PCE lower month-on-month - which indicates that inflation might be going lower, caused a surge in legacy markets and liquidated the short-sellers. 👍 But PMI was also lower month-on-month - which creates fear that a contraction in the economy will probably happen, caused traders to sell and liquidated the long-buyers.  |
|
|
|
If casinos published such list then it will be a promotional purposes and it will only be for the winners list and not the losers list. And if they publish the two, they will make sure that the winners list will very much higher than the losers list. So that people would think that the casino has a low record of losers and people are winning very well there. And there is no casino that is best in term of winning, and you can win in all. If you luck is good that day then you can win well or even hit the jackpot that day. All what you have to did is to look for legit casino and play there.
Basically, in any game, there are fewer winners than losers, and even if you win it is just a matter of luck, because there is no definite analysis. So, whatever casino and type of game you play, play only for fun, and not to seek abundant wealth, because we know that casinos are made to seek pleasure by winning, so keep limiting yourself in playing and don't be greedy. It's a matter of luck, but it's also a matter of math. House edge, even though it's small, assures that everyone who plays in the casino will be long term losers. If you want to win and profit consistently in the casino, avoid slots, dice, roulette/other such games, and learn how to play BlackJack and Poker properly. BlackJack, Poker, and Sports Gambling are games that give more opportunities for Individuals to have the edge over the House. |
|
|
|
Bump. I discovered a project called Mercury Layer, https://mercurylayer.com/Pardon me if everyone already knew and posted about it in the topic, but I have done a quick read/browse on their website, and it suggests that Mercury Layer is like the Lighting Network, which utilizes payment channels, but with the hub-and-spoke model? |
|
|
|
Liquid Sidechain can't be placed in the same category with the Lightning Network, no? Of course, because current sidechains like Liquid are centralized. But I think it is possible to make a decentralized one. Decentralized sidechain or not, it still won't belong in the same category as the Lightning Network. They're fundamentally two different networks with different trade-off, and different security models. "Bitcoins" in a sidechain are tokens issued, the Bitcoins in Lightning are actual UTXOs that have not been settled in the Bitcoin blockchain yet. |
|
|
|
Old smartphones have the necessary hardware and storage capacity to run a Bitcoin node
Old smartphones barely have 100 GB in storage. If your goal is to help the network in terms of bandwidth, it's required to store and transfer the entire blockchain, which is far bigger in size than that. Locally, storage might not be the problem because pruning, and it's cheap. But for old smartphones, processing power - probably yes. During IBD, the smartphone might start slowing down when it starts validating data from that time when there was more network usage. It probably can't keep up with the network. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't that mean one is technically an "IOU", and the other are actual Bitcoins in a "suspended state", like in a mempool?
I think both are in a similar category, just different ends are off-chain or on-chain. In the first case, you have off-chain channel opening transaction (signed coins to peg them in), and on-chain channel closing transaction (moved coins to peg them out). In the second case, you have on-chain channel opening transaction (moved coins to form a channel), and off-chain channel closing transaction (constantly replaced "signed coins", and published only the latest one). In the former, you can "cheat" by convincing someone to accept your signature, which could be already shared with someone else. In the latter, you can "cheat" by publishing some earlier state of the channel. In both networks, it is possible to set up some penalty transactions. In the latter, you have to be online to execute this penalty transaction. In the former, you have to just share it in encrypted form with the majority of the "honest" nodes, and it will be automatically broadcasted by some random node. I believe not because they have different trade-offs, different pros and cons, different security models, and they're just fundamentally different. Liquid Sidechain can't be placed in the same category with the Lightning Network, no? Plus I don't think either is bad, or that the one should be used over the other one. It merely depends on what the person needs/wants, and whether he/she accepts the trade-off. |
|
|
|
I believe the answer to "If it's Bitcoin?", that's where everything starts to be more complicated The basic rules are simple: you sign your coins to peg them in, and move them to peg them out. And of course, it is Bitcoin, because every signature is compatible with Bitcoin. And if you have something new, then it is expressed as a combination of existing rules. If you think that it is not Bitcoin, then it applies to LN as well (because the main difference is that you don't have to open a channel, if you already have some shared output, and you can reuse existing LN transactions on such sidechain). Going back to this discussion, and to make things absolutely clear - "Bitcoin" in sidechains are locked in a multisig, then with tokens issued in the sidechain representing the locked Bitcoins. But "Bitcoin" in the Lightning Network are locked in a multisig, but with the actual UTXOs being sent back back and forth between two people in the channel, correct? Wouldn't that mean one is technically an "IOU", and the other are actual Bitcoins in a "suspended state", like in a mempool? |
|
|
|
The best "cure" to the problem is to educate people that buying this crap is a waste of money and a con.
At best, you can reach a very small percentage of them. If gullible people wouldn't fall for scams, there wouldn't be any scammers left. A large percentage of them might actually NOT be gullible, but merely people who want to gamble on the next narrative, OR who has found there new usage for Bitcoin - a on-chain casino for dick pics and fart sounds. But depending on their timing, probably there will be some community members who might actually get it right/buy low then sell high. Although the larger percentage of them, usually 90% according to some study, will lose because of holding too long. |
|
|
|
But high liquidity is required to make it more effective, secure, and more resistant to Sybil Attacks. And how does it achieve a state of high liquidity? Reputation, and I'm sorry Kruw, but it needs a little "trust" from the users or else they won't send their outputs to the coordinator, and therefore might not have the required liquidity. I don't know how many times I have to continue informing you that there is no "trust" required. You don't send outputs to the coordinator, your coins don't move at all unless the coinjoin succeeds. I'm sorry if you can't get the context of the simple point I'm making. But a coordinator won't miraculously have millions in liquidity simply because it went online. Technically, yes the system is trustless. But we're talking about the social trust required if to use the system or not. It's like those normies who question the feasibility of Bitcoin because "Satashi might come back and change the algorithm".
Satoshi can't change the code running on your node. He can't, but some normies won't use it because they don't "trust" the trustless system. |
|
|
|
I still don't see the point.
Who specifically will opt for buying options and in what situation?
We can limit risk and leverage without options.
I tried learning about it by going through Bybit's course during COVID-19 lockdowns. Personally, for me it's useless because I'm a mere pleb with a small amount capital for gambling. It would be laughable but shitcoinery with Runes or BRC-20 might be more suitable for a pleb. The Options market is a kind of casino that is reserved for sophisticated whales with a large amount of capital to deploy. It seems like you can't talk about options without people having binary options in mind. [b)I don't think real options are more of a gamble than any other trade[/b]. Binary Options actually IS the casino game, and it's probably negative-sum because the pay out is less than 50/50 for a 50/50 "bet", like regular dice games. Real Options is more sophisticated and require strategy, https://www.investopedia.com/trading/options-strategies/If a regular Hi-Lo Dice game is comparable to Binary Options, then Regular Options is comparable to Craps, a dice game that requires some strategy. |
|
|
|
A Coordinator, according to Kruw,
Requires Trust but it is Trustless.
I've been explicitly clear that no trust is required in coordinators: But high liquidity is required to make it more effective, secure, and more resistant to Sybil Attacks. And how does it achieve a state of high liquidity? Reputation, and I'm sorry Kruw, but it needs a little "trust" from the users or else they won't send their outputs to the coordinator, and therefore might not have the required liquidity. Technically, yes the system is trustless. But we're talking about the social trust required if to use the system or not. It's like those normies who question the feasibility of Bitcoin because "Satashi might come back and change the algorithm". |
|
|
|
My question is has anyone of you been in such situation before?
This NEVER happened to me before. Why? Because I lose money in most of my Crap sessions - the casinos love me, and I need log myself out or I will lose more. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Plus it would be safer to play in more reputable casinos. Although, the man's concern might be ongoing, and it will probably be resolved, no? |
|
|
|
Perhaps the particular spam *encoding* chosen might be different depending on how the capacity limit was constructed, but that's immaterial to anything you care about. (and fortunately, the weighing scheme has caused the spammers here to encode their bullshit as witness data, which radically lowers the carrying cost of it for the network).
you're acting like they will always find a loophole. Having looked at a few of the discussions on GitHub and the mailing list, that's the conclusion some developers have drawn, yes. Moving the goalposts only gets you so far. At best, you're causing a temporary inconvenience to people who are financially motivated to create this spam. The best "cure" to the problem is to educate people that buying this crap is a waste of money and a con. That would eliminate the incentive to create it in the first place. Plus teach the newbies that there are more efficient, and cheaper ways to do some shitcoinery if they actually want to do it the "right way". The "right way", merely saying that if you can do it for fees that are under 0.01 cents, then that's where you should probably do it. That's probably why Runes developers should start pushing the shitcoinery to the Lightning Network, or some sidechain/other off-chain network sitting on top of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
OK, after getting an understanding of gmaxwell's sentiment towards OP_CAT,
wtf? why do you let people fucking lie to you like this. I'm sorry for making wrong assumption, and jumping to the conclusion that there was "someone wrong" in this instance, or if it's even "a debate". Perhaps the problem is because Bitcoin doesn't have an inherent mechanism that's built for protocol updates, and probably also for consensus changes. |
|
|
|
It just shows that OP is just trash-talking everyone who has a different view than his and he is a Stake hater based on the posts he made on his account. He might be a fortunate person to have such capital. An update on his bets would be nice to see his results.
Although, how do we actually know that OP really has that amount of capital, and that he's not merely trolling everyone in the topic? Plus if he truly had that amount, why would he waste his time trolling BitcoinTalk? I believe with Photoshop, AI generated images, and other such tools, it's absolutely easy to make "screenshots" of their accounts. The admins/mods should lock the topic. |
|
|
|
|
OK, after getting an understanding of gmaxwell's sentiment towards OP_CAT, does that suggest that Andrew Poelstra might be wrong? Or do BOTH sides of the debate here have valid points?
I've read that OP_CAT is "narrower upgrade than Taproot", which then should also be "narrower than Segwit" because there are really no changes made, it's merely using the existing script scheme to make a new opcode.
But I'm a pleb, and the stupid one in the forum, but I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
But if a coordinator doesn't accumulate enough liquidity, then like you posted, it would be less secure, inefficient, and therefore a less effective way to CoinJoin outputs. Yes, bigger coinjoins are more efficient than smaller coinjoins. That's probably why the "reputation" of the coordinator matters, especially if the individual who bootstrapped it is an anonymous. But it would probably help if he/she is a known entity in the community.
Plus, I know the liquidity pool is supposed to be made of user inputs, but if not many users actually want to use the coordinator, then there should probably be a bootstrapping process during the start, no?
The coordinator can participate in their own coinjoins of course, but they still only count as 1 user. I have a question, what if the entity that started the coordinator started bootstrapping it by using different wallets, pretending they're owned by different individuals, but with honest intentions? |
|
|
|
https://www.btcgosu.com/blog/news/important-update-addressing-impersonation-scams-and-the-recent-shuffle-casino-situation/I would like to update you on the recent "drama" involving impersonation scams and BTCGOSU/Shuffle Casino. What happened:Scammers created dozens of fake accounts on Telegram, pretending to be BTCGOSU team members and Shuffle Casino staff. They caused confusion and financial losses. We initially communicated with someone pretending to be Noah, the owner of Shuffle Casino. This added to the confusion. The "real" Noah reached out and confirmed that Shuffle Casino remains under his control. He also clarified that the scammers deceived his staff. Noah has re-enabled our affiliate account, and measures are being taken to prevent future scams. At BTCGOSU, our top priority is the safety and trust of our community. We moved quickly to raise awareness and prevent additional scams. Despite the confusion and stress of the situation, we remain dedicated to providing accurate information and upholding our ethical standards. Thanks, and it's good to know that the issue is solved and over, with no major victims. It would be so confusing why both sides would attack each other when it would incentivize both sides more if they merely cooperated. 👍 It's the side that's not Shuffle or BTCGosu that's going to be incentivized from such an attack.
But risking some SHFL to receive a higher reward multiplier will probably give you positive expectation against the SHFL risked, no?
Plus for "how to play" to get more playing volume, I believe just play the games that you play regularly. Changing your gambling routine would add to actual financial, if you ask me.
I don't follow you. But wouldn't that depend how you play regularly? I am regularly playing with slots and there are very low changes that i would make same amount of volume using $5 on playing with slots versus playing $5 on dice with 1.0102 multiplier. My money would run out faster with slots if i didn't get large wins. When with dice i would lose a bet 2 times out of 100 (in theory), so even if i wouldn't win with dice, changes are that i would lose slower. And bear in mind this is just for mining the tokens, and grinding up levels. Not a long term solution, and basically not a lot to do with gambling. I'll get back to playing slots and betting with sports later. I'm merely saying that changing your playing habits might do you more bad than good. If you're a reasonable Craps player, then it's probably better to stay with that with volume, than playing different games that collects higher fees just because there's an airdrop. I say that with the presumption that the airdrop is calculated from the fees you pay to the casino. |
|
|
|
I still don't see the point.
Who specifically will opt for buying options and in what situation?
We can limit risk and leverage without options.
I tried learning about it by going through Bybit's course during COVID-19 lockdowns. Personally, for me it's useless because I'm a mere pleb with a small amount capital for gambling. It would be laughable but shitcoinery with Runes or BRC-20 might be more suitable for a pleb. The Options market is a kind of casino that is reserved for sophisticated whales with a large amount of capital to deploy. |
|
|
|
But it still wouldn't help their country if they stay at home and be unproductive or under-productive. Plus if they don't get paid enough in form of salaries for the labor, then their country probably has too much supply of cheap labor, no? It's better to have those people go through a specialized training program, then be "exported" to a developed nation to become "earners" of U.S. Dollars or Euros that could sent back to their countries.
Yeah, well when the situation in a country gets worse (specially with an incompetent government) the society is left with only bad options that they have to choose from. Whatever they choose has different negative consequences. There is no good option here except if they get a better government (like what we saw in El Salvador) that tries hard to solve the domestic issues at the root and improve everything in the country so that people start having good options to choose from. Remember that Bukele didn't improve his country by adopting bitcoin alone. He did a million different things. But is the option of migrating for work actually "bad" for everyone concerned though? For the individual's personal productivity and self-fulfillment, it's positive. For its impact on society from the country he/she is from, it's positive because of U.S. Dollar remittances. For the country where he/she is working in, it's also positive because he/she is providing a service/producing something. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
