There might not be enough demand

That is, you may be one of the few who is actually buying lottery tickets with their hard-rolled satoshi (other then receiving them for free). On the other hand, if they add this option, it is reasonable to expect more people to go with it when they see it. So it will be a rational thing to implement this feature. Provided they are really interested in selling more tickets, of course, as with such things you can expect many instances of counterintuitive approaches (when things don't work the way you feel they should)


This is another can of worms

In fact, it cuts both ways

As it depends on what kind of regulation is being enforced by the authorities. If the rules and regulations are not about banning crypto out of hand, but actually about making things clear and well-defined, i.e. about regulating it (as in Japan, for example), that would in fact make accepting cryptocurrencies easier. When the rules are clearly defined, merchants will always know where they stand in respect to cryptocurrencies and can act accordingly

This is the same with cryptocurrencies in general

People had been "diversifying" by pouring their hard-earned cash into all kinds of fraudulent schemes (like shitcoins, shittokens, rogue casinos, and whatnot). And when everything started to crash at the end of the day, they were bitterly surprised by the results of their "diversification"

It turns out that when you diversify recklessly and thoughtlessly, for example, by investing in every new casino on the block, you are not so much increasing the odds of making more money as essentially multiplying your chances for losing most of your investments

Isn't it essentially six of one and half a dozen of the other?

Regardless, it seems to me  that you are misusing the term adoption or misunderstanding what it actually means. With adoption, Bitcoin is not bought or sold (as this is what speculation is all about). Adoption is about real use of Bitcoin, for example, as a means of payment (or as a value transfer vehicle in real life) when things are bought and sold for bitcoins. Indeed, you can say that when I'm buying something for it, I'm basically selling my bitcoin (and vice versa), but this is a poor man's excuse if you ask me

That's the problem with your ways

Basically, you are looking at only one aspect of something without taking into account other aspects, which can be even more important for the issue in question (read, you don't see the whole picture). For example, you seem to agree that old farts will be spending their long-stashed coins but you evidently don't think about what happens to these coins later

Obviously, they don't disappear as someone receives them, right? But this is how new users will be acquiring bitcoins. So they don't necessarily need to buy them. And why would they, really? Do you buy dollars or whatever to spend them? After all, if we talk about real adoption, it has little to do with trading and speculation

I would certainly agree with your thought If you substituted Litecoin for Bitcoin here

Bitcoin is just too expensive and too dear to be used as a regular means of payment. Do you see a lot of people directly paying with gold coins, apart from in the movies (as in John Wick, for example)? And it is not because gold is cumbersome and inconvenient (even though because of it too) as people could just use gold certificates which would count as paper money backed up gold. They don't pay with gold simply because gold is a store of value, and you typically don't waste such assets (unless you have nothing else to pay with, of course)

In this way, we shouldn't actually expect Bitcoin to become a good currency in the future. But that's not a bad thing at all as we have lots of altcoins to serve as Bitcoin's proxy to being a means of payment. And it won't hurt Bitcoin either as it will only add more value to it as a store of value, i.e. "digital gold"

It is not that simple

Indeed, banks are earning by taking fees on fiat transfers, so if people stop using banks for this purpose and instead start using Bitcoin as a value transfer vehicle, banks will be losing profits. On the other hand, Bitcoin opens a lot of other earning opportunities for banks as well. It is just a matter of adapting and adopting the technology. Banks have expertise, qualified personnel, available infrastructure, so unless they deliberately choose to do nothing, they can still be among the first to the party

Now I feel completely confused

As I got it, BTCevo just says that now you have to wager 1000 satoshi for a doubled payout of reward points which is the same thing as wagering 500 satoshi ("they make some event, with 1000 sat they just double the payout so I think it is just a pointless thing to do this"). Well, I just checked at the faucet and I'm still paid 1 reward point for 1000 satoshi wagered, though it was the same a couple weeks ago. So I don't know how to understand him

I definitely see your point

And I can't say that I particularly disagree with it. However, while a small individual with empty stomach and holey pockets can't indeed dictate his terms (and in this you are certainly right), things change if there are many such individuals. In this case, it becomes essentially the same as one big wheel with deep pockets. Thereby, we still come to the same conclusion, i.e. it is the lack of sufficient demand that prevents merchants from fully embracing crypto

That's not necessarily so

You are essentially assuming that people will be buying more bitcoins if real adoption should grow. But this is no more than what you come to intuitively think. So why do you think that people will be buying more Bitcoin in that case? I was always thinking that real adoption is about spending bitcoins (from already accumulated stashes), not so much buying more. Buying more is more about speculation than real use. If anything, adoption should first of all make prices less volatile. Whether it will be followed by rise in prices remains to be seen

Well, I'm not sure if the term "die" is correct here

We are basically freezing the old blockchain, even setting in stone, figuratively speaking. So how can it possibly die when we are in fact making it eternal, indestructible and irreversible? You can think of it as a read-only archive to get a better understanding of what I propose here

So if anyone is interested in old transactions, that being an academic interest and idle curiosity (for example, to see how it all started 100 years ago), they can easily download the first 50 years of Bitcoin transactions to their brain circuitry and relive the history

The question is not about their money

Even if these guys have been in Bitcoin since its inception (which may well be the case). For this they don't need ETF's, SEC approvals and whatnot. The question is about managing someone else's money (preferably big money). Basically, ETF's and similar institutions (for example, pension funds) are investing the money of their clients. And their clients are these average Joe's who may not even have heard about crypto (let alone been using it)

Strictly speaking, yes, it is still about statistics (i.e. looking back)

For example, once the trend is established, statistically it is more likely that it will go on than reverse right at the next moment, i.e. the odds of its continuation in the next couple units of base time are higher than its reversal (base time here refers to time used to define a trend). But it is about odds only, i.e. it doesn't in the least mean that the trend will continue indefinitely, of course

What I mean by the second approach here is a generalization of this case (including "no trend" option), which excludes from consideration past history, i.e. history before the trend (or its lack) has been established. In other words, it is explicitly assumed that what happened prior to that moment is irrelevant and doesn't affect future behavior or price action (for example, cycles, patterns or anything to that tune)

I'm not sure if I understand correctly what you mean here

As I understand it, your reward points depend on amount wagered and that has little to do with odds as such. For example, you can set the bet amount to 0.01 BTC and lose all at one go (earning 2000 reward points). On the other hand, you can wager only 1000 satoshi and bet this amount till your balance is gone. With 5% house edge that will take something like 20k rolls earning you around 40k reward points

And this seems to be the maximum you can squeeze from your balance if your goal is to earn as many reward points as possible. If you want to get rid of variance completely, you may have to lower your bet amount, but this won't help you earn substantially more (will just take longer)

Merited your post as this is what I've been telling folks for years

I had even created a topic here after Bitfinex got hacked in August 2016 when over 120k bitcoins were stolen. People were nodding their heads in agreement and nothing has changed since then. A truly decentralized exchange is only possible on the blockchain level when your desktop wallet functions as that exchange. But no one is financially interested in this kind of thing since there is no way you could profit off it, apart from running an ICO fraudulent scheme as you correctly note

It is possible to earn that much, now and then

But I don't think you can actually make 1% daily on a day-by-day basis, year in and year out. Here's an interesting chart provided by coingamblingreviews and taken from this topic:



As you can see, in the best case scenario, you would be earning like 60% annually. This is nowhere near doubling your investment in 3 months. In the worst case scenario, you would only "earn" losses. And don't forget that even if you can earn in EOS coins themselves, you may still book losses in USD terms due to devaluation of the underlying cryptocurrency

I think you are misunderstanding the whole point

More specifically, it is not a matter of timeframes at all because if it were, it would mean using the first approach. Basically, as soon as you start talking about timeframes, you are implicitly making your choice (in favor of the first approach). And I don't really know how you can possibly consider the price movement from measly 150 dollars up to almost insane 20k as less volatile, ever. But it is the longest timeframe you can take without losing focus. Indeed, you could take the whole Bitcoin history as "timeframe", but that would effectively destroy the idea of a timeframe (apart from making volatility almost infinite in that case)

Actually, it is not my thought or idea at all

And this phenomenon has even its own name (if anyone remembers it, you are welcome to chime in on this). Simply put, if we know nothing about a certain process, the longer it lasts the more we can be certain that it will go on for at least as long. It has certain application in things like accrual calculations. For example, if a person survives his 20th birthday, there are good chances that he will live up to 50

There are two opposite views on this

Following which you can come to very different, even antagonistic conclusions. According to the first view, prices are set explode (or implode) sooner or later as it has always happened in the past. So technically, we should be counting down the days until it actually happens. On the other hand, the second view suggests that it may not in fact be the case and our counting should actually be in the opposite direction as the longer prices remain stable the more people expect them to be stable in the future

There are basically two approaches in analyzing price action with the purpose of seeing and telling the direction where prices may be going in the future

The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)

The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit

So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too