They wont stop you gambling good size stakes, they are more likely to bring you a free clothes with your drinks or even put you on your own table?    If you are already in the casino or a guest I think they want you to stay, if you are trying to get past security at the front and its already crowded then yes you will be asked to come back at a better time.    The only time I've been in trouble is for hanging out drinking not gambling, they dont care so much for you to stay if you arent even likely to be on the tables

This is the kind of film most likely to win, however this year you have the wildcard of the Harvey Weinstein effect.    The oscar academy is a bit political so I dont know if the risks of a surprising result are great, perhaps odds are not as good value as they might be normally.      The big thing is that some know how the votes go, they'll know the opinions of some of the voters so this seems slightly unfair as anyone in the industry might have a better take on the current spirit or consensus voting pattern.

Its the control factor really, if you centre everything around gambling and exclude normal activity just to gamble then its become a negative for you.   Ignore the emotional considerations just financially, its unlikely to be of any benefit if you only gamble on someone elses terms.    The best thing anyone can do in a losing streak is to walk away and come back when they choose to do so.

It means they regain a better frame of mind and restore their own terms to the game, I think people in control are more likely to win.   Never let the game to play you

The betrayers will be betrayed by dishonesty within their own conspiracy to defraud, is that right.   The weakest point is surely from alternative blockchains not diverting this one, I prefer the proof of stake system which involves the largest holders in confirmation and makes it necessary to divert those funds simultaneously to defraud the whole chain.  The best security comes form open competition, I dont like that mining has come close to a closed system


I agree but pool owners dont have perfect autonomy over every miner in their pool.   I would guess miners under the pool will detract from the admin decision.    Not many will want to mine by themselves but its not too hard to setup a new pool to consolidate a vote contrary to the owners.

It would be true in the short term though.

Is anyone familiar with the protocol or scenario for recovery of tokens sent to a Bittrex address.    I was already aware it was a mistake and gave a private key wallet address to be used but these tokens were apparently sent out automatically with incorrect information, I did inform them not to use that address but unfortunately it happened.   

I'd appreciate it if anyone is aware if recovery by Bittrex of the tokens is time critical, those kind of factors or how I could proceed best ?

I got sent some Tokens, I asked them to be sent to a wallet (imToken) but they used a Bittrex address instead so the tokens are lost ?     Anyone have some insight on that scenario, I see them deposited on etherscan but bittrex struggles to give a deposit for normal ETH nevermind tokens so can I do anything now ?

So Cash is King as they say.  So you dont approve of Indias moves in 2017?  Even plain cash can be debased and obviously its happened with dollar.   With physical money involving gold silver copper there was still a problem with failure to maintain a standard measure.    So gold coins or whatever end up having to be a set dimension and a known weight so it can be measured and shown to be true value.    I dont think any system is fool proof or without costs to transact, maybe we need all of them competing fairly against each other for balance.

The common problem is a centralised authority that inevitably becomes corrupt and self biased, thats where the 1% was most likely derived from. Imbalance in itself is a feature of every economy, inefficiencies, failures and fraud even is normal bumps in the road      Only thing I see as positives is distribution and open competition, Bitcoin lacks proper competition somehow.   Distribution now is biased to speculation not common usage?


https://mises.org/library/inflation-and-fall-roman-empire

Yea what are the odds of that, well spotted but I dont know how this merit system would become a kind of self regulating economy.   It'd probably require the ability to down merit vote or veto a post as not suitable for merit, which might be over complicating things.     I dont know either of those posts are plus or minus in that way but that kind of 'coincidence' does make profile boosting a reasonable conclusion

The assumption here is there some club or organisation by rank when really the common factor between those forum members is mostly just by age.    I dont nessecarily know anyone the same rank especially, only if they post on the same forum section or threads that I do then I guess I'd remember.  
Otherwise I dont really care that much, this forum is just a grain of sand on a beach in a big world.    I've far more interest if the actual forum post stands out as unique, useful and actually informed me of anything I didnt know previously.   Isnt that going to be the basis for merit, seems natural to me and alot of places have some kind of upvote system.    It should be a positive effect because those who have none should be orientated to post most thoughtfully or informatively

Iam a Merit noob, I'll have to read up on the fine detail but Im posting to say when I first joined the forum a while ago there was a similar kind of contest.   Engage in the forum, post properly and they'd enter us into a bitcoin raffle and it was done over a year that one.

As it turned out that was the year BTC first took off to four figures or so and so it was a big deal in the end.   I cant see this thread is anything negative especially, it is emphasising proper post quality and especially from new members which hopefully Bitcoin does not yet lack.   Theres so many drifters and ghosts on forums like this, maybe even the majority of traffic Im not sure but its positive if people do try to post on a thread and they are more likely to come back when involved in a conversation on whichever thread.

So far as racism, maybe employ the brain a little on this as he cannot possibly judge quality of a post in a language he has not been taught.     Someone in that section can run a thread like this surely

The best solution is probably the most distributed, not reliant on one factor or person for continued success.  Thats the overall nature of crypto I think and we see greater problems where too much control falls to too few like happened to BTC transaction fees, mining etc.   Its throttled itself unfortunately.



I would look through the links on the OP for more discussion, this thread is quite lightly posted sometimes

Community resources:
Web site: http://blackcoin.co/
Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/blackcoin
Gitter: https://gitter.im/BlackCoin_Hub/
IRC: freenode.net #blackcoin
Chinese QQ groups: 374929243 and 243092057

I posted my scenario about this but its changing with price also.   I believe the way to watch for a bottom being put in is a trend of lower highs to be broken.    Currently the area to watch is about 12,000.

Once above 12,000 it must confirm itself higher and place some kind bottom pricing above that.   So theres a retest, almost always for a good move.    Thats the best measure for an end to any sell off and this isnt a crash because its quite a regular market even if its negative to peoples disliking

my rough view:

They will affect the price by the actions of the participants in that market.  Overall it should be a positive as it allows various finance firms to hedge involvement with crypto without exposing themselves overall to the underlying risk of holding a crypto token like BTC.

So its increasing business participation and allows reduction in arbitrage risk while involved.    It also allows speculators to take a naked short but then later source the bitcoin via various means in order to counter that naked short.  
So the closing of each contract could be significant as its marks the ending of each round between bulls and bears.   Heres my current take, I do think BTC itself is important, people even but finance can tip the scales also and they have ways to engage available sources of btc I think.   Just offhand I remember people complaining about JP Morgan shorting Silver, however they also took up an interest in a silver mine so they were hedged.   I expect CME CBOE would also relate to similar activity in actual crypto; I know dont the details of the links however

I presume its being done gradually, not everyone simultaneously but I dont know that exactly, just a presumption.     I guess all my details are in order for any token payment to go ahead but as yet I've not received.    Nobody is aware of anything further we have to do to qualify, I cant remember reading anything?

Did Localbitcoins recently raise the amount required to set up an advert to sell.   I'm not selling in USA or New York especially so we are allowed to use bitcoin here without too much hassle but seems all the limits went up to prevent anyone not a big dealer from being on the site ?

Quite a few of the old sites are like this with fees set back when BTC was 10x lower then it is now, one site tells me I need 0.1 btc to clear a balance from an account.  I realise most of the limits are ok on localbitcoins but sad some have been pushed up

It will be a combination of reasons, this might be the biggest story and like people said we all expected it well ahead of time.    The problem is people new to crypto who are slightly dazed and confused and got caught up in that, its shame they could not have been warned more.   I'm not sure if any big news channel jumping on the back of the general crypto story line took time out to do some journalism and call out BCC as a scam like enterprise ?

In any case the trend is greater then the sums of the parts.   BCC sells out partly because the market was forcing a liquidity squeeze onto them and so it becomes part of the selling momentum.   Markets always move like this, people hitch a ride on the way up and flee on the way down.   Just general market profit taking, its not selling caused by BCC in my book.   Its only part of the story.  
Mt. Gox was big enough to distort the price upwards and eventually downwards, that I will take as the main strut to 2014 selling but I've not heard anything in the last year to parallel that effect.   Which is good, we never want one thing to dominate crypto like that did as it makes for weakness.   Decentralisation is king, stay away from anything that doesnt make the best of distributed load

Nothing is impossible !   This is a dynamic market based on dollar value which itself changing all the time.   Dollar has lost 10% of its value in the last year which is a ton actually.

That inversely helps bitcoin some but obviously has a much greater gain and interest from the decline of the worlds most used reverse currency.


What will happen is the bottom must be confirmed by a new top.  If a declining set of tops occurs, it will lend momentum to a new lower low.   This is how markets move, nothing is fixed as a boundary that cant be breached.

Here is a channel for BTC I drew in, speculating a negative trend which is a fair call from the ATH.   If we break out of 12,000 as a top then I will agree with OP roughly but it must not continue in a simple downward trajectory indefinitely

They wouldnt label themselves scammers of course but the general population would also view BCC similar to crypto in general , its all a bit muddy in many peoples perceptions imo.  BTC has to distinguish itself over time some more.    There were weak hands in a market always and also more long term interests who genuinely want to see gains from utility and actual usage.   The market price is a mix of both and lately I think we've seen too many speculators and 'fast money' types who want to flip and move on.    

Every single market sees these people pass through, it is upto BTC or crypto in general to handle the negatives and gain anyway.   A flush out always occurs in market dynamics, its a hurdle we must pass


I plotted in a downtrend channel for the BTC.   We've had them before now, this is beginning ATH, but now 12,000 as a trend top.  13,000 is old up trend boundary and 10,000 as the rough channel bottom

Has anyone tested the latest release to see if its improving on the blockchain drivers for overall hashing speed or even just one protocol ?

Right now I find Skunk is the easiest protocol to keep stable and with the lowest wattage, but I know most people go with cryptonight of course.

I dont think it is a scam, I'm pretty sure I chose well when I took the risk of being paid in these tokens.   Its a legit business with decent prospects, otherwise it would be a worthless token to be paid in and a waste of time from the beginning.  It is ironic that it is part of a strict adherence to KYC that caused this failure to payout the allocated bounties and that has led to the perception of deceptive bounty terms.     Its a mixup over KYC legislation and that became a requirement introduced retrospectively after the bounty had closed.   Its a reasonable requirement for any company to proceed lawfully but I've never heard of KYC being used to forfeit in only 14 days in any other case.  I was told we had a month to pass KYC but it started a week into November and closed a week before end of the month so it was about 14 days total, I think there was a rush hence why I say some mixups occurred.    I suggested that if identity cannot be legally proved then participants could nominate a charity like Red Cross or a Cancer research charity for their allocated tokens.   That should be possible and it seems a reasonable outcome to me.
I myself can pass KYC on any online site that requires it, I have an available credit record usually thats the drawback but even with other betting firms its a driving license thats required or similar, I'm sure it should be possible for most people to do.

I do suggest being reasonable not slinging mud, alot of the time you deal with people in a company who are just doing what they are told.   The overall KYC legislation itself was just a requirement the company had to follow, we didnt know it'd be such a problem at the campaign start and neither did the company apparently.   I will start a thread, I'll ask around what is the best forum section to proceed with; but we'll collect details of everyone who did not pass KYC and their intentions for the missing allocated tokens from the various campaigns held during the ICO.