From dev.ltcrash.com: LTCrash.com is fully owned and operated by FluxTube S.R.L. a Costa Rican gaming company Since the site is still in beta I'm assuming that it's just a relict from the bustabit code, but you should remove that line before you release your game. |
|
|
|
Where you're from is irrelevant; this is the internet. That isn't an insult. "You're lack of knowledge" doesn't mean that the person being addressed is an idiot, just that thry aren't knowledgable in the subject at hand.
Maybe not, but it's certainly not a nice way of treating people and reflects poorly on the entire casino. More importantly, Lutpin is wrong: Transactions that spend SegWit outputs are typically larger than equivalent non-SegWit transactions because they require additional space for the 0x marker. They only manage to get away with a lower fee rate because their weight is discounted. So maybe some humility is in order. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately the discussion moved away from the previous thread before you were able to reply to concerns regarding MoneyPot's solvency. I'll quote them here so you have a chance to respond: Hm? I don't mean to sounds like an ass, but I don't understand this. Didn't you guys have like have 500+ bitcoin or something? At current prices that's like $300k USD worth of BCC. I don't understand how you could possibly justify not collecting so much free money, especially when you're still holding all that unpaid debt to investors. I might be a bit off base here, but the only logical reason I can think of is that it might exacerbate solvency issues?
When you acquired MoneyPot nearly two years ago, investors were in profit. Now investors are at a loss while MoneyPot itself continues to profit at their expense. In no small part this is because at some point you decided to expose investors to a dangerous amount of risk despite being warned of the consequences multiple times. Understandably, there is some mistrust towards you.
Distributing the BCH that rightfully belongs to investors–you say as much yourself–would go a long way towards regaining some of the goodwill you've lost. Multi-currency support is already one of your main features and Bitcoin Cash's API is virtually identical to Bitcoin's, making it fairly trivial for you to make that money available.
So I don't understand why you would take this position and leave what is essentially free money for your investors on the table. The only rational explanation that comes to mind is that MoneyPot is insolvent and does not hold enough BTC and BCH to meet its liabilities towards investors.
As a former MoneyPot investor myself, I'd love for you to prove me wrong by demonstrating your solvency–like MoneyPot regularly used to before you stopped doing it.
At the very least you should publish a list of MoneyPot's addresses at the time of the fork so that we may verify that the majority of BCH has in fact not been claimed as you say. You would not need to provide your current addresses, so there should not be any serious privacy concerns, but providing this proof to a universally trusted third party like dooglus would also be acceptable.
Also, could you please clarify how the advertised net profit of 500 BTC was determined? According to the information here, that must include the 449 BTC in commission that app owners have received. I assume app owners would continue to receive their commission in the future, so it's not really reasonable to consider that part of MoneyPot's profit. The actual net profit of MoneyPot and its investors that is relevant to ICO investors is a little under 70 BTC instead. |
|
|
|
BCC was not collected or distributed. We encouraged all users to withdraw ahead of the Aug 1st fork and a small number of people made previous arrangements to collect their BCC while still part of the house bankroll.
We will not, nor ever, support BCC in any shape or form.
(…)
When you acquired MoneyPot nearly two years ago, investors were in profit. Now investors are at a loss while MoneyPot itself continues to profit at their expense. In no small part this is because at some point you decided to expose investors to a dangerous amount of risk despite being warned of the consequences multiple times. Understandably, there is some mistrust towards you. Distributing the BCH that rightfully belongs to investors–you say as much yourself–would go a long way towards regaining some of the goodwill you've lost. Multi-currency support is already one of your main features and Bitcoin Cash's API is virtually identical to Bitcoin's, making it fairly trivial for you to make that money available. So I don't understand why you would take this position and leave what is essentially free money for your investors on the table. The only rational explanation that comes to mind is that MoneyPot is insolvent and does not hold enough BTC and BCH to meet its liabilities towards investors. As a former MoneyPot investor myself, I'd love for you to prove me wrong by demonstrating your solvency–like MoneyPot regularly used to before you stopped doing it. At the very least you should publish a list of MoneyPot's addresses at the time of the fork so that we may verify that the majority of BCH has in fact not been claimed as you say. You would not need to provide your current addresses, so there should not be any serious privacy concerns, but providing this proof to a universally trusted third party like dooglus would also be acceptable. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry we delayed it.It will be published on github very soon.Thank you for your warning It's been another week and as far as I can tell you still haven't released the source code. This is something you should have done at release, i.e. nearly three weeks ago. I'm not sure what the explanation for your stalling is, not that it would be an excuse. Commit your changes to a repository, upload it to GitHub or whatever you prefer and be done with it. Or just link directly to a tarball, if that's what you prefer. |
|
|
|
Those links ostensibly use HTTPS but in reality don't. In fact, your server doesn't seem to support TLS at all. There's no excuse for not encrypting all traffic nowadays. |
|
|
|
We never said, earn from gambling for living.
Isn't that precisely what "professional gambler" means? And the way you're advertising yourself strongly implies if not outright claims that "investing" in you is expected to be profitable. For example: We are professional gamblers here to help you generate 10 to 50% profit from your investment on average.
This is incorrect and essentially false advertising.
We are saying we can help people who are losing regularly on gambling.
Except you can't! You do not have any advantage over them, they were just unlucky. |
|
|
|
I would say that bustabit is a new concept and deserves some sort of recognition. I would like to see it turn into something. This is one of the unique games that I have seen that would be nice to see improved. I would advise you, OP, to try to create an IPO. Maybe that would be a better approach than finding one single partner. Maybe one single person will be hesistant to risk a large some versus having multiple people investing a small amount.
OP doesn't own bustabit. He just thinks he may have found a profitable gambling strategy for it. |
|
|
|
What does it even mean?
It means that your strategy does not provide any advantage. What exactly do you not understand? You have to distribuite it on multiple bets, for example let's say you bet on green trends
The game results are unpredictable and don't influence one another. Waiting for a number of favorable results before betting does not increase or decrease your chances of winning at all. Again: Regardless of how you structure your wagers, every single one of them has a negative expected value. You are virtually guaranteed to lose your entire bankroll after a sufficient number of wagers. When you lose X on position <N you can say you will get X/T where T is a constant on next turn when >N
Where N is the stack limit of the trend and where the series of E[V(T)+randomized] where V is the vector of redistribution recovers up to the point of covering every bet
I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean, but perhaps you'll educate me. It sounds like what a layman thinks a mathematician would say. In particular I'd like to know what the "stack limit of the trend" and the "vector of redistribution" are.  Reality is, there is a whole math sector and physics sector covering probability, are all those fools? Or maybe you can limit the loses if you are smart?
The ones that aren't fools will certainly tell you that combining many wagers with negative expected values still results in a negative expected value. |
|
|
|
I said limit the profit. I never said limit the payout. Example, you invest 0.1 btc and play.. When you are up with 2 percent profit or 5 percent profit, just exit the game. But mostly people never do that, they keep on playing and finally end up losing everything.
You can substitute "payout" with "profit"–which I have done–and my argument still stands: All wagers you make are fundamentally unprofitable, regardless of when you stop playing. |
|
|
|
Prove that it doesn't provide an advantage, you didn't even see it but you already have your opinion, are you a magic elph?
bustabit has a house edge between 0 % and 1 % (see FAQ). No matter how you as a player combine your wager sizes and target multipliers, you can expect to lose between 0 % and 1 % of every single wager you make to the house. The only way to overcome this in bustabit is through the bonus system, which is player vs player rather than player vs house. According to yourself your strategy involves attempting to establish trends and a martingale system, neither of which are able to overcome the house margin. |
|
|
|
Yes i agree with you. But when you limit the profit and exit at right time, chances are more to win. At least you may not lose more...
The problem with most of the gamblers are, they expect more profit. They are tempted to play more and more.. Finally they end up losing it.
Limiting the payout profit you attempt to make and exiting the game do not improve your wagers' expected values, which are generally negative for gamblers. To be successful, one should not play on the same site always. Just make a small profit and exit from that site and play on a different site. If we keep playing on the same site again and again finally we will lose the entire money.
Example:
Day 1 - Play at x site and exit with a minimum profit.. (may be 1 percent or 2 percent or 5 percent)...
Day 2 - Play at y site and exit with a minimum profit
Day 3 - Play at z site and exit with a minimum profit
Now we have loads of sites to play with...
This is gambler's fallacy. Playing on a site for an extended period of time doesn't decrease your chances of winning there. Likewise, waiting a day before continuing to play there doesn't increase your chances of winning. |
|
|
|
Very broadly speaking, what's your strategy? How are you able to achieve EV-positive wagers?
Basically working on trends of green and reds plus distribuited martingale, but needs to be tested Then it is not a profitable strategy. I assumed as much but had to ask since bustabit is one of the few (only?) casino games that allows players to be consistently profitable through its bonus system. Your strategy doesn't provide an advantage, so your partner would be better off gambling on his own without giving you a cut of the profits for essentially nothing. If you see on bustabit leaderboard there are people with successful algorithms that virtually defeated probability, unless they are fake or bots it means there are successful strategies and we need to test
It's possible–and much more likely–that they were just lucky. |
|
|
|
|
Casino games generally have a negative expected value for the player. No amount of money management can change that fact. And no matter how much you may have gambled, your experience does not give you any advantage in that regard.
I don't know whether you actually believe that you have an advantage in gambling or are just trying to make money off the gullible, but in any case anyone considering this service is better off gambling on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
Very broadly speaking, what's your strategy? How are you able to achieve EV-positive wagers?
|
|
|
|
Yeah. This one wont get off the ground, all that will happen is the dev will absound with the money never to be seen again.
Surely someone wishing to abscond with the funds would try to get their hands on them first. BetBase, however, has already declared their intention to refund all investments, which are still secured by RHavar: The plan is to fund bankroll from our own money and refund all investments. For all investors, please send us email to info@betbase.io with Bitcoin address on which you want your investment to be received back. |
|
|
|
|
Just a few hours ago you were still hosting a ponzi scheme under that domain.
|
|
|
|
Perfect example of the total shit this forum has to deal with due to paid signatures.
The policy should be one warning then perm ban anyone with a paid signature. Ban ALL paid signatures.
First of all what does this post have to do with the topic? It should be in meta, not here. By saying "signatures are shit" in a topic about taxes you are spamming like the rest of them. He was responding to my earlier comment showing that a large portion of comments in this thread are just account farmers repeating the same message again and again. |
|
|
|
So, what in your view should a bitcoin holder do? Calculate the price of his stashed coins each year and report a gain or loss depending on whether in the last 12 months bitcoin was pumped or dumped?
This would mean that if you own any jewelry you should do the same and report a gain or loss each year based on its value.
Again, it depends on the specific jurisdiction. Generally speaking there is no tax on holding financial assets–Bitcoin or not. Consequently you aren't required to continuously report the current value of your assets. However, there is a tax on capital gains in most jurisdictions, i.e. the difference between cost basis and sale price. So the Bitcoin holder in your example doesn't need to report anything until he actually sells his Bitcoins and realizes any profit. |
|
|
|
First of all, you are not in the right section. This is the gambling section. You should move this to the digital goods section.
He knows, he just doesn't care. It seems like one of his spam threads is deleted every other day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
