haha I believe the paper bills are refreshed periodically.  In Canada, we change the design of the bills every few years, and now have plastic bills.

But when we refer to "printing money" it's not literally the printing press as the majority of money is created digitally.

Of my earning/spending transactions, I'd say < 2% of that is done with actual paper money.  The rest is just online transactions.

Yeah the signatures get larger and more flashy as the level increases.  At my newbie level, the signature isn't even a link lol.

Betting on sports would be a bit different from traditional gambling games.  Traditional gambling has clearly defined mathematical probabilities, whereas sports is a subjective probability.

For example, when creating the odds for an MMA event, I'm sure they use a lot of science and historical data to come up with the odds, but it's still just their best guess.

I haven't done a lot of betting or gambling in my life, but overall, I am ahead when it comes to betting on sports, and negative with traditional gambling games.

There would still be credit/debt/lending in a deflationary environment.  It's just that the criteria to lend out money would tighten up.  I'll give an example for Canada, as that's where I live, but it would have applied to the states as well.  Most of the average person's debt is taken out in the form of a mortgage on the place of residence.  Now if you don't meet a 25% down payment, the mortgage is insured by a government institute (CMHC).  If you then default on the mortgage, the government institution is now responsible.  The government institution is funded by taxpayers.  So at the end of the day, the banks want to lend out as much money as possible, because there really is no consequence for doing so.  In a deflationary environment, and without the government putting taxpayers on the hook for speculative investments that go bad, the banks would be much more critical of the people they were lending money to.  The due diligence and criteria would need to tighten up because the bank would suffer the consequence of a mortgage/loan gone bad.

So theoretically, speculative investments would be discouraged, and the interest rate would be much higher.  That way, you'd be encouraged to save rather than spend, and perhaps invest or start businesses based on savings or equity rather than debt.

so between 0.03 conservatively to 0.08 aggressively?  That sounds very high....to the point where people in developing countries could do that as an actual job and get paid more than they normally would.

So you'd need a bunch of faucets on automatic rotation, which have enough time for the time constraint to be reset before the faucet is accessed again...?

Good point about ROI.  In our current environment, you would need to take on risk in order to maintain purchasing power, or have nominal returns greater than or equal to the rate of inflation.  If we were in a deflationary environment, simply holding onto your money would increase your purchasing power, and then you'd have the choice of whether you want to invest for additional returns.

The current system causes a lot of people that have little to no knowledge in investing, to be consulted by a commissioned financial adviser to throw their money into the stock market.

Billions.

Even people that don't subscribe to religion are affected by it, as religious concepts have made their way into laws and policy and infringe on civil liberty in some cases.

Religion involves a lot of conditioning from an early age, and I think it is becoming harder and harder to condition kids that have access to the internet.

It would be positive for most people, who do not currently benefit from inflation (people with lower income and lower savings/assets).  It would also discourage debt based spending, so people would have to live within their means.

Deflation would delay spending, as it would make sense to hold off due to theoretically falling prices of luxury products.  There probably wouldn't be a huge difference for essentials like food, which would have a pretty inelastic demand.

The government could create enough money to be on par with population growth and spending and have no inflation at all, but they seem to pass that point.  Inflation is great for people with debt, as you can pay yesterday's debt with tomorrow's dollar, which will in theory have reduced purchasing power. 

If the US government stopped their monetary expansion, then the amount of debt available would be significantly reduced.  People would need to save in order to make purchases, rather than borrow.  So overall consumption would decrease, and there wouldn't be speculative investments creating asset bubbles.  Lifestyles would need to change, where it wouldn't make sense to have a new cell phone and TV and computer every 2 years.

The profitability of banks/Wallstreet would decrease, and the average person would likely benefit as there wouldn't be inflation (the hidden tax on purchasing power).  If they stopped money printing altogether, there would likely be deflation, where a dollar will be worth more in the future compared to today, and we'd be encouraged to save rather than spend.

Without money printing, the government would have less control over economic conditions, but the other part of monetary policy is controlling interest rates.

Aside from a small part of the population that generate income solely based on bitcoin, without any alternative, everyone should be fine without Bitcoin right?

Life without electricity or internet...that would be a huge difference, but still fine for living.

Haha yeah it is significantly less payout for newbs, but it's good of them to even allow enrollment for newbs as most others don't.

You're right in that the more experienced members get higher payouts with other campaigns.

Yeah there are a couple.  I am on 777coin as a newbie, and it seems to be managed well/payed out on time from my little experience.

Then find out what you're interested in learning about or contributing to, and use the forum to post questions or comments as you normally would.

I used coinbase as my first wallet, via Android.  It was very easy to setup.  The app works great, but it's not the most secure wallet from what I've learned.

0.005 from faucets only in a day?  I'm not really interested in spending my time on faucets, but I'm curious as to how one day of faucet work would even get 0.005 bitcoin?

Yeah I'm pretty new to it as well, and trying to learn.  I generated a bit of bitcoin from playing android games, faucets and now the signature campaign, so that I can get some experience with the technology without converting dollars into bitcoin.

None of these methods are good for a source of income, unless you're too young to work.  It's alright as a hobby and learning opportunity.

Look at your options in terms of income/time.

If you're spending 12 hours on this and making 0.005, that is not worth it unless this is an enjoyable hobby for you.  That's like 10 cents USD an hour.

Nice man.  I only started to try this strategy towards the end of a long winning streak, and haven't really gambled much since.  Good to hear that it's working for you.

Why is 0.01/day your goal?  And how much time are you willing to spend to get that 0.01/day?  If it required 5 hours a day, would you be okay with that?

You will either have to come up with an idea to generate bitcoin by having your own business, invest your savings into something that yields a return, or it's more worth it to just work a regular job.  Working part time for a week will likely add up to more income than faucets for a year, if generating income is all you care about.

Thanks for putting it kindly, for what now seems like a foolish question that should have been googled

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.  Overall, are you up or down using that strategy?

The question wasn't based on the point of martingale, I'm just curious to hear about other peoples experiences.

What is the point of martingale to you?  Win a bet and then stop?