Cardano is a brain in a hat. The only thing it has going for it is that it insists that it's brilliant. It has almost no actual usage or reasons why anybody should use it, given there's already a handful of cryptos that already cover the entire planet's actual need for crypto. Even if Cardano did all the things it says that it can do today, people aren't going to suddenly flock to it as they're covered by everything else already going on. No reason for anybody to use or own this coin.

It sounds like they are giving you your deposit back at least, so that's good. You should probably just place bets elsewhere, would be my advice going forward.

On one hand, honoring the "incorrect" odds would be the noble thing for FortuneJack to do.

On the other hand, they're going to point to potentially multiple clauses in the sportsbook terms and conditions that says they reserve the right to do exactly that.

So in my opinion, it's probably best just to move on. Casinos pointing to their terms and conditions as an excuse to not have to pay somebody out is the norm... probably won't be bucked in that regard.

I think this is a fair question and it depends on what people are using bitcoin for. If you use it quite a bit, we'd prefer lower fees -- fees low enough to the point where it makes more sense to move money around as BTC instead of PayPal or Western Union or something. If you're just a HODLer, you probably don't care as much if fees are high because you will be performing less (or far fess) transactions.

In terms of absolute dollar figures I usually think in terms of percentages. If I want to send $100 and the recommended fee is $10, that's 10%, and too damn high (non-competitive with pre-existing money transfer systems). I'm more inclined to think 4% is the limit; 5% for smaller figures.

Ideally, the median tx should be as low as $0.10 when the mempool is cleared and as high as $5.00 at its busiest, but as we all know it currently encounters much higher spikes than that.

As for Lightning, LN tx fees need to remain competitive with the on-chain network or it loses one of its two advantages (the other being quicker transactions). So, until there's millions of transactions taking place on the network daily, hosting a Lightning node may not be a profitable endeavor.

There's other and IMO more practical ways in which the price of bitcoin could go to (or at least approach) zero; the most likely and sudden of which would be exploiting some sort of flaw in the code that was previously unknown. Perhaps the NSA uses a backdoor in SHA-256 to derive peoples' private keys from their transactions and gets caught subverting bitcoin funds being transferred by ISIS or something.

Upon mass realization that there are ways to exploit the bitcoin's security, the price of BTC would plummet.

Even then, I don't think it would go to zero because no doubt there would remain a chance that the flaw could be patched and a new hard fork would be launched. So people would probably rather hold on to it for those chances rather than sell it for pennies on the dollar.


I suppose it would be much simpler if the internet disappeared and couldn't come back. Then bitcoin would definitely go to zero.

One of the interesting things about BTC is its one of the only assets that becomes more expensive to transact as it rises in price. Thus, its fundamental value as a currency decreases as it rises in price. In addition to the intelligent stuff that o_e_l_e_o said, the infrastructure is more in place to take the burden off Layer 1, whereas it wasn't there in 2017 -- which is why the price can go a lot higher this time around before high fees render Bitcoin useless as a currency.

In addition to Lightning there's also Liquid, which is another L2 system that can currently be used to shuttle BTC back and forth from a few different exchanges without having to pay a fee.

OP is absolutely right -- fees should remain small enough to allow BTC to be viable as a currency instead of everyone having to shift the narrative that its not a currency and its a store of value. To most people who use actually use it for what it was designed to do, its ability to act as a currency is much more important than anything else.

Yeah the announcers on the radio were just talking about how he had yet to renew his contract for next season... Don't think this will tilt things in his favor.

But I'm more sad about accruing my first loss in the month of December. I can't believe it... on paper and in theory Arizona shoulda won this game. To be fair, on paper SF had the better defense, and it showed this game.

So that was a win... Weee.

This week my bet is a bit more boring, but I think there's a strong chance the Arizona Cardinals are going to beat the San Francisco 49ers tomorrow. The line is already Cardinals -5 but I personally think that's a bit risky. SF has a decent defense but they are down to their 3rd string quarterback, and tend to score less points per game than Arizona.

SF was already on a cold streak for the last 3 games and are out of playoff contention. Arizona, on the other hand, needs this game to remain in the hunt for a playoff spot, so they'll work a bit harder and be a bit more creative than usual in order to secure a V.

So my 2 picks for tomorrow are:

Cardinals -5 (lower confidence, smaller bet)
Cardinals ML (higher confidence, bigger bet)

You'll be lucky to get a ML higher than 1.4x at this point, but if you don't and you're somehow still feeling lucky, you might go with the spread.

I ended up putting in a bet on Cardinals ML for 1.43x. I'm also looking at Carolina vs. Washington. If Alex Smith comes back then I would take Was. -1, but I don't really care for this Haskins guy. Went out celebrating at a strip club after his last performance, got fined $40k, wasn't even wearing a mask. The worst part of it was he had lost that day's game.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/24/dwayne-haskins-may-be-washingtons-starter-despite-stripper-party/

I think the most interesting game is Raiders / Dolphins but its hard to see an obvious bet on the line or game, for that matter. On one hand, Tagovailoa is young and inexperienced and may feel overwhelmed with pressure as playoffs near. On the other hand, Dolphins cover the spread 28.6% more of the time than the Raiders.

Whether Carr or Mariota starts, Raiders are perfectly capable of winning this one, which is why I'm just gonna sit this one out.

Arizona / SF also looks like it could be a good game as the Cardinals would like to win this one to keep playoff hopes alive, and SF could basically care less (relatively speaking). Both teams only have 1 win a piece since Nov. 1st. SF has a ton of injuries, including QB Mullens who was just ruled out for the season yesterday, meaning Beathard will start.

Huh. I just logged in to my sportsbook and this game isn't in there. I'm gonna have a look at the moneyline for it tomorrow; it might be compelling, if they have it.

Well you deserve an explanation, which is, I don't believe the forum to be "real life." I'm aware that, etymologically speaking, "real life" has always included abstract creations without a physical structure (such as the forum). So its more or less derisive when I refer to the trust list as not part of real life. However, since Vispilio was explicitly talking about non-forum interactions, I felt such an obvious distinction was permissible.

There is no "trust list" in real life with inclusions and exclusions -- its something that exists only within the forum. You are vouching for somebody's ability to leave accurate trust feedback without them having ever left a feedback, which makes no rational sense as there is nothing tangible to base such a judgment upon.

Your use of the term "vast majority" here is pretty unfounded as you're not backing it up with any actual data. Regardless, if people took your definitions to heart they would all be wrong, even if they are the "vast majority" (which they're not). It's impossible to know how good somebody is going to be at leaving trust ratings if they've never left one before. And I certainly don't trust anyone who says otherwise, especially when reciprocally including trust rating virgins boosts their DT net inclusion score.

Yes, he's going to show up and give us 1 BTC for each merit we have. I have this on good sources. He could easily do it, there's no way we have over 1 million merits circulating around the forum. Maybe we need to start a petition on change.org to remind him that he needs to do this.

Oh, so its your fault. There suchmoon, now you know who to blame.

Well this 3rd string QB turned out to be nothing what I expected... Bengals D has been surprisingly tight as well.

Well they are certainly trying, it would seem.

"Are you kidding me?" Nutildah asked the question, but everyone knew it was rhetorical. The next question, however, wouldn't be. "How am I trolling you when you're the one generating nonsense my thread?"

Nutildah couldn't understand how Timelord could confound "tagging" with "trust list exclusion" in the first place, much less why he would accuse him of trolling for pointing out the fact that the two things were indeed different.

"Yes, it's entirely true," he responded, slightly miffed that such a response was required of him in the first place. "Tagging an account is not the same thing as excluding an account from your trust list in any way, shape or form. Why you would bother to take the time to express otherwise is entirely beyond my comprehension."

Nutildah had grown beyond tired of Timelord2067's illogical assertions, insinuations and connections over the years, but he had learned an effective trick for dealing with the situation: from hereon out he would respond to his posts in third person narration. Nutildah found it introduced a relieving disconnection between himself and Timelord, and perhaps more important, he found it to be funny.

Anybody taking the Bengals at +14 tonight?

I'm waiting for somebody to talk me into it...

Pittsburgh only covers 7.7% more of the time than Cincinnati...

Let's see, what else we got:

- Lost to the Steelers by 26 points last time... oh wait a minute, that's not good. That was the first loss of a 5 game losing streak they are currently still on.

- losing to the Steelers in every important stat that there is... oh, also no good.

- starting QB is a third stringer named Ryan Finley... well that's the nail in the coffin.

I would almost bet on the Steelers but who knows how hard they're actually going to play tonight.

Thanks for stopping by with your explanation. I'm not going to tag your account or anything but it's curious to me that Vispilio and wolwoo would add you to their trust network even though you never left a trust rating. It's not your fault that they added you, their behavior sort of goes against what DT is supposed to be about.

If I'm wrong here, I'm open to other interpretations.

Started a thread specifically for this subject. It is self-moderated but I probably won't delete your post unless you are a douche.

Today I was looking at the Default trust breakdown and noticed somebody for the first time:

RaltcoinsB: 2
Trusted by:

• Vispilio
• wolwoo

RaltcoinsB has never left or received a trust, but they do have a trust list with Vispilio and wolwoo on it.

With no trust system experience whatsoever, is this really the kind of user that should be on DT1?

Well, if there was any doubt, it would appear they've also been cheating bounties with an alt as well.

RaltcoinsB used this ETH address for an airdrop. The address sent PundiX tokens to another address, which contains another incoming PundiX transaction of the exact same amount from this address, which belongs to Xday123.

Both addresses also moved Medical Token to the same address, as well.

And the cherry on the top is that they sent each other 3 merits, which isn't so much, but there's little doubt in my mind that these aren't owned by the same person. Xday123 has been inactive since May after being unable to land a signature campaign gig.

I don't want to get too snarky or judgy (only a little bit), but we should be diligent about not letting this kind of thing creep into DT1, which is basically flagrant disregard for what DT is supposed to be about. Its unapologetic nepotism at the most basic level and there are some otherwise decent folks that let it happen by continuing to include obvious trust system abusers, for whatever reason.