The domain name "slots.com" itself should worth a lot Am I the only one who reads it as sluts.com? Having been intrigued, I entered the link and my worst concerns have been confirmed as by the look of it, it has more to do with sluts than slots. Kidding aside, I find it strange that I haven't heard about it before as it features quite a few games, though dunno how legit it is. Did anyone try playing there for real? They claim to be a licensed online casino, but I didn't find any relevant information  And while at it, you may also want to check sluts.com as well |
|
|
|
I appreciate the idea but I honestly believe that we can focus on improving infrastructure and technological advancements would be the prime factor in the expansion of the essential infrastructure. In other words, instead of reducing the size of essential data, we should adopt better hardware (storage) and upgrade to 4G, 5G would make the data transfer easier and faster reducing the need of elimination of data in the coming decades I see it pretty much like on-chain scaling That is, instead of solving the problem in its entirety without any extreme expenses (by pruning the blockchain as required), you are basically postponing it by funneling even more resources into it and making it only more burdensome in the future. And I'm not sure how 4G and 5G are going to help here when the Internet speeds in most parts of the world are still around 1 mb per second (or even below that) |
|
|
|
Unless you have a method to normalize this problem then you can win, there is no "known" method out there or it is private / unreleased There's no way you can do that Unless you can either skew the odds in your favor somehow or know what the next bet result will be (against the odds). Both of these cases assume exploiting some bug in the system. Otherwise, it would be equal to saying that the outcomes are not truly random but closer to a normal distribution (or whatever other than random). In simple words, you can't do that as long as we are talking about truly random bets as that would pretty much remove randomness (read, you are not a god) |
|
|
|
That's the point I never forget to mention
Which is that we now have to cope with a lot of let's call them "legacy" shortcomings, which were basically trade-offs back in the day (so they were justified, to a degree). But now they have grown into real roadblocks and obstacles as they weren't disposed of later in due course. And the worst thing is that we will see our problems multiplied in the future unless we efficiently get rid of them before it is too late Could you give a couple examples? You can find an article in the Internet by some prominent digital money proponent where he explains why Bitcoin succeeded despite being mostly a bunch of trade-offs. He claims that Bitcoin was successful specifically because it didn't try to be a perfect solution I didn't save the article, but it is pretty well known So why do we shut our eyes to these future problems? As they say, prevention is better than cure (and I totally agree with that)
With millions of users and so many different stakeholders with different interests, we should expect drastic changes to the protocol to be controversial. The people who have so far opted into Bitcoin agreed to the current rules, right? Changing them isn't so easy with such a diverse ecosystem Actually, I'm perfectly fine with that myself What I'm not fine with is when people start complaining about stalled adoption and at the same refusing to accept that this is an inevitable result of this approach. For example, I can't really expect Bitcoin to become a world money if it would depend on a bunch of rogue miners, end of story. If this is a goal (as claimed), then we should do something to actually get there, right? And that means change, sometimes even radical change |
|
|
|
So I don't think there will be a lot of interest in paper bitcoins.
then why is BAKKT creating them? why is citibank working on digital asset receipts? i assume it's because they think institutions will want to speculate with them. if institutions want to enter the market but not custody their own coins due to risks involved, paper bitcoins would be an obvious solution. fidelity is also working on institutional custody btw I think we should clarify things at this point As I got it, you are talking about paper bitcoins which don't have their back up in the form of real bitcoins ("you'll see bitcoins effectively being printed out of thin air"). But as far as I'm informed, this is not what BAKKT is going to do in practice. Basically, they are going to issue Bitcoin certificates, which are to confirm that they actually have a certain amount of bitcoins in their custody. Obviously, these are two entirely different situations (the first being essentially the same as with cash-settled Bitcoin futures), so please clarify what you mean by paper bitcoins exactly |
|
|
|
You could throw away a few thousand coins at provoking a plunge but if the price goes down and stays down then that's looking like the 'true' price to me. No one can keep a price down for more than a few hours artificially.
there was the bitstamp bearwhale back in 2014. i think that wall took a few days to break.  i agree though. i might give it a day or so to account for banking delays, but if real people are buying/selling a price level for any sustained period of time, that's the real price. that's why i don't buy the BS about willy bots and tether printing either. sure, maybe there were efforts made to pump the price. you think those alone could sustain bubbles (with full-fledged media coverage) for months and months? of course not. real money did thatThere's more to it than you think If it was real money that made the price rise from zero to hero and all the way up to almost 20k (within just one year), then where did that money go? As a conspiracy theory, let's recall that in August 2016 Bitfinex was hacked with over 120k bitcoins stolen. So how could they repay that debt? After they redeemed all BFX tokens in early 2017, they started to run "quantitative easings" with Tether, which allowed them to buy up real bitcoins with fake dollars and close the liquidity gap after the token redemption. That made Bitcoin go parabolic. Then they stopped printing tethers and the price expectedly crashed. It is basically the same thing as with Mt. Gox but done right this time |
|
|
|
there's a distinct possibility that wall street won't pump the market like people think. when you look at commodity futures speculation on wall street, like the gold market, not many contracts are physically delivered. it's mostly speculative trading with profit/loss being rolled into the next contracts. when you combine that dynamic with regular wall street accounting practices (collateral rehypothecation = fractional reserve) then if wall street and the rest of the market consider BAKKT-custodied paper bitcoins as real bitcoins, you'll see bitcoins effectively being printed out of thin air
as long as a trickle of real bitcoins flows in and out of BAKKT (like USD with tether), the market will rationally see paper bitcoins and real bitcoins as equivalent. just like the gold market I don't think that's going to happen Why? Because Bitcoin is not gold. Gold is a universally accepted store of value, proved and tested by time itself. In other words, you receive what you pay for, and it can't lose its value overnight. Bitcoin is different and adding another layer of volatility will definitely be over the top. So I don't think there will be a lot of interest in paper bitcoins. Did cash-settled Bitcoin futures 1.0 spark a lot of interest? |
|
|
|
Wall St should start tiptoeing into the bitcoin market this year with BAKKT, Fidelity, maybe goldman sachs, nasdaq, etc. In the next, let's say, 3 years how many Bitcoin do you think Wall St will buy up? This includes any financial product on Wall St, so I'm talking institutions and hedge funds buying it up, retail investors buying through ETFs, physical backed futures, etc. So any bitcoin bought through Wall St, since that will be a brand new market for bitcoin buyers It seems to me that you are asking wrong questions For example, you should first ask (maybe, even ask yourself) why institutions and hedge funds would want to buy Bitcoin and with what purpose in mind. Right, there can be only one purpose that any of these entities can be looking for, and that is profit. They are in exclusively for earning profit. So far so good. But here comes a tricky part. Which is, how are they going to earn dough with Bitcoin exactly? The only way you could earn profits in the cryptoworld is by buying low and selling high. So if they are going to buy up like 5M bitcoins, what are they going to do next? Keep it or maybe even hodl it? But these people want profits, they are not anywhere close to being a typical cryptocurrency bagholder. And now ask yourself whether they would be willing to become bagholders for us as this is the right question |
|
|
|
Hmm, im having issues withdrawing. OP I would recommend keeping some coins in the hot wallet so services are not disrupted in this manner Let's see how it goes I understand how you guys feel but as long as the casino is actually going to process all the withdrawals within a short while, you should be okay. Keeping some coins in the hot wallet is a good idea, but let's not forget about variance. Sometimes there can be outliers and that's what cold wallets are for (apart from reducing the risks of losing money due to hacks, inside jobs, etc) |
|
|
|
For all you people doing the smart thing now and accumulating Bitcoin on the bottom, two questions:
What's your goal number of bitcoins to accumulate now (or how much will you be satisfied accumulating)? It is definitely not about accumulating Well, for some it may in fact be the ultimate goal, though personally, I think of it as a process (read, the more the better). But it is not really about accumulation at all, it is more about making your bitcoins (or whatever coins you might have) work for you in a profitable and constructive, purposeful way. Keeping bitcoins under the bushel is not my thing and probably not the choice of many other people as well Regarding your second question, you are essentially asking how much money people need to be happy. I guess you can't buy happiness with money but it is certainly better to cry in a mercedes than on a bus. So the lower limit is a mercedes (though lambo would do better)The bolded made me laugh! You are welcome, bro! I have no idea what you mean by making your bitcoin work for you. Bitcoin's aren't real estate you can get renters on (unless you're talking about loaning bitcoin on some platform) and they aren't derivative producing stocks. So I don't know what you mean by making them work for you I mean it should give you a certain impetus for action If you are a trader, you are using Bitcoin (or whatever cryptocurrency you chose to go with) to bring you profits (well, let's assume that). But that's not about profits only or maybe not even about profits at all. Basically, Bitcoin should give you some purpose in life, and then it can be said that it works for you, i.e. it performs a certain purposeful function in your life. Obviously, that should have positive effect on you (i.e. not like living for the bottle) as otherwise why would you be using it? |
|
|
|
Voting is one of the best "niches" where blockchain technology can be applied.
It's weird that Italy is the first country that has an idea to implement blockchain into voting.
It isn't the most tech advanced country and it isn't the most crypto friendly(not that this idea has anything to do with crypto) And it is likely the only one (apart from cryptocurrencies) Nevertheless, these two niches are at the top of things which make our societies tick along (i.e. money and elections). It would be interesting to see how things are going to develop further. I assume countries with strong democratic tradition such as Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, maybe a few other countries won't have any issues in integrating the blockchain into their electoral systems, and after a while other countries may follow their lead. And then we will see which governments are truly democratic and which are only using elections as a disguise for their authoritarian rule |
|
|
|
Shorting a currency does not always result in a drop in it's price, if it did everyone would be shorting and getting profit off their investments. I believe short term traders predict a possible drop in the price and take advantage of it rather than causing the drop by selling their holdings.
I am not an expert trader and do not have deep knowledge about the trades and how actions affect the market.
And to it, I think shorting also would generate more liquidity to the brokers or exchanges as the case may be since it involves not staying long in the market or waiting for lots of profit, and then, re-entrying again. In actual fact, it such practice should bring more gains to bitcoin I agree that shorts might in fact be adding more liquidity to the market Though I don't see how they could add more gains to Bitcoin over long term. When you open a short position, this creates some selling pressure. It doesn't necessarily drive prices down as it may be offset by a rising demand but it exists. When you close a short position, this creates buying pressure. Again it doesn't necessarily lead to higher prices as it may be compensated by a rising supply. There could of course be other effects as things are never that simple in real life, but all in all, shorts should be inconsequential long term |
|
|
|
You're lucky not to have met more people (who think it's sad that others still believe in Bitcoin)... but haven't you seen the orderbooks on futures for the past year? Using your rationale of them shorting Bitcoin that is.
I haven't seen them and what was there? It made sense to short Bitcoin then as in retrospect (aka hindsight) we understand that there was nothing rational about those prices. It may in fact turn out in the end that there is nothing rational with these prices too, but that's not my point. If people say something and moreover if they mean that their words should be taken as a guide (like "sell everything right now while Bitcoin is still worth something"), you would expect them to follow their own advice, and in this particular case that would amount to shorting Bitcoin (as they don't have any bitcoins of their own to sell). Otherwise, it is all empty talk and no walk |
|
|
|
IMO , bitcoin can't be legal as currency because the value too volatile.
Also remember that bitcoin is an asset just like gold so there is no way for bitcoin can be legalize into legit currency.
So far cryptocurrency still hackable so are you dare to use something risky ?
If we don't start at this point, we will never reach that phase. now we must be able to push bitcoin as a currency. bitcoin must be able to have good stability because it is true that when the price of bitcoin is still fluctuating, it will never be able to make bitcoin as a legitimate financial medium. Make bitcoin prices more stable and then we will get a new era of legalization of bitcoin and digital currency I don't think volatility as such has anything to do with the legality of cryptocurrencies (or lack thereof). If this logic and reasoning had anything to do with reality, then crude oil should have been banned long ago for its sometimes severe price fluctuations on the order of dozen percentages daily (though not everyday, obviously). If anything, legalization of bitcoin may be hindered by market manipulation as this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin ETF's are being constantly declined by the SEC But that's a different matter |
|
|
|
If the one particular person who initiates a dump to 3k doesn't do it, someone else would've been along at some point to fulfill that destiny I see what you mean And this is where we disagree. In short, you assume that there is some form of price destiny (like where price "organically" belongs). I say that the whole thing is meaningless like when someone moves the price down and it stays there (with the rest completely inconsequential). Then someone else moves it up and it remains there all over again. In this way, the whole market may be indifferent as to where the price currently is or might be. So there is no "destiny" as it all comes down to someone moving the price hither and thither  To put it differently, the price can be both dead and alive, organic and arbitrary |
|
|
|
I refer here to election systems which allow tamper-proof voting using the blockchain technology. So you set up such a system in a society or community (local or whatever) and then everyone votes in a decentralized and secure manner. In this way "that stuff" (whatever it might be) gets enforced with the blockchain protocol (though in an indirect way) I've always been skeptical about this. How will it work exactly? Everyone gets assigned a public key pair by the state? How do you verify that the only person "voting" is the person who was assigned the private key? How do you ensure that people aren't getting their private keys hacked? I see people getting their crypto wallets hacked left and right. This seems much less secure than the current system with photo ID verification Some of your concerns are valid while others not so much Bitcoin wallets get hacked because Bitcoin is worth something. But what's the purpose of stealing your voting key if you won't be able to use it anyway? Say you steal it from someone and then vote with it. Now we see what could be loosely interpreted as a double spend. Obviously, both votes are then declared invalid, while the legitimate owner receives the right to cast a new vote with a new key (or is obliged to vote in "manual" mode if he is not able to provide enough security for his keys). We could use hardware encryption and that would solve the problem of hacking Regarding technical details how it should work in practice, I guess this system should begin as Bitcoin itself had started, i.e. without any help or assistance from the government (at least, not public). In this way, if enough people will be using such a system for voting on their issues (think of it as a consensus), it will escalate quickly until the government can no longer be considered legitimate if it refuses to accept the results of such a vote. All in all, we just need a new Satoshi Nakamoto, with a voting system in mind Well, but for governments, votes are as important as money, aren't they? What's more, they spend $ in campaigns to attract/buy the votes! Quite a paradox jaja They are even more important than money Money makes the mare go, but it can't buy you power because power is not an asset which can be bought or sold (though dough can help you grab it). But once you have that power, you can print money out of thin air, so it is definitely worth the deal to spend as much money on votes as required. Votes give the government legitimacy, i.e. the right to have power which is obtained in an established way (legal way) |
|
|
|
Well, for some it may in fact be the ultimate goal, though personally, I think of it as a process (read, the more the better). But it is not really about accumulation at all, it is more about making your bitcoins (or whatever coins you might have) work for you in a profitable and constructive, purposeful way. Keeping bitcoins under the bushel is not my thing and probably not the choice of many other people as well
For me it is the ultimate goal How can it possibly be an ultimate goal? Okay, you can of course make it your personal credo to get as many bitcoins as possible and that would essentially be your goal. But I don't think that even Warren Buffett sets similar goals for himself even if he is said to be money married, i.e. making money for the sole purpose of making even more money. In fact, it may be a good strategy as it allows you to focus on one thing, but not in the way of making it your life purpose, of course Regarding your question, it is up to you to decide whether you are considering it a worthy purpose. If that is your goal, I'm okay with it, but personally, I'm more interested in using crypto as a tool for exploring other areas of life, so speculation, ultimately, is purely utilitarian for me, even though I definitely like the thrill of it. Other than that, I agree that there is not much in the way an average Joe can "utilize" their coins |
|
|
|
People are much more bearish than at $6K (a big improvement) but in general still seem too hopeful. More weak hands need to be flushed out it seems
Did you change your stance too? You are the second poster here who I remember having recently changed their mind in respect to future price action. I recall you were way more optimistic not so long ago. Or did you really expect the last rally to continue up and beyond 4k? Maybe you should re-read what I said. Just because someone thinks a short term bull trap might occur doesn't mean they think the bear market is over Nonsense aside, are you bullish or bearish now? Personally, I don't see a lot of upward momentum now, and the way I see money being poured into altcoins (Litecoin, more specifically, as of recent) tells me there is not much to hope for with Bitcoin in the coming months. And as I have said earlier (with the market seeming to confirm my assumption), we will likely see more action in a few "selected" altcoins in the nearest future. In this way, yes, it pretty much comes down to "a never ending tight range" (as much as I don't believe in it myself) |
|
|
|
This is just another problem with bitcoin if you agree with the bitcoin payment tool. So what must be done is to make bitcoin stable or increase prices based on mining difficulties. So there is no more price manipulation by the exchange And how is that going to prevent manipulation? The only way to prevent exchanges from manipulating the Bitcoin price is to dry their orderbooks completely. It is possible only in one case (if we discard the possibility of an exchange itself delisiting a coin) when Bitcoin adoption is so high that most bitcoins leave exchanges essentially leaving them with nothing to dance on. You would likely have higher prices then, but just high prices on their own are not a guarantee of any kind in this regard |
|
|
|
You could throw away a few thousand coins at provoking a plunge but if the price goes down and stays down then that's looking like the 'true' price to me. No one can keep a price down for more than a few hours artificially I basically agree with this part Moreover, I've been telling folks here essentially the same thing about the hash war as it was likely only the trigger that started an avalanche of sell-offs which brought the prices to their current levels. However, we don't see a lot of action today as well as we didn't see a lot of action before the Bitcoin Cash split This somehow makes you question the whole validity of your point. In other words, if someone sells a couple (thousand) bitcoins now and the price plummets below 3k, it will most likely remain there. Would it count as an organic drop? But if he didn't sell, the price would remain where it is now. Would that count as an artificial drop? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
