I believe the situation is different if you bet with 50/50 probability on both. Let's talk about betting on red and black. Say, you think blacks are going to win and you put 10 dollars on black. At the same time you put 5 dollars on red just in case. You spend 15 dollars. In case black is the winner, you get $20 or $5 of pure profit. I case red wins, you get 10 out of initial 15 dollars back. So, you either win or lose 5 dollars. If you only put 10 dollars on black, you lose them when the outcome is red, but win 10 more if the opposite case. The risk is higher with one bet and I kind of makes some sense to put money on both to lose less. There're some roulette strategies, but I believe that eventually you come to this rare case when something keeps going wrong and you lose everything, just like with martingale.

I also came by bitcoinstrip as a formerly nice website on casino statistics. I didn't manage to recover any pages through webarchive, but I did found some info from it, which actually appeared on this forum in 2016 in a screenshot format, posted by the bitcoinstrip account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523281.0. I also think this article is very useful for the subject of your interest, because it analyzes previously accessible info from this site. I don't think there's much good info for you to look at, but maybe if you contacted the new (or old) owners of that website, they would allow you to work with their old stats.

This is a bad idea, mate. You want to give people money and then take a solid amount of it back in case of winning, but, as others already mentioned, it is likely to lead to people scamming you. However, you could avoid it by investing into some top poker players or sport betters. And yet I still think it's not worth it, because letting others to manage your funds you are just trying to avoid responsibility, while de facto still staying responsible. If you are not willing to take the risks yourself, maybe gambling is just not for you. Others should not feel guilt when losing money, because it kind of was yours. And you are not to blame anyone but yourself. If you still want to do it, at least don't give the money to anybody, but choose successful people instead. Check out website like this,  this or this to get the general idea about this option. I got them from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubg0HS3_hO8.

Where do you take these numbers from? Are there any specific examples of coins with such marketcap and that number of employees? And it is also very important, how much was put into promotion and development of a project, because if the capitalization is 10 million and even more was spent on making it happen, it's a complete loss. And besides, it's not like this bunch of people owns the coins, so they probably don't have anything close to 10 million anyway. Surely, though. sometimes it's hard to believe, how much money do some projects cost. I think that the capitalizations are truly unimaginable, I guess people overinvest a lot. But not just in cryptos, since, looking at the marketcaps of top stock companies, I can see that they also have huge caps and 10 million would be nothing.

Let's create a comparison between similar cases to see if Hotbit token is promising. The funds on Hotbit exchange are summing up to 20 million dollars, while Binance has 1.2 billion dollars. HTB will be something like BNB on the respective exchange, so we are talking about a pairing token for trading. BNB's initial price was about 10 cents and the top price was as high as 24.5 dollars, which is 245x more (goodness me, I never noticed how much this coin skyrocketed!). The question is whether 40x growth can happen. Hotbit is financially 60 times worse than Binance and if the growth of the domestic token's price is proportional to the money traded, then we are not likely to expect growth above 4x. It's still very good, but 10 times less that the op is asking about. Of course, the exchange might become more popular and the token's price might not be in such correlation with funds, but I'd say it should be about right, if only not less in favour of HTB.

The coin is clearly dead and the +20% is not backed up by any major events with the coin, so I'm thinking it is being pumped to be dumped soon afterwards. And for easy profits one should've bought it yesterday and sold already. The project's idea to free the Internet from ads might be not so bad, but only people who store something and website owners benefit from the system (advertising companies are obviously left out of the picture). And the team is a bunch of nobodies. Add to that the fact of no solid partnerships, while the whole idea involves various communities.

The website's design seems plane and easy to use. The game is truly like on other websites which are usually called 'bustabit clones'. I made a post before, questioning such a name, since the game itself might just become universal and look alike on various websites, but some novelty wouldn't make things worse. And you give only two minimum bets on faucet hourly, which is too small. I think it would be more rational to give a new player, say, a one-time only 20 bits faucet, so that one can get to know the website more and then probably deposit some money there to keep playing.

I see that people are writing that this website, like many others, is a bustabit clone. While the crash game does look alike and I guess the code was actually bought from bustabit, maybe it's time we stop calling these kinds of websites clones. I mean, every dice game is similar to other dice games. Every poker game looks a lot like poker games on different websites. This chart game with a bust in the end might just become a typical genre after all. However, I do recommend to try making it stand out from other similar websites. I was thinking, for instance, that it would be cool if the code was modified somehow that the random point could still stay random, but be limited by the array of numbers. I mean, it would be nice if people could not just place a bet and decide when to cash out, but also pay additionally for the 'bet predictor' which would alert a player when there's a specific probability that the crash will occur in the next 5 seconds or so.

That's right. I think we should separate regulation and control. While both involve some institutions intervening, the former creates the legal basis for operations and partial price manipulation and the latter presupposes complete price manipulation and possession of at least significant supply. Futures contracts are basically also a way a regulating bitcoin, and this involves serious price manipulation, because the real price is not even taken into consideration. ETF approval is a way to make investments purely legal and the price is supposed to be approximately what's on the market. Btc control is not possible at all, because even a legislation forbidding to use bitcoin doesn't mean that btc will really not be used or anything. And the marketcap of btc is so huge that buying a control package seems close to impossible.

I received the payment for this week. Thank you, jeremy and bitcasino.io!

If you want to invest all of your savings, you should definitely not risk and make the wrong decisions. This means that no ICOs or crappy coins should be your choice. If there's no coin you trust most, I suggest to diversify the funds between different coins. Thinking that eth or btc are too expensive is rather silly, because a minimum of 3x rise when the market will recover is going to happen at least with bitcoin as the most trusted crypto. A lot of analytics are expecting it to rise up to $50k and more within a couple of years. Don't be greedy and don't opt for quick profits. I would say that the wisest solution is currently the simplest one and that is to invest in bitcoin. If you think the time of getting rich with btc is over, you should take a look at historical snapshots on coinmarketcap and think, how many times people thought the same thing. $100 was too much, $1k was definitely extremely expensive and now $7k is a lot. But when btc is $70k, people will regret they didn't invest back in the early times of 2018.
If you are willing to diversify, I would recommend investing 30% in bitcoin, 20% in Ripple, 20% in IOTA, 15% in Ethereum and 15% in NEO.

It is good to see a new magazine out there on the topic. So far I can see that you're very new and there isn't much information, but I wish you luck in earning trust of the crypto community and providing us with some great insights and things we might've missed. For now it does looks as if the news were ordered, though. Stakenet is currently down and doesn't look like a big thing, for example, but you covered it. And I think it would be better if you made your own website instead of an account on medium, it would be easier to track the info this way.

While it can be appealing to many people, this feature is what makes it so easy to go for money laundering this way, and that brings cryptos bad reputation.
It is indeed easier to make sure the casino is provably fair when it is online, but at the same time there's much less risk of getting scammed in a traditional casino, so there're some trust advantages there as well. If we are talking about casinos operating on smart contracts, of course, then the advantage is definitely on the side of crypto casino once again.
I think that some people would still opt for land-based casino for such reasons as getting to know people, drinking champagne and controlling the funds more seriously than during online experience. But surely online casinos are very cool in their own way.

Bitcoin's dominance has more than half of the market right now. I think it's not about eos or any other altcoin anymore. Their small successes and failures are not making the weather out here. Minor btc news are more important than major alts' news for now. It is a really bad thing for the market imo, but as long as people trust bitcoin a lot more than any other alt, the situation will stay this way and other coins will be able to prosper only when bitcoin is prospering as well. Like the op said, eos is actually having good news, but it simply doesn't matter.

Yes, I agree that the concentration on money profits is slowing the growth in a way. It looks the opposite at first, actually, because when more people believe the prices will increase, the more people invest in btc, thus really causing the prices to go up. But as profit is the main motive to buy some coins, when some minor bad things happen, these people are not willing to risk their 'real' money, so they pull the funds back, crashing the price for no rational reason, like we see now. I think that it is more important to hold btc not because of the profits from trading for fiat, but because of being in favor of the self-regulating market and believing that cryptos are the future of money itself.

Deflation is an interesting topic and it is definitely not brought up often enough. Fiat currencies are bound to fail eventually, because countries borrow money from each other and don't have sufficient funds to pay the debts. This makes the idea of simply printing a bit more money very attractive, but in the end it causes inflation. And if this country is US, it also probably causes a really hard economic crisis.
I don't understand, however, why the article op mentions is talking about naive bitcoin users who don't understand that deflation is bad. Yes, bitcoin is not susceptible to inflation because of its limited supply. However, I don't think it necessarily means it will lead to deflation. If bitcoin was the only currency then it necessarily would, but it is definitely not the case anyway. Btc price rising extremely high in usd will lead to spending less of it on goods, yes, but I don't think people are going to do that anyway. It's a tricky and confusing matter, but imo things might just stabilize eventually without leading to inflation or deflation.

It's really a shame they don't keep track on such things. I think Steam is supposed to protect its customers. I mean, when they buy the games, they pay already for quality and safety. I don't know how many people were playing Abstraction (it is not available now and there's almost no info online), but Steam is too famous to fall victim of such scandalous events. Valve is worth billions of dollars. Is it hard to hire good programmers and not shaken the trust of people buying stuff on Steam?
At the same time, though, maybe this mining is a smart type, so the player usually doesn't even suffer much from it.

The game actually sounds interesting, the idea of mining during gaming is definitely not explored enough. It is not completely new, however, as we already have a not very successful yet Electroneum. And it is not clear what exactly the game is about. The experience seems very plain from the video, but the descriptions say that the game progresses as players make their moves. What I don't like is that it might be too eth-consuming to even make it to the end. And what, if you want to invest small, you are not even going to get the coins? And the official website at least lacks info on its creators and proof that it is truly based on smart contract.

If you are new to crypto, don't have a big budget to spend and actually have a product you simply want to monetize, I really recommend taking a look at Waves platfrom. Waves allows to create tokens no harder than creating an email account. You can even find short youtube videos guiding through the process. You just fill in the necessary details, pay a small fee and the token is out there, representing any kind of goods you want it to represent. Surely, you still need some money to be spent on promotion and a big deal is to convince exchanges to list your token, but this is the easiest and probably the cheapest way out there. You can also go the famous way and launch an ICO, but making a successful ICO is extremely hard, not to mention that you need a serious promotion and a solid team to be working on the project.

Of course it is going to skyrocket. This is what has always happened before after some time spent on recovery. The huge drop of 2013 looks like a small fluctuation right now. I'm sure this decrease of value from $20k to $6k is going to look the same in a couple of years. I'll try to save some btc for the future, soending it only when money is really needed for  life. Those who drop the thing now will probably have huge regrets in the future. ETF delay is not something terrible like quantum computer solving cryptography puzzles to fast or anything. And they will have to approve it or become the unfortunate past at some point. Bitcoin is only gaining popularity now, so we are still in the silver age of amazing opportunities.