my favorite strategy without a doubt is the short put, short call, or both together (ie short strangle). in other words, selling options naked. before you say this is stupid/dangerous/risky based on what someone has told you - i will tell you that it's true, it can be stupid/risky/dangerous if done wrong.
by wrong I mean:
1) not knowing the underlying well.
2) not knowing how to manage it properly.
3) not know the worst case scenarios of every trade you place.
4) not having enough capital.
5) not knowing how much of your portfolio to allocate to these types of trades.
6) not knowing the impact of earnings while this trade is on.
7) not knowing the type of environment to avoid or lessen exposure to this type of strategy.
so as you can see, this is not a beginner's strategy. but when you become more experienced with options and have enough capital, you realize that it's a great, high probability of success strategy to at least consider.
feel free to watch yourself live in your real trading account trade these strategies and deal with all the above mentioned points.
Wouldn't the long strangle be the better strategy for bitcoin, as far as I know short strangle is for markets where there is little volatility if any at all, long strangle is for high volatility markets like bitcoin, definitely the best example for that kind of strategy. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately I don't see this happening until a major financial crisis happens. Most people don't understand or care about the current financial system, and how it works so long as the party keeps going. I see inflation everywhere I look nowadays, and people accept it as the norm since that's all they've known their whole lives.
When the lights go out, that's when all holders right now in bitcoin end up becoming the new 1% afterwards.
How is bitcoin going to solve inflation? inflation is the gradual loss in value of a currency. The price of bitcoin has been rising drastically over time. This has the same effect as deflation. And deflation is far worse for an economy than inflation. The price of bitcoin will have to stabalise before it is widely accepted as currency. Yes, right now using bitcoins for your business can be a pretty crazy idea, you can easily lose hundreds if not thousands of dollars in a matter of days or even hours with the volatility that bitcoin has right now, no one would want that and there is always the possibility of a big crash making you lose way too much money. |
|
|
|
The odds are calculated at 49.95% which is what an old dice casino had as odds, it doesn't matter if its lower or higher, the point is to illustrate how using martingale is a waste of time and it's worse than playing a single bet
if you use 40% you can use a smaller multiplier, and hitting 40% is better than hitting 33%, but playing 40% alone will destroy you. If you look at the odds, you switch when it tells you to. oh yeah btw i was using d'alambert style bets, not martingale.The thing is as I said it doesn't matter what % you use, it's pointless and never going to be better than other ''strategies'' like one single bet to not waste time. There was another calculated ''strategy'' by dooglus showing how a single sequence of martingale was almost the best ''strategy'' in terms of odds, it would give you like a 0.1% extra, still obviously not a winning strategy. |
|
|
|
The whole point of that post was to show that its pointless to make millions of bets and it's in fact even better to make a single bet, you don't waste time, you have better odds and you win/lose the same amount of money
who said anything about rolling 50%? if you knew as much as you write about odds you will know how to control the odds, with other odds  The odds are calculated at 49.95% which is what an old dice casino had as odds, it doesn't matter if its lower or higher, the point is to illustrate how using martingale is a waste of time and it's worse than playing a single bet |
|
|
|
For my opinion i think the more risky is the casino, because the casino you cannot predict the result. Actually im not going in casino but i heared it in my neighbor because they always wanted to go in the casino and they always lossing their money in betting the game.
Both type of gambling are equally risky. It depends on the amount you are wagering on the game. No matter what type of gambling you are playing, the results are difficult if not impossible to predict. You can try to analyse sports gambling but you will not get it right 100% of the time. Both are at risk. But we certainly know that casinos are impossible for us to at least imagine which ones would benefit us. Everything is 100% dependent on luck. While in sport betting we can enlarge our chances to win. Sport betting is never 100% dependent on luck because we can analyze it first. Not only both but all gambling type have a risk. IMO, analyze only helps us a little maybe just a coincidence that makes us think analyze is helpful in sports gambling. Actually have such thoughts that are very dangerous because without realizing we have confidence and it will make you addicted to the game. Any investment has a risk, it wouldnt be an investment if it didnt but as I said before there are plenty of people that are professional bettors and they are able to make a lot of money with sport betting, there is an article about one of them and he says he had weeks where he would make 10k $ and weeks where he would lose a lot of money as well but he is definitely able to make profit from it long term. Its not easy and it takes more than what people think, its not just analyzing lightly, it requieres deep analisis and knowledge |
|
|
|
Well said, OP. I personally have a theory that if Bitcoin ever reaches 10,000 USD+ per coin, the dollar value will be irrelevent. This seems pretty obvious to me, but I don't see this lone of thinking much elsewhere.
True I said it in another post. Bitcoin would become truly a real currency and people would talk about satoshis, I want to buy that thing for 1000 satoshis and no one would care what that is in euros or dollars, you would think 1 satoshi is 1 satoshi because it has it's own value. |
|
|
|
The ideal thing to rebrand Bitcoin to is bits. That kind of rebranding would only be necessary if Bitcoin was a mainstream currency, which it can be if it's scaled properly as it would then be more convenient than fiat.
The reason that it should be bits is because a price of $1,000,000 would mean that 1 bit = 1 dollar. It's very unlikely that the price would reach any higher than that, and if it was lower it would still be easy to pay with bits - say that the price was $10,000, then the price of a bit would be $100.
Even if the price was higher than that it would be fine - many countries don't split their currency into different parts like dollars and cents, like the Czech Republic, where 1 krona is worth about $0.03-0.04.
When you are buying something with your country's money you are not thinking about how much that is in other currency. If I buy a bottle of water and I pay in euros I don't care how much that is in other currencies, the same thing should happen with bitcoin in the future, 1 satoshi would be worth 1 satoshi and no one should care what that is in euros or dollars, that's when bitcoin would really be considered a currency. |
|
|
|
|
Everyone gambles to make money, you are only having fun because money is involved and you can win a lot of money in a very short amount of time and that gives you a lot of adrenaline. Imagine playing dice like you do online without any money involved, why the hell would anyone do that, it would be the most boring thing ever, the same for roulette or any similar game. The only games I would play without money involved are poker or blackjack because they are dynamic.
|
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25] This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists. You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about? The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible. Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility. Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility. But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution. The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math.  you sir are so willfully phucking ignorant it is beyond comprehension. for chrissakes get outta your delusional echo chamber .and do some research on these subjects you crow about. oh no wait a minute never mind..you wont listen to the real science. you got yer fingers in your ears if it goes against your retarded fairy tale beliefs. Well, do the math. The smallest possible living cell would have at least 200 molecules. What are the odds that these 200 molecules of different varieties and substances could ever come together to form a cell? It is essentially impossible. But if they did, they would still have to move into the right motions to make the cell alive. How in the world ignorant are you? The 200-molecule cell would barely be alive, because cells that small are specialized for a specific job. In nature the cell would have to be a whole lot larger, and the odds against its coming together a whole lot greater. You evolutionists are so dense that it amazes one how you can even live without riding a bicycle all the time:  You see, you keep showing how ignorant you are, evolution does not try to determine how the first cell or how life was created, you obviously do not understand evolution at all, thanks for clarifying that. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. |
|
|
|
Let's assume you have a bankroll of 100 bitcoin.
Lets up our base bet to 7 satoshi. That makes bet #30 cost 37.58xxx bitcoin. What the hell are the odds of losing a 50/50 bet 30 times?
Let’s do the math. You roll and the chance to lose is 50% (Given house edge your odds are slightly worse than what I am about to illustrate).
So one loss is .5 (50%). Losing a second time is only a 25% chance (.5 * .5 = .25), a 1 in 4 chance (to find that, divide 1 by the decimal, .25). Losing a 3rd time in a row is 1 in 8... .5 * .5 * .5 = .125. So to figure out the odds for losing 30x in a row:
.5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 * .5 = .000000000931, which is, as a percentage (multiply by 100 to get the percentage) .0000000931% chance. And to see that in more easy to understand numbers, the chance of missing a 50/50 bet 30 times in a row is a 1 in 1,073,741,824 chance. One in a billion. One in a BILLION chance of losing 30 times in a row. The price you pay for those odds is winning 7 satoshi on a bet. As I write this, 7 satoshi is valued at 1.58 thousandths of a US penny. So you would need to win 632 times to earn a penny. And you are risking 75 bitcoin, $17,000, to do so (your total losses if you miss 30 rolls in a row).
So, you start betting. Each time you bet, if you win, you net 7 satoshi. If you lose, you keep doubling until you win, and you win 7 satoshi. Keep in mind you're risking 75 bitcoin if you lose. But, what are the chances, it's 1 in a BILLION odds, right?
So you win and win and win, and a few hours later, you're up... what? 9 cents?
You have 75 bitcoin on the line, impossible to lose at 1 in a billion odds. And if you HAVE 75 bitcoin to risk, I'm going to assume you'd like to get more than a few pennies for your time. So let’s say your goal is 5 bitcoin. About 15% of your risk. So let’s run some numbers... you're not getting 7 satoshi per BET, you're getting it per WIN, so it's not 5 divided by .00000007. It's actually somewhere about double that, given the losses that 'waste' bets. The actual math behind that, I'll get into in a moment. But for now, suffice it to say that 10,000 bets nets you about .000335 bitcoin. So to get one whole bitcoin, that would take about 29,771,000 rolls. 29,771,000 / 2 * 7 satoshi = 1.041 bitcoin.
So, therefore, to earn 5 bitcoin, you'd need to make 148,855,000 rolls.
Of those 144.9 million rolls, you have about 74.45 million "cycles". A cycle is you drop the die, and you either win, or you roll until you do win. And that's simple to show: 74.45 million times 7 satoshi is 5.20975 Bitcoin, our target winnings. Make sense? Each individual ROLL does not have a 1 in a billion shot of missing 30 times - that's impossible, a single roll cannot miss 30 times. A cycle of rolls can, a single roll series as an attempt to win can. So we're going to use the number of "wins" or cycles.
1 in a billion odds. What are the chances? When you attempt 74.45 million cycles, or wins, the odds of hitting that 1 in a billion are 1 in 14.42 odds. How? You divide your 74.45 million rolls into your 1 in a billion odds. It comes out to 14.42something. You roll bets for over a week, risking 75 bitcoin to win 5, and reduce your 1 in a billion odds to
1 in 15 roughly. That is one hell of a time commitment to risk 75 bitcoin to win just 5!
What if we wanted to say screw wasting so much time and bets. Pull up the betting screen. Put in 75 BTC for a bet, and set the % chance to win to 93.412%. Your winnings would be 5.209125 BTC, DAMN close to the 5.20975 we were hoping to win. So we hit roll, and we either win, or lose.
What are the chances of winning at 93.412%? Well that’s simple. 100% - 93.412% = 6.588% we have a 93.412% chance to win 5, and a 6.588% chance to lose 75 bitcoin.
Let’s turn 6.588% into a decimal... we divide by 100. That’s .06588. Anyone want to take a guess as to what 1 divided by .06588 is?
1 / .06588 is 15.17.
Wait. What? If I bet 75 bitcoin at 93.412% odds (1 in 15ish) I can win 5.2 bitcoin - or I can bet 7 satoshi, martingale, doubling, risking a possible loss of 75 bitcoin at a 1 in 14.42 odds? Isn't that funny how math works out?
Your odds are actually better to make the single roll.
With such amounts of Bitcoins it's much better to invest in casino bankroll. 75 BTCs ~ $150.000,00. Possible to make good percentages of profit every week, maybe 0.3%-1% (most common), what means $450-$1500. No martingale, no effort making thousands or millions of bets to earn 7 satoshis per bet... The risk you take by playing on long term doesn't worth the return you can receive. The whole point of that post was to show that its pointless to make millions of bets and it's in fact even better to make a single bet, you don't waste time, you have better odds and you win/lose the same amount of money |
|
|
|
Both have a 95% chance of win but I guess dice still more risky. Your fate in sportsbetting was depending on the player. Depends on your observation, you can almost predict the outcome. While dice is depending on a system where the result is completely random so you really have no idea if it will give you a high number or not.
What do you mean both have 95% chance of winning? Dice is guaranteed to make you lose, the odds are there to make you lose, there is no way around it. The odds in sports betting are not the same kind of odds as in casino betting, you are not guaranteed to lose in the long run. |
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25] This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists. You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about?
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''
This is simply bias in favor of a method that is considered by many to be scientific. What is that method? It is the method of blindly accepting what scientists in a particular field say, because "you" yourself are not in that field. This grows into accepting scientific magazine articles, no matter what they say, because everyone thinks that someone else has done the legwork. Thus, science magazines can get away with science fiction reporting, and scientists accept it, even if they don't believe it. Its the scientific method you dummy, that's how science is done lmao.
Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong
Wrong. Pretty much the universities and the media have portrayed the idea that most scientist accept evolution. The simple, underlying, basic science fact of cause and effect, is stronger than most other science. It is basic science fact. When it is considered, even the idea of evolution is placed in a completely different light than is being pushed by the universities and the media. Show me evidence that says scientists do not approve or support evolution because I can show you 100 links right now where it says that 99% of the scientific community supports evolution
One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.
How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''
Now you are saying that the complexity of nature is so great that we won't be able to figure it out. The Hunzas, and several other groups of people, still live longer in the natural wild, than medical science allows us to live. I searched it: ''The people of Hunza are by some noted for their exceptionally long life expectancy,[7] others describe this as a longevity narrative and cite a life expectancy of 53 years for men and 52 for women although with a high standard deviation.[8] In fact, not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented to indicate that the Hunza people have a life expectancy significantly above that of the average poor, isolated region of Pakistan. Writers who made bold claims about the health and long life of the Burusho almost always did so based solely on the words of the local Mir (king). The only author to have significant and sustained contact with the Burusho people was John Clark, who reported that they were a generally unhealthy people.[9]'' You keep mentioning things that are not proven at all.
Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.
How long have we been doing these medical things? Less than 100 years. We had thousands of years to advance this far. It took that long. Complexity in the universe is tremendously great. So what if we had thousands of years, how do you determine it was long?
God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."
And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.
Cause and effect alone show that God KNOWS way differently than we. God makes no mistakes. That's why even nuclear bombs can't break the laws of physics... physics that all operate through cause and effect. Nobody knows like this except God. Cause and effect doesn't show anything about god, you are just making conclusions for some reason |
|
|
|
Cash is always going to be relevant, it's the easiest way to pay for small things, I don't want to go to a store, buy a pack of gum and have to pay in bitcoins unless in the future bitcoin becomes so normal that new forms of payment that are fast enough are implemented. I mean right now you can pay with your credit card for almost anything so the same could happen with bitcoin
Yes, now in many places it is simply unreliable for small purchases to do without cash and in the future they will also be needed as an alternative. If bitcoin continues to grow I'm sure we will have many stores accepting bitcoin in the future because most people that are using bitcoin right now are very young people and they certainly will use it in their business it's just a matter of time and only if Bitcoin does not fail. |
|
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[26] pseudoscience,[27][28] or junk science.[29][30] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own''
Pretty much every single scientist now agrees that evolution is a fact yet you still deny it for some reason, I guess you are right and 99,9% of the scientific community is wrong
One very simple example showing the complexity of people is, if people weren't complex, scientists and medical people would have figured out thousands of years ago how to give people the ability to live a thousand years. It's the complexity of nature and people that has kept science from figuring this and many other things out.
How do you know it's possible to even live a thousand years? Scientific research in the past 200 years has improved so much about the human body that we are in fact living much longer that we were hundreds of years ago: ''National LEB figures reported by statistical national agencies and international organizations are indeed estimates of period LEB. In the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, LEB was 26 years; the 2010 world LEB was 67.2 years.''
Humans are able to perform even heart transplants, if the heart was designed by God and was so complex how are humans able to perform all the surgeries and all medicine? We are able to travel through space now saying that science hasnt figured out things it's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Denying all the amazing advancements that science has discovered is just plain retarded and I'm starting to believe you might have some sort of mental problem.
God doesn't know things in the same way that we understand "know."
And how do you know what God knows? How do you know how he thinks and why are you trying to even speak on his behalf, If God existed and wanted us to believe in him he would have done so because he would know exactly what it takes to convince any human of his existence.
|
|
|
|
A new paper claims our understanding of gravity is totally wrong A theoretical physicist has come up with a new hypothesis that could finally explain the mystery of dark matter - the elusive matter that's predicted to make up around 27 percent of the observable Universe.
According to the new paper, all we have to do to explain the weird effects of dark matter in the Universe is take gravity out of the equation.
"Our current ideas about space, time, and gravity urgently need to be re-thought. We have long known that Einstein's theory of gravity can not work with quantum mechanics", the author the new paper, Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam, told Dutch news site NOS.
"Our findings are drastically changing, and I think that we are on the eve of a scientific revolution."
The dark matter problem stems from the fact that there's more gravity in our Universe - especially in our galaxies - than can be produced by all the matter and gas that we see.
Traditionally, physicists have explained this inconsistency by assuming that there must be something else out there that we can't see, something dark - hence the name dark matter.
...
To come to this conclusion, he went back to the drawing board to figure out exactly how gravity forms on a microscopic level. His calculations suggest that gravity is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the entropy of the Universe.
Entropy is a property of thermodynamics that describes how much wasted energy there is in a system - or, more simply, how chaotic a system is.
You can also describe this is as how much information it takes to describe a system - generally, the more chaotic something is, the more information it takes to describe it, and the more entropy it has. Faculty of Science - Erik Verlinde
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynRVnIh6wq4Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper-claims-our-understanding-of-gravity-is-totally-wrong. ''Claims'' However I don't care because gravity has nothing to do with evolution and he hasn't even proved his theory right yet and even in the link it says: But it's important to note that it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so we need to take it with a big grain of salt. Now can we talk about evolution? |
|
|
|
Well actually, you folks who are against the proof that God exists are delusional. Why? Many times I have shown the proofs. But nobody has come up with explanations of why the proofs don't "work." You may not like the proofs. You may wish the proofs were not so. You may wish that God doesn't exist. But you haven't been able to show that He doesn't exist. Come on. Do a scientific-like step-by-step rebuttal if you can. Pick even one point and do something more than just talk that it doesn't prove God. You can't, can you. All you can do is say that the proof isn't proof. Sounds like faith to me. You are trying to have faith that God doesn't exist, right in the face of the scientific proof that He DOES exist. I already did, what you said about the complexity of the universe is false the entropy is always increasing not decreasing. What did you already do? I said that entropy is increasing and that complexity is decreasing.
You said
''The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.''
What are the ''machines'' in nature?
The machines in nature are the whole way nature acts. Nature is full of "levers" and leverages, all working in great complexity in whatever happens in nature.
'' are produced by causes, whatever the causes may be. This means that the machinery of the universe, including mankind and his thinking, was designed by a Great First Cause, Which set everything in motion.''
This argument that was made really long ago is a loop, what was the cause for god then? And if your answer is something like: god has always been or has no cause the same answer can be applied to the universe
You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with God. Before He made nature, He wasn't part of it. So why would anyone think that He has to obey the laws of nature?
''The nations look for God.''
As time passes less and less people believe in God. Most respected scientists do not believe in God.
God doesn't respect the scientists that don't believe in God. God doesn't respect anyone who doesn't believe in Him. If a person is not respected by God, how does that hurt me? I respect god, and He respects me because of it. You never find anything that makes something to be part of the thing that it makes before it makes it. Same with the universe The difference is that there is no evidence that the universe makes anything. The universe simply operates with what it has. Second Law of Thermodynamics. There is no evidence that god makes anything either sorry. Humans, animals, plants, all evolved, they were once very simple and they have evolved to become complex, God would have made us complex from the beginning besides humans are so badly designed, why would a God make humans so imperfect, he wouldn't. Evolution. Fun theory. But all the evidence fits creation as well. And there is a ton of science law that says evolution is impossible. Time to get back from evolution science fiction to reality... creation. God DID make us complex from the beginning. Entropy not only suggests devolution, but upholds it. Entropy... reverse evolution. Did God make entropy? No! We did, by committing the first sin... doubting God. God would not have made humans in the first place because he already knew what would happen, that makes literally no sense. There is no science law that says evolution is impossible, that's pure bullshit, state one, there is not even a debate, virtually any scientist agrees that evolution is a fact. God made us complex? I don't see God's complexity in humans, we can easily die, get sick, born with disabilities or illness, definitely a pretty bad job by God, don't you think? |
|
|
|
I'm not agreed with you on this point if I don't sell my bitcoin then how I can earn a profit, yes you can say that bitcoin should be saved for a long term which makes some sense. long term saving would be a great idea for gaining a large amount of money.
Well it's really simple, if you bought 10 bitcoins at 100$ dollars each meaning that you spent 1k for 10 bitcoins now you would have 20k dollars which you don't have to sell because you can use them as money, you can already buy many things with bitcoin so essentially if you do it would be the same as selling them and let's be real here, most people in this forum won't have the tools or knowledge to trade bitcoins and actually make a profit from it long term. |
|
|
|
Media propaganda about the benefits of accepting bitcoin as a mode of payment will go in a long way in improving bitcoin images to the local and those that see it as scams'
But who will do it ? Merchants may advertise that they are the accepting bitcoin payment but how customers will go for advertising about emphasizing the benefits of accepting bitcoin payments to merchants. Only possible way might be talking personally to the merchants about the benefits of accepting bitcoin payments. When merchants listening to multiple requests about bitcoin payment acceptance, they might come to some positive conclusions. I believe in near future we are going to have Amazon to be accepting bitcoin payments similar to this. But right now there is truly no real benefit on accepting bitcoins, most people that are into bitcoin are not even using it as a type of payment, most people are using bitcoin as an investment, until a lot of people start using bitcoin often there is really no benefit at all and it's more of an inconvenience than anything |
|
|
|
|
There are professional bettors on sports, there are no professional gamblers at dice or roulette, the only people that ever made money on casino games like those are people who cheated.
|
|
|
|
|
Right now it's probably impossible to convince them but because most of the people that are using bitcoin right now are young, very young (60% of users are between 10-34 years old) meaning that in the near future those people will likely use bitcoin for their business if bitcoin continues its development so we really don't have to convince anyone, it's a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
