Honestly, that's a good thing though (for Bitcoin). Simply being that the person with greater knowledge has an edge and therefore can make money off people you don't have such knowledge (i.e. people who don't know how to trade). If the market had semi-strong-form efficiency nobody it would be very hard to make anything - defeating the whole purpose of trading.

Yes but it's extremely difficult - and requires a crap load of skill. You could make money out of poker/sports betting - which people have done before - but honestly with the time it takes to learn something like this properly you'd just be better off getting a degree and a job. There are a lot of people who try to make it to professional levels - but don't make it. Then there are stories of pros who spend a night in Vegas and find they have a natural knack for it.

Because if you don't figure out why people don't want to use Bitcoin - you'll never get over that hurdle and you put the whole notion of societal adoption at risk. You don't need every single person to accept it as a currency - just enough for merchants to accept it on the same level as fiat.

Stable prices would promote adoption though. From a merchant's perspective you don't want to accept Bitcoin and then discover you've actually made a loss if you didn't trade it back to fiat fast enough. Stable prices would convince merchants that as a measure of value Bitcoin is stable - and therefore they would be happy to hold them/spend them (as is Bitcoin is designed for - for use as a currency - rather than a commodity).

I'd probably buy a bit more - depending on my expectations of whether Bitcoin has a future or not. It would really depend on what caused the fall in the first place - if I didn't know why I doubt I'd invest in pure speculation. If it was something that seemed like a short term factor leading to undervaluation I'd be happy to get some more.

Long term is undefinable as it constitutes infinity. You'd expect to approach a loss as you increase the total number of bets made - but he most definitely would not say you 'cannot' win. It's just statistically unlikely - there's always a chance a guy makes 1 million bets and wins all of them or he win 500001 and losses 499999 therefore giving him an overall profit. For an individual - unless you're making like 1 billion bets or something the variance is by far a bigger factor than just the pure -EV alone (unless you skew the -EV by a significant margin).

Honestly, I have a better idea that has less risks and probably pays better (depending on the country you're in). It's called a job.

Seriously though - 0.5 a month is about $140 USD a month. If you can't make $4USD a day from your job - you're either in an extremely underdeveloped country (in which case how do you have access to the internet) or you're just too lazy.

As a side note - saying you can make X amount depending on risk is like saying you can make $100 million dollars from a lottery ticket. It's implicit that risk = reward - it's just whether the risk is worth it in proportion for the reward or are there better options elsewhere.

Your going to be holding onto it for quite a long time if you think it'll reach worldwide adoption as a currency. Given how developed the fiat markets are - alongside how much regulation would be needed/infrastructure to support Bitcoin transactions/awareness about it in general as well as putting trust in it - it will probably take more than a lifetime if it'll happen at all. Bitcoin is more of an interesting experiment - one that is rather unique but hasn't gotten far in comparison to real financial scales.

Not sure what in the world is telling you this. The banks haven't been particularly interested in Bitcoin since the hype fell down (alongside the value) and the public stopped caring about it at all. To be honest, they've probably re-evaluated and found it to be less of a threat than they thought it could be.


Why in the world would they bother keeping the blockchain without Bitcoin? Unless we're talking altcoins (fiat is already suitable) the blockchain by itself doesn't have really any banking relevance.

I'd argue that a majority of bettors aren't particularly experienced. Most do it for a small amount of recreational fun more than anything else - just to get a kick out of the match. There are of course more serious bettors who watch all the matches and abide by some set of rules they set themselves and even more serious ones who develop predictive models and compile data regularly to try and find an edge - but these people (especially the latter) are extremely rare.

It's not entirely surprising though - given the fact that there is little to no accountability this is something the con artists are more than happy to do. Honestly I'm more surprised there aren't more dice sites trying to prey on people. Most of these sites are happy to exist for a year or so and go for the long con to eventually scam - although I do agree it is a sad state of affairs.

Honestly, for those guys - they might simply because if they don't expect it to sustain that price for a significant time period they'd rather run with a small profit than a large loss (I know I would). Or I guess you could go with the alternate reasoning which is that they'll never sell unless they make loads simply because they've had to wait such a long time.

I personally would never sell everything - only scenario I could think of is when I'm completely broke and in dire need of resources.

Depends on the severity of the emergency I would think. If you had a major worldwide disaster which killed off half the population and a majority of crop land etc. you'd expect that cash and gold be less relevant simply because there would be demand for things like food and shelter whereas cash and gold are useless (unless they can buy things). If society recedes far enough you would simply return to the barter system - it takes society as a whole to choose a currency/token for it to be useful.

Not really - given the fact that Bitcoin generally requires a reasonable interest in technology (let alone cryptography for proper understanding of the actual architecture) as well as finance which is something that women traditionally have had less of a focus on.

A lack of knowledge about even the existence of Bitcoin keeps a majority of consumers away. For the rest of us - there are some who know but don't bother simply because it's more effort to buy Bitcoins and then spend them than just use your credit card to buy whatever you want to buy. It might cost a bit more in terms of fees - but people are always willing to pay a small premium for convenience.

So much this. There are already fake stocks on the actual stock market - but Bitcoin is an unregulated space - giving money over for promised returns without actually knowing the people behind it (i.e. accountability) is literally a decision to toss your Bitcoin away. If people really needed funding and they had a viable project they wouldn't have a lot of difficult in securing decent funding (i.e. venture capital).

The problem is it isn't actually free entry. There are associated costs - the miner will likely never/barely pay for itself meaning you are actually taking a loss or a very small profit which you could probably get in other investments. The reality is that Bitcoin isn't better at the moment - simply because there is less ability to use it in comparison to fiat. Sure you can convert it to fiat - but why bother have Bitcoin if you are just gonna convert it.

Just a piece of advice - if you're going to put down your bets you might as well include odds, unit size and a running tally of profit/losses. Otherwise, for people looking to follow you they don't have an indication whether you actually know what you're doing.

On a side note, I agree on the Nadal matchup - do think Nadal has a better shot than the bookies think he does.

Originally because it was the only place to talk about Bitcoin. When I joined Bitcoin was tiny. To be honest, in my books it still is. While it's come a long way - it has a long way to go before it amounts to anything important. Now it's just to get some news and ideas and insight.

I would contest poker and sportsbooks. Both are possible to profit off in the long term as in a majority of cases you are playing against other bettors and not the house. The house takes a cut and no risk - so if you're better than your opponents you can win. Of course being good enough to win and cover the cut the house takes isn't easy and hence you rarely hear of people who actually do come out ahead.