He's got tons of untrusted negative feedback flags with no support, but plenty of opposition.  All signs of a successful scam buster:)

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Any chance you could list the complete words that include a bad word?  These new words are where TMAN really shines.

For example, twatcuntfuckingdickspazzer and cuntnozzle from this post (now locked)

Or cuntytwatwaffle:

Paying someone to post an article about your site that is written as if it's an objective third party review is deceptive and will be a turn off to many members of the crypto-gambling community.  I suggest spending your promotional budget more transparently. 


No, it's not.  You're just using the built in math.random() function to pick a random number.  It would be incredibly easy to know the what the number is before the game, and then use a player account to win or tie every single game.

Of course, if you decided to cheat, it would be silly to win every game because then nobody else would ever win.  But if you cheated one out of every 50 games, using different player accounts, it would be impossible to prove.

In the crypto gambling world there have been tons of cheating scandals so asking people to just 'trust you' won't work and your argument of 'why would I cheat? I'm taking a 3% fee' is invalid and will only make people distrust you.

Of course the house always wins.  They profit x% of every dollar wagered. They either have an edge in games where the player plays against the house(black jack, craps, roulette for example) and in other or they take a fee in games where players play against each other (In poker cash games they take a percentage of each pot, and in tournaments (can be any game, but usually poker) they take a fee from every buyin and put the rest in the prize pool.

Your site offers the latter.

There's nothing revolutionary about this.  Your players are playing for a prize worth 97% of what they paid, so the expected value of your players is 97%.  It's possible some players will successfully exploit other players and have an EV higher than 97%, but that just means the other players expected value wiil be less than 97%.

There's nothing unethical about this business model.  But it is unethical to advertise it as something it isn't, which is what you are doing.

I watched the entire 10 minute interview on Fox.
You read a zerohedge blog that included a 4 second and 3 second quote from the same interview.
 
They were mashed potato sausages in a pig casing to begin with.  I just ate them to see what they tasted like because I was curious.  
You had Zerohedge slice them open and scoop out a teaspoon of the mashed potatoes and then serve it as a side to a perfectly cooked porterhouse and a glass of Macallan 18 and now you think you know what mashed potato sausages in pig casings taste like.

I'll stop derailing this thread now, maybe we name an official 'fuck twitchyseal and his stupid opinions thread'.  apologies to OP.

Forgot to mention I'm a podcast addict with many news related podcast subscriptions, posted a list here a few days ago.

---

So do you.

The only difference is I watch the actual interviews on TV and you read blogs that quote snippets of the TV interview with commentary.  Why not just watch the interview and cut out the zerohedge commentary?

For example, you recently posted a link to a zerohedge blog which quoted two sentences from a Chris Wallace interview with Pences Chief of Staff on cable news.



In my opinion, anything the VPs chief of staff is relevant and worth watching - the fact it's on TV doesn't mean it's fake.  There's plenty of cable news bullshit to sift through, but letting someone else sift through it for you just creates more bullshit.

As many as possible.

Where I work usually has CNN, Fox, FoxBuiness, MSNBC and CNBC on all next to each other.  If something interesting is happening we'll alternate which one gets unmuted.  In general I'm more partial to particular anchors over networks.  I prefer CNNs 7-10am anchors, MSNBCs Ari Melbur and Chris Wallace by far does the best interviews Sundays on Fox.

Anytime there's a "BOMBSHELL NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, etc ARTICLE", I try to basically ignore the reporting and just read what the actual journalist wrote, even if it's really really long.

Also goes with any big government reports.  I try spend significantly more time reading the actual report than reporting on the report.  I read every word of the Mueller report over the course of 2 months for example.

I follow journalists I respect on Twitter. Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi)  is an incredible journalist that knows a shitload about what's actually happening in the middle east.  Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) and Michael Schmidt (@nytmike) both have some very reliable high level White House sources, to name a few.

A bunch of Politicians on Twitter.

I check out Drudge report regularly to try and keep my personal bias in check and also go out of my way to read alt-right news sites like Breitbart and Daily Caller ,blogs like Zero Hedge and r/the_donald.  Will occasionally check out straight up Russia propaganda at RT.com and sputniknews.com

Really the only sites I just ignore are the ones that BADecker likes to post like naturalnews.com (almost entirely nonsense)

fyp

You're confusing variance and house edge.

A game where the player has a 99% chance of losing their bet does mean the house edge is 99%, you would need to know how much the player won 1% of the time.

Let's say it's a $1 bet and the player has a 99% chance of losing their entire bet.

If 1% of the time they won $100, then there would be no edge for either side.
If 1% of the time they won $110, the player would have a 10% edge over the casino
If 1% of the time they won $97, then the house edge would be 3%

In your example of a game where the Casino has a 99.999% house edge they player would win less than a penny 1% of the time and $0 99% of the time.



Provably fair takes a player seed + server seed + nonce to generate the result.  In the above example, you're just picking a random number, there is no player seed. 
WIth multiple player, you could use a server seed + player0 seed + player1 seed + player2 seed etc.

You don't have to take my word for it, and I'm not really interested in debating the basics with you,  there are a lot of great resources out there on the topic and experts that are way smarter than me in this community.

Check out https://cryptogambling.org/  or go visit their thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2178857.0, ask them what they think about relying on the built in javascript instead of a provably fair algorithm.


If you accept anonymous players, it's impossible to prove you aren't one of them.  What needs to be proven to be considered a trusted crypto gambling site is that you don't have any advanced knowledge or the ability to manipulate the result of a bet.

You're confusing variance and house edge.

A game where the player has a 99% chance of losing their bet does mean the house edge is 99%, you would need to know how much the player won 1% of the time.

Let's say it's a $1 bet and the player has a 99% chance of losing their entire bet.

If 1% of the time they won $100, then there would be no edge for either side.
If 1% of the time they won $110, the player would have a 10% edge over the casino
If 1% of the time they won $97, then the house edge would be 3%

In your example of a game where the Casino has a 99.999% house edge they player would win less than a penny 1% of the time and $0 99% of the time.



 

I have't watched the video yet (can't right now), but if the page says you're betting test credits and it's actually wagering your deposit then that's definitely an issue.  For your own sake, I would cool it with the 'they intentionally stole from me' line since it's probably just a bug - If you can prove the bug exists then refunding your .03 + a bug bounty seems reasonable. But the more you piss them off the less likely they'll admit they were wrong and make things right.

There's a decent chance your coinbase account will get shut down in the near future.  Never send or receive any transactions gambling related to coinbase.  Use a wallet like electrum instead.  Coinbase => Electrum => Gamble

I'll one up it . Rudy dresses in drag, Trump motorboats

I like this one better

Pretty much all your zero hedge links are blog posts written by 'Tyler Durden', the a pseudonym for the anonymous conspiracy theory/alt-right bloggers who work for zerohedge. (their true identity was revealed a few years ago)

Also, when I go to zerohedge.com the primary content is a list of Tyler Durdens 20 most recent blog posts.  Of those blog posts, 5 of them give credit to an author other than Tyler Durden.  It appears the other 15 blogs are written by the owner/founder of zerohedge.

zerohedge is an alt right/financial blog

If you're interested in what a news aggregator looks like, check out DrudgeReport.

Front page of Mediate, cernovich.com, zerohedge, breitbart, theblaze, daiilycaller and dedicated thread on bitcointalk...must be a slow news week.

With all the drama it's easy to overlook the fact that 3 days ago Iran officially withdrew from the Nuclear deal which still existed with all ~8 original countries + UN and EU (and the pope lol) other than America till then.

Ironic considering one of Trumps main criticisms was that the deal was for only 15 years, and here we are 5 years into it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

This means no more inspections, no more limited uranium enrichment, and the possibility that a year from now they'll have nuclear weapons.



[Insert Cliche Battle/War Metaphor]

Bitcoinvideocasino doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to CS and timely payouts, and I find their response in this thread pretty annoying (half of it is just promotional spam), but it's pretty clear you didn't get scammed.  You wagered your entire deposit, either intentionally or not, woulda been nice if you had won right?

Looks like I was wrong to assume that Iran stopped adhering to the Nuclear deal when Trump stopped honoring it.  There were several other countries involved that continued to honor it, and Iran did as well, until a few days ago when they announced they would no longer honor it.

This means that the clock started just this week, not May 2018 like I thought, and if there's no intervention or agreement they could have enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon as soon as 8-12 months from now, although some experts say it could take much longer.

So to answer your question, no, they definitely do not have a nuclear weapon right now.  Thank god.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-agreement.html

Just in case someone hasn't seen it yet, I would like to apply for an exception to the memes only rule and post this glorious video of Trumps Performance with Megan Mullally at the 2006 Emmys.