There are two important points worth mentioning

First, inflation reflects the price growth (as per definition), and the latter in general means that a given company starts to sell their goods and services at a higher price (to whoever it may concern, please note the use of the phrase "in general"). In turn, that typically translates to an almost automatic increase in wages (though with a certain lag depending on the production cycle of the company)

Then, good companies take particular care that it never comes to the point when their labor force "might not want the job anymore", for the simple reason if they didn't, someone else would. The implication is that employers are vitally interested to keep wages on par with inflation. Failing to do so may be a sign that the company itself is failing. This has an interesting and well-known side effect of inflation that helps employees to find better jobs for themselves

We should not rule out the possibility that it is just a myth

However, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if casino employees could be discharged if something like that happened in real life. You wouldn't really expect someone to win jackpot three times without leaving the table, would you? So the dealer shouldn't have let the gambler go on playing after his second jackpot even if for the simple reason there was something wrong with the odds of whatever game was being played. When you think about it, it kinda makes sense to stop the game at once to look carefully into what might have gone wrong

Well, in the latter case you can always complain here

Some tried, with their mileage varying. Regarding land-based casinos, most are located in special zones with "special" laws as well, which in many cases effectively stands for no-law territory (as in "I'm the law"), e.g. casinos located in native American reservations in the States. So don't get surprised when you get kicked out with no reason given, even if your wins don't amount to much on their own

God made the world, China made the rest

You probably refer to stake.com

If so, I've seen this topic with a lot of stones flying in every direction. However, stake.com is not a decentralized, blockchain-based casino. It is a regular online casino, and as such, it doesn't use blockchain for making bets and storing their outcomes (so that they can be independently checked). If I'm not mistaken, VipGames.io is such a casino, which makes use of the EOS blockchain or whatever goes for blockchain there (I don't know much about how EOS works internally)

Mate, it's 2020 today, with coronavirus reaping a grim toll across countries and continents

Anyway, the gold market is not the goal. People still think of Bitcoin in terms of price whereas they should think in terms of use and adoption. And how much adoption have we seen since then? Let me guess, next to nothing? Is there any hope? Will you be happy if Bitcoin becomes next gold instead of a true medium of exchange? As they say, be careful what you wish for. Or am I asking too much?


I heard this mantra prior to 2015, and it had already become a cliché by then

I went and checked that thread

To sum it up, Bitcoin could only destroy fiat in "your own imagination". You basically assume that the fiat currency would depreciate due to increases in money velocity, but how can it increase if people won't be spending their bitcoins? In other words, you set up mutually exclusive initial conditions, i.e. explicitly asserting that people will hoard bitcoins and implicitly assuming that they are going to spend them. Then you proceed to draw an impossible conclusion, which is Bitcoin destroying fiat. However, in that case you wouldn't even need Bitcoin as any fiat should quickly deteriorate on its own for just being inflationary. You see, there are huge holes in your reasoning


It's utterly ironic that you yourself appeal to "good old" Gresham’s Law in your first post in exactly the same sense I used it here. How come?

Не работает это, сколько мозг не пытайся включать. Точнее, работает, только совсем в другую сторону


О, моя любимая тема

Как раз про пилоты и симуляторы. Про это уже написаны сотни, нет, тысячи диссертаций и исследований, разобраны десятки катастроф и чрезвычайных ситуаций -- вывод неутешительный. В критических ситуациях инстинкт самосохранения подчиняет себе контроль над разумом, и пилоты начинают делать безумно глупые ошибки. Для этого даже специальная терминология разработана, для авиапроишествий (например, "the leans", "graveyard spin", "the black hole approach", как по-русски не знаю). Самое удивительное, что наиболее рационально и грамотно в таких ситуациях действуют лица с подсознательно суицидальными наклонностями (практически, все боевые летчики)

I know what Gresham’s Law is about. That's why I mentioned its extension


You can freely trade Bitcoin for fiat and vice versa

So why does it not destroy fiat? Maybe, exactly because of the extension of Gresham’s Law, that bad money drives out good money from circulation? It's ironic that you try to appeal to the natural outcome of this extension (Bitcoin not being widely used as a means of payment) to support the opposite claim, that Bitcoin would dispatch fiat currencies. However, no one can stop us from analyzing your proposition theoretically, "in vitro". Could you name just one killer feature of Bitcoin that would render the fiat currency useless as a currency?

That's the crucial point here

It is all idle talk until there is solid evidence that someone out there has actually wagered that much and is somehow unhappy about that. The whole story is so contrived and fishy with so much agenda insolently showing through and seeping out that it is surprising we are discussing it like it were for real. Anyway, isn't rakeback that something "extra" which you are supposed to get by gambling your ass off? But seriously, wouldn't it be too much of a good thing to ask for?

You put forward contradicting claims

First, you say that "endogenous money is ... created by banks at their sole discretion" (which, in my view, pretty well counts for automatic money creation, just in case). Then you assert that it is destroyed "only when the loan is repaid". I guess you can't have money created by banks at will (read, arbitrarily), while at the same time destroyed only when the loan is repaid (emphasis added). As you hint at, banks can create money only when a loan is taken (whether it is prime, subprime, or otherwise is a different matter). Exhaustively simple logic, isn't it?


And how this disproves my point that CB's are there to maintain the health of such a system?

All in all, I agree with everything you have said

However, the wily Chinese are known for being extremely cunning and conning. Obviously, they are not going to confront Uncle Sam face to face in the open as that would be a recipe for disaster, at least for the time being. They are more likely to follow the route that the US had been following in the first half of the 20th century, which was to sit on the fence and wait till the dust settled. And then pick up the power from the weak hands of the European superpowers of the time. So, they are going to take small but perfectly calculated steps, probably using other nations as their proxies whenever available and possible until they are ready to deliver a crushing blow to the dominion of the US over the world. The times may have changed, but the power struggles and approaches remain the same

I read another story. Don't know whether it is real or just an urban legend of sorts but it goes as follows. Some extremely lucky dude in a brick'n'mortar casino hit jackpot three times in a row. Since it was too late to kick him out anyway, the dealer has been disposed of instead for not doing something to stop that lucky bastard halfway

Take this account of events for what it's worth, though

We already discussed this matter in the past (here, for your reading pleasure)

Someone has come up with exactly the same reason there, namely, Thiers' Law. However, Gresham's Law, or its proper extension, still persists if we consider two currencies, which are freely exchangeable at market rates. Thiers' Law basically describes a situation when one currency fails as money, i.e. no one wants to accept it. In that case people simply refuse to transact in it, and thus no free exchange is possible. Obviously, this is not the case here. Bitcoin is a worthy speculative asset, and it is not a good idea overall to spend your capital on everyday needs, Gresham's Law or otherwise (read, it is Thiers' Law which is not applicable here)

We don't know how it is going to function in practice

If it will be hard-capped in the way Bitcoin is or its supply will depend on factors which lie beyond the reach of the Chinese monetary authorities (unlikely but still), such a currency could get traction after all. Otherwise, it will be no more than yet another payment system with a fiat currency as a basis, in this case the Chinese yuan (read, the American dollar hegemony won't be hurt, let alone displaced)

Okay then. Though I don't really see why you would need to expound on technical features to explain its economic basis in a couple of words


It's not done manually

And that's the whole thing about fiat currencies and why they are so interesting. They are unique in their capacity to automatically readjust the money supply as required by the economy via creating as well as destroying what has become known as endogenous money. And while we are at it, you can't match this supply manually anyway as it is simply impossible technically. The central bank changes interest rates, that's true indeed, but it is only to oversee and maintain this self-regulating mechanism

Well, there are various opinions

Aside from that, China’s digital yuan is not their only initiative. They are now planning on starting a regional currency. As per this Cointelegraph article, Chinese powers that be want to challenge the hegemony of the American dollar on the global scale by developing a regional currency. What makes it particularly intriguing is that it is reported to be based on the Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, South Korean won, and Hong Kong dollar, so you can rest assured it will be used for regional payments at the very least if it kicks off for real

Well, I didn't mean it that way

Indeed, you can use multiple accounts for this, but of what advantage will they be to you? The arbitrage opportunity can be purposefully and profitably exploited between two different bookies, no doubt about that. But the question is whether arbitrage is possible within the same bookmaker (which I doubt)? As I understand it, the odds are adjusted in such a way that the bookie is always earning something, no matter who actually wins. This, more or less, leaves no room for and essentially rules out internal arbitrage, or fork as you call it (read, they are not fools)

The short answer is, fiat currencies are purposefully inflationary

The long answer is that Bitcoin has been made deflationary, due to a hard cap, coin loss, hoarding, or whatever. In the view of Gresham's Law, Bitcoin is good money to be stashed away, while fiat is bad money to be spent shortly. So whenever there is a choice to be made between what to spend and what to save, the choice is evident and straightforward, so there is no need to name it here


At first glance it kinda makes sense

I mean a fee for a service and all that stuff. However, when you think about it, a currency in and of itself is purely utilitarian, and as such, it works better when you don't have to pay for it. And aside from the block reward, the miners are also collecting transaction fees, and these are no going anywhere, at least as long as Bitcoin itself stays with us (read, the incentive has been built in for good as well)

I'm not into this kind of thing

So there might be a very specific term in the bookmaking parlance but since you asked and as far as I know, what you are looking for is called arbitrage, i.e. taking offsetting positions to generate a riskless profit. With that said and hopefully being right, I'm not sure if you can technically pull it off with the same bookie (though I'm still interested to find out if you actually can, so bear with me)