The point of 2-fa wasn't to make an account bullet-proof, but to significantly improve security without being huge inconvenience.

For the average person, 2-fa is sufficient security. In order to login to one of your accounts, the hacker would have:

     [1] Your password

     [2] Your username

     [3] The website

     [4] Your phone

So unless you are worried about your roommate stealing phone and knowing all of this stuff, you are pretty safe.


Edit: As the post above me says: be careful with your TOTP codes. Even though a lot of people think they are harmless because they expire, they don't expire immediately. Often you can still use the code for up to 30 minutes, giving the hacker plenty of time to login and disable 2-fa + anything else.


Most important thing to realize: You are probably the biggest threat to your own security, always double check.

Trump saying he is going to ban Bitcoin is like him saying he is going to build a border wall. Neither will happen. I wouldn't worry about it too much, but his tweets certainly do affect the crypto-market, along with the regular stock-market. Like I always say, there is no bad publicity for things like Bitcoin.

I was pretty much at the same place you were around 2 years ago. One recommendation I have: start simple. One of the hardest things about programming is learning the general concept and how it all works. Once you learn one language, the others become significantly easier. I would suggest starting with a higher-level (closer to "human") language, such as Java or Python. I started with Python and I absolutely don't regret it at all, the main reason is: it's extremely flexible and you can learn so many useful skills from it. It's also becoming more and more useful in the age of data analytics, as compared to Java which is fading.

Absolutely the best way to learn programming is through an actual book, the online courses are awful and just a waste of money.

Here is an awesome collection Python textbooks.

One piece of advice that I can offer in order make "unbiased gambling" easier, is to acknowledge the fact that the money you put in is already gone. For example, if I ever deposit: I imagine that I no longer own the money anymore, usually it makes it easier to accept loses if you already accept it.

Yea that's what's so crazy about it, even when you "know" methods don't work, you can still sometimes convince yourself that it does. I still have a lot of trouble understanding exactly how the math works, just because the sheer scale. Statistics is such a fascinating subject, especially when gambling is involved.

Now that's a whole different generation

Slowly making my way there! Almost a full member now which I never thought was possible, just gotta focus on actually contributing and everything else will come eventually!

The martingale is probably one of the most known and most popular betting methods of all time.

Just for a simple example of the outcomes of using martingale:

Lets say you have 100$ (for simplicity), only doubling 100% on a loss (50 / 50 coin-flip), doing this until you hit 200$ or bust.

You would have a 50% chance of doubling your money (+100$) and 50% chance of losing everything (-100$). This gets a lot worse when you start to look at house edge, hence the house always wins phrase.

Introduction

In continuation of my last thread on the Gambler's Fallacy I am writing this thread to explain more specifically why "strategic" methods don't work. We've all heard of and seen these methods float around forums for years, let's end that. Let people have fun, and don't trick them into thinking they have better odds using a "method".

---

Definition

The principle of the impossibility of a gambling system is a concept in probability. It states that in a random sequence, the methodical selection of subsequences does not change the probability of specific elements.

---

A Simple Example

A sequence of fair coin tosses produces equal and independent 50/50 chances for heads and tails.

Let's take a series of coin flips (h = heads, t = tails, x = next flip):

     {A}: H T H H H T X

     {B}: T T T T T T X

Given series {A} and series {B} (assuming a fair coin), the odds that "X" becomes a "T" (or tails) is 50%.

---

Why

As a mathematical consequence of computability theory, more complicated betting strategies (such as a martingale) also cannot alter the odds in the long run.

---

What is considered a "method"

A simple system of betting on heads every 3rd, 7th, or 21st toss, etc., does not change the odds of winning in the long run. This includes all popular methods like martingale, etc. (Remember we are talking about things like dice rolls and coin tosses here, in contrast to something like poker which requires some level of skill)

---

In conclusion

Just gamble how you want to, don't feel bad because you aren't missing out on anything. Often times, methods can end up taking more of your money because of the house edge. Even though a lot of people seem to understand that methods don't change your odds, I've still seen plenty of others who believe they work. Please never buy methods, I've seen it happen too many times.

---

Further reading:

Wikipedia Page | In-depth Thesis

Far too late at this point, with something like this it has to be implemented right from the start, otherwise it just goes to shit. Plus it just adds complexity for no reason, the forum is setup the way it is because it works and I like it just fine. Yea there are some things I would fix but anyone still using the forum likes it in one form or another. Why would you want to take something, that you like already and then give everyone else the power to change it for you?

Employing betting strategies (such as a martingale) cannot alter the odds in the long run. However, as you said: you are never going to gamble enough to achieve a large enough sample. You are legitimately the first person I have met who understands martingale and the odds, but still uses the method. Good luck on those joy rides

That is again, false. I think you are not realizing the independence of events, here is a good explanation:

"While a run of five heads has a probability of 1/32 = 0.03125 (a little over 3%), the misunderstanding lies in not realizing that this is the case only before the first coin is tossed. After the first four tosses, the results are no longer unknown, so their probabilities are at that point equal to 1 (100%). The reasoning that it is more likely that a fifth toss is more likely to be tails because the previous four tosses were heads, with a run of luck in the past influencing the odds in the future, forms the basis of the fallacy."

To add on a little more, I think you are speaking of statistical regularity "or a notion in statistics and probability theory that random events exhibit regularity when repeated enough times or that enough sufficiently similar random events exhibit regularity. It is an umbrella term that covers the law of large numbers, all central limit theorems and ergodic theorems."

It is commonly confused with the gambler's fallacy:

"This phenomenon should not be confused with the gambler's fallacy, because regularity only refers to the (possibly very) long run. The gambler's fallacy does not apply to statistical regularity because the latter considers the whole rather than individual cases."

The odds don't change at all based on streaks, because people often think parts need to be representative of the whole leading to the erroneous belief that streaks must even out.

You can disagree all you want, but it's a statistical fact. You are more inclined to think that the odds are different because your brain tries to play tricks on you.

It may not be that hard to google something but just post the link... Whenever you discuss something people might ask for, it's common sense to leave a link to avoid confusion

Here is the book on GoodReads, it has reviews and where it is available for purchase.

Seems like a pretty popular book, I may check it out when I have some extra time.

Do you have any reason on why though? I don't see why it would be such an issue to implement as it looks pretty simple to me. I think there are also different "levels", all I want is to be able to add my BitcoinTalk account to it and verify that I own it. Also the "new" forum software has been out forever and it's still not here...

Was recently reading Keybase's Proof Integration Guide and I think it would be absolutely perfect for the forum? I swear I don't work for Keybase but I'm sure some of you here are on it, and it simplifies so many things.

So why Keybase?

• It's a lot more efficient than the current staking your address method.
• Connects other services to create a safer environment everywhere.
• Uses blockchain technology to verify and encrypt (everyone here loves the blockchain).

From what I can tell, implementation would be that hard and it can definitely be expanded-on in the future. Have any of you used keybase before? What do you think about implementing it on here?

I'm sure there is a ton more I could talk about but I just wanted to hear some thoughts.

Wow, thanks a ton for the ideas! I just couldn't think of anything and now it seems kind of obvious... I knew these domains had potential, do you have any advice for starting a website like this? I have some experience in web development, but I figure you might have some idea on where to start in the crypto world?

Have some Bitcoin / Crypto related domain names. I plan to probably turn one of them into my next project to focus on. Only problem is, I'm not the most creative person and I figured someone could help me out on here. Would love to hear your thoughts, and any visions or ideas you have for any of these websites.

Yea I never leave coins in an exchange, period. It's not even that I necessarily think the exchange will get hacked, but I just like knowing I have full ownership over my currency and it's not in some "pool". I hate the feeling of sending my coins into an "abyss" like an exchange, because as soon as you deposit: they aren't yours anymore. I always stick to the rule of immediately depositing to my own wallet. Exchanges are good at transacting trades, but they aren't your bank, nor should they have to be.