Estoy viendo generalmente como positivo el cambio de panorama, con menos scams y más proyectos un poco más sólidos. Aunque para un cambio de "fase" (te referís, seguramente, a una fase de adopción masiva, de la mano de estos proyectos) creo que aún es temprano.
El gran problema que veo es que de muchos proyectos me parece que, si bien no se trata realmente de scams, tampoco resuelven ningún problema concreto, sino más bien son intentos de empresas de entrar en el mercado de las blockchain y asegurarse una porción de la torta. La criptomoneda de Telegram es un buen ejemplo. ¿Que problemas resuelve que no resolvió Bitcoin u alguna otra criptomoneda? Simplemente se busca tener control sobre una criptomoneda (o un proyecto blockchain), y eso es justo lo que va en contra de los principios de las criptomonedas, ya que estas en realidad fueron concebidas para que no haya ningún control centralizado. (Por eso, también estoy un poco de acuerdo con AbraxasCcs, aunque no veo todo tan negativo).
Esto no quiere decir que yo sea maximalista de Bitcoin, pero la mente humana es limitada, y en mi opinión solo sobrevivirá una pequeña parte de estas criptomonedas (quizá 100 o 200 tendrán alguna relevancia, y solo unas pocas realmente serán fuertes), y los que invertirán en el resto, perderán. La de Telegram puede tener fuerza en el corto y mediano plazo ya que es un proyecto relativamente conocido, pero no estoy convencido de que sobrevivirá realmente a largo plazo.
Es diferente el panorama en el caso de los proyectos que solamente usan tokens para el financiamiento de una empresa que no necesariamente tenga algo que ver con criptomonedas, como si fuera una acción. Este uso me parece razonable y veo potencial para que crezca, sobre todo en países con una regulación menos estricta que EEUU.
Por mera distribucion de Pareto el 80% de altcoins se va a ir basicamente a 0. Veremos aun algo de accion en paginas como CMC, pero sera marginal, irrelevante y para nada significativo como para decir que no estan muertas. El % de dominancion de Bitcoin se va a ir a 90% en los proximos años. Yo diria que vamos a ver la ultima oportunidad de los que aun tienen alts en su portfolio para que puedan soltar lastre y pasarase a una posicion 100% Bitcoin dejando de lado los sueños e ilusiones ridiculas de hacerse rico teniendo la altcoin que hace un x1000 en tu poder, lo cual es como ir al casino o aun peor, por que en el casino al menos esta regulado y no te van a robar el dinero en un exchange de chinos. |
|
|
|
^^ Right. Let Khabib finished Tony first and let's see how Dana will set up this fight.
I'm sure Dana in a hear beat will organised everything and set up a rematch. After all it will bring more money in UFC specially if it will be held in a hostile environment such as Russia. I don't know how will Conor will market this fight, I mean will he go that route attack, (attacking Khabib's wife and religion etc.)
It will be the biggest fight EVER on the UFC, surpassing the first match. All the naysayers saying "we don't want to see Conor beat up again by Khabib, it's already done" will be buying and watching, or perhaps only watching... but still watching at the end of the day. Odds will obviously be for a Khabib stoppage, the money will be in betting for a Conor win. My strategy is to put money on Conor by UD, there is no other way I see Conor winning, maybe SD if super close. I don't see him stopping Khabib, however, and believe it or not, I see Conor being able to stay away from the fence for some sounds and force Khabib to be on the feet. He is going to need to improve his cardio a lot, his stamina has to be ready for the last 2 rounds. I think people are underrating Conor's grappling, he did actually pretty good on fight 1, the nightmare comes when he is pushed against the fence, he has to avoid that. But first, we need to see how it goes for Tony, but the good news for Conor fans is that it doesn't matter the outcome, the rematch is happening 100% assuming Conor doesn't fight before the rematch and losses.. perhaps that would kill the buzz, so if he fights he MUST win. |
|
|
|
Huge news... Khabib's dad agreed on a Conor McGregor rematch in Russia... this will be epic: https://www.mmamania.com/2019/10/3/20897858/ufc-khabib-father-conor-mcgregor-rematch-russia-timeline-eagle-return-mmaHe has given this statement: “But before McGregor we should finish our business with Ferguson,” Abdulmanap Nurmagomedov admitted.” Because he had 28 fights, and runs a 12-fight winning streak in the UFC, just like Khabib. Such winning streaks and such big fights have never happened in the UFC,” he added. I really hope to see the rematch. McGregor has got way too much him. I mean I get it, he punched the guy on that bar and stuff, but people are sleeping on him. He's had 3 losses, and all of them were extremely difficult fights. McGregor if anything can be said about him is that he has balls. He wants Khabib in Russia. Everyone would be scared to even dare to do that. Now he must be happy because Khabib does pretty much anything his dad says, so I can really see this happening in 2020. I just wonder if McGregor is going to have an intermediate fight. The obvious bet is Khabib winning as usual, but people saying that Khabib will have an easy night against McGregor are underrating him. I don't consider the upset happening to be impossible. I mean we've had Ruiz and other upsets happening, why couldn't McGregor do it again? There's a chance if he fixes his cardio and is also more prone to exchange on the feet without constant treat of takedowns. He did better than Barboza, Johnson and Poirier after a big time out. If he remain active im going to give him a chance. But for this to happen, first goes Fergusson, and that is an huge night for Khabib. I really wonder if he can beat Fergusson. In any case, it seems the rematch is in 100%. |
|
|
|
lo siento, pero nunca lo haría. nunca vendería todas mis posesiones / activos para comprar bitcoins, lo mejor del mundo lo haría con placer, pero tal vez con los ahorros que dejé de lado, bitcoin es demasiado volátil para convertirlo en el único. inversión financiera, y luego creo que los bitcoins deben ganarse y no comprarse...
Es un buen punto cuando dices que bitcoins deben ganarse y no comprarse, porque automáticamente se está convirtiendo en un ingreso adicional a lo que normalmente se hace trabajando en un empleo tradicional. Si se ve de esta manera, creo que es muy correcta, la calidad de vida comienza a cambiar, claro creo que el método más acertado es a través de Trading o Campañas. De acuerdo a ello, si se obtiene Bitcoins como actividad adicional, se puede tomar decisiones de inversión y especulación más arriesgadas, por lo que es bueno hacer un buen plan estratégico tanto para especulación como para inversión para que esos ingresos puedan perdurar. Aunque cabe destacar que cuando se tienen este tipo de ingresos y pasa alguna emergencia es una bendición tener esos Bitcoins ahí guardados. El problema de tener ingresos en Bitcoin es que vas a tener que convertirlos en fiat para poder comprar cosas, es decir tendras gastos en comisiones ya sea en la blockchain para moverlos a un exhange para venderlos o en el mismo exchange. Ademas, debes pagar impuestos, y el problema es que esta muy verde aun y no se sabe bien como actuar. Los gestores cada uno te va a decir una cosa. Por eso creo que no tiene mucho sentido andar estando vendiendo cada dos por tres, mejor tratarlo como algo a largo plazo y ver que haces en un futuro. Para vivir es mejor tener una actividad normal en fiat. A no ser que se hagan reglas claras y tengas un nivel de seguridad de que al vender BTCs no entran en riesgo tu cuenta bancaria y otras cosas, no hay mucha confianza en nada con ellos a corto plazo. |
|
|
|
So it doesn't matter how fast and efficient your brand new machine is, when it's spoofing your transactions and profiling you. Result = people is being forced to use old hardware.
thats where airgapped wallets will be the future. imagine a phone as a hardware wallet where the only communication is sending a signed transaction via displaying it as a qr code on screen. the retailer views the qr code and obviously if the destination address is spoofed the retailer wont accept it to broadcast common sense, why would a retailer broadcast the customers singed tx if the retailer aint the recipient of funds its like olden days credit card validation. if a card doesnt pass a luhncheck (math test giving a checksum of the long card number) then the retailer wont even bother connecting to the bank to even bother checking the balance or authorising the payment also by only ever displaying signed tx, there is no way to transmit the private key thus safer than current wallets. even if a chip is vulnerable if the only display is a signed tx, its not going to cause harm in short there is a solution to your problem, i see people using home pc as their networking device to grab a UTXO to scan into a airgapped hand device where the hand device is the wallet but this topic wants to talk about speed/size scaling the blocks/validation. which has nothing to do with private key security We already have Trezors and so on, and they have been compromised before. Nothing can beat a proper computer where you have total control of everything, of course you need expert security at Linux level and so on.. I dont see a replacement in terms of a hardware device for this that exists right now and nobody seems to be doing this anytime soon. In any case what we are talking about is running nodes, that is why is related to this topic. Running a node is not having a wallet, it's having both, so you can broadcast them through your node which has verified the blockchain is legit. And so here is the problem: In order to remain safe you have to use old hardware, thus we are limited to that old hardware if you want full security for your node. 1. trezors flaw is that it needs to connect to a computer. and then use the computers GUI to log-in.[keyboard logger risk][phishing risk] people have made many phishing/virus schemes that pretend to say 'device issues please input seed' to steal your funds because they broadcast the seed to the hacker. yes gen1 hardware wallets are crap. but this does not make using generic computers better. 2. microprocessor technology is evolving so much that it wont require desktop computers at $1000 with a 20" lcd screen and a 15inch keyboard and mouse to opperate. it will be devices the size of your phone that in the future will have terrabytes of storage that cost well under $1k 3. as for wallet security instead of a mouse/keyboard. imagine having a smartwatch that stores the private key and only ever.. yes ill say it again only ever displays a QR code of a signed tx. and you sweep your arm over a reader much like scanning a can of beans barcode at a grocery checkout. no need to type in seeds[keyboard logger risk], no need to have on screen prompts asking you to log into accounts[phishing risk]. its one thing many people dont like buying things online and still prefer cash and physical stores. they simply dont like having crucial fund stealable information linked to the internet. so ofcourse separating the tx signing function from the blockchain validating function is the future of security. you will see in the future yes 'node' will have the facility to broadcast new transactions, but the security of signing it will be things like wearables and mobile devices. after all who wants to walk into a walmart with a desktop pc because they have to, which is what your presuming by saying people ned to use old hardware. this means people dont need to trust their own node or anyone elses node such as retailer checkout scanners to broadcast their payment as the node never asks, and never gets the private key/seed and now for the comedy of some assertions you are trying to push.. it seems as if you are trying to say that blockchains should not scale (yea we know the COREporate reason behind that) and then try to push a myth that computers post say 2005(ill let your friends myth up the practical year) no computer i safe for bing a wallet and such blockchain tech is forever, for the next billions years stuck behind some mythical security risk of said year. it makes me laugh when people try to say blockchains should not scale due to security risks. when there are EASY work arounds/fixes to the problem. but the COREporate plan is make excuses not to innovate/scale The problem with microwearables and small stuff is that you can't properly manage something like an interface similar to Coin Control for real control of what you are doing with your money. What you are talking about at least how I envision it, wouldn't feature that. So you would still need a proper computer, with Linux, doing all of that, and right now, we are stuck with the same old CPU's. And as far as ETFbitcoin said, im aware of certain "exploits" in order computers, however, what you can exploit in an old computer is nothing compared to the modern CPU's which come with pre-installed at the hardware level OS's and work even when you turn them down.As far as the "COREporate" thing you are missing the point. Im not claiming the blocksize must not be raised to LN has a point. All im saying is, the game theory doesn't check in in order to raise the blocksize, not now, not anytime soon, it will just not happen, even if all Core devs wanted to, that's irrelevant. This is part of being actually decentralized. Immutabiliy of the core (not Core) protocol is a valuable thing, so the loss of an use case for grocery-making is compensate by a long shot, by having an immutable, unconfiscable, uncensorable asset, unique on the planet, as the Bitcoin experiment cannot be replicated. |
|
|
|
|
What no one pointed out is that were there tons of BOTS and scams, typically impersonating famous people, trying to get people's coins back then. As usual, scams and bots naturally go away as BTC price goes down. They will be back on track during the next bull run, which will skyrocket the charts of popularity, coupled with the actual increased organic traffic.
It's like a snowball effect of: higher price ->increased hashrate -> increased security ->headlines popping around how BTC is going for ATH -> opportunist scammers pumping the price even more and scamming people on the internet to steal their bitcoins -> more and more traffic
This spiral ends with a crash, and we have an higher floor, rinse and repeat. (Even tho floors will become after smaller and smaller crashes across time)
|
|
|
|
That graph is only for 2019 right ? We all knew that 2019 was not a good time to trade altcoins especially in q1 and q2 but there is still hope for q3 and q4 for the accumulation zone which in my opinion already began. You will be surprised to see what 2020 and 2021 will bring for good altcoins and I'm taking only for a few of them.
If you hold bags of dead coins better dump them before they go to 0 as most of them took 90% from initial investors and they don't plan to ever come back to that price. Just have a look on ROI on every major altcoin and you will see that almost none of them return something to the investors since the last bull run. Furthermore they won't even think to exit scam as they already did long time ago ( check masternodes per example and you will see what I'm talking about ). Another problem will be the fact that people will keep buying dead altcoins, keeping them alive in some way when they should get abolish from the markets.
It doesn't really matter. Altcoins didn't really exists as a thing back then. While I still believe CMC chart is very vague, misleading and pretty unaccurate (because it shows an actual lower % of BTC domination than it really is because of reasons explained above in another post I made) it's still pretty telling: https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#dominance-percentageAltcoins ere a fad, a come and go thing. I give it another go, another chance to dump your coins during the next Bitcoin craze to $100k. That will be when the tide finally shifts and even the dumbest guy in town already knows altcoins are scams to get more BTC from the unexperienced. Unless an altcoin comes up with groundbreaking stuff at the fundamental levels, we are going back to 95% BTC dominance (real, not CMC levels) easily. By CMC levels, I think we can hit 75 to 80% during the next 5 years. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen a single "decentralized exchange" yet. All of them run on altcoins, which to begin with, it's risky to assume that they have any levels of decentralization enough to survive the attack of an entity of global attacker status, or even worse, smaller entities in coordination with enough horsepower to f*ck you up. Once again, this McAfeeDex thing is "backed by the Ethereum blockchain". Did people forget about this? https://hackernoon.com/the-ethereum-blockchain-size-has-exceeded-1tb-and-yes-its-an-issue-2b650b5f4f62I wouldn't trust any of this. If authorities wanted, I would bet they can end those "decentralized" exchanges. |
|
|
|
Why does a currency need to prove it self? Did PayPal ask the world if they can solve the global warming problems or if they could cure hunger? People look at the use case for a currency and they apply it to improve on the previous option that they had and that is where Bitcoin comes in. Bitcoin is not centralized, so political agendas cannot interfere with the payment process and it is pseud anonymous to protect the owners financial data. Bitcoin is also border less, so you can send bitcoins to anyone, anywhere in the world. People will look at that are use that in their own circumstances and that is how it solves problems and challenges.  Totally different beasts. Paypal is a centralized payment processor for fiats alike. Bitcoin's use case is extremely niche for the common average joe, that is why I think it will never be mainstream, or at least not as a regular means of payment. As long as you require technical expertise to secure Bitcoins, and this is a fundamental premise, then it cannot be mainstream by definition. For other reasons as well such as any business that's legal needs to go through KYC and regulations so people would rather get paid in fiat. If a country is developed then its citizens aren't going to flock to BTC. The main point is that BTC does not need to be mainstream to be worth millions of $, this is something that a lot of people seem to miss. |
|
|
|
|
I agree that having your entire transaction history in there isn't smart in some cases, but what you want is too risky IMO... In order to avoid output consolidation in a tx thus decreasing privacy and in order to avoid fees due manual tx's separately with Coin Control in separate addresses to keep privacy... can't you just export the private keys you want and export them into a new wallet without any tx's involved? Or when you import the private key in a new wallet it exports the entire history related to that address too? I don't think so, I reckon doing this once to dump forks, but it was annoying af doing it one by one.. what can you do?
Maybe we could have a command that goes like "drumpprivkey from X to Y" so you get them in a batch and then import this also in a batch to save time?
|
|
|
|
To us we may say its rigged because of what we see and believe but in the record book of boxing, its just a number without an explanation that it was rigged and Horn was exposed after that fight. Crawford is a good name to toss in the pool of possible opponent for Manny Pacquaio. Floyd Mayweather is definitely out of the list, he just want easy money.
That was clearly a rigged, and the only mark of this game is that those judges are corrupt since Horn failed to prove against Crawford. I think if we will see Crawford fight against Manny and Manny will beat crawford, the more people will be convince that the fight where Manny lose against Horn was clearly a rig fight, rigged by the judges. We have 4 possible fights right now: Terence Crawford vs Errol Spence. Manny Pacquiao vs Errol Spence Manny Pacquiao vs Terence Crawford I believe Crawford and Spence are going to duck each other heavily, they don't want to face the up and coming undefeated prospects. I think they believe they have higher chances at making an huge payday by doing a Pacquiao PVP selloff rather than going directly for the clash of both guys. The mistake is that they are sleeping on Manny. Judging by the performance I saw last night, I don't see it as crazy at all if Manny can stop Errol. I mean the guy is thought, but I believe Manny is more dangerous than Porter and Errol will get dropped if he gets caught with a right hand. Possible upset on that fight and massive money to be made in Vegas odds.. |
|
|
|
You seem to be living in an alternate universe; agreement was reached last time, and the blocksize was quadrupled.
Agreement... more like a clusterfuck. Segwit got in via miracle. I don't see that ever happening again, ever.
I repeat: Erlay is not a consensus change, so there is no plausible fork.
any fork-coin to avoid Erlay couldn't possibly work, people could make an Erlay implementation for the fork, and it would interoperate with the flood relay on that coin no problem. It would be a completely pointless exercise.
My point is that someone would hardfork Bitcoin after Erlay and also include a 16MB blocksize or something and market it as the next big pump. The shitcoin market is all about marketing and taking advantage of events that raise attention. So pushing for the "blocksize increase because now we have Erlay" narrative, not getting the blocksize increase then going their way to market this fork of Bitcoin is something I see happening. However the hardfork is definitely pretty much dead but I predict in special situations someone will keep milking this cow, it's all about timing. And I will be there to dump for more actual BTC. |
|
|
|
|
I've always had this idea of a ying-yang system where ying is a deflationary money strictly limited in amount that cannot be counterfeit, shielded from falsification and easy to settle value with and that's Bitcoin. Then you could have the yang, which are inflationary bank notes based upon this reserve asset. Those could be the second layers of Bitcoin, and banks would compete with each other to deliver the best rates. Hal Finney had this idea back in 2009.
As far as taxes goes, as far as there is a government, there will be a need for taxes. Corruption is the problem, but with a system like Bitcoin + second layers for credit, it would be way more morally correct than the hyperinflation unsustainable insanity. Blockchain also allows to know where your tax money goes. Im all about helping the less fortunate through taxes, I just hate being ripped off.
|
|
|
|
The irony has gone full circle now and biten on Vitalik's smart ass that was claiming how there was this huge problem with Bitcoin fees and how his socialist worldview didn't allow for transactions to be above a number of dollars in fees. This was discussed years ago:  Vitalik has been selling the pipedream of a decentralized computer for so long and people keep buying. I still haven't seen any credible arguments for the long term viability of the project. Last I heard is that they wanted to partner with BCash to scale. Go figure. |
|
|
|
1) General public has been demolished and demoralized. Everyone that is still hasn't realized altcoins are dead are about to.
Altcoins aren't dead, just taking a break like they've done many times in the past. If you think they're dead, you're missing a buying opportunity IMO. 4) OTC options like Bakkt are ready for boomers and computer illiterates which want exposure to Bitcoin but have no resources to keep their own
Bakkt is for the big-money players if I'm not mistaken, not for the populations you described. I'm fairly computer illiterate but you don't need an extensive technical understanding to own bitcoin, just like you can drive a car without being a mechanic. In fact, this 4th point you brought up perplexes me a bit. A trader who doesn't have "resources to keep their own" bitcoin probably won't be using Bakkt at all. How much are you buying monthly?
Monthly? Not much. I'm more than happy to be just a bystander, watching the market swings without having a lot of bitcoin. But nor am I selling. I do agree with the title of the thread, but I figured the re-accumulation phase was in effect when bitcoin was at or above $10k, so who knows. You can participate in Maddof schemes for a number of times until you get burnt. This is the equivalent of "im buying the dip because altcoins are low, and altcoins always come back". Eventually, altcoins will not be comming back, and the tide will finally shift towards natural state of things (total BTC domination), then altcoin bagholders will have their last cry on reddit about how they became scammed by this and that token. As far as Bakkt goes, noobs expected a massive instapump, and they got dumped on the news. Bakkt is about planning ahead, getting the infrastructure ready for when the moment comes. And when it comes to securing Bitcoin, you would be surprised how dumb and inexpert people in Wall Street are when it comes to computers, and im taking TOP money managers in elite trust funds. They don't have any idea in how to do the whole package of things that come with securing Bitcoin. It's an entirely different skill than being great with money. The way I see it is that Bakkt is for money managers/brookers, to get clients and manage portfolios and put BTC exposure throught it. They can make a call and get everything done for them through Bakkt, they dont even need to do it themselves. It's part of the service. |
|
|
|
Peter Wiulle doesn't paint a pretty picture on the state of things currently: Any unconfirmed transaction in flight exposes public keys, so if a QC exists, at least moving coins around safely becomes impossible. Further, a massive fraction of the currency supply can be taken. Lastly, you likely have exposed your own pubkey already. Given all those hypothetical attack models that pubkey hashing doesn't help with at all, I think it's fair to say that Bitcoin as it exists today is not quantum secure, period. If you have an idea that can really hide pubkeys then do a BIP and translate it into code, but the point PWiuelle makes is that already exposed pubkeys are all funds prone to be QC'd which means it's an epic cluster since everyone would need to move their funds. Ideally there should be a hardfork and satoshis coins moved to be protected somehow... I hope someone smart is really planning ahead and thinking of the game theory involved to coordinate this stuff, because not only you need the code but you need planning and consensus. |
|
|
|
 The chart aligns with a perfect timing for: 1) General public has been demolished and demoralized. Everyone that is still hasn't realized altcoins are dead are about to. 2) Huge updates coming for Bitcoin, start reading on this for instance: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.105183) Halving comes at the right time 4) OTC options like Bakkt are ready for boomers and computer illiterates which want exposure to Bitcoin but have no resources to keep their own How much are you buying monthly? |
|
|
|
Results: we save half of the bandwidth a node consumes, allow increasing connectivity almost for free, and, as a side effect, better withstand timing attacks.
If outbound peer count were increased to 32, Erlay saves around 75% overall bandwidth compared to the current protocol.” As far as I can tell, this could create another wave of people demanding a block size increase due the reduced costs in maintaining a node, so I can see pressure on raising the block size again making a case out of this update. The question is, will there be an agreement on increasing the block size this time? I bet that the outcome is a no. Looking forward to dumping "Bitcoin Erlay" for more Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10518
Unlike block relay, transaction dissemination has received little attention in prior work. We propose a new transaction dissemination protocol, Erlay, that not only reduces the bandwidth consumption by 40% assuming current connectivity, but also keeps the bandwidth use almost constant as the connectivity increases. In contrast, the existing protocol increases the bandwidth consumption linearly with the number of connections. By allowing more connections at a small cost, Erlay improves the security of the Bitcoin network. And, as we demonstrate, Erlay also hardens the network against attacks that attempt to learn the origin node of a transaction. Erlay is currently being investigated by the Bitcoin community for future use with the Bitcoin protocol.
Yeah this looks great on paper... reduction of bandwith and more security? Could anyone make a case for this being controversial to add for any reason? Segwit was also on principle only benefits but a whole narrative against it was constructed. Even if this can be added without the miner signal clusterfuck, there's always people that find things to pick at. You can link directly link in youtube now https://youtube.com/watch?v=YxsjdIl0034&t=13m00s
|
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with Dereyvanchenko so I checked his boxing record, https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/691996He looks solid but when we step up the competition against Daniel Jacobs, he lost. So for me, he doesn't have that elite level status as compare to triple G here. So I would definitely say that Triple G can easily win this fight and it could end in a knockout. As far as age goes, he still got it even though we know that he won the first fight against Canelo and the second was a close one that can go either way. That's right. I think it's an easy win for triple G. Even I am not interested in watching this fight but I will place me bet on triple G on sportsbet. Should be easy for Golovkin, but should be doesn't mean it's really an easy fight.. I don't believe in easy fights anymore after i've seen Andy Ruiz and Otto Wallins beat and on the second case scare us with that massive cut on Tyson's eye which almost ends up in TKO. Combat sports is a crazy sport, everything can change so easily. Perhaps that is just things which happen in heavyweight and here we have a safe triple G bet for UD or KO, but I no longer feel safe even on those bets. The odds are so crap that it doesn't pay that much unless you have a massive amount to risk, you have to factor in taxes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
