Just to clarify - it's not like they'll be forcing people to disclose their crypto-holdings, but it's just that taxable gains will be reported separately in the Self-Assessment form. So not much of a change and no idea how they have estimated this will bring an extra £10 mils to the budget. Maybe they're hoping that people who previously didn't bother to report profits from crypto gains will be more likely to do that if the form explicitly asks for such. Makes some sense tbh

This will be effective from April 2024

You're contradicting yourself a little bit here.
Is playing without strategy a strategy or not?

And don't conflate strategy with profitability. As mentioned over a million times in this thread already - having a strategy doesn't guarantee profits. In fact, in most cases, it guarantees losses (for classic casino games). With that in mind, I can easily imagine a casual, for-fun gambler outperforming a strategy-focused one in "productivity" (aka losing less money).

R.I.P. ChipMixer

What a bummer. They had probably the most prestigious signature campaign in the history of this forum.
But there's no mention of operators getting arrested, so who knows, maybe we'll see a ChipMixer 2.0 at some point...


Do you guys know if anyone has ever compiled any historical stats on signature campaigns, i.e. longest running, the biggest in terms of number of participants, highest paying etc?

If not, is there any source that could be used to get the historical data to produce such stats? The official thread has been pruned with lots of old posts missing (i.e. from between 2014-2017)

Looks like the biggest mixer has been seized by Europol: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/15/germany-and-us-seize-over-46m-crypto-tied-to-chipmixer-investigation-europol/
I didn't expect they would craft such wide-spread operation with multiple countries involved. Allegedly almost $50 millions (in bitcoins) have been seized.

As much as it is a great opportunity for smaller mixers like Coinomize to fill the gap and capture a larger share of the market - it's also a sign to never let your guard down. So be careful out there guys.

The articles don't mention if anyone has been arrested though, so hopefully operators are safe.

Nevertheless, it's the end of an era.

Dzieki, sprawdze. O cos takiego wlasnie mi chodzi, podsumowanie najwazniejszych wydarzen w pigulce, a jak cos wydaje sie bardziej interesujace to mozna sie bardziej zaglebic itp.


O paxosie wiem. Ale jak na razie likwidacja BUSD nie jest jeszcze oficjalna choc wydaje sie kwestia czasu.
Teoretycznie Paxos moze jeszcze obslugiwac istniejace tokeny, o ile sie nie myle. Binance moglby tez teoretycznie zastapic Paxosa kims innym, ale pewnie musieliby szukac poza zasiegiem wplywow USA, wiec bedzie ciezko.

Ze stablecoinow Binance calkiem zrezygnowac nie da rady, wiec najpewniej skoncza z regulowanym USDC. Choc szkoda by bylo.

You are making assumptions on them having loads of money, which could be true or not, whereas I have pointed out one of the option to obtain more marketing funds.
You also make assumptions on owner having lots of money - even if that's the case, the goal of sustainable business is to make money for itself, i.e. marketing pool should be built up from profit from operations.

So what if the jackpot is huge if no one had won it in years. If something seems impossible to achieve, it loses its appeal. They could slash it in half and it'll still be huge. And they could use that money to increase activity, and, in turn making jackpot pool growing at a higher rate.

I think that event was actually a "hard fork" not happening. Depends on how we define the term. If we assume that hard fork is a radical change to the protocol of Bitcoin's blockchain - then it wasn't really a hard fork, as the BCH and other forks have indeed introduced radical changes the blockchain, but those changes were made to their new brands of blockchain, not to the Bitcoin blockchain.
So it's not like the Big blockers tried to push their new fork as Bitcoin.

But yes, all that Big Vs Small blocks civil war was definitely a significant episode in Bitcoins history. It exposed some ugliness and some dirty plays, but also had some bright sides, and all seems to end up quite well.

Almost everything in life requires some element of "luck". Even going to regular work, you're relying on some luck (or lack of bad luck) to net get struck by the lightning or not get hit by a bus.
Not only you can apply betting strategies to sports betting, but, as the odds are somewhat judgemental and are not purely based on maths, there's a bigger chance that the strategy will be successful, as compared to the classic casino games.

The question is how much of that positive movement can be attributed to Binance reducing their exposure to USD and converting $1 billion worth of BUSD into native crypto. The other question is - what happens when they finish converting? Will we tank or will this trigger an uptrend?

OK, widocznie zle zrozumialem, wyglada na to ze Binance po prostu przeznacza 1 miliard BUSD (z " Industry Recovery Initiative funds") na podratowanie rynku (albo po prostu boja sie miec za duzej ekspozycji na dolary), ale o co chodzi z "likwidowaniem" BUSD? Macie jakies zrodlo? Nic mi nie wyskakuje na ten temat na necie.


Nom, chyba musze wrocic do starego zwyczaju robienia porannego przegladu prasy heh

As they say: There's no such thing as free lunch. Sure, there is a free faucet and and free WoF spins, but at the end of the day the site needs to generate profit to be able to continue to operate. To get some meaningful amount out of freebitco.in you either need to risk your money (dice, betting or just keeping your funds deposited to earn interest) or at least invest your time to to promote the site and try to get a lot of referral sign ups. Chances of getting rich from just taking advantage of free features are rather slim.

What hard fork do you mean exactly?


There's no clear answer to this one. Hashing power dominance is very flawed definition, so is the majority of nodes. The lazy answer would be that Bitcoin is defined by wide community consensus, but then we'd have to define what's "community" exactly.


I personally liked this old video by James D'Angelo explaining the concept of Bitcoin's private keys. Easy to grasp and easy to digest even by non tech-savvy people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZloHVKk7DHk

The FDIC $250k insurance was almost meaningless in this case. According to the Financial Times almost 96% of client deposits were not covered by insurance, as the SVB's client base was dominated by start ups and venture capital backing them.

But as mentioned above, regulators refused the bail-out but, at the same time, promised that customers (of both, SVB and Signature bank) will regain access to their finds.

It's all a confidence game at this point. If people lose confidence and do another bank runs, the financial system could run into much bigger trouble.

Not true, there are plenty of betting/gambling strategies, including martingale, reverse-martingale, card-counting, using kelly criterion etc. The problem is, using strategy doesn't necessarily mean making profit.
The fact that there's (almost) always an element of luck, doesn't mean that all gambling is "pure luck" as you put it. It's all abut trying to find opportunities when the edge is on your side.
Good example is sports betting - to determine odds of an event, bookies have to rely on statistical analysis, and sometimes those could be wrong (e.g. not everything is factored in). So it's possible to spot and take advantage of such opportunities from time to time.

Dzieki za info, czlowiek byl zajety przez pare dni i nie mial czasu sledzic wiadomosci a tu takie rewelacje. Az zajrzalem z ciekawosci na Binance, jak na razie BUSD jeszcze nie skonwertowany, i zadnego oficjalnego maila jeszcze nie przyslali.
Z nieciekawych wiadomosci, ponoc Skrill konczy wspolprace z Binance i nie beda w stanie obslugiwac wplat/wyplat w GBP, przynajmniej dopoki nie znajda dostawcy. Ale to ponoc tylko ok 1% ich transakcji fiat.

They have busy and quiet days just as any other sites. But a well-designed promotional/marketing campaign could definitely help drive more people in.

No idea if SwC have any marketing funds lying around to spare, but maybe re-structuring the jackpot requirements to something more achievable could help, together with shifting some funds from the jackpot pool to the marketing fund. Then maybe use it to run a series of guaranteed prize tournaments and start giving away entry tickets i.e. as a reward for social media engagement or simple promo tasks, small contest etc.

Just my 2 cents.

That's a big "if" and this is entering a speculation territory. The logic behind the timing of using the spins is no different than trying to time the market. But things are rarely the way that everyone expects.
If we agree that dollar cost averaging i a sensible way of investing in Bitcoin, then, consistently, using WoF spins on a regular basis, rather than waiting for the right moment, should also make sense.

The hedge you described is not really what is generally understood as "arbitrage". There's no real reason for sports betting sites to crack down on such hedging.

Why did you stop? Did you get banned or was it just not worth the time?


Yeah, I think the most arbitrage opportunities nowadays would have a profit rate in a range of 1%. One could think it's still great since it's a guarantee, but things are not so rosy when you consider that to win a lousy $100 you'd have to put in $10k. And since a lot of the gambling sites are registered in some exotic jurisdictions, if one of them decides to freeze your funds for "suspicious" activity, there's not much you can do legally. So the risk is still there.

I missed this post, just noticed it quoted by LUCKMCFLY.

What you wrote makes some sense but I don't quite buy it. What's entertaining in gambling is the hope of winning and making a profit. That's the underlying appeal of it. I don't think you'd even enter any casino or log in to any gambling site if you 100% knew you will end up poorer than you were before entering. i.e. would you play roulette if every field was a losing one, but the max bet was $0.01, meaning you could last long hours with say $10. Probably not, spending $10 just to watch the wheel spin would be a waste of time.

Personally, I hated times when I spent hours on a poker site and ended up with a loss or in a break-even position. Not because of the money lost, but because of the realisation of the wasted time. Sure, there was some entertaining factor in it, but it's not like entertainment is a primary goal in life. You could spend that time doing something more meaningful and fulfilling.