I think I can answer this question

Back in the day, when FreeBitco.in was only a Bitcoin faucet, their main stream of revenue came from ads by Google. It was before they added the dice part. Right now, it looks like they are generating enough profits from it to allow free rolls for everyone without any ads. I think this is a unique and distinguishing feature of the site and if they disabled it, they would lose a lot of clients since their dice is nothing of the ordinary, honestly speaking, and can't be compared to the industry leaders like PrimeDice, for example (though I don't dice a lot lately and your opinion may differ from mine)

Okay, it is something more real than a few billions

So if one ticket costs 2 satoshi (last time I checked), 7.5M of them will cost you 15M satoshi, which is 0.15 BTC if I'm not mistaken. If you make 10 rolls per day, with 1000 satoshi you get 10k satoshi, and just to break even you will have to free roll for 1500 days on end or about 4 years. On the other hand, free rolls also give you tickets, though they are "lost" every week unless you can use them to boost your bonus somehow. Let me know if I missed a variable or two here

It depends on how many free rolls you have made so far

And obviously it depends on your current tier. So if you are anywhere close to the cherished amount, you will have a lot more free rolls to make as well as buy a lot more tickets to get to the next level. Though I agree with you, the statement like "play jackpots in MULTIPLY BTC to increase your bonus 4x faster and buy lottery tickets to increase it 20x faster" is not quite clear about the base that we should multiply the number of our tickets with, i.e. what is to be multiplied by 20x exactly. A bit of clarity on this matter definitely won't hurt

Bitcoin is not a commodity money

Just because a US judge declares it so doesn't turn Bitcoin into one. I remember as another US judge allegedly ruled gravity no longer valid (that's just an urban legend so bear with me). Did it stop gravity from exerting its force? Not in the least, obviously. And if I'm not mistaken, Bitcoin was declared commodity exclusively for the purpose of regulating its trading by the CFTC and taxing it accordingly (just like any money can be traded and used as a commodity). That has nothing to do with commodity money as this term is understood by economics (i.e. money in the form of tangible goods like gold, cattle, etc)

So it can be summarized as follows - do your own due diligence at all times

With that said, though, we should also take into account the fact that this is a personal review provided its author has actually thoroughly tested all these sites (or he in fact uses them all as he claims to be a passionate gambler according to his words). In this manner, OP should just add a disclaimer warning at the end of his post about all said being his personal opinion and everyone is on their own (maybe, in small letters, to make it look authentic)

The term "stable" is an absolute misnomer here

Since no speculative market can be considered stable by definition, quasi-stable at most. It is so because only real value can truly support prices at a certain level. But in the lack of such (which is the case with cryptocurrencies), no price should be considered stable as it can crash or surge instantly due to purely speculative (read, arbitrary) reasons (e.g. some whale dumping his massive stash of coins)


Don't be fooled by this seeming calm as it is the calm before the storm, always

Bitcoin is not a commodity money, by any means

Further, it is not clear what fiat money system you refer to. There is no unified fiat money system in the world as there are many mostly independent ones (Euro, Swiss franc, British pound, etc). And it is unlikely (if not to say impossible) that they are going to collapse all at once. If by that you actually mean the US dollar, it remains to be seen whether its downfall (should it ever come about) will do any good for Bitcoin. It will likely cause gold to surge, not Bitcoin (relative to other fiat monies, e.g. Euro)

Gold is good for private investors (and not so much for nation states)

And only as a store of value, i.e. if you are looking to earn money with it, it is definitely not the best (or even second best) choice and option. People buy gold to store their wealth in it, but you should have already acquired that wealth in the first place and not be looking to multiply it. And physical gold is definitely a long-term investment, with investment horizons possibly exceeding decades. If you want to use gold as a short-term investment (for whatever reason), you'd better look into gold derivatives as you will save yourself a lot of overhead expenses that possessing physical gold invariably involves (buying it, storing it, and then selling it)

This point can be easily understood

That is, it is no use (as well as profit, for that matter) looking for other options at this time (and probably at the coming times too). That's okay and that's what most people kind of understand. But it also means that you should use this bear market to disinvest your capital from losing coins (i.e. all coins other than Bitcoin) and use the low prices to invest in Bitcoin. Indeed, it may be worth to keep some part of your trading balance in altcoins purely for speculative purposes, but the majority of your cryptocurrency capital should be invested in Bitcoin. And that's the part people seem to misunderstand

That's not very likely

Since it is a vicious circle of sorts. Using Bitcoin as a payment device or value transfer vehicle means real value, while increasing real value leads to less volatility. On the other hand, speculation boosts volatility and prevents mass adoption for Bitcoin's use in these fields. As speculative value comes before real value (it just happened so for whatever reason), it prevents adoption but without adoption there is no way real value is going to increase. Thus you get locked into this vicious circle

Yes, I got it already, thank you

In fact, I thought about it at first but then I didn't find where I could check how much I paid back as all recent shares were 0. As you can see, around 2k satoshi has been paid but I din't find that amount shown anywhere either as a sum or separate entry, so it was like a complete surprise to me given that I have't been at FreeBitco for years. Apart from that, my visit coincided with the payout that night, yeah, so I was a bit taken aback in the morning

Yes, I understand that the site is still deeply in beta (rather in alpha)

But what's the purpose of making it public? If you need beta-testers (which is normal), you can ask people around here and you will definitely find a lot of volunteers (paying them something won't hurt either). That will also raise more interest as well as arouse gamblers curiosity. Just think about the first impression your casino will have (as something really amateurish). It will be hard to get rid of this impression later if you decide to turn it into something else. Anyway, good luck to you with your effort

I wouldn't put halving in the same group with everything else you mentioned

The last halving have a very strong effect on price. Basically, after this halving exactly the prices had started to rise and reached almost 20k in December 2017 at the end of the cycle. Indeed, the next halving may not and likely will not have as dramatic an effect on price as the previous one, but I wouldn't completely write it off anyway. If anything, it could be a good trigger for the next bull cycle even if not the fuel for it

But let's admit that the moment for the Bitcoin Cash fork was an extremely fortuitous one

And the folks you mentioned (Jihad, Ver, Craig) had likely made millions with this fork. The last split, though, looked more like a typical family quarrel which had nothing to do with either technical issues or profit considerations. Most likely, it was caused specifically by the lack of profits (quarreling over last crumbs of the pie) just like the Bitcoin Cash fork was caused by the anticipation of them. These dudes are in exclusively for money


It is the end result that counts, and in the end thousands of these people became bagholders. While Bitcoin may make new heights, in a year or in a decade, Bitcoin C(r)ash (whatever color) is likely to kick the bucket in the interim

It is not a bad concept on its own

It is just the forms of money you mention (gold, silver, paper money backed by precious metals) are not suitable for a quickly expanding economy (or just quickly changing economy, for that matter). In such economy commodity-based money constantly changes its value which may give an undeserved advantage to holders (aka rentiers) while discouraging producers, i.e. those who actually create new wealth and make our lives better (and a whole host of other issues which a good textbook explains in great detail). It worked for a few millinea simply because the economies back then were not growing so fast to make it a real problem. Most of the time they were not growing at all, so it was not a problem either


Because there is an optimum amount of money given the size of an economy (after bootstrapping the money). When the economy contracts or expands, money supply should reflect these changes proportionately, otherwise it will create imbalances. The supply of fiat money mostly adjusts on its own via credit, i.e. it has a built-in mechanism for such an adjustment

No known cryptocurrency can replicate that

The king didn't lose anything

It is just the universe has been expanding. If you don't understand that, well, you know, there are only two things which are infinite, and one of them I already mentioned. So far the whole market is following Bitcoin's price, not the other way around. And did you not notice that in January 2019 Bitcoin's dominance grew almost 50%? As they say, pain reveals who you really are, and it is in a bear market when real strengths and weaknesses are revealed

That's only true for the very first years of a project when it's still immature and not well-developed

I think Bitcoin is already past that. Obviously, you are going to tell me about Bitcoin Cash and a host of other Bitcoins. But if we cut the crap, people who created these shitcoins were looking for getting rich quick, not for making Bitcoin any better, whatever they may say to the contrary. With time, all such forks will be dying a quick and painful death, while people actually looking for innovation will be creating altcoins, not Bitcoin forks

3000 is a pretty decent price

Let's not forget that a little over a couple years ago Bitcoin's price was way below 1000 (and in 2015 it fell below 200 dollars). Anyway, this is not a matter of price as such. For example, if Satoshi (or whoever lays hands on the private keys from his wallets) dumps his 1M stash of bitcoins in the open market, the price will likely crash into single digits. But will it hurt Bitcoin beyond the point of no return? Obviously, not. So it all depends on the factors which will lead to such price crashes, not on the crashes themselves

Litecoin should be the number two (or second best)

But that won't happen until Bitcoin goes mainstream big time. How come? My logic is simple. The only way Bitcoin can obtain real value is through its store of value aspect. As much as I don't like when someone compares Bitcoin with gold, that's the only role that Bitcoin can play good, i.e. being "digital gold" (but without gold shortcomings, obviously). If it does, then we should have a cryptocurrency that would be Bitcoin's proxy in the world of everyday payments. From my perspective, Litecoin fits into this niche perfectly

And with this you get caught red-handed

As you seem to acknowledge yourself that "this is speculative value and it mostly adds to volatility" is not the same as "increased market liquidity dampens volatility", huh. So what exactly are you arguing with here and who is actually arguing for argument's sake now? Speculative value can't but add to market (price) volatility in exactly the same way as real value can't but take from that volatility, per definition (speculative value being anything but real value). It is sort of accounting identity which, believe me, is not worth challenging or arguing with