP is its self "illegal" because it violate the fundamental right to privacy in many countries law. Privacy or The Right to Privacy in environment where evil, lawlessness, immorality, uncertainty etc reign is a good thing. IPs could be thoroughly encrypted and stored on "public network" as long as it's done transparently, safely/securely, immutably. If someone commits a serious crime, the police could have access to the criminal IP... I believe this should be done on thesame decentralized network, for the sake of immutablity, clear rules, accountability, privacy, security, etc features of the Blockchain/decentralized-tech. In my opinion, any kind of people shouldn't have access to people's IPs if the owners did not do things that deserve getting their IPs exposed to untrustworthy/immoral people |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, I couldn't read what the "capital gains tax law" is in order to properly understand what the cryptocurrency tax debate is really about. I guess they finally considering this because of the not-so-wealthy cryptocurrency traders who earn from trading cryptocurrency in the country?
|
|
|
|
I am okay with people advertising but I wonder who the marketing executives at this Sandbox company who thought it was a good idea to boast that they were doing well when the pandemic is generally bad news for most people. A lot of us lost our jobs and income,,, and I know a lot of people affected even worse than my family. Not such a good win for the guys at the article.
We cannot blame them because they are just stating a fact about their sales, they are serving people who are in lockdown and must remain in lockdown or quarantine and they must find a way to entertain themselves, and this gaming company has done their purpose on targetting people who want to be entertained while they are in lockdown. The important thing is whether what Op & the website posted is the truth and whether the company is not doing that for evil (like for boasting, to belittle other companies, to attract undeserved attention etc)... What matters is the intention... whether it is done with good or bad intention, and if what the company posted about their success is true? Hopefully they deal on good/safe games |
|
|
|
Those that are in bold text are the kind of wins we like to achieve, with a little capital , we can turn our money into a huge amount. Anyone's target. But for that to achieve, you really need a big bag of patience. Only parlay I think is the key for small bets to get a big win (when I say big, almost a jackpot) in sports betting unless there's a Moneyline odds out there offering a x999 on which I called it rare even in live betting for underdogs or for a team that is behind a large lead. There are millions of sports bettors but only few do have notable winnings. That's how lucky they are. I just wish the "big notable wins" can be split into average/comfortable/ok wins so that more small bettors can be winners. The millions of dollars worth of win for a small bettor could be split into $10,000 per small bettor.... more than 100 winning $10,000, *assuming all/most of the bettors are not really wealthy(they are truely betting with what they can afford to lose .) This could happen once in while, maybe randomly. |
|
|
|
How will trade be probability based? When you buy potential coins or tokens and hold for a long-term base; why won't you be rewarded awesomely?. Imagine buy some good coins like bitcoin for trade and wait patiently before trade them, you will get huge profits on the long run without a doubt. Get you hands on a good coins and forget probability of a thing, do more research before venture into buy of any coins or tokens for long-term.
Typical day trading are probability based, even for most skilled traders, and as long as market isn't deliberately manipulated. Most skilled traders can't know for sure where the future price will precisely go... best is to find the most likely direction things will go, just as op stated. It's fairly predictable though(depending on coin/token) unlike lots of other probability-based prediction markets |
|
|
|
|
I guess one of the most important uses of something like that is to prevent counterfeiting of both physical and digital products. In my opinion, it would be better if such tools are built on well decentralized and public Blockchain.
It will really solve lots of important problems if done well
|
|
|
|
|
One of my main concerns with things like this is that it pushes or encourages more and more people toward centralized usage of cryptocurrency rather than how how it was originally meant to be used.
If you have most of a cryptocurrency supplies accumulated in one or few addresses, or addresses controlled by few centralized & connected entities, the cryptocurrency will be vulnerable to things it's trying to solve or prevent.
I will actually prefer to hold long-term on cryptocurrency that has some sort of predictable & decentralized control of coin supply.. . Something with advanced decentralized ecosystems
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how the company did this. I am usually cautious before approving or disapproving this kind of approach. It could be abused in the future(not necessarily by the company), even though it may have been used well today. You could aswell be prevented from sending money to innocent people/addresses.
I believe it should be possible to blacklist or tag addresses used by proven criminals to commit crime. But it should be done decentrally, with checks and balances.
Imagine creating a seperate decentralized application/community to report or mark proven scams addresses to enable validators reject all transactions entering into the addresses.
Such community has to be guided by clear rules, be transparent, immutable, permissionless/trustless, anonymous/private, consensus-driven, etc
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
