How much of a house edge is there on this?
Of every ticket: 29% goes to '3 places right' 29% goes to '4 places right' 20% goes to the jackpot 18% is to fill up the price money again if someone has won - '3 places right' starts with 10mBTC
- '4 places right' starts with 100mBTC
- jackpot starts with 1000mBTC
2% to pay for fees and finally the house edge is 2% |
|
|
|
what's the current jackpot amount?
The price money is displayed in the upper right yellow bar. At the beginning the numbers were: Jackpot (5 places right): 1000mBTC 4 places right: 100mBTC 3 places right: 10mBTC 2 places right: 1mBTC The first three are progressive and can be higher. |
|
|
|
The lottery has been renewed.  Features: - One progressive lottery.
- Fully automated and does only depend on the block chain.
- Provably fair, tickets can be checked with only data from the block chain.
- Funds to cover the prices can be found on the site.
- Transactions appear immediately.
- The tickets connected to a transaction are being played when included in a block.
- A draw is made when a block appears, so on average one per ten minutes.
- Prices or paid as soon as possible, within a minute.
- Minimum ticket price is only 1mBTC per ticket.
- Multiple tickets can be bought when paying a multiple of one ticket. Then every block there's a play.
- Self chosen numbers to play with can be given in the ticket price from 1.00001mBTC to 1.65536mBTC. Otherwise a ticket number is chosen randomly.
|
|
|
|
Sure, it will. Some predictions are that it will cost about $10 000.  In 10 years. Yes, and other predictions are that it will cost about $0. In 10 years. Most of those predictions are based on nothing or gut feeling. In my opinion, a 1000 people can make a 1000 predictions, and sure one of them is right. But it all doesn't mean sh*t. |
|
|
|
... It all depends on adoption so spread the word and get people talking and discussing bitcoin. ...
This. Does it really matter if it reaches a 1000 dollar? Probably if you want to invest. But if you believe in the idea behind Bitcoin, just use it as much as you can, and tell everybody about it. If it's intrinsically good, than it will prevail. |
|
|
|
So USA citizens are mistrusting the government (arguably for good reasons), whereas Europeans have some more respect for theirs.
The Founding Fathers mistrusted their own government, the one they were about to create for generations. Most or all of them came from Europe, not even born on American soil. They knew their own past history on the old continent perfectly and were trying to create a new paradigm. No more empire, no more monarchy, no more tyranny. They knew they would not be alive forever and created a document that tells people they have the right to free speech (to bad mouth their own government not the right of Libel and lie about their neighbor), and the right to bear arm if that government transformed itself into a tyranny, like it did so many times before in Europe.
Europeans have zero respect for their own government as they believe government is a job creator, a right giver and nothing else. Europeans believes they are born with zero rights, only then their trusty government has a list of rights it gives to its citizen, the exact opposite in the USA.
So far millions upon millions of serfs and sheep all over Europe have been slaughtered by their own government, the one you believe was trustful. You still believe it is OK for families with "noble blood" to be on top of you forever while you keep your own middle class to be slaved forever. Why do you think the brightest among you leave your countries by the hundred of thousands every year to come and work in California?
Must be that trusty government of yours.
By the way what is the safest country in Europe and how many people can it absorb every year in its paradise?
I intended that sentence as a summary, and forgot the question mark so that people could make remarks on the statement. Didn't expect such aggressive stands. I believe that not one system is perfect, and it's always a search to find the best imperfect system. I often see the Scandinavian countries scoring high in lists about happiness, health care, distribution of income, etc. USA has higher per capita income, best universities, much more rights to defend themselves, etc. I'm fascinated by the way different policies turn out to be, and probably differ if applied to other countries. I don't no that much about Europe, but the Scandinavian countries are probably good candidates as safest countries. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the elaborate reply, serenitys. So USA citizens are mistrusting the government (arguably for good reasons), whereas Europeans have some more respect for theirs. Times are changing, fortunately. Of course, the situation in the Ukraine is tense. That looks a little bit far fetched. Not all examples are good examples. Yes. US street culture is simply very aggressive. Lots of US guys seem to think being tough and uncompromising is something admirable. When a tough and uncompromising character meets another tough and uncompromising character aggression is often a result. If there are weapons around they will be used and a gun is a very effective weapon. Also if a gun is used in a robbery or a house breaking then logically someone is more likely to be shot and because bullets do a lot of damage they will be more likely to die - as opposed to someone who has been beaten with fists.
Fundamentally your violence problems are cultural. There are countries in Europe with high levels of gun ownership but they do not have the violence on their streets or gun deaths that you have in the US. Guns are not really the problem. BUT, while you still have an aggressive cultural character, having guns freely available does make your society far far more dangerous for everyone.
You need to become less aggressive and take the guns off the criminals. There is your solution. So do you do that by opening another gun shop? Won't these guns actually end up in the hands of the criminals? Every single gun on the streets was originally made and sold legally wasn't it??
I like your way of looking at it, seems plausible. But if you could choose if in a safe country, would you rather life with or without easy access to guns? |
|
|
|
|
Play with one of the lowest ticket prices. It is only 1mBTC.
The number of winners is already increased to seven.
|
|
|
|
Most of the video (except the FRB part) is correct
...
What is wrong about the FRB part? From what I'm reading, bank lending creates deposits, and the limit on amount of new money is the willingness from others to borrow it. The problem of this system is that in case of the federal reserve, privately owned banks earn money on creating money out of nothing. Other countries often own their central banks, and get dividend. These countries earn money by making new money, getting hidden tax by creating inflation, and getting normal taxes. I'm going to throw some new thoughts about this here. - To run a wealthy country, a lot of money is needed (national debt is a result of that). People are willing to pay only so much taxes.
Without inflation (hidden taxes) it wouldn't be possible without turmoil. - Inflation is good for the economy, because it promotes spending.
- Policy to keep the prices stable is needed because that's a good characteristic of money. A gold standard couldn't do this, because of the fixed supply.
...
In my example, I am the issuer of the currency. Perhaps the example was not clear. The point is that debt-based currency does not have to be created to pay interest. Interest can be paid with production. The paradox becomes real when the interest exceeds production because then the excess interest can only be paid by new debt, and a collapse is inevitable.
Can you explain what you mean with interest can be paid with production. Don't use the fish example, because I can't use fish to pay loans at my bank, nor can a government. The dept can only be paid with dollars. And dollars bear interest. When all dollars are used to extinguish dept, still dept exists. The system will be doomed because production or real economy can never keep up with creating new dept. |
|
|
|
Have you guys seen "The Money Masters"? Very interesting documentary on the history of the USD
Does that include the time before the federal reserve system? |
|
|
|
First of all, thank for all the replies. Not everybody agrees with each other. I hope we can come at some fundamentally objective understanding of the subject. The federal reserve creates checks that the banks get in return for bonds. At that moment new money is created. But the checks aren't backed by anything, whereas in the days of the gold standard it was backed by gold. The federal reserve asks interest, so essentially they earn money without risking anything. With the gold standard they couldn't increase the money supply without boundaries. Can they do that now? Is making it bigger good for them, what feed back mechanism is in place to control it? Another two questions about the debt paradox. - Does the example of odolvlobo represent the actual situation?
- Is debt already larger than all money in existence? I.e., is the system already doomed to collapse?
|
|
|
|
...
An example of how the debt paradox is wrong: Suppose I am a fisherman and I create IOUs to buy a boat and those IOUs are used as currency. The IOUs are debt, just like the dollar, and they have interest payments. I don't have to create more debt to pay the interest because I can pay the interest with fish (or IOUs gained by selling the fish). Everything is ok as long as I don't go so far into debt that I can't pay the interest with fish. If I have to continually create more debt to pay the interest (as the U.S. is currently doing) then eventually the system will collapse.
...
I see what you're doing there, but interest (I) and the load (L) have to be paid in dollars, not something else. I have to take that out of the total money supply (S), where every dollar bears interest (apparently, don't know if this is true). S = L < L + I So where does the interest has to come from? Or is this way too simplistic? |
|
|
|
The other day I saw this video. And I came across many more videos saying more or less the same. It is very clear that the people behind such videos are against the current system. That makes the message that they are spreading and explaining a bit colored. Now, I'm not an economist. I really don't know how much of it is true (maybe all, I don't know). I'm hoping that there are people roaming these forums that have more understanding of the subject, and would take some time to explain some stuff. Because I'm thinking that every system has its flaws, but our current system can't be all bad, right? I suspect some nuances can be made regarding this subject. Here are some questions that I have about this video: - Does it really work as the video claims it to be?
- Does the same yield for the Euro or Yen for example?
- Would a gold standard really solve all our problems, or would it create others?
- Why would a sovereign country give the right to make money to a private corporation with stockholders, so that they can collect interest? They could just do it themselves without having to pay interest.
- Does it really only work if the system collapses every 150 years or so, which would be the logical future as pictured by the video?
- If the current system only works if new debt is created to pay the interest on the principle, why aren't a lot of economists rebelling against it?
|
|
|
|
You can easily look up your tickets now. Just use the transaction ID in the search bar to find it. It will show your ticket's number, and if and what you have won.  |
|
|
|
|
That is great. It is a good incentive for other shops if sales grow because of the adoption of Bitcoin.
Off topic:
Devil's advocate:
Are guns really necessary? A lot of countries (mostly European ones) have much stricter rules on fire arms, and are doing just fine.
Or have even better statistics on criminal, drugs, and accidents related incidents.
Does the USA have such fundamental differences with other countries?
|
|
|
|
They can access our private keys if they wanted to. If they change their webpage codes to store our keys, they could take the bitcoins, and most people wouldn't know about it.
...
I guess it's possible. If you trust they use the software that's in the github project page, then it's save. But when using a third party, it is always based on trust. |
|
|
|
Worried it is offline forever? Wouldn't worry about it at the moment. No one is reporting bitcoins disappearing yet.
That shouldn't be possible, because they can't access the private keys to the wallets. I think they are stored encrypted on their servers, and signing the transaction only happens at your browser. So everything happens on your computer. If they loose those encrypted private keys, you should have it backed up of course. |
|
|
|
It looks great. Good luck with your gambling website. I might try it, but you are quite new and lack rep  Price to play doesn't seem to high so only deposit what you can afford to loose, but depositing BTC at a third party always has a risk attached to it. |
|
|
|
I have small amounts of Bitcoins scattered between Coinbase, Blockchain.info, cryptsy, and several paper wallets. I have decided to do the following:
1) consolidate all Bitcoins into the Bitcoin.qt client
2) turn the encryption on (and store that password in a safe place)
3) backup my encrypted wallet to my Dropbox.com account
4) copy backup to a flash Drive
I am running a very old 2007 iMac computer. Any day it could drop dead. If I do all of the following, and my iMac drops dead, will I loose my Bitcoins?
Thanks!
If you have a valid backup of your private keys (e.g burn wallet.dat to a CD), then you are covered. You do realise your bitcoins are stored on the bitcoin blockchain and not on your computer or anywhere else? Your bitcoins don't get 'lost' when your computer crashes, they are still where you left them. Its just you loose the private key that give you access to the bitcoins on the blockchain. Yes, it is no coincidence that it's called a private 'key'. That string of characters gives you access to your coins, the amount of coins is stored in the block chain. Woah what? Damn this shit is confusing. So if I backup once a week, is that enough?
It depends. If you generate more than 100 new addresses (including new change addresses) in a week, then you will need to backup more often. Is it ok to backup over and delete the old backups or should I save them all?
It is okay to delete old backups, as long as you have the new backup. He's right. So: making payments + making new addresses > 100 => make new backup I would delete the old backup right after making the new one. Or just keep them all, the files aren't that large. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
