Think about it though: if someone wanted to really be anonymous, would he put in small hints on who he/she is through his/her anonymous monicker? Obviously not as it would totally be a bad idea. The S-N thing is likely just a coincidence.
Exactly what came into my mind. The name is too straightforward because even complex names get deciphered. And for someone who wants privacy to the extent we haven’t heard from him since the beginning? The story may sound good and interesting but I don’t trust anything because people have different theories on about who Satoshi is. In fact all the confident claims is just enough already. For me, it’s as simple as that Bitcoin exists. Yeah, I agree. That's how humans brains work though. They are always trying to explain what they perceive, even if it doesn't make sense. I think that is what is happening here. People are looking for patterns where there aren't any. |
|
|
|
~snip~
You are absolutely right and I can tell you by my example why. Previously, I was not sure that gambling simulators, such as slots, do not affect us in any way if we play them without spending money. But recently, one of the largest casinos in our forum sent me an invitation to play slots for Points. And whoever scores the most points in a few spins will run in the week and get real money. There were three prize places and thouthand participants. There are a lot of them because everything is free. I was playing too. Do you understand the danger? I played at the casino AS IF for money, but not for money, I played slots over and over again. That's smart of the casino.
Yes, casinos have developed their strategy over decades and also they have a lot of money to invest in Research and Development. They are at the forefront of this. |
|
|
|
~snip~
yes, some habits are deeply engrained in our souls, it takes time, work and effort to correct them
not everyone is willing to do so or will have the necessary powers and support network to suceed.
it's definitely easier for some than others...
Yeah, but at the end of the day most people can do it, at least gradually. It is hard of course, and everyone is different, but it is simply one day at a time. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Well, I believe none of you wanted or would wish humanity civilization to be static, a tree (for example) is never static in growth, except one that is not healthy, a tree starts by its seed planted in the ground, it starts growing in both ways, up and down, that is, down - for the roots, and up - for the steem, branches and so on, it grows and grows, and at the time when it should become static, it still will continue to grow but at a reduced speed, until it's cut down.
In the same vain as the tree, human civilization will continue to grow from stage to stage, new things will continue to be invented that will or should make living more easier and more enjoyable, we are talking about Ai today, which can automatically do a lot of things we usually spend a lot of money and time to do manually, how about when flying cars and bikes get introduced? 😁
Anyways, I am still looking forward to how we can apply the help of Ai to our gambling activities to better the outcome of our games, it actually pains me that games like slot and casino games are Ai proof, there is no way Ai can influence the outcome of such games except on the casino side.
Yeah, you are right. Life is full of changes, you need to adapt or die. That's how life works. Whoever is not able to adapt to the new circumstances, dies. The same with AI, if you can use it to make your life better, that's how you will win. Maybe for gambling AI can be used in an indirect way. Maybe someone already is using it. |
|
|
|
~snip~
If you don't know, Satoshi Nakamoto used to post his real name and address in Bitcointalk.
What was the reason to do that? Was it in a specific post?, was it in general? I remember reading a post where they were discussing about whether to post their real names or pseudonyms, but I don't recall reading Satoshi Nakamoto in that thread. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency prices have increased by 118% compared to last year. Similarly, prices are increasing by almost 83% in the last 04 months.The dramatic history price of Bitcoin peaks and the recent buzz around its upcoming "halving" its only fair to pose the most obvious question in front of us that-
Did the Bitcoin flight already leave investors? or is there still time to buy a ticket?
The attractions of Bitcoin investments has always been double the potential for significant returns and its suggested role as digital gold.Historically Bitcoin has rewarded the bold to investors. For the next "halving" currently on track for April, another bull run seems highly likely. Recent price gains although this potential wave should take Bitcoin to a whole other level as it did after the May 2020, July 2016 and November 2012.
I thought you meant on a technical level. Now it's easier than ever to get Bitcoin. You literally can just buy it. In the early days you had to know a lot of computer stuff to get some BTC. Now there is no barrier to get Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The forum discussed in the Satoshi - Sirius emails   Interesting, satoshi, sirius, and an admin account, which I think they shared. No other members from early to late June. This must have been 2009, already a few months after Genesis. So that forum was removed, and then replaced with this one, right? Here are the first 4 registered users of this forum: admin, Registered November 18, 2009 deletedsatoshi, Registered November 20, 2009 sirius, Registered November 20, 2009 Why they changed the forum after a few months? technical reasons? |
|
|
|
~snip~
VAR should be used as an auxiliary tool in case of doubts that the referee cannot resolve, never as an absolute truth, and not as the main reference... Soon the referee will be a mere supporting player in football, as his decisions can be challenged at any time, always giving preference to VAR
Yeah, I mean, right now the VAR is a team of a lot of people plus software and smart cameras, etc. But all of that means nothing if they are not right there in the field, which the referee is. At the end of the day you will never know if VAR is making fake calls or just wrong ones. It's all simply made by a computer. There are bugs in software, and the 3D view they make definitely has errors. So, even when it's a close call, the errors of the VAR system, which are by the way unknown to the public, should not weight more than what the referee thinks actually happen. |
|
|
|
I am learning about ‘plausible deniability’ as it appears Satoshi didn’t sign those emails… did he?
You are right. But an email usually leaves a digital footprint in multiple servers. Once you send something, it is copied in multiple places at different organizations. It is not the same as for example a post on a single website. But yeah, cryptographic proof is stronger than an email. |
|
|
|
this is the effect of gambling addiction and it is very real, even his own family is willing to blackmail him just because he is addicted to gambling, but if we gamble responsibly we will avoid the dangers of the effects of gambling addiction
Yeah, but that is the tricky thing for a lot of people. You can also just say drink responsibly, but that doesn't mean you will immediately have less alcoholics. It is a difficult thing to get rid of if you have that addiction. It takes time as well. |
|
|
|
Does gambling needs experience or anyone +18, even the inexperienced one can also play? Though playing gamble has a limited age grade or age bracket and the accepted is from +18 years and there are some casinos hall at the door post, it is written clearly that it is only people of +18 can play. But what about the inexperienced ones, are they allowed to play gamble as well? Or they are also restricted to have the fun? In my observation, there are two elements to participate in gambling. One, you must above 18 years in my country and secondly you must have an experience to play, so I want to know if inexperienced people can also play gamble.
If what you mean by "play gamble" is to play a gambling game with money that is not real, then I think yes, they legally can. They are not really gambling because real gambling is only with real money. Pressing a few buttons on the screen to win/lose fake money is fine by me. In fact, it might even teach the kid what gambling really is, So he can gamble responsibly without getting hooked later in life. I can think of quite a few video games which are morally worse. And if that is wrong then perhaps both things are wrong. But that is a question I have no answers to. I am not sure if playing games that simulate gambling are completely safe. Yes, there is no money lost, but the addiction is starting in the brain. The kids can start to get addicted while playing these "fun" games. I think it should be taken a bit more seriously, and not like just a harmless game. |
|
|
|
Kinda true  and if you know even tho we win It is just other people's money who lose the gamble and the cycle continues, until you escape the matrix and always win hahahah. But overall my money doesn't comeback to me it back to other people. Mostly the house I would say. Unless you are playing on games like poker with other gamblers. Still the house takes a cut from those games |
|
|
|
~snip~
1% is the safest number to use in gambling for those with low and high incomes. Losing 1% in a week, maybe will not make a gambler regret about it. However, if gambler lose 40% in a week, this is no longer a have fun and i think low budget gambler will regret about his loss. That's why, the suggestion of 1-5% is the safest. but emotional control and management have an important role for gambler to keep their consistency in applying the 1%. Of course, this number can be very small and it could be said it is less possible to expect big wins from 1% if the gambler's income is less than $500 per month.
But then you end up with posts here in the lines of "I could have won more" when they actually win a bet with their 1%. It's usually the same, people wanted to bet more when they win, and bet less when they lose. The reality is that you never know what's going to happen. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Exactly. It's not "arbitrary", like you said. Twelve would be arbitrary. By 18 your brain is developed enough to call you an adult. Well, in some countries they say it's 24, and who are we to argue with them. So, you are right, it is arbitrary. If we are talking about gambling, I would say one have to be 24 to engage in it.
Yeah, some countries even decide that it's not in their interest to have casinos, so they make gambling illegal, which opens another can of worms. At the end of the day each country is a group of people, and it's very complicated to get into an agreement, specially for making laws, where you need very specific things like a number in this case to be agreed upon. In the end it's a personal issue if you are mature enough to engage in gambling activities, but law doesn't really work like that. |
|
|
|
~snip~ Interesting Email #211 19 Jul 2010 "Donations in Bitcoin are helpful and can be sent to 14EXchS9j3AAfim6mL4jtw6VWMosSUiG5U"
The one and only donation they ever received at this address in Apr 2018. Was 10000 Satoshi from the man who purchased two Papa Johns pizza's using 10000 Bitcoin in May 2010 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195BTW: Donations to me 1LotuszyDXjZYhcNAVhPJYvWMAbfSZdq68 That man who bought the two pizzas also helped making the mac port, and open sourced the first GPU miner... He is of course only remembered for buying pizzas with Bitcoin only. |
|
|
|
There have been saying that before you win a game in gambling, you would have lost enough funds and that means you didn't win any new or extra money to yourself but the casino return part of your money which you have lost before to you. And some will still say that what about those who have not playing gamble before and they won in their first day in gambling. Well those people newly converts to the gambling system will still dash the casino company that win again because the first time win is always to lure them to the system and making them to perpetual adoration to gamble. And I don't think someone in the gambling industry has as a win win gambling history. Or you wins are bigger than the loss. And all the experiences I have in gambling I have not seen that and also those of my friends who are gamblers have not to me that they only win and there is no loss record in their gambling history. And all the ones I have seen and known, the loses are more than the wins. And when I carefully look at the argument I also accept the assertion that what you win was part of your loss. Is that true? Make your input.
The vast majority of gamblers will lose more money than what they put in. That's just math and how it works. At the same time, there will be a handful of people that by mere luck won more than what they put in. This is extremely rare, but happens. One example of this is an Australian man called David Walsh. You can read about him online. Even in his own book he calls himself lucky. |
|
|
|
Gambling with %1 to each of your stake is just like the usual singling of bet, where you play by staking each of the game separately which mean if any of them play there is a chance of winning step by step. I have been playing such game for some time now because of frequent lost in multiple. But gambling is most impossible to win. Even if you stake 10 single games 2 or 3 might turns out to play, while the rest 8 will fail and you'll be speachless. Gambling is one of theost difficult task of brain calculation.
At the end of the day it's all about probabilities. The expected value of most gambling bets is negative. This means that the most probable outcome will be for you to lose money. Based on the title, I can assume that OP doesn't care about losing 1%, and might be happy earning something. The thing is that there will probably be other investments with a better return than negative. Unless of course OP wants to have fun with this, and can happily lose the 1% |
|
|
|
~snip~ Well, I know this I kind of off topic, but I would have never expected to see such a powerful technology to become open source or having some open source models at reach of the common people of the internet to experiment with, though. I am certainly worried about the possible negative impacts this advance could have in the field of gambling and betting. If there is a very important percentage of people out there on the internet who is paying attention to the Artificial inteligence and believe asking one of them could help them to get better odds, then it means the current odds and the difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump could have been influences by a large number of people allowing a machine to make decisions on where to put their money into his electoral year in the United States. Let us assume most of the AI believe Donald Trump will be the winner, leading to an increase of volume for Trump in the betting market. If Trump manages to win this year, then those who used Artificial Intelligence will believe AI is an actual game charger to make money out of predictions, when in reality, it could have been a big coincidence and have nothing to do with the advantage of the AI.  What you are describing is basically how most of the financial industry works. They pick a winner, and charge a fee for that. It doesn't matter if that stock or game or whatever, wins or loses. They always get their fee. On the other hand, the person paying for the financial advice will eventually lose. Except some lucky ones. But that's a bit like a casino. Yes, some people will make money with AI betting. But also some will lose. The thing is that we will only hear about the ones who won. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Ronaldo is having a good performance even in this game and he is playing well yet like he is a 25-year-old player. But he is going to be older in 2026 when they want him to play in the 2026 World Cup.
Compared to players like Messi who are on the same level as Ronaldo, I think he can have a much higher chance to play in the 2026 World Cup and finally, in the upcoming World Cup, we are going see him playing for Portugal for the last time in his life.
I don't really know if Ronaldo is going to play on the next world cup. Last one he wasn't really performing at the top level, and you could see that he was almost done. Maybe we will see him in the ads, like Pirlo for example. |
|
|
|
~snip~
As someone who runs nodes, relays, bridges, and mailboxes for some projects, I think I can offer a personal perspective on the issue of rewards. For myself and several friends who share in these efforts, running a node transcends any monetary gain. It bestows a profound sense of expanding freedom and liberation in the world—a feeling so potent and invaluable, akin to love (which no amount of money can buy!). This is the essence of increasing total freedom: a united stand against the limitations enforced by governments globally. This feeling is priceless and motivates me to not only forego potential earnings but also to invest my own resources - I buy hardware and allocate both funds and time—all of which hold financial value—to support these projects. From my personal viewpoint, the 'reward problem' arises only when a project shifts from being a platform for the dissenting voices of the people, from a collective resistance to malevolence, to becoming a vehicle for wealth accumulation for 'HODLers' and institutions. After all, no one wants to labor for free while watching the 'rich get richer.' If it's no longer about a selfless collective standing against tyranny, injustice and state, it becomes a service—and services require compensation. Practically speaking, Bitcoin needs to consider implementing a financial reward mechanism for those operating non-mining nodes in the long term.
One cannot help but ponder why preemptive measures were not taken to mitigate the centralization of mining power, such as introducing deterrents to ASICs, similar to the RandomX algorithm?
Yeah, I agree with this. Visa for example has a relatively similar amount of "nodes", and it makes sense for them to run them because they get paid through their fees. In Bitcoin, the fees go completely to the miners. In the whitepaper the idea was that the miner and the node where the same machine, so probably this issue wasn't really important back then. But now, miners are a completely different industry, and they are the ones making all the money. Still there are dozens of thousands of Bitcoin nodes that are running securing the network, without getting any financial incentive. It reminds me of landmark open source projects like SSH for example, which are used by millions of people but maintained by a handful of people for free in their spare time. Open source is probably one of the best inventions in human kind, and yet it pays almost zero to the people developing it. Instead, useless and bloated software based on open source gets millions of dollars. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
