they must be pretty desperate for that extra 0.089%!!!  Well, the house edge is 1.9% so it's an extra 0.189%... one could separate the sum of money he would like to launder into dozens of even amounts (mix them beforehand for added security?) then submit them systematically on a low chance winning bet since statistically you would win every X amount of bets, then when the question arises where that individual has received the funds he could confidently claim that he had won all of them while not mentioning all (or most) of the losing bets and mentioning all the winning bets of course. Seems like a lot of steps to go to but I guess that could work. Still, that's only a 10% increase in profit, for the risk of having their scam exposed to the world? It's not worth it, is it? It does seem like a lot though.. in my experience, after many many online poker hands, actual statistics always reflect the odds with much more accuracy when you get up to 10,000 hands. And how many satoshi bets have there been? damn.. come to think about it, 0.189% is quite a bit.. The main scam with online poker sites are players that can see all of the cards everyone has, and what cards will be drawn from the deck. An online poker site could be made (if it hasn't already) with a similar mechanism to satoshidice for showing the deck seeds per hand, but that doesn't stop someone with a client that has more information than the rest of the players. That advantage for tournaments is huge and negates table position entirely. Oops, I was talking about the odds of cards being drawn. say the odds of drawing pocket aces is 221:1 (.45%). I'm saying that after 10,000 hands, you will see that you have drawn pocket aces almost exactly .45%. The more hands you play, the closer to .45% it should be |
|
|
|
they must be pretty desperate for that extra 0.089%!!! Well, the house edge is 1.9% so it's an extra 0.189%... one could separate the sum of money he would like to launder into dozens of even amounts (mix them beforehand for added security?) then submit them systematically on a low chance winning bet since statistically you would win every X amount of bets, then when the question arises where that individual has received the funds he could confidently claim that he had won all of them while not mentioning all (or most) of the losing bets and mentioning all the winning bets of course. Seems like a lot of steps to go to but I guess that could work. Still, that's only a 10% increase in profit, for the risk of having their scam exposed to the world? It's not worth it, is it? It does seem like a lot though.. in my experience, after many many online poker hands, actual statistics always reflect the odds with much more accuracy when you get up to 10,000 hands. And how many satoshi bets have there been? damn.. come to think about it, 0.189% is quite a bit.. |
|
|
|
|
You can use day trading to stabilize your position if you already have bitcoins.
Say you have 100 BTC and they are worth $100 each.
Sell 20 BTC to keep cash in your trading account for the SOLE PURPOSE of re-buying if the price drops.
Then when it crashes again and you purchase 20 cheaper bitcoins, you have successfully "revived" 20% of the loss you would have had if you were only holding bitcoins.
The icing on the cake: If it ever goes back up to $100, you will be UP.
The only way you can lose with this strategy is if the price keeps going UP after you sell 20 BTC and never comes back down.
Oh well, your 80 BTC shot up in the meanwhile so you're still up.
It's really a win-win situation if you have bitcoins sitting around anyway.
|
|
|
|
How come the satoshidice house edge is currently 80% even though they have been around for so long?
As others have pointed out, house edge is not the same as actual profits, and also neither is anywhere near 80%. As of today SD has returned just 2.089% less in payouts than they've taken in bets. That figure is slightly more than the house edge says it should be, but they've been lucky. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=80312.msg2078900#msg2078900 for today's report. I update it in that thread every day. Whats also interesting is that they claim "fair play" yet they sometimes delay payouts up to 48 hours which then gives them the option of bruteforcing different secret phrases for the maximum profit to the house. Also one could easily launder money if one was inclined enough. they must be pretty desperate for that extra 0.089%!!! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin needs to be simplified for the stupid. Saayyyy... here's a thought. Keep calling everyone on earth who doesn't know how the octets in an IP address work 'stupid', and you won't have to worry about adoption - because you will have insulted the next wave of users to the point of totally turning them off of the idea of bitcoin. They read this forum before they jump in, you know. So how's that degree in marketing working out for you, nimrod? I'm not trying to market Bitcoin.  And I highly doubt my insult would turn people away. That would be cool if it did though! If only I had that much power.. lol |
|
|
|
I'm sure there will be companies offering Automated BitCards for withdrawals and purchases before too long. Sort of like pre-paid ATM cards.
that's when things will really take off I think.. they could be preloaded before being sold, like a gift card |
|
|
|
|
does vegas lower their edge after being around a long time
i wouldn't
|
|
|
|
Smart cards, see sig  I like this idea. It's too bad there has been such little development with that  |
|
|
|
If it was easier then that would allow more fraud to take place. If people can't go to a website and open a free Wallet then they shouldn't be handling finances on the internet anyway.
I'm talking about something so easy, you virtually take the internet right out of it (or at least keep that part hidden from the user interface). Just because we are making it easier doesn't mean we have to sacrifice security. Last time I checked, grandma's safety deposit box was guarded pretty heavily. |
|
|
|
|
One of the big barriers with Bitcoin is that the majority of its users and developers are, to put it bluntly, ignorant computer nerds. They are extremely smart, yet completely ignorant to what the average person is capable of (no offense, its an impairment of social interaction and nothing to be ashamed of!) . Even with a seemingly simple system, like bitcoinATM, it is dependent on the assumption that a user knows what the difference between a public key and a private key is. The general public still finds the basics of this system confusing. There should be a very big priority in ensuring that Grandma knows how to send bitcoins. Wouldn't that be a HUGE step? To be able to say "She can't open a e-mail, but she can send bitcoins!" would be evolution. That's what bitcoin needs to be. This simplification would magnify the potential by 1000 times.
Not sure how this would be done. It will take somebody who is not just technically smart, but extremely creative as well. How can we make bitcoin as simple as pulling out your physical wallet? And don't tell me "there's an iphone app for that!", because Grandma is still rotary dialing.
I believe if you can make it simple enough that even Grandma can use it, then you are opening up some pretty big fucking doors for Bitcoin.
So what's next in the simplification of Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
You should make this a rule, not optional. Otherwise its way too confusing.
Nobody knows if he can send a micro-micro payment or not.
Also I think this is not censorship. Its just another rule.
You guys know that bitcoin is currently limited to 500.000 transactions per day.
Its far away from being ready for world-currency. So for now we should focus
on important transactions. In the future when bitcoin is ready, we can add micro-micro payments.
can this 500k/day limit ever be changed? |
|
|
|
|
100 bitcoins says MPOE-PR is shorter than 5'7
who's in?
|
|
|
|
Atm Bitcoin is inflationary due to the new coins mined.
But in the long run Bitcoin is deflationary by the amount of coins lost.
The article uses, as do you, a meaning of inflationary based on percent new coins added, but that isn't correct. Inflation could also occur with fewer coins, with higher monetary velocity, or it could NOT OCCUR, with more coins, but with usage increasing at a similar rate as new coins. There is also the "latent inflation", which is existent but yet to be realized in price levels on the street, and this is typically seen when governments start printing money like crazy. I suppose there could be some similar thing with bitcoins. This is a sizable quantity of words which do not seem to carry any sort of meaning. If you'd be kind enough to proceed systematically from some sort of commonly known point it'd probably help. I also did not see the analogy.
Let's illustrate the illustrative analogy by the help of an illustrative analogous table: Thesis. In the general discussion of currency (A) at issue is the problem of inflation (B). The fact is that Bitcoin allows creation of new currency (C) through market-controlled mechanisms (D) but not through fiat, or if you prefer political, mechanisms (F). Analogy. In the general discussion of human life (A') at issue is the problem of procreation (B'). The fact is that marriage allows the creation of new people (C') through intra-marriage mechanisms (D') but not through public, or if you prefer orgiastic, anonymous, polyamorous, loser-gets-some-action-too mechanisms (F'). Therefore bitcoins are the analogue of married women, Bitcoin (as a protocol) the analogue of marriage, politics the analogue of irresponsible, venereal-disease ridden, slovenly, high-risk sexual behaviors. Finally Bitcoin finance is the analogue of wholesome family relations. A pregnant analogy, perhaps. And a pretty clever one at that. Are you for real? The average person does not digest that sort of thing. An analogy should be a way of describing a complex manner in "lamens terms", not further complicating it. |
|
|
|
So not true,i still didnt receive my 4.94 BTC to 19s3uWYzhPAxTkbGJHSciQtMUhLni4Djxh and you still didnt answer since more then 2 days to my support ticket!  how about now? I just made an account with them but this is making me think twice |
|
|
|
oh.. umm.. nothing at all  LOL |
|
|
|
|
"To say Bitcoin is deflationary is akin to saying a married woman is sterile. No, she’s not, the balance of new life is created by married women."
Not the best written analogy i've read, lol..
|
|
|
|
There is only one way to make me completely uninterested in cryptocurrencies: if the big one gets phased out and a "next" one takes over. I would lose all my trust in the concept, knowing that my coins will lose value when a newer currency comes out. I want there to be just "one", otherwise its just a shit show. If litecoins, ripples, zerocoins, or shitcoins ever pass bitcoin, then thats the day i stick solely with fiat money.. there's enough "play" in this game as it is, competing cryptocurrencies will just chase me away if this gets out of control.
Zerocoin is NOT an alternative currency. It is a proposed extension to Bitcoin to solve the lack of anonymity in Bitcoin transactions. Since all transactions of every Satoshi ever spent is recorded in the blockchain, you can imagine how easy it is to map out the connections, deduce owners, and see who has how much, and where it went. It is like a built in mixing service. The Zerocoin name is unfortunate, as everyone seems to *assume* it must be some derivative cryptocurrency, when in fact it is an anonymity extension to Bitcoin. My bad. I was just throwing names out there which I knew nothing about. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is whatever we want it to be. It's ours now, not the creators.
|
|
|
|
|
how am i supposed to trust someone with 28 posts
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
