Thanks for joining, everyone.

---

Welcome aboard, Nickaizoku.

Yes, in the current event, the consolation prize will only be given in DOGE, not BTC.

---

I don't think we will be able to make that change, unfortunately, but I'll pass it along nonetheless. Thanks for the suggestion, ndnhc.

---

We would love to sign you up, but contestants need to be at least Junior Members to join (that is, they need to have 30 or more activity points).

Welcome back, sanerin - are you aiming for 2000% ROI this time?

Good to have you with us again, Hexcoin - and with a 1 BTC bankroll, no less.

Please make sure to re-read the rules, and let us know if you have any doubts.

Thanks for joining us again, chanlance - you will be added to the list as soon as FrueGreads is back.



I'm afraid not. In order for participants to receive the x7 prizes, they need to fulfill a couple of conditions: declare a starting bankroll of at least 1 BTC (as stated in rule 4.1 of the Entries section), and then, actually bet 1 BTC or more during the competition.

Welcome back, Ajun96. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with the new rules.



Welcome Mediator. Due to some rule changes for this event, we now have a minimum starting bankroll: 300.000 DOGE, in your case - FrueGreads will be adding that to the OP shortly (along with the minimums for the other coins).

Actually, as FrueGreads pointed out yesterday, the new competition will start as soon as we fine tune a couple of the rules (to address the concerns many of you had), and we have a brief registration period - don't worry, we'll be back very soon.

Thanks. I would like to renew as Affiliate:

Posts: 1992
Address: 1F2Wnrjz9NPZgaQGQwH6YCAhz3GdEu1Kng

The competition will end in 4 hours and 40 minutes, as of this post (00:00 UTC).

Good luck with those last bets.

I don't think that was the point of the thread.

---

Captain America, Captain America(Winter soldier), Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Fantasy, --Next movie--

Several users here have mentioned money as an incentive, or rather, even the objective for gamblers - and at a glance, this might seem true.

But, imagine an Utopian society, where money is no longer in use, your basic needs are all taken care of, and any additional material interests can just be printed in the nearest 3D printer (lets assume, for the sake of argument, this is all possible, for everyone, with no constraints on energy / resources / whatever); my question is: would gambling, and more generally, risk taking behavior, disappear? Or would it just take other forms, now that you can gain no material advantage from it?

I'd bet on the latter - perhaps the origin of this behavior is rooted in a time where scarcity was far more prevalent than it is today, and so, risk taking was far more rewarding (and widespread), but then, I guess this also means that it goes beyond any material gains one can get (at least, for those of us alive today).

You really shouldn't take Ancient Aliens seriously - several of the claims they make are outright lies, and a lot of the rest is merely their own interpretation (often based on a distortion, or omission, of the facts).

This should be far more informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ ("Ancient Aliens Debunked - (full movie) HD", 3h10m44s) - it goes through several of the claims Ancient Aliens makes, and presents what evidence there really is in support of it, and against it (their site, if you prefer to see this in text, is: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com).

I'm not as optimistic (though not really pessimistic either, and I will still keep on holding as much as I can, whenever I can): despite a number of good news, the uptrend seems to have lost most of its steam, so I expect the price to now start dropping a bit in the next few weeks (at least down to $280; possibly a little below), as speculators start to take hold again. After that, we'll perhaps be stuck between $280 and $320 for a couple of months, unless some surprising news hits.

Overall, I agree with that distinction and, whenever possible, avoid the second type of games for the very reason you put forward.

However, I'm not sure the games that allow you to avoid the grinding elements are necessarily giving players that much of an unfair advantage: I mean, it's certainly a tangible advantage, as opposed to a token reward, like "cool looking stuff" would be, and largely depends on the implementation but, if done properly and within sensible limits, it doesn't necessarily break the game; rather, it can just spare players the time that they may otherwise not have to put into those portions of the game, and monetize it for the developers. That can be easily abused, of course, if players can just buy the "super-end-of-game gear", but otherwise, it can be a sensible compromise, I think.

Yes, but there is an important distinction to make here: for me, at least, the source of the irritation isn't the "dump" itself, and whatever feelings it may inspire (that is, the message the "artist" meant to transmit); the source of the irritation is the misguided notion that the "dump" is art (that the "artist" was unable to find an intelligent way to convey the message - you know, something that couldn't be replicated just as effectively by a chimp).

Well, this thread is proof of one such attempt, and if you try visiting the site, you will see the result - it's already offline.

The problem is, there is no way to tell whether or not someone is cheating in online chess; so, why would anyone want to bet their BTC in a match against (potentially) a bot? In fact, if you read the vast majority of the replies to this thread, that's exactly what is consistently pointed out: "it's a nice idea, but there is no way to make it work" (not for chess, anyway).

Besides the options already suggested, you can also take a look at the Services section of the forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=52.0); in there, you will often find small and large job openings (almost always paying in BTC), as well as threads from users offering their skills for BTC - I suppose you can also take this last route, explaining what your looking for, what experience you have, and hopefully, showing samples of previous work in the area.

Without putting any effort into it, you say? Do you think it's easy to empty that many bottles of champagne?

---

I'm somewhat unconvinced this was an accident; I'm sure the exposition would have had visible information on what was being displayed and where, and a space properly set for it. Further, who would let just about anyone in to work without proper guidance and supervision, when there could be items worth thousands or maybe millions of dollars on display?

On the other hand, if this was done on purpose by the museum/"artists", perhaps in an effort to promote the work, it also carries with it quite a bit of bad publicity for the museum.

I can't say I disagree with you, but I certainly don't like the solution you are proposing - personally (and mind you, the decision won't be up to me; at most, I will be asked my opinion on it so, here it is in advance, I guess ), I feel that we should be aiming for a set of rules that make the competition interfere as little as possible with what the participants would normally be doing without any additional incentives. The most I would deviate from this would be to promote consistent results whenever possible (by reducing the effect luck has), and to encourage more users to join the competition (it won't be interesting, or last very long, otherwise).

With that in mind, I believe participants should enter with whatever bankroll they feel comfortable with and, if someone with a very low starting bankroll ends up winning the competition, so be it - the alternative as you propose it, it seems to me, would be to discourage users joining, and force others (potentially the majority) to play with a bankroll they don't feel comfortable with, and probably wouldn't be using in any other circumstances. Further, exaggerated risk taking wouldn't really disappear; it would be relegated to those who feel the minimum mandatory bankroll is small enough for them (effectively rewarding those with more BTC to spend).

Now, this doesn't mean the rules, as they are now, are perfect, or set in stone, of course; several changes have been made so far and, this competition continuing for any length of time in the future, many more will be made, I'm sure. To this end, and repeating what FrueGreads already stated, we will take every opinion and idea participants share with us into consideration - which is only fair, I guess, since it is you all who will have to follow the rules - but I hope they will move things in the direction of promoting more participation, and not less.

I'm not sure your mistrust of government funded education is that well placed (at least in this particular case). I don't really know the details, to be honest, but I'm under the impression that these experiments were conducted in several different countries, all throughout the world, since it was first devised half a century ago, with consistent results - which I assume one wouldn't expect, for different societies, at different points in time, if the education system alone was to blame.

That isn't to say education doesn't play a part, of course; the teach to test and find a job, any job, attitude present in many countries is harmful enough in its own right (though a government funded education system doesn't necessarily have to follow that format), but other aspects of society can't be ignored, and may end up playing a larger role here (say, where most people spend the majority of their time: their jobs).

At any rate, whatever the reason behind it may be, the results are certainly scary.

Come on, bryant.coleman... is he incompetent? Sure. Corrupt? Very likely. Borderline senile? Probably. But a dictator? And comparable to Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddhafi, and Kim Jong Un, no less?

Let me set this straight: it is the president's job (set in the country's constitution) to appoint who will be given the chance to form a government. This isn't an extraordinary measure he took; it's his job. Further, the party he appointed did win the election - it didn't win the majority in parliament but, as he goes on to state in his speech, that wouldn't really be the first time. So, it is now the parliament's job to either work with the minority government, or vote them out of office (which they are fully expected to do), and either the opposition will then take power, or a temporary (practically powerless) government will be set up until the time new elections can take place.

Now, don't get me wrong: I don't like the guy; I don't agree with his decision; and I think he is using his power to retain a political party in power (with whom he is affiliated) which is pursuing policies I disagree with, and believe to be harmful. But, please, stop with the hyperbole; there is enough to criticize already without the nonsense, which just distracts from the real issues.