I really doubt that. Price went up because bitcoiners believed in grexit. It dropped when a solution showed up and it will fall more since a solution is there now. I dont see it going up now.
Though im not a pro trade.
A solution?? Throwing out the democratic vote of OXI to sign on to a terrible deal that caused riots in the streets is not really a solution. The greek people still don't have monetary freedom, and that's the issue. No grexit, no big deal; none of them will ever trust a bank again. They are all candidates to become bitcoiners. Might be but traders seems to believe that the solution now is there and all will go like before. And i would agree. Merkel will never let greek exit since she fears others will follow. A Grexit might mean a hard time for greek but, i believe, iceland already overcame such thing and ist stronger than before now. |
|
|
|
I really doubt that. Price went up because bitcoiners believed in grexit. It dropped when a solution showed up and it will fall more since a solution is there now. I dont see it going up now.
Though im not a pro trade.
How long before they'll find another thing that could in some way positively influence the bitcoin price? If not Grexit then how about the Chinese crash? I think these events are rather rare. Bitcointraders know already that the bitcoin price will react positive to such things since they experienced it with cyprus. Im not sure the chinese market will have a similar effect. At the moment i believe the rise was only and totally coming from grexit and not from china. I think china is simply different. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is really rare to possess
Bitcoin is actually not so rare, more than 2.5/3 million people own bitcoin at the moment, and are supposed to surpass the 5 million mark by 2019. It is not a really rare thing to possess, and neither is Gold. Antiques and classic vintage cars are really rare to possess, bitcoin is just a crypto currency which can easily be exchanged, all done over the internet in a couple minutes. I believe he meant that its rare to meet a random person outside of bitcoin community and he possess already bitcoins. Or just that he knows about bitcoin is relatively rare. |
|
|
|
Interesting. So it is potentially possible that BitPay never gets that transaction, and I receive what I purchased for free.
Yes, but the merchant should never ship their products without having at least 1 confirmation. Though thats not how bitpay works. They only wait until they see the transaction and they have huge turnovers. I wonder two what will happen. They will have huge amounts of coins that dont reach at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately the list of scammers not YET sentenced is way way longer. I hope we can work on bringing those to the same place soon. Unfortunately i dont see many users going behind the ones. Most only cry, extort or threaten. Not many put the time into it that is needed to first find the problem and then trying to solve or enforce prosecution.
|
|
|
|
I published scripts for both importing data into Google docs and converting the CSV into ledger-cli format somewhere back in the 3(?) Bitfinex threads. As I don't do much trading, I am not so sure if it would correctly parse all the possible entries and also some names have changed by now... but in general it shouldn't be too hard to e.g. write a converter to ledger-cli format yourself and then use ledger to generate any kind of report you want.
Unfortunately sometimes it takes quite a while (and often fails) recently to download the history_USD.csv file for me (I have referred some heavy users apparently), so I'm not 100% up to date on that. In general it should be possible though to either extend my early code that I published or rewrite it from scratch. My current tests with my more recent script seem to work out nicely (e.g. balances match up).
Thanky you for your tip. Unfortunately you post very much. I wonder if i can find your scripts.  Ledger is new to me too and at least there is a version for windows too, so i dont need a virtual machine. I think i will download all csv first to secure them. Just in case bitfinex might vanish. : Edit: Seems margin swaps and unused swaps have the same filename. |
|
|
|
Is this the bot that is used to provide liquidity? https://bitbucket.org/JordanLeePeershares/nubottradingLets say i want to support nubits on poloniex, will the profit be similar to those liquidity pools? https://nubits.com/liquidity-poolsHow can i raise profit on poloniex? And will i risk losing value when my nubits are exchanged to btc while btc goes down? I mean when i hold btc and btc goes down at a day 13% then the monthly profit from nbt would be lost already isnt it? Can this be avoided? |
|
|
|
Cash is dirty and full of bacteria, bitcoin is digital clean and doesn't rot.
cash can also be faked pretty easily, and you will not even notice it, bitcoin do not have this problem sometime when i pay with cash at the supermarket i fear that i'm giving false money, because maybe part of those belongs to a rest of another supermarket or another shop that was holding faked money without knowing it *lol* I bought something against that some years ago. Maybe you need something like it too then: Safescan 155i  It works great and feels safe if you need to check money. The problem with faked money is that, when you have such, they will take it from you and you get nothing in return. Hearns plans for tainting coins could have a similar effect when he gets his will. 100 euro for that thing, better to spend in a trezonr i guess yeah but the big problem is not the seized aspect of it, but the fact that they will ask you from where you found those faked money and if you can't give them a suitable and convincing answer you can go to jail for having counterfeit money, so it's a very problematic and dangerous thing Yes... though its something you really would want when you receive cash sometimes. Which is somewhat unavoidable when handling bitcoins. A trezor cant help there. You dont want to get cash that turns out to be not much more than paper at the end. I bought mine used on ebay and it works great and fast.  You should make a copy of the ID of someone you exchange money with. Then, in case you got coins that were scammed, or money that is tainted, you can show who you dealt with. It would be for your own safety to stay out of anything illegal. I don't think, much people would do business with you, when you ask for an ID, especially when you even want to copy it. I certainly wouldn't do that. Its not needed for escrow. But when you are a money exchanger, i met some of those through local bitcoins, then you want to have a copy of the ID. I was told police can knock on the door and ask what they did with the coins they received. Then you really want to have an ID that you can show them. Otherwise the money exchanger is in trouble. And im sure that money exchangers would not do business with someone who doesnt want to give a copy. I mean they see him in person so there is no reason to not give it besides they are likely scammers. Then not trading would be better. Though the risk might be not so big and a copy not needed when its about small amounts. That is exactly my problem. If you give every random guy you met over localbitcoins a copy of my ID, you can be sure, someone will use it for identity theft. I am even worried, about the copies I gave to MtGox, even thought it seemed serious at that time. I see what you mean and i try to avoid that too if possible but sometimes you cant avoid it. At least exchanges often ask for you holding the id in order to not have it faked. But you need to see the risk for exchanges and localbitcoin exchanger. When the police comes and you cant tell for sure who you traded with then you have a real problem. Why should an exchanger take that risk for a slight profit of 10%? Thats in no correlation. |
|
|
|
Thats really interesting. I really would have thought that betting one time has the bigger chance because the more you bet the more you should go near the statistical chance of losing and the house advantage gets more attention. So i didnt await your results.  Betting once has a much higher variance, but a lower expectation. Note that both strategies have negative expectation and so as a player you want high variance. If the variance was zero, you would always lose what you expect to lose. It's only variance that lets players profit from a -EV game. [...] So what do you think, which one has the highest chance to win the 1000 clams at the end? Does your previous calculation apply so that small bets have a small advantage? I mean in theory one then could play thousands of bets with a chance of 0.0001% each, isnt it?
OK, so you're asking whether it's safer to make a single bet of 1000 at 49.5% to profit by 1000, or to make 1000 bets of 1, each aiming to make 1000 profit? Or is each bet aiming to make 2000 profit? (1000 to keep as profit, and 1000 to cover the 1000 stakes)? Note that if you bet 1 CLAM 1000 times, each one aiming to make a profit of 1000, and only 1 on them wins, your net profit is only 1 CLAM, since one bet profited by 1000 but the other 999 all lose 1 CLAM each. If that's the case, then the 1000 bets is more likely to be successful, because you're aiming to profit by 1 overall, whereas the single large bet is aiming to profit by 1000. 1000 clams to win 1000 clams doesnt make so much sense. I try to be lucky and win a bigger amount. So lets say 1000 clams is the win amount with all bets. It does not get changed regardless of the size of the bet or the lost amounts. So when i use 1 clam as a start, its more near what i want, then i could bet 1 clam one time with a low chance. Chance to lose is huge. Though i could bet 0.1 clams 10 times or 0.01 clams 100 times. In these runs the chances are 10 time and 100 times lower. It doesnt matter that the chance to win is low, the profit of 1000 clams is never changed until the luck was exceptional or the clam is eaten away. Is there a difference in these approaches? |
|
|
|
|
I really doubt that. Price went up because bitcoiners believed in grexit. It dropped when a solution showed up and it will fall more since a solution is there now. I dont see it going up now.
Though im not a pro trade.
|
|
|
|
The FAQ mentions the maximum payout per bet:  When i would read that then i would read it as "maximum payout" but as a maximum that comes into play when the house is bigger than 2000 Bitcoins at 1 x kelly. So that even when 1 kelly would be more than 20 Bitcoins the max payout would be restricted to 20 Bitcoins. I would not get the idea that, lets say 100 Bitcoins total in the house could overwrite max kelly and 20 Bitcoins could be taken in one bet. That would simply be too dangerous and the wording would let me never get the idea that it overrides the max kelly in this direction and not in the other one. |
|
|
|
Right, but its a Bitcoin Problem. At the end its all Bitcoin and when bitcoin has a problem then it doesnt matter anymore that the mainclient has a way to prevent this. You see all these threads on here and on reddit? Imagine how many persons found bitcoin and... it does not work. Great experience. And surely not helpful for adoption. While adoption is the only thing that could help miners to earn considerable amounts of fees in the future. It's not a Bitcoin problem. Go approach alternative clients' devs and complain to them about fees. Because the fee market exists, and they have to deal with it. So? What does it matter when you name the bank only differently? He wanted a currency that isnt controlled by somebody. It doesnt matter who controls it. How its named. Bank? I don't care how you name it. If it's a trustless bank, then I'm in. Trustless means control of ownership and double-spend prevention. I wonder what your solutions are to the underlying problem. I wonder if you really dont understand what i mean. When new adopters come to bitcoin and their experience is that the transactions doesnt work then they wont divide into normal client and alternative client. Its BITCOIN then that makes a bad impression. Sure the other clients devs can change that but at the moment the spam attack means bad things for adoption. Sure, miners manipulating fees or maybe blocking transactions of some companies totally are getting a more serious risk the more mining gets centralized and miner work together in order to raise their profit. So trustless ok, but still, bitcoin is in risk, or at least some features of it. |
|
|
|
Cash is dirty and full of bacteria, bitcoin is digital clean and doesn't rot.
cash can also be faked pretty easily, and you will not even notice it, bitcoin do not have this problem sometime when i pay with cash at the supermarket i fear that i'm giving false money, because maybe part of those belongs to a rest of another supermarket or another shop that was holding faked money without knowing it *lol* I bought something against that some years ago. Maybe you need something like it too then: Safescan 155i It works great and feels safe if you need to check money. The problem with faked money is that, when you have such, they will take it from you and you get nothing in return. Hearns plans for tainting coins could have a similar effect when he gets his will. 100 euro for that thing, better to spend in a trezonr i guess yeah but the big problem is not the seized aspect of it, but the fact that they will ask you from where you found those faked money and if you can't give them a suitable and convincing answer you can go to jail for having counterfeit money, so it's a very problematic and dangerous thing Yes... though its something you really would want when you receive cash sometimes. Which is somewhat unavoidable when handling bitcoins. A trezor cant help there. You dont want to get cash that turns out to be not much more than paper at the end. I bought mine used on ebay and it works great and fast. You should make a copy of the ID of someone you exchange money with. Then, in case you got coins that were scammed, or money that is tainted, you can show who you dealt with. It would be for your own safety to stay out of anything illegal. I don't think, much people would do business with you, when you ask for an ID, especially when you even want to copy it. I certainly wouldn't do that. Its not needed for escrow. But when you are a money exchanger, i met some of those through local bitcoins, then you want to have a copy of the ID. I was told police can knock on the door and ask what they did with the coins they received. Then you really want to have an ID that you can show them. Otherwise the money exchanger is in trouble. And im sure that money exchangers would not do business with someone who doesnt want to give a copy. I mean they see him in person so there is no reason to not give it besides they are likely scammers. Then not trading would be better. Though the risk might be not so big and a copy not needed when its about small amounts. |
|
|
|
I'm seeing a strange problem. I always have my offsite = max. Once in a while, the percentage of my investment/site can change if I do [/offsite 0, then /offsite max]. For example, a few minutes ago I had like 0.17xx, then after doing these commands, now it is 0.18xx. Looks like a bug to me.
No, thats normal. When you watch your stats check the multiplier. It shows 100x when offsite max. When you win then this value goes down. When you then do offsite 0 and offsite max again then you will have 100x again and in total you have invested more. Because your base investment ist more. And you dont have 99x offsite investment anymore but 100x. |
|
|
|
Is 2FA implemented?
Yes, as a plugin. But only through a service. And without that service you will never every be able to reach your coins. I think that alone is inacceptable. Plus you have to pay a relatively high fee for each transaction on top, only because the privilege to use 2FA that way. I cant see why 2FA wasnt implemented properly. Instead its a security loss. Maybe you should read the instructions first: https://electrum.orain.org/wiki/Two-factor_authenticationEven if TrustedCoin is compromised or taken offline, your coins are secure as long as you still have the seed of your wallet If you don't like the service, don't use it. Secure... but unspendable. Or how should one access coins on a multisignature address when one party cant give their key for releasing them? What is secure with that? Its like losing your wallet password and brainwallet too. Yes, i wont use it because its more risky than not using 2FA. But i would like a normal 2FA implemented. Something without third parties involved. And for sure something where you dont need to have to pay for every transaction again. |
|
|
|
snip
Thats really interesting. I really would have thought that betting one time has the bigger chance because the more you bet the more you should go near the statistical chance of losing and the house advantage gets more attention. So i didnt await your results. But sorry for being not fully clear. What i wanted to do is winning a certain amount that is fixed in each bet. Lets say 1000 clams. Each played bet would have a target to win, so a profit of 1000 clams in the settings. So when i would have 10 clams to gamble, then i could bet all 10 clams and adjust the percent chance so that i will win 1000 clams with a bet size of 10 clams. The chance to win is 0.9801%, betsize 10 clams and profit 1000.1010101. So i could win the 1000 clams with this chance and this bet. Though i could bet 1 clams 10 times with a chance of 0.0989% and a profit of 1000.01112235 clams each time. The chance looks slightly higher though the winnable amount is 0.09 clams lower too. So what do you think, which one has the highest chance to win the 1000 clams at the end? Does your previous calculation apply so that small bets have a small advantage? I mean in theory one then could play thousands of bets with a chance of 0.0001% each, isnt it? |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER were you in control of the Hashfast_CL account or not? Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge! The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it. A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments! Why should a judge not rule against a payment? The lawyers only have to proof that the company paying that much funds was clearly not in the best interest of the company. I mean if this behaviour would be safe then you could simply create a scam company, collect funds, pay 10% to a contractor who saves your money and with the rest of the money you fake a wrong going real business. Would be a smart and not avoidable way to earn scammywise. So i really think judges can go against that. |
|
|
|
Cash is dirty and full of bacteria, bitcoin is digital clean and doesn't rot.
cash can also be faked pretty easily, and you will not even notice it, bitcoin do not have this problem sometime when i pay with cash at the supermarket i fear that i'm giving false money, because maybe part of those belongs to a rest of another supermarket or another shop that was holding faked money without knowing it *lol* I bought something against that some years ago. Maybe you need something like it too then: Safescan 155i It works great and feels safe if you need to check money. The problem with faked money is that, when you have such, they will take it from you and you get nothing in return. Hearns plans for tainting coins could have a similar effect when he gets his will. 100 euro for that thing, better to spend in a trezonr i guess yeah but the big problem is not the seized aspect of it, but the fact that they will ask you from where you found those faked money and if you can't give them a suitable and convincing answer you can go to jail for having counterfeit money, so it's a very problematic and dangerous thing Yes... though its something you really would want when you receive cash sometimes. Which is somewhat unavoidable when handling bitcoins. A trezor cant help there. You dont want to get cash that turns out to be not much more than paper at the end. I bought mine used on ebay and it works great and fast. You should make a copy of the ID of someone you exchange money with. Then, in case you got coins that were scammed, or money that is tainted, you can show who you dealt with. It would be for your own safety to stay out of anything illegal. |
|
|
|
Standing up for the truth is its own reward. That you belive I need some kind of external/financial motivation says more about you than me. Ah comeon... i stand up for those attacked too when they are attacked unfair and i find out. See dogie. Though this here is not explainable with something. The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
As far as i read it did not fail, it only should not be part of the first thing going on. That doesnt mean it wont come back on the table later. It was brought by Katten, one of the most powerful law firms in the world. You aren't going to find a better lawyers.
Then surely they only tried to bring it up early and its unlikely they will drop that point easily. Of course you blame the lawyer for the Motion failing, because you narrow mind cannot accept that it failed on the plain facts of the matter.
Sigh... so i hoped you can speak normally and with arguments and... you get personal again. Instead, you flagrantly violate Occam's Razor with paranoid delusions that cypher and I are the same person, etc.
Your behaviour is somewhat unexplainable and... oh wonder... no cypherdoc writing here. Instead you beating around. Though cypherdoc writes on other places in forum. I guess Judge Montali is, in your mind, a troll and possibly the same person as cypher/myself.  No, Judge Montali seems to go at it structured... cypherdocs payment will be a topic soon for sure. |
|
|
|
|
I would like to add that at this point i would prefer that transactions have to pay fees depending on the amount of outputs, similar like litecoin prevents spam attacks. I think there is no reason not to handle it that way. A transaction with more than 2 outputs are simply more than one transactions. If you send 100 letters by mail then you dont pay a fee once only because you bring all the letters to the post office in a big box. You still have to pay for all letters. You might be able to save some percent but its very different.
So why should transaction be handled so differently? We could solve the whole thing quick i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
