And country to country...
And your RL qualifications. If you had any decent qualifications in most first-world countries I'm pretty sure you'd make more - it really only matters if you're someone on minimum wage or can't find a job or are in a really poor nation. |
|
|
|
|
If there are a large number of confirmations - it is likely that you either mistyped the address or the site you have deposited too is a scam. If you're fairly certain it isn't either of them - then I'd talk to the support on whatever site your on, they should be able to help you out as long as you sent the coins correctly.
|
|
|
|
If you want to define something's value to be universally equal to everyone, thus can be used as a unit of value, then fiat money is definitely not a good candidate, since it worth so little for the money creator while worth so much for poor people. However, if you take 10 years time, it would worth similar to any one with normal health: 1/7 of his life
Just a side note, there never has nor will be something that has universally agreed value - people are willing to adjust their perceptions of value for convenience and simplicity (for example converting USD to YEN, some might feel the USD is valued correctly - but they'll still convert because they need it for their holiday). The reality is that you need a medium of exchange (hence fiat currency) - because a pure bartering system is difficult when dealing with items (how do you have 1.5 oak tables for example?). |
|
|
|
1. I message him with terms I set for a trade 2. Other party sends me and quickseller a message telling him he agrees on my terms I set for the escrow 3. Quickseller sends me his version of terms, that are unrelated to the terms I had set and agreeded with the other trader asking me to agree on his terms 4. I message quickseller poiting this out 5. He tells me he's not willing to change HIS terms although I and the other trader had agreeded on other terms and wanted him to honor them 6. I decline to complete the trade using him as escrow  There are two things I would like to point out. First of all, right now your story and Quickseller's don't match up - your timeline of events doesn't mention you ever agreeing to a specific set of terms, while Quickseller notes that you DID agree and then failed to meet your end. Without proof, this is just a she-said he-said case - you're not convincing anyone you're not in the wrong. Secondly, the trust system itself isn't purely meant to deal with scams - it's simply a forum-wide report on individual users by other users on whether they think that person can be trusted. In this case (while you haven't scammed anyone), Quickseller has indicated that you are not considered trustworthy by him. |
|
|
|
|
For poker, swcpoker is a pretty clear choice - decent rakeback scheme and a solid support presence (and long term trustworthiness).
For dice, Primedice for much the same reasons (except the rakeback of course).
For sports betting, Nitrogensports and Directbet are probably the best (they have some of the top odds for Bitcoin books and decent support).
|
|
|
|
|
Every single past board member - none of them has ever done anything notable to follow the original principles and ideals that the TBF was meant to fulfill. TBH I always felt they focused they're attention on quick cash grabs by presenting themselves as the premier avenue for improving Bitcoin - of which the funds were never well spent due to a mixture of incompetence and ignorance.
|
|
|
|
mod close this thread please..i got my family and my country insulted
It's the internet - what do you expect when you try to sell something you can't deliver (or wouldn't if it was actually viable). Honestly, you should realise people don't take well to others trying to scam them. |
|
|
|
|
Easy question - pretty easy answer. Just buy a couple hundred thousand coins (considering 20K was worth a pizza, it would probably cost you a couple hundred bucks), store them away and remind myself to research all the tax laws later on. Then convert at any point over $100 (preferably back when it was worth $1K), pay whatever capital gains taxes and sit pretty with like 20 million dollars. Don't think I'd need much more - anymore would just be an ego boost to be honest.
|
|
|
|
I already made a couple of posts on why martingale sucks - but I didn't actually address OP. I haven't done the math on the martingale method per se - but I did dig up an old conversation me a dooglus had about losing 'less' by betting less (ie. rather than all in betting, splitting your bets into n portions where you aim to get to x as a value then stop). Yes. And you're the first person who responded in such an open manner. Everyone else just tells me I'm wrong.  The trick is to split up your bet (the amount you were going to risk in a single bet) into a series of amounts which sum to a the same, and which form a sequence such that you can bet the smallest amount, and if it wins, you make the same as if you bet the whole amount at 49.5% (so you'll be betting with a smaller chance, and higher payout multiplier). And if it loses, you want betting the 2nd amount to cover the first loss and make the same net profit. Etc. If you can find such a sequence (and you always can, though it can involve some hairy math depending on the length of the sequence you're looking for) then the amount you expect to risk is less than your whole amount (since there's a non-zero chance that you will win before the last bet, and stop at that point), and so the amount you expect to lose, being 1% of the amount you risk, is less than when you make the single bet. Here's a very simple example: you have 1 BTC and want to double it. * you could bet it all at 49.5%, and succeed in doubling up with probability 0.495 * or you could bet 0.41421356 BTC at 28.99642866% with payout multiplier 3.41421356x, and if you lose, bet the rest at the same chance. If you win either bet, you double up, else you lose. Your chance of doubling up is 0.4958492857 - a little higher than the 0.495 you have with the single bet. Cool, huh? That's breaking the single bet up into a sequence of length 2. If you break it up into more, smaller bets, then the probability of success increases further. The more steps, the closer to 0.5 your probability of success gets. You'll be limited by real-life barriers, like the invisibility indivisibility of the satoshi, and the limit of 4 decimal places on the chance at JD. But in theory you can get arbitrarily close to 0.5. I think. And some quick maths (plus graphing) I cannot believe I'm saying this but I think you might be right. I went ahead and played around with a case where the player starts at 1 wants to move to 2 by making two bets (of any size between 0-1 inclusive). Hence I went to go graph the function to see if it was true and I got this: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/obkfifgbnlWhere y = probability of succeeding and d = the value of the first initial bet Notice how at both d = 0 and d= 1 the probability is 0.495 as expected (as you are either betting nothing then 1 or 1 then nothing and both are equivalent cases). And in between you get a probability higher than the 0.495 offered for the single bet. I've tried a few set values for cases where you split your value up to more than two and you do get a better result. I can only theorise that this is because as your bet size approaches 0 with the number of bets approaching infinity your expectation approaches 1. However, what I do not understand at the present is why this is so. I almost fell out of my chair when the numbers came out (I checked like 6 times), as it's inferring that you can get better than what the house 'technically' offers. The problem with this is that your expectation is better than just flat betting and logically that doesn't make sense. Both should have the same expectation. I'm going to mull it over. I haven't given it a lot of thought beyond this - doog explained it quite elegantly. When you bet your whole bankroll in a single bet, you expect to lose 1% of it.
When you split it up and bet the pieces in order from smallest to biggest, and stop when any bet wins you often don't end up betting the whole bankroll, and so you expect to lose 1% of less than the whole bankroll.
By splitting it up you reduce the amount you expect to bet, and so you reduce the amount you expect to lose.
|
|
|
|
I started with a .1 BTC bank roll and with the power of martingale  TBH, you could've also lost all of that in a series of losses. Martingale always make you feel good because you think you have a winning strategy when in fact all it does is convince you to keep playing until you lose it all. That's why it's so profitable to run a large dice site (and why Stunna can lose 200 BTC due to exploits without blinking an eye). |
|
|
|
1980: No one will ever have a personal computer it is to complicated to use and serves no purpose.
1990: No one will ever use the internet it's to complicated to use and serves no purpose have you heard of a video recorder.
The problem with comparing this to Bitcoin is that those 'inventions' had no precedent - they were the first and so when they actually became useful they were actively used. Comparatively, Bitcoin has to compete with all major currencies on top of other forms of wealth storage (ie. gold) - without offering enough to move masses of people over. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm tspacepilot. This is my current bitcoin address for
this forum. 7 April 2015
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
Address: 1waLNutzCh3DuwCvHcHmFgGg6vsLiWfn4
G3wksPfSW6YwNbgLhfcudBWxX6WZBEOUvNyqxCQn8mFYfGyGk4W11fs766FKZvoc9x2fTgaBMp5iyFcR72r/ULc=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm adding this here in the off chance that I do somehow get hacked. 1Light1BN9Lu38Jab9iqVmJXt4Rc66WAoB Not going to bother signing a message - I don't think it makes a difference in terms of proving ownership. Would appreciate if the next person would quote this to ensure no changes are made. |
|
|
|
You need a secure device to create it and a secure device to spend it. Sure you could keep it on a paper wallet instead of keeping it on the device itself, but seeing as you have to actually have the device to create the paper wallet I don't see the usefulness of this much.
In your case you had a secure device when creating the paper wallet, I don't know why you can't use this same secure device to store and spend them.
You're right, I could. But I had other plans to use that device aside from just initially generating and storing a wallet. But for me, where I'm located, fires and floods are a greater risk - so being able to store keys in different locations rather than on a single device in my home is a better solution. Theoretically I could purchase multiple Pi's or whatever but it kinda becomes inefficient and unfeasible - especially if you're storing it in hard to get places. |
|
|
|
What device do you use to spend from your paper wallet?
If you are using the paper wallet with a cold storage device then it is just as safe as the device itself. If you are using the paper wallet with your everyday PC, it is obviously less secure.
tl;dr; paper wallets are only as secure as the device you use them with, in the best case scenario.
That's the thing I'm not planning on spending from those address for a very long time - meaning they're just there as storage. But if needs be I could easily set up a cold storage and sign txs offline. For people in my case, you don't need a secondary device till you actually want to spend. The only vulnerability is the initial creation - which we have discussed. Basically if done correctly - both are just as safe. |
|
|
|
Thats actually not as difficult to do as you might imagine, all the malware needs to do is mess with the RNG in the Linux kernel, which is stored in a known place and is stored unencrypted even in most types of full disk encrypted machines. So it's just "run this patch against the kernel". The hard part is that there are many different kinds of BIOS's, and you would need to write one for each kind. This can be overcome by not using the malware but using the hard drive firmware like the NSA did in the article I linked, almost all hard drives come from 1 of 12 manufacturers and each manufacturers firmware is almost identical across all their products.
If you do it properly and buy a new machine (ie. Rasp Pi) and run a live version of Linux which you've checked against the SHA and MD5 sums it is incredibly unlikely. If we're going down the NSA route - the reality is there is nothing you can do about it. Good luck not using a computer which hasn't been tampered with if the NSA wants it tampered with. For all you know, the NSA could have broken all forms of encryption or inserted backdoors rendering it all useless. No use, its an encrypted wallet.
I'm not saying it's gonna get your coins stolen - in comparison to paper wallets I'm saying BOTH can be physically stolen. No.
How is it less secure than a cold storage device? Both are open to the same vulnerabilities - and unless your an actuary who can quanitfy the likelihood of risk associated with each vulnerability then I'll take them as being the same. |
|
|
|
Paper wallets also have extra security concerns such as physical theft or if you use a printer. Paper wallets may be cool, and they may be useful for some situations, but if you want to secure your Bitcoins, ignore all of the half-informed sheeple telling you to create a paper wallet and create a normal encrypted wallet, encrypt it with a strong randomly generated password and never enter this password anywhere other than the wallet software. This is safer than a paper wallet and MUCH more convenient. Also paper wallets encourage address reuse which is bad, if you use paper wallets you need to make a new wallet everytime you make a transaction if you want any kind of privacy at all. Agree with most of it. Since we're going into the scenarios where you have malware residing in your BIOS specifically aimed at adjusting the RNG of your address generator (which is highly unlikely), you've ignored the fact that someone could break into your house and steal you're air gapped device. It is just as prone to physical theft. TBH, paper wallets are pretty much just as secure as an air gapped machine (assuming you use BIP38 to secure it) - but yes they are less convenient if you need to move coins regularly. For people like myself you don't intend to move coins for an eternity, I don't necessarily need an airgapped machine to sign transactions I'm not going to make. Mathematically, reuse makes the address marginally less secure - but yes, it hurts your privacy. |
|
|
|
Just want to add that the casino can ban you from their casino for counting cards in some places. There are still places they do manual shuffles or a machine shuffles but it is not continuous. You need a large bankroll to have a shot at beating blackjack but getting banned may make it not worth it if you play poker tournaments.
I'd like to point out that casinos can ban you on the premise or suspicion of you counting cards - they don't need to prove it or anything. Basically if you're doing consistently well over a long period of time they can ask you to leave. |
|
|
|
|
I won't go into the exact details, but I have a couple of BIP38 encrypted paper wallets - so if they're lost or stolen it isn't a big deal (as long as you're password is of sufficient complexity). Because I don't actively have any need to move large amounts of coins I don't run a cold storage system with offline signing, but my advice would be an offline version of Armory making use of a Linux distro (confirm SHA and MD5 sums) which you can use to sign transactions. As usual keep everything encrypted in the case of physical theft.
|
|
|
|
If you have any, share your knowledge on "binary options"
Unless you have insider information - it's binary options are nothing more than a dice game with a huge -EV (the company takes anywhere between 5-20%) as they are basically a guessing game. Not to mention if you did have insider information there are a lot of easier and faster ways for you to profit off that info that binary options. Basically, don't do it unless you want to lose even more money than you would at a 1% edge dice game. |
|
|
|
|
I'd appreciate it if you guys could put me down.
Username: Light
Member rank: Hero
Post count: 1672 (including this one)
BTC address: 1Light1BN9Lu38Jab9iqVmJXt4Rc66WAoB
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
