Which has a higher rate of success? Craig Wright and having the keys to the 1.1 million + bitcoins or Donald Trump getting impeached?
Trump has already been impeached. If you mean removed from office, I'd say there's a slightly higher chance of that happening than Craig Wright proving he's satoshi. There is a 100% certainty that Trump will be removed from office. At the end of his 2nd term. There's a slightly higher probability than the Craig Wright claim that at that time, the Democrats will have an improved clown show. If he makes it to the end of his second term, and someone he despises (any democrat) wins in 2024, I wouldn't put it past him to play the 'nope that election was rigged, I'm not going anywhere' card, which would be so ugly. I def put being Trump being convicted and removed (or he knows it's coming and resigns), and Craig Write being vindicated both in the 0.01 -1% range though. |
|
|
|
Which has a higher rate of success? Craig Wright and having the keys to the 1.1 million + bitcoins or Donald Trump getting impeached?
Trump has already been impeached. If you mean removed from office, I'd say there's a slightly higher chance of that happening than Craig Wright proving he's satoshi. |
|
|
|
So yes, please present me with a viable solution that will allow the server to send a random number sequentially to the players that jump in real time while the server does not know the end value in advance. Thank you.
It's your job to find a solution. |
|
|
|
The only way you're (sanely) going to get a game like this to be provably fair, is have each client have a secret -- send a hash of the secret to the server (which broadcasts to all other clients). Then when the client has seen the hash of all other clients seeds, reveals it's own seed. Then the game result is computed based on all the client seeds.
Would it be possible to do this without a server seed? (assuming we have multiple client seeds) |
|
|
|
Betroom is officially Provably Fair  Have you wondered if the outcome of a bet is changed AFTER you placed the bet? Besides being a "No Dealer & No House Policy" platform, Betroom comes in support of its players with an additional method of proving that the TRUTH is the ONLY option on the table. For a detailed explanation on how the verification system works and why it's important, check out our Knowledge Base page. The method is now available for the Rocket Crash game and will soon be available for the rest of the games. Let's change the betting industry for the better. Only TOGETHER we can achieve this. To support us and our revolution, YOUR revolution, LOG IN or CREATE AN ACCOUNT FIRST and PLAY ! If you feel we can do something to make this a better experience for you, don t hesitate, drop us an email at support@betroom.eu and we'll take notice of your feedback. Hey, great decision. I won't have time to verify it's actually provably fair for a few days, but I'm impressed you've taken steps to make the attempt nonetheless. As I said before, be prepared to be scrutinized. |
|
|
|
|
Username: Twitchyseal
Post Count: 3189
BTC Address: bc1qavsn2rhlj4h62vrw47kac504mptljcf4jazefm
|
|
|
|
For now, though, you think the minions have it under control?
No. |
|
|
|
That link you posted...that's 'the news'... Barely. I just got back from a month in AU, and fires is not hardly in the news there at all. FYI, there have historically always been fire issues at times in AU. So the whole 24 arsonists....news or not news? |
|
|
|
the Senate (jury) has the power to overule the judge with a simple majority of 51 votes. The republicans have 53 members. Tie goes to the republicans (Pence is tie breaker) Turns out this is actually debatable. Apparently there's precedent from Johnsons Senate Trial (from 1868) where the Chief Justice was tie breaker, not the VP....if it comes down to a 50/50 split (not a crazy long shot) there could be a giant fight...and the chief justice would be at the center of it...what a mess that would be.
The big question right now is will Witnesses be called and if so, who?
I have heard multiple, not-swing Republican Senators say on various cable TV shows that if witnesses are called, that witness rules would be balanced for both sides, meaning each side would get to call the same number of witnesses. If House Democrat managers call two witnesses, Trump's defense team would get to call two witnesses of their choice. This is important because witnesses Democrats may call would largely be prohibited from giving information due to executive privilege, and even if privilege is waived/defeated, IMO it is a crapshoot that new information damaging to Trump will come to light. To date, the left wing MSM has done a good job of covering for Biden. If Joe and/or Hunter Biden is forced to testify, it could highlight corruption by the Bidens. It may be the case that the Bidens did nothing illegal, but I think Hunter Biden's business relationships would be very strongly frowned upon by mainstream voters. If these business relationships are highlighted, calling witnesses may be more damaging to Democrats than to Trump. At this point I think every decision is a relative 'crap shoot'. Anything could backfire. I don't see many scenarios where trashing the Bidens would be a net gain at this point in the game though. Any dirt they've been collecting on Biden would be worth much less before he becomes the actual nominee. I don't see why the RNC shouldn't be pumping the breaks hard on Biden dirt until he wins the nomination, or even better, October. |
|
|
|
|
notbatman,
At what point in your life did you conclude that the Earth was flat?
Did you ever believe otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Let me know. Even if you guys have some sort of aggregate that you use (Like RealClearPolitics or Apple News, etc, anything is appreciated)
Google News. Yeah I know, big brother, but I created a brand new Google account with no search history and it works quite well, without nonsense like "you googled Tesla once so here's what Musk tweeted today". Offline feature is extremely useful when traveling. BBC and NPR in the car, mostly because I can't stand ads and screaming and stupid sounds effects on commercial radio. You should try podcasts in the car. Not all on my list, but NPR's 'The NPR politics podcast', 'Up First', and 'Planet Money' podcasts are all pretty good, and non-politics 'Click and Clack' and 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' are also available to listen on demand. BBC must have some good ones also. |
|
|
|
well then white people today can say, they dont want immigrants from africa/asia and other regions of the world because those are not diverse and the poplation there could be racist.
If they are in America then yeah, they can say that - and it doesn't matter what race they are. Freedom of speech is vigorously defended here. |
|
|
|
you are speculating
There's nothing wrong with speculating. Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it. When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating. Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself. well white people are also speculating on potential racism of nonwhite people. can't be the case forever that only black people are allowed to defame others or speculate on racism There's nothing wrong with speculating. Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it. |
|
|
|
you are speculating
There's nothing wrong with speculating. Unless you have absolutely all information that could possibly be available (almost never the case, especially when it comes to what a public figure actually thinks), you have two options: speculate || stop thinking about it. When you say 'Trump is not a racist' you are speculating. Of course, I'm also speculating that you aren't one of Trumps closest confidants, family members, or Donald Trump himself. |
|
|
|
there is something called, innocent till proven guilty
To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false. You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist. If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist. so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him? shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word" "n word" isn't illegal. There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think. I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that. There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so. nope trump is not a racist, he is a strict christian capitalist. I totally respect your opinion on Trump not being a racist. It is just an opinion though, you can't know that he isn't racist. Your perception of him is a combination of what he wants you to see, and what other people want you to see. Unless you've had a personal relationship with him for a long period of time, I don't think you have enough info to conclude he's not racist. Also, I imagine there are many racists that are also strict Christian Capitalists. To become a member of the KKK, for example, you have to swear to uphold American values and Christian morality. |
|
|
|
|
Articles were delivered to the Senate yesterday, today John Roberts (chief justice of the supreme court, who will act as 'judge' over the trial) swore in all 100 senators.
The Trial starts next Tuesday - I think they are just going to set the rules of the trial then, which could take a day or two?
Some rules we know so far:
- It's going to be 6 days a week
- Senators must be at their desk the whole time
- Senators can't speak to each other, use cell phone or read anything non-trial related while in session (same rules a jury for a criminal trial have to follow).
The big question right now is will Witnesses be called and if so, who?
Dems will surely call for Bolton and Mulvaney and maybe Rudy?
Republicans will surely call for Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Whistle Blower.
From what I understand, the judge will make the call like normal civil/criminal trials. However, in this case, the Senate (jury) has the power to overule the judge with a simple majority of 51 votes. The republicans have 53 members. Tie goes to the republicans (Pence is tie breaker) Mitt Romney has already made it clear he wants witnesses, and confirmed explicitly he'd like to hear from Bolton. There are a couple other Republicans in purple states up for election in Nov that all eyes will be on.
|
|
|
|
there is something called, innocent till proven guilty
To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false. You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist. If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist. so why is it then allowed to insult trump to be racist then, if it could be a lie, targeting to destroy him? shouldn't "racist" then not become an illegal word similar like the "n word" "n word" isn't illegal. There are no illegal words in America, you can say what you think. I do agree with you there should be consequences for someone who just makes shit up to hurt someone else's reputation, but I don't think calling someone a racist is a good example of that. There are lots of people that truly believe Trump is a racist, and I think they should be able to say so. |
|
|
|
there is something called, innocent till proven guilty
To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove they are guilty of defamation, meaning you have to prove their statement was false. You can't prove Trump isn't racist, and even if you could, you'd still have to prove that the person calling him racist didn't believe he was racist. If you think Trumps a racist, it's not defamation to call him a racist. |
|
|
|
both is defamation, if jow is not a racist he should be able to sue the defamer, because racism accusations have defaming effekt on people.
both are an accusation. the important parts are HOW THE ACCUSATION EFFECTS people in america they love to put a price on 'mental stress' which makes it easy in america that the harm/loss caused has a financial value. other countries however think only true financial loss should be valued. eg loss of income, shelter theaccusation alone is not that unlawful. its the impact that accusation caused. lying. by itself in public is not a crime. if it was then there would not be a special custom to when in court ned to swear on a bible and commit to a contract of telling the truth or be punished when standing in court. again if lying by itself was a crime there would be no need for the special perjury condition using certain words is not a crime in of itself for instance i as a white man have good friendships with people of other ethnic backgrounds. if i called one of them the N word. well thats just being part of the banter.. yet if i said it to a stranger and said it in a derogatory way that then caused someone negative affect that can be proven as some form of harm/loss. then that can lead to trouble saying the N word in of itself is not a crime.. who, how, why and what impact it caused. could be a crime if you accuse someone of being racist in an egalitarian minded society, you can literally destroy his image and career, happened often in germany especially to celebrities and politicians. if that person is racist, it is not a defamation but if he is not racist, like for example trump, then it is massively defamatory. You can't prove that anyone isn't a racist though. And even if you could, you'd also have to prove that the person calling someone a racist didn't actually believe they were racist. At least that's how the law works in America. so how is it then allowed to defame someone to be racist if it can't be proven? it is clear defamation to use the "r word", it would be complete against the spirit of martin luther king and nelson mandela that demanded that people are supposed to be judged on their character and not on their skin color. trump was judged and defamed a racist based on his skin color, by the democrats. that was clearly an abuse of power. Are we talking the legal definition of defamation (in America), or your opinion of what the legal definition of defamation should be? |
|
|
|
That link you posted...that's 'the news'... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
