-snip-
Rounding Decimals to the Nearest Whole Number.
MagicNumber - 1 = 4294752546, dTemp = 9999.49999852, RolledNumber = 9999.
MagicNumber = 4294752547, dTemp = 9999.50000085, RolledNumber = 10000.
Conclusion. There are only 214749 numbers for which a rolled number will be 10000.
The first suitable number is 4294752547.
WIN CHANCE is 0.005000 % per each roll.
What is this? Script maybe, or whatever the most important is, i still got bitcoin with free roll It's how you calculate the chance of winning $200 of Bitcoin on a free roll. As it says in its conclusion "WIN CHANCE is 0.005000 % per each roll." This makes it a 1 in 20,000 chance rather than a 1 in 10,000 chance that many assume. This is due to rounding to the nearest whole number so you need to roll above 9999.5 to win. |
|
|
|
Is that the best you could do? Misrepresent an old article from 2015 about a company that tried to trademark the Bitcoin name as "Bitcoin failed to get trademark protection". As explained at the end of the article “It is a generic term like the terms used for other currencies such as “dollar”, “euro,” “yen,” etc,” it had stated. “The Foundation is committed to doing what it can to protect the term “BITCOIN” for public use.”
|
|
|
|
OP has been updated with the update provided by Fatanut
No it hasn't. Did you even bother to check? Are you trying to portray yourself as Mitchell's alt? I reported that account earlier for copy pasting, it looks like a bot that just copies a post from earlier in the thread. |
|
|
|
https://www.ft.com/content/fa3897da-ceac-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6Europe’s first bitcoin mutual fund launched by Tobam
Cryptocurrencies push deeper into mainstream investment world
NOVEMBER 22, 2017 Peter Smith in London
A small Paris-based asset manager has launched Europe’s first bitcoin mutual fund in a move intended to draw institutional investor interest in the volatile cryptocurrency that has surged from $1,000 to more than $8,300 this year.
The unregulated Tobam bitcoin fund is the latest evidence that cryptocurrencies are pushing deeper into the mainstream, and comes ahead of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s plans to start listing bitcoin futures with a centralised clearing mechanism.
There are significant regulatory hurdles for asset managers to buy bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which are often associated with money-laundering and cyber theft. Unlike other currencies, bitcoins are strings of computer code, not securities. This means they are not regulated by many financial watchdogs, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, and cannot be held by traditional mutual funds or most exchange traded funds.
Tobam’s fund is classified as an alternative investment fund, is not traded on an exchange and does not fall under the European mutual fund structure known as Ucits. However, it has daily liquidity based on market closing prices, as is the case in most Ucits mutual funds. Tobam said it required the approval of France’s financial regulator, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers, to launch the fund.
Yves Choueifaty, the founder of Tobam, said the $10bn asset manager had to convince the AMF that the bitcoin fund’s “framework is protective of investors”. PwC is the fund’s auditor and Caceis, Crédit Agricole’s asset-servicing banking group, is its custodian.
“How to run the money and invest in cryptocurrencies is quite elaborate,” he said. “We found some investors to launch the fund and we have had a lot of interest from an intellectual point of view.”
Mr Choueifaty said he would be disappointed if the bitcoin fund had not grown to a size of more than $400m in the next two to three years.
Adrian Lowcock, investment director at Architas, the multi-manager investor, said the bitcoin fund as well as investment trusts invested in the cryptocurrency underlined interest from mainstream investors. “Obviously there is an appetite for this type of investment,” he said.
Boudewijn Rooseboom, a co-founder of Cyber Capital, a specialist in cryptocurrency investment, said there was a lot of confusion about the nature of cryptocurrencies.
“But from a portfolio diversification perspective, cryptocurrencies could be an interesting proposition for institutional investors,” he said.
Trading in bitcoin remains hugely volatile. The currency crashed 27 per cent in the first three weeks of September, down from $4,950 to $3,612 for one bitcoin, only to go on to trade above $5,000 by mid-October, figures on Coindesk, the website providing news about digital currencies, show.
“More and more cryptocurrencies have been created in recent years, with bitcoin gaining the largest market capitalisation and the longest record, while also being the most liquid,” Mr Choueifaty said. “Despite growing interest for the digital currency, the current solutions available to access bitcoin pose numerous difficulties for investors.”
He added: “While bitcoin is prone to significant risks, including a very high level of volatility, it also provides diversification benefits.”
Mainstream portfolio managers and financial advisers have said recently that most institutional investors are far from considering bitcoin investments
|
|
|
|
So if I have have 300$ available and I want to buy Bitcoins for 300$. I would rather not use leverage and put all my 300$, rather than putting only 100$ with margin at leverage 1:3. Right? Because as long as taker/maker fees are concerned, both actions are equivalent, but with leverage, I would also pay interest fees. So leverage ends up being more expensive.
Absolutely. There is no reason to borrow something you already have. As far as I understand, the only two situations where leverage makes sense, is 1) I want more buying power than what I have available, 2) I predict a Bitcoin drop and would like to sell but I have no Bitcoins.
That's right, maybe add 3) You want to keep some buying power in hand if you see another trade, like buying some ETH or LTC, and wouldn't want to have to exit the BTC long trade to do it. |
|
|
|
|
It's the same answer that the fee is calculated on the full $300, but I'll just phrase it a little differently. The fee is for executing the trade irrespective of whether it is using margin or not. So if you trade $300 you pay fees on trading $300. If you are using margin then you have the additional cost of funding that added on as well.
|
|
|
|
As I pointed out yesterday. The PR impact looks to be the most serious aspect at the moment. The bloggers and Twitter trolls have been ranting about this for a couple of years but after the hack, various publications are giving them coverage.
|
|
|
|
Pure abuse of the platform and trading...
That is just what trading is. It's a zero-sum game in which for someone to make money someone else must lose it. Those with the largest accounts have the advantage and the job of a small trader is to work out what they are doing and jump on their coattails. If I had been awake at that time and seen that happen I would have been jumping in long as that was the signal they were clearing out the weak hands and about to start another pump. You just had your stop exactly at the point they would target. It has nothing to do with the platform, this thing happens again and again in the main fiat markets every day. As you become an experienced trader you can learn to use that to your advantage. |
|
|
|
Is everything fine with Bitfinex withdrawals right now?
I have Bitcoin Withdrawal with "Status Processing" from Bitfinex Exchange Wallet unprocessed more than 36+ hours!
Support ticket sent but no answer yet.
Any suggestion?
First of all, have you checked that your account meets the requirements for an immediate withdrawal? You can find the information on the link on the withdrawal page, but in short, it's things like if you changed 2fa or whitelisted addresses in the last 5 days. If that's all OK then try and contact them on r/BitcoinMarkets or Twitter to speed up support looking at your ticket. Hello guys, can you explain me this situation? I have placed BTC/BCH stop order @ 0.1425 and was pretty sure it is safe price and it will not trigger, and on charts there is one moment in time when price was dragged down by 20% and i believe lots of stop orders was triggered... What is this? Market has not reached 0.1425, it was just some single "event".... Shouldn't platform protect traders from such kind of activity? As for my small trade of 2 BCH i lost 0.07 BTC ( at least) looking at the actual prices... Also there is no signs of price recovery or something like that, if all stop orders has been taken by some big order price should have at least some time to recover, but it happens just in a single moment... And what is more it has been triggered @ 0.1425 and sold for 0.14, and all of this in a single minute... 1 minute chart:  Thanks! Looking at the volume on that one minute bar it does look like a trader ran the stops with some heavy selling. Nothing you can do about that apart from putting it down to experience. If you zoom out and look at the bigger picture you can see that they ran it down to the previous lows before buying it up. Your stop wasn't in a safe place and on a move like that you will always get some slippage with a stop market order.  |
|
|
|
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned much if at all is that it wasn't a Bitfinex specific problem, it was a Taiwanese banking problem. Okex had the exact same problem. That being the case it's possible getting USD into Taiwan might be a pain up the arse no matter which bank you're sending to. I don't know how many Taiwanese whales there are.
I'm thinking more of hedge funds that would already have banks accounts in every country, no problem for them to get money in. Whales would go to the hedge funds. Another example in that last thread the other person pointed out that there was a Swiss Bank that was launching an ETF. Well, that needs to be backed by actual Bitcoins. How do they buy them? They probably have a branch in Tawain that can wire to Tethers bank and then buy them on the exchanges. |
|
|
|
from tether.to Since April 18, 2017, all incoming international wires to Tether have been blocked and refused by our Taiwanese banks. As such, we do not expect the supply of tethers to increase substantially until these constraints have been lifted.
well where are these 600Mio comming from?  Many people are moving their funds from bitfinex, lets wait and see https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9rAs I pointed out to someone else recently in another thread, you rather conveniently forgot to quote the very next sentence in that statement from Tether. For customers with bank accounts in Taiwan, we are currently experiencing no difficulties or delays in funds transfers in USD, with deposits and withdrawals functioning as expected.
Do you not think that both large institutional investors and wealthy individuals would have access to banking facilities in Taiwan or be more than capable of using a Taiwanese intermediary bank? |
|
|
|
Can you please enlighten me on the general plan to make transactions faster and cheaper? I've been looking out for it, but there isn't much.
Moving transactions off-chain with Lightning Network. https://cointelegraph.com/explained/lightning-network-explainedIn just 8 hours this morning the mempool has doubled - seems we are agin heading towards the miners wanting to drastically increase prices.
Also we saw this pattern when there was the civil war with Bitcoin cash
Just to put that doubling of the mempool in perspective compared to what happens when a large amount of mining hashpower switches to mining BCH take a look at the chart of the mempool below. Now that BCH has changed its difficulty algorithm we will not get periods of 4 days or more, like we did the weekend before last, when BTC is on reduced hashpower. What happened this morning was just good old-fashioned variance of luck that has always been part of mining. A bit of bad luck just means a few hours with less than 6 blocks/hr, when the average is around 6 the mempool clears out.  |
|
|
|
auto betting is to much slow . why ?
The answer to your question can be found in the faq. How do I increase my bet speed? What happens if I have multiple autobets running at the same time?
Betting 1000x the minimum bet (0.00001 BTC, 0.01 DASH, 1000 DOGE, 0.01 ETH, 20 GRC, 0.01 LTC, 10000 PLAY, 1 PPC, 0.01 STRAT or 0.001 XMR) will prioritize your bet speed. As your bet amount approaches the minimum bet of the coin, your bet speed will decrease. Simply stated: the greater amount you gamble, the faster the server will process your result. The next factors that affects your bet speed is your internet connection - the better your connection and the lower the distance from our servers, the faster your bets will be placed.
Your bets will be placed as slowly as your lowest bet amount's speed. For example: if you have one autobet running at 0.00001000 BTC, another at 0.00000500 BTC, and a third at 100 DOGE, the 100 DOGE autobet would decrease the other two speed as though you were only betting 0.00000100 BTC. This is because the smallest bet is only 100x the minimum, regardless if the other two are betting more than that.
Or in short bet bigger and it goes quicker. I think it's designed to give heart attacks to anyone using a Martingale system. |
|
|
|
Some bad news for bitfinex lately.
The PR impact looks to be the most serious aspect at the moment. The bloggers and Twitter trolls have been ranting about this for a couple of years but after the hack, various publications are giving them coverage. Whats the status on this situation.
https://www.coindesk.com/tether-claims-30-million-stable-token-stolen-attacker/https://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-data-links-tether-attack-2015-exchange-hack/If it is correct that they can prevent the stolen funds being used by updating the Omni Core software client then the problem is contained. Do you think i should move my money away?
...
Lending is amazing , i would hate to abandon it.
That is a question only you can answer. For now, I'm reassured by the market reaction. There is no sign of panic selling. So when you get away from all the noise a few individuals are making the wider user base of the exchanges using USDT don't seem to be concerned. |
|
|
|
I know of a person who earns an easy $5 and now spending his life in prison time. I'm curious to know what can you do with an old bitcoin address.  As I already pointed out on the last page if they hold CLAMS they are worth a lot more than $5. ($26 at current CLAM prices.) If the OP is digging for CLAMS then the address must have been funded above dust level at a specified block number on May 12, 2014. Each qualifying address received 4.60545574 CLAMS currently priced at $5.78 each. All you need to do to get them is download and install the client and import either your wallet.dat file or the individual private keys. You don't even need to wait for the blockchain to synch before sending them to an exchange to sell.
You can easily check the addresses yourself at: https://freebitcoins.com/clamchecker/dig/ |
|
|
|
You're wrong here: OP says "Ill give a 1/5 of the amount to the one who is able to assist not much I think in amount of 0.08BTC or 0.1 BTC". That leads me to believe there's 0.4 to 0.5 BTC in his account.
On 2017-08-12 he deposited 0.01953317 BTC
On 2017-08-11 he deposited 0.48 BTC, and at the same day he also deposited 0.49411783 BTC.
Now if I assume this is an exchange, it could very well be OP has 0.5 BTC left in his account on the exchange. It doesn't matter how much this address holds, that's irrelevant when it's an exchange.
Yes, sorry I should have looked a bit closer than I did. What I was trying to say is that when you look at exchange addresses they tend to sweep them regularly so you see a transaction history of deposits being made and then an equal size output shortly after. At first glance that didn't seem to be happening here. So I just took another look and although the numbers don't match in the way I expected the outputs were all going to 1Czvo2GkbBR9DTUfwmxvFYT5MwjRrPJKhc up until August when it changed to 1CE5T4P6WmFUQvQFwvedgTEc5Z7BSVJLVN presumably when the service split their BCH. This address holds a large amount and probably is an exchange, casino or something similar. Even looking at the output addresses from those 2 I can't find any mentions to identify the service. But, mrpunxs, isn't it easier if you think really hard which services you used in August this year?
I think you're right, the only place to find the answer to this is in the OPs memory. |
|
|
|
You may be right, but we don't know if this accountancy firm is on the level.
I've done as much research as I can and Friedman LLP seems to be on the level. Established in 1924 with many partners who all stand to be struck off and never work again if they even had the wool pulled over their eyes let alone faked anything. It's just too implausible to happen. I've got funds in Bitfinex and I'm watching closely if anything makes me nervous I'll get out as quick as I can, but right now it looks OK. Anything may have happened since the audit in October that hasn't been made public yet. However all the noise from a few anonymous bloggers and tweeters I'll ignore for now. It reminds me of Janet Yellen's garbage responses:
Q. "Why won't you let the Fed be audited?"
A. "The Federal Reserve is one of the most trusted and transparent...."
The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, I wouldn't trust an inch. Can you provide a link to where to find a report ?
I read it when it came out back in October, can't remember the link but I'm sure if you search for you'll find it. Edit. It turns out I saved a copy https://drive.google.com/file/d/128lgqWUqvkITyPrCfupCJgI5Vz4z0-rq/view |
|
|
|
I have read that there is no official audit data provided by a competent body.
Then what you read was wrong. I have read the actual audit report from a well-established accountancy firm that most certainly is competent. |
|
|
|
I very much doubt it. If it was truly audited by a reputable firm then the question as to whether or not the USDT was backed should be clear. If that's the case then I guess we could be more at ease knowing that at least part of their claims are true.
I'm pretty comfortable that the funds are real and that has been proven. The hack is more of a PR and reputational problem that could cause serious issues. At the moment they are saying they can prevent the stolen funds being moved by amending the code. If that turns out to be the case they might survive this. |
|
|
|
I cant find any info about that proof that Tether is beeing backed by real U.S $.
Tether is a straight up scam as far i can see it, things will be more clear later this week.
Apart from the audit from reputable New York accounting firm Friedman LLP. https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/10/02/2194319/tethers-transparency-update-is-out/That's from March the most recent audit was in October. Do you think an accountancy firm would risk its license by fabricating an audit? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
