There wouldn't even be a spawn from the financial crisis, "evil" or otherwise, if the reckless banksters hadn't caused the crisis in the first place Banks were just doing their thing Which they have always been doing. Please keep in mind that I don't try to somehow justify the banksters or anything to that tune but if we cut the crap and face the ugly truth, it is not banks or banking industry as a whole that our retaliatory wave of hate should be directed to. It is relentless and reckless consumerism of common people which is the cause of the evil and which is to blame here. Without it the damned banksters wouldn't have been able to lend so much money which people were not going to return |
|
|
|
Looking at the always falling price of Bitcoin, it is only natural that some investors turn to other investments that they consider far from the risk of loss and are able to give them profits. I think indeed gold is currently one of the best choices for investing, even though maybe we only get a small profit but at least will avoid the risk of loss Gold is not good for profit making (though it is for profit protecting) As it has been underperforming for the last 40 years. That basically means that its growth in US dollars was lower than the dollar inflation accumulated during that timeframe. In other words, you would likely have lost in inflation-adjusted dollar value of your gold if you had invested somewhere in 1980. If you want to earn profits with the smallest amount of risk, you may want to look into bonds (something like inflation-protected treasuries) |
|
|
|
The fact that staking and masternodes are not the main discussion is a wonder. The most common and easy way of making money with money is interest and the interest we have in crypto is the masternodes and stakes. For example, ethereum is said to be turning into PoS from the current PoW which actually increased the price a lot for a while but the hard fork got cancelled but hopefully it will return soon. That type of making money with money exists in crypto as well and I actually really love it and prefer it over the miners Personally, I don't see much sense in earning a few %% yearly in this way Especially when you can easily lose over 90% of your capital with prices crashing within the same year. If anything, it is a poor man's income, i.e. when you can't earn income in any other way. Really, if you made an effort to learn about crypto, understand how it works, install a personal wallet after all, why not go further and try to earn more in an active way? Really, if the cryptocurrency of your choice rises a few times, these percentages will be dust anyway while you might lose and might have already lost a lot more due to an overall downtrend market |
|
|
|
It is not to say that you should use Mixer services to circumvent government monitoring and surveillance, because they too have a obligation towards citizens to protect them from criminals and terrorists by monitoring transactions. The thing is, some corrupt governments with dictators should not have this information, because they can do more harm than good with that information It is not about only corrupt governments with dictators Actually, the majority of nation states are doing this, some less with some more. But that's not the point. If you are that citizen and don't consider yourself a criminal or terrorist, why would you agree to being monitored by the government in the first place? As I see it, it is your right to circumvent such monitoring and surveillance unless you explicitly renounce that right. Benjamin Franklin once wisely said that people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. I fully agree with him. Do you? |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency cash management is very risky for both parties. After all, cryptocurrency has a very high price volatility. I do not think that state banks will do this. For them it will be too risky. Commercial banks may try to issue loans in cryptocurrency. However, I do not even want to predict what will come of it. This will more resemble a roulette game. Here, someone will definitely lose, and someone will win by changing the rate of cryptocurrency. This kind of activity is definitely not for banks that love accurate profit calculation I suspect we shouldn't really expect cryptocurrency loans in the near or not so near future I mean as a mass phenomenon (other than rare events). Without volatility being on par with best fiat currencies (and that being so for months or even years) followed by mass adoption, there is little chance for such loans to make into mainstream. It simply doesn't make sense. For example, if Bitcoin rises a couple times, it maybe profitable for the borrower to default on his loan as with borrowed bitcoins he might be able to buy twice as much collateral as he provided for the loan. But providing 200% of collateral doesn't make sense either |
|
|
|
In other words, your odds of hitting 10000 are far from being 1:10000 (as you would intuitively expect). I rolled a zillion times myself and never hit the two highest numbers. So, you know, you wouldn't actually be surprised to see something like that with the jackpot as well. If anyone wants to check how things really are, you are welcome
The odds of hitting 10000 are actually 20000:1 due to rounding. The possible outcomes are not 1 to 10000 they are 0 to 10000 with 0 and 10000 having half the chance being rolled than all the other numbers. Have a look at the how the rolls are calculated section on the provably fair tab. As for the endless discussions from people saying it can't be fair because they didn't roll it in xxx attempts, that is just crying about variance I actually hit 0 once But I didn't hit 10k or the second best tier ever. I'm not crying as I don't roll as often as I used to a few years ago. All in all, it can be said that I don't particularly care. Just in case, when people discussed this issue in the past, it didn't look like they were crying either. And I don't remember wetsuit coming up with a rebuttal or anything to that tune, so it was kinda accepted. Anyway, if anyone is curious beyond just idle talk, the thread is not self-moderated, thus you can find all the relevant posts on this topic here |
|
|
|
Many people feel that short selling is "free money" however in my opinion its harder making money as a bear in a bear market than it is making money as a bull in a bull market. One reason is that whenever you go short, you need to pay interest since you are borrowing the asset from someone. Another reason is that price can go up to infinity but the lowest point is $0, so your risk is essentially unlimited It is so in theory But in practice there is not much difference. Whether you are short or long, you should use stop-losses, and when you use them, it doesn't really matter how short or long you are (pardon the pun). Although it is definitely true that there is no limit for the price to rise while it can't fall below 0, try telling that to someone who bought a couple bitcoins at 20k. Apart from that, 3k is still a huge price. Just think about the rest of the pack at around ~100 dollars per coin in the best case (actually, only BCash at $120 and Ethereum at $110), so there's a lot of room to implode further You also need to realise that every bear knows that eventually Bitcoin will find a bottom and it might head to a new ATH, and even if it takes a small $500 or $1000 day to realise, they will get scared and cover and cause price to rise, basically a short squeeze A good short squeeze is excellent fuel for the next wave of shorts |
|
|
|
Not only they accept it as a currency they also accept it to be paid back to government. Its on state level but a state has bitcoin because their residents paid taxes in bitcoin, that is as further as it goes and Wyoming can not claim to be a bigger supporter since all they did was just see it as money Well, technically, it is not quite so From what I read about Ohio's cryptocurrency policy, you can pay your taxes with Bitcoin but that doesn't mean they actually accept bitcoins. As I described the whole process above, you do pay with bitcoins, but these bitcoins are converted to dollars by the payments processing company, in this case BitPay. So it looks like you can't say that they literally accept Bitcoin as they still accept only the American dollar as before |
|
|
|
Basically adoption is increasing not only in an individual manner but also in a huge global company funding level as well. It means the marketcap has nothing to do with adoption at all, not even remotely. Hell making it low is better since the only way is up and that way companies can get in when its cheap and make more profits I see it a little bit different Market cap is essentially the same thing as price (price multiplied by total supply, to be exact). So what you claim can be rephrased like adoption not affecting the price. This is not even remotely true. Well, technically, it is possible for changes in adoption rates not to be followed with respective changes in price but only under one condition, i.e. when the impact that these changes produce on price is equal to and completely offset by changes in speculative value. But this balance is impossible to keep for any longer periods of time, so it basically means one thing, that is, the real level of adoption is in fact quite negligible |
|
|
|
If you had been using FreeBitco.in long enough, you would have known that your chances of hitting 8888 may be a little bit different from 1:10000
That is simply untrue Strictly speaking, I don't know about the jackpot And when I was playing at FreeDoge I didn't notice any discrepancies or inconsistencies in this regard, so it may well be the same with FreeBitco. But I remember discussion in this very thread a couple years ago when people calculated the chances of hitting high numbers and they were far from what you would expect out of a uniform distribution In other words, your odds of hitting 10000 are far from being 1:10000 (as you would intuitively expect). I rolled a zillion times myself and never hit the two highest numbers. So, you know, you wouldn't actually be surprised to see something like that with the jackpot as well. If anyone wants to check how things really are, you are welcome |
|
|
|
There is no chain of reaction on betting. Each bet is individual which something gamblers try to deny as hard as possible. 8888 is 1 in 10000 chance of hitting, it is 1 in chance of hitting on your first ever bet and on your 10000th bet it is still 1 in 10000 chance. There is no chain betting that will allow you to finally hit that. You can hit 8888 on your first ever bet or you may not hit it on your 100kth bet.
There is no way of playing long enough to eventually hit it. However, the only reason people think its possible is that if you play long enough you create yourself more 1 in 10000 chances than just one. Same applies to people who gamble martingale for example, they think they can't lose 10 times in a row but your 10th loss is actually still %50 loss chance and not lower.
Do math, not meth The longer you play, the higher are your chances to eventually hit the jackpot, even if the outcomes of individual rolls are independent of each other. It is the same with martingale, i.e. the longer you play, the sooner you will hit a losing streak that will wipe away your account (actually, not sooner but you get the point). Otherwise it wouldn't be a losing strategy, as simple as it gets. But that's not the point here. If you had been using FreeBitco.in long enough, you would have known that your chances of hitting 8888 may be a little bit different from 1:10000 |
|
|
|
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 It all eventually comes down to the balance of supply and demand And short-selling adds to supply (i.e. someone selling, as the term itself suggests), so if it doesn't result in a price drop, it just means that the amount sold is either too small to make a dent in the Bid side of the orderbook or it is offset by someone else's buy orders eating into the Ask side of the orderbook. If no one is actively buying (beyond matching the selling orders, obviously), selling always leads to a price drop in the end. There is simply no other way about it, and it doesn't matter whether it is short selling or long selling, so to speak |
|
|
|
This is also showing us that Bitcoin is actually not very private all because the transactions we are doing with it are all recorded and once an address can be linked to someone then things can started to be seen for the whole world. So the old thinking that Bitcoin can be utilized for criminal activities since it is anonymous is all a fallacy. And this is the reason why those people who are concerned for their privacy (for good and bad intentions) can use mixing services always available to anyone for some fee It was never "private", to begin with Satoshi himself makes special reference to this fact in his white paper. He says that Bitcoin is not anonymous but rather pseudonymous. When Ross Ulbricht was arrested and Silk Road brought down in 2013, it became abundantly clear that Bitcoin doesn't cut it as a truly anonymous and private means of payment. And after a few FBI agents got caught trying to steal a few Silk Road coins, it became clear even to the FBI themselves |
|
|
|
Is arbitrage possible or is it a case of if it seems too good to be true .....
It is certainly possible but you should know which trading pairs are good for this purpose and which are not For example, in the past (around 3-4 years ago) I had been actively using arbitrage with BTC:DOGE pair on 4 exchanges. My best result was earning 0.7 BTC with just one iteration (just in case, back then Bitcoin wasn't that expensive), and it all came through manual trading. Not so long ago I was using this technique with Litecoin earning a few percentages on a trade. But that required a specialized trading bot as it is nearly impossible to catch sudden price changes in the "manual" mode (which is basically what today's arbitrage comes down to) |
|
|
|
What matters in the long run is the fundamentals of bitcoin, whether the network is functional or has improved, whether people still see utility in bitcoin as a store of value and currency, and whether adoption has increased or not. Thus, short term price swings that are caused by people trading on leverage or shorting the market shouldn't really do much in the long term, as it doesn't influence the fundamentals whatsoever I see your point and I mostly agree with it Nevertheless, your last claim can in fact be challenged in a meaningful way. You basically say that shorts don't affect Bitcoin fundamentals, but that remains to be inspected further. For example, you say that utility in Bitcoin as a store of value and as a currency are two elements of these fundamentals. But you can't deny that shorts add to volatility while volatility is totally incompatible with Bitcoin being a store of value and a currency. In this manner, you can't actually say that shorts don't affect Bitcoin fundamentals. The same with real world adoption (whatever you may mean by this) as volatility is definitely not good for it either |
|
|
|
|
In this post I'm going to share my view on Litecoin's near-term future
Now that Bitcoin seems to have retired from its position as a major speculative driver in the cryptocurrency market with likely more real value coming into play thereby further cementing current prices in their tight range, Litecoin looks like the best candidate for the next generation cryptocurrency speculative vehicle. The recent price action seems to confirm my assumption, and if I'm correct, we should see more and more speculative money get poured into this coin. So if you are looking to multiply your balance via riding volatility, it may be worth to start paying closer attention to Litecoin now (if you haven't already)
|
|
|
|
Some of these addresses can then be traced back to an exchange where you bought the coins and left your digital footprint, and so on until they find out who you are, what you are, and how you are.
You missed the first part of my post where I wrote In fact, I was not replying to that part of your post But ultimately it's irrelevant as sooner or later (and rather sooner than later) you will make a fatal mistake that will allow the prying eyes to get a clue about who you are and so on. Still, as you mention a forum signature campaign, it is a big hole which makes it possible to link your forum identity with your Bitcoin address. This will most likely be the final step in revealing your real identity (i.e. who you are in real life), especially if you happen to live in the US |
|
|
|
Will this set a precedence for other States as well to recognized bitcoin and the rest of the crypto? I don't know as I'm not the US citizen But I know that Wyoming is not the first state to recognize crypto as legal tender for state taxes. If I'm not mistaken, Ohio had been the first US state to allow taxes to be paid with Bitcoin in the last year. There you can pay local taxes directly in Bitcoin. The tax payments are processed by BitPay, which converts bitcoins to US dollars and sends them to the local treasury (this is how it works in practice if you are curious) |
|
|
|
By using mixers you're trying to patch a hole. It's always better to make sure the hole doesn't appear at all That would be a daunting task, especially if you make a lot of transactions on a daily basis. Sooner or later there will be enough information to link all these transactions to a certain person. For example, you want to pay for something in cryptocurrency but you don't have enough dough in one address, so you have to choose a few inputs in your wallet. In this case, these inputs with their respective addresses can be easily linked to one person Some of these addresses can then be traced back to an exchange where you bought the coins and left your digital footprint, and so on until they find out who you are, what you are, and how you are. Though I agree that mixers are not solving the issue of anonymity, they are patching it. Adding privacy features to Bitcoin protocol would likely do the trick but it may also cause a lot of resistance from governments See the ZCash example what it might look like in practice |
|
|
|
I think we've all had it to the peak, how about we have some level of regulation with the activities in the crypto industry. Share your thoughts commrades.
Then what is the point of "decentralization" if regulation exist? We might as well use existing system/technology. Regulations are not born equal It is one thing to regulate Bitcoin directly (like forcing you to report every transaction you make) and a different thing to regulate only some areas which Bitcoin inevitably touches, for example, taxation of profits obtained via cryptocurrency operations. And even within these areas the level of regulation can be markedly different. For example, you may have to pay taxes only on your Bitcoin stash if you kept it for less than a year, so if you sell it after that period of time, your income would be tax exempt and you may not have to report it at all |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
