the maximum margin per account/channel is 1,000,000 satoshis, but i think you could open multiple channels to increase that. that's probably not a good idea though because i doubt the order books are very deep when you go to liquidate your positions.

this is the first i've heard of LN markets. pretty cool implementation of a CFD market, but a tad too early in development for my taste:


i suppose with max margin of 0.01 BTC, one can only lose so much.

i was able to find the trading page, but does anybody know how to see the order books? and what index is being referenced for price? their site is a bit lacking in information. https://lnmarkets.com/product

you can't use multiple accounts in the same cash game or tournament (obviously!) and you can't use multiple accounts to evade a chat ban. otherwise, you're fine. they have no specific policy against making a 2nd account and using it instead of your original one.

you can check the house rules here: https://swcpoker.eu/house-rules

support is pretty slow these days.

bella (and others) are just using binance as a platform to airdrop their "utility" tokens. for the token issuer, it's like an IEO in the sense that it's very big exposure for their platform launch. for binance, it works because they're creating supposed "utility" for the BNB ecosystem.

what CZ is really doing is pumping the price of BNB. 90% of the BEL rewards to be released in this staking scheme are for BNB stakers. he's leveraging defi hype to suck BNB supply off the market and into staking pools.

BNB pumped 25% on this news.

congrats on taking it down yesterday, @Improved!


i just moved the day before, with the truck and everything. fuck waking up early the next day to play poker.

i also forgot to get internet hooked up at the new place. it's not getting installed until next monday now (wtf!) so i might miss next week too. we'll see, depends where i sleep the night before.


+1. just make a new account already!

i know you're really hoping to get a different answer, but all the tax experts say the same exact thing: based on the IRS's 2014 guidance, staking rewards are treated as gross income at the time of receipt.
https://tokentax.co/help/how-taxes-work-for-crypto-mining-and-staking/
https://cryptotrader.tax/blog/how-to-handle-cryptocurrency-mining-on-your-taxes
https://medium.com/@BlockchainAssoc/why-staking-rewards-need-better-tax-treatment-81ea4d542ebd


sell for a loss, then deduct the loss on schedule D (capital gains and losses). this will even everything out so you only owe taxes on your actual profit:



yes, unless you have other ways to cover the tax liability, or ways to hedge the downside risk.....or you just want to gamble.

did you see doug polk troll negreanu into an online heads up grudge match a few weeks ago?

https://twitter.com/RealKidPoker/status/1288602794665025536

i was really surprised to see DN accept the challenge. indeed, online is not his game at all as he himself will acknowledge, and tbh i don't think NLHE is really his game either. it almost makes me wonder if he set things up so he could explain away losing.

i rarely pay attention to the poker scene or watch live streams these days, but this is one i intend to watch. it should be pretty interesting. polk is obviously not in top form. he's recently been getting crushed at low stakes HU tables. https://www.parttimepoker.com/doug-polk-daniel-negreanu-heads-up-challenge

now you're talking about staking rewards, which are distinct from airdrops. read this: https://tokentax.co/help/how-taxes-work-for-crypto-mining-and-staking/


every payment you received from leasing waves is considered ordinary income, not capital gains. you're supposed to calculate the fair market value of every payment when it was received, then report them all as income. there are crypto tax softwares that can do this for you now, so you don't have to manually calculate the value of every single payment.


if you're worried about getting screwed by volatility, then yeah, you might sell the waves as they come in to maintain the USD value.

you're screwed when it goes to 0 because you're still liable for the original income BUT when you sell for a loss you can also deduct those capital losses in the tax year you sold. as long as you don't have more than $3k in realized losses during any year, you can deduct all those losses so it all evens out.

how is playing online gonna help you hide your tells at the casino?

throw on some sunglasses, a hoodie, maybe some headphones---just imagine you're phil ivey---you'll be okay.

live games (at least at low stakes which is relevant to 99% of people around here) are much softer than online, at least in my experience. that's also what i've heard from other players.

subscribed, thanks for making this thread.


i'm fine with prop players if it keeps games going, but they need to be identified as SwC employees, absolutely.


i appreciate that they've shaken up the tourney schedule a bit recently, but aside from that, it's nothing but disappointment. communication is just terrible. nobody can get a straight answer about anything---if they can get an answer from support at all. the chat policies are totally fucked up now. it's hard to believe ownership hasn't changed hands.

i'm glad you think so.


i haven't missed a game in months but i might sit this one out. moving/renovating is so exhausting, i could really go for sleeping in tomorrow. technically i'll be around so i'll see how i feel and play it by ear.

mainstream, equity-focused investors don't want to touch BTC or derivatives. they like to hold equities. there are very few affordable or liquid options to do that with that provide any sort of exposure to the crypto market.

i dunno about "kickstarting" a bitcoin bull run, but i could see a coinbase public listing drawing in attention/interest to the crypto space from traditional investors. it'll allow them to dip their toes into the market, get them comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrency as digital assets, and get them ripe for bigger listings like an eventual bitcoin ETF.


i think coinbase shares would be indirectly tied to bitcoin/crypto prices. the market would price shares based on earnings + speculation on future earnings. higher prices encourage adoption and more adoption encourages higher prices in a feedback cycle, all of which means higher earnings for coinbase. coinbase has huge market share, so what's good for crypto is good for them, and that's how the stock market will treat it.

it's already been offline for 2 weeks. everyone assumed it was an exit scam like a week ago........so no, i'd say it had nothing to do with the drop over the last couple days.

the bitcoin market doesn't react much to DNM news anyway. it isn't 2013 anymore---don't go expecting another silk road crash like october 2013. that is never gonna happen again.

it's pretty well understood at this point that all darknet marketplaces either exit scam or get shut down eventually. i feel like this is already priced in.


i doubt they're flooding exchanges with the coins. we're also only talking about 2-3k BTC anyway. the exit scam may have played some role in the drop, but i certainly wouldn't say it was the cause.

proper UI and atomic trade matching will make a world of difference. i see the push towards full blown AML/KYC on centralized platforms, and the improvement and decentralization of DEXs as two sides of the same coin---both gradually driving liquidity towards DEXs.

from looking at the direction of bitcoin development, i believe hidden scripts and cross-chain atomic swaps are gonna become very important avenues for maintaining on-chain privacy. this will in turn become an important source of liquidity for DEXs, and as we all know that's what really matters when people choose which exchange to use---how thick the books are.

it won't be an IPO. insiders say they are looking at a direct listing. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-coinbase-ipo-exclusive/exclusive-cryptocurrency-exchange-coinbase-readies-stock-market-listing-sources-idUSKBN24A21W


an IPO would flood the market with shares and dilute the holdings of early investors. i think their plan is to use a direct listing to prevent such dilution and limit the number of shares on the open market. this will allow early investors to cash out at much more inflated prices.

one thing to keep in mind: any one of them could be a honeypot. that's the danger of centralized, opaque services.

i used to swear by PIA because their no-logging policy was tested twice in court, but then they got bought by kape technologies, who is known for collecting and selling user data. https://www.reddit.com/r/PrivateInternetAccess/comments/e0kq68/longtime_pia_user_here_run_dont_walk_away_from/

mullvad and windscribe seem to be the recommended alternatives now.

another option is to route your traffic over tor. wasabi wallet does this by default.

where do you expect that proper institutional money to enter? i reckon with GBTC's ridiculous premium and 2% management fee, there are better options emerging. i know wilshire phoenix and fidelity are cooking up a bitcoin fund with a 0.9% expense ratio.

any idea what bakkt's custody fees are? all i can find are the original fact sheets that state there was a fee holiday through june 2020.

meh.

it's about as much of a push for adoption as at&t adding an option to pay your phone bill through bitpay. actually it's much smaller---based on zug's population vs at&t's customer base, at&t rolling out bitpay support reaches hundreds of times more people.

anyway, after the initial excitement about "bitcoin" support wears off, you come to realize that everyone just skips over it in the dropdown menu and pays with their credit/debit card or bank transfer as usual. and when you get right down to it, even if you do use bitcoin to pay your taxes (i recommend against it!) they are just getting paid swiss francs by a payment processor.

if life has taught me anything, it's that laws and regulations do not stop people from scamming others, nor do they guarantee the success of an enterprise. do you have any idea how VC-backed startups and public companies fail and/or engage in fraud? even massive companies and those considered blue chip investments---enron, madoff investment securities, worldcom, tyco international are a few recent big ones that come to mind.

it's just a nanny state mentality that says we need the government to protect investors from the boogeyman. nanny state regulations create massive, massive barriers to market entry for perfectly legitimate enterprises---permitting and licensing fees, undue capital requirements, the need to hire legal teams for every area of compliance, the need to actively lobby regulators and legislators, etc. this is one of the key reasons why a handful of giant multi-national mega corporations are able consolidate every sector of industry. small businesses could never compete in this environment.

and that's exactly the value ICOs provide to small startups. they find loopholes in existing regulations to allow for much greater market access---for both fundraisers and investors. cross-border investment, micro-investment, no need for accredited investor restrictions.

retail investors like me are cut off from so many profitable high growth investment opportunities because of the SEC's accredited investor restrictions. i'm too poor to invest in high risk "regulated" ventures, which leaves me with conventional stocks, mutual funds, blue chips---all of which have extremely limited upside. gotta love the nanny state for protecting me!

investors who are unwilling to engage in due diligence should pay the price IMO. that goes for ICOs, it goes for IPOs, it goes for angel investing. morons putting all their money in absurdly risky investments and then crying to the SEC is the reason we are where we are today. nobody fucking gauges investment risk anymore. everybody thinks profits should be handed to them on a silver platter. caveat emptor!

on the flop, i was the favorite to win. i may not have had a made hand, but it's a little odd to say i didn't have anything when i was the most likely to win at showdown.

would i pay if you check-raised all-in? it depends on the situation---pot odds, whether i feel pot committed, whether i feel like gambling when i'm a 60/40 favorite etc. there are many situations where it would be acceptable to call, especially if i've made significant bets already.


i was not chasing draws. that usually implies passively calling down with bad odds. i rarely do that outside of multi-way pots that pay me off huge if i hit.

i was the preflop aggressor betting in position to a passive checker---big difference IMO.

on that AQ vs 77 hand, i'm sure if you hit one of your 6 non-diamond outs to a straight on the river, you wouldn't be complaining. i'm sure that open-ended straight draw factored into your decision to call the turn, right? and so you must understand the equity of draws even if it feels shitty when your opponents hit them. that's just poker.


again, it depends on the pot odds, but quite possibly. i would maybe just 4-bet shove all-in on the flop, especially in a MTT where i'm looking to build a stack as early as possible or get knocked out.

if you check-raised me on the flop and again on the turn, then yes i would call. without knowing the exact stacks/pot, i assume i'd be pot committed by that point.


the chances to make a flush by the river when on a flopped flush draw = 35%. (and that's not taking into consideration straight draws or draws to a higher pair)

it's a very frequent occurrence, so it should be no surprise that it happened twice. this is why flush draw + open-ended straight draws are extremely valuable semi-bluffing hands because you will improve to a straight or flush by the river the majority of the time. by default, that makes it stronger than any pocket pair on an unpaired flop board.

what you're also not considering is all the times i did not hit my outs by the river, including those times where we did not show down and you did not see my hand. you're thinking "this guy is so lucky every time" (who do you think i am, @Hhampuz? ) because you have selective memory for these 2 hands. in truth i am running quite bad in this series.....