That's not skill again. Your assuming incorrectly that people will eventually fail - which is true for an infinite case but at any non infinite case there is a possibility that they will continue to win and stop before that loss. Gambling is entirely luck, if you were to flat bet you could also go broke on the variance that gives you x losses in a row. Stratagems may deviate but if any was truly better than the others people would quickly use it to try and gain the best advantage they can get.

Relax, all it does is flush and change the pool of future keys it will use, so any future transactions will be on different addresses. The current addresses that have been used should remain the same.

That is not going to stop anyone if they are determined. If anything, a person who buys this wants the positive trust so that they can scam.

Basically by just visiting a site (not by actually downloading any malicious stuff) you can accidentally download malware. It's a broad term as the attack vectors can vary but in the past there have JS attacks and even attacks on reputable sites (ie Microsoft and newspapers) as an ad-network got hacked and had its ads replaced with malicious code.

Yeah, if you're on Linux I wouldn't be too worried, the system is locked down enough (you don't spend all day on root do you?) that it's nearly impossible for malware to do anything to the system. Not to mention, Linux only makes up 1% on all OSes used so if you're going to attack something go for the one everyone uses and people have permanent admin power even when they don't need it.

I'm not sure of the implications of Chrome upon drive bys, so I can't really help you there.

That is a fallacy unfortunately. There is a reasonable probability that they never in fact do get to losing margins and hence all you do is end up behind (as the house). If they do get to a certain margin and then give them +EV, they will eventually gain (over the long term) back their losses unless you remove the +EV. In effect all you're doing is cutting your profit margin and the only advantage to that would be if you gained enough users to overcome those losses.

@doog: Do you have an explanation for why bet splitting works? I can't think of the logic behind it.

Woops, thanks for clarifying that.

@dabura667: That is so awesome. Just tested it to give you a tip for that helpful advice! Thanks.

That really didn't do anything aside from adding to my list of untrusted feedback. Nobody but you and those who have you in their trust list will see it affect my trust rating. People get neg bombed all the time, doesn't really do much unless they are on DT.

I'm not too sure whether you properly grasp the trust system. I'm failing to grasp what this statement actually is meant to say.


When the trust system was implemented a feature was implemented to reduce the effect of spammed positive trust (ala it increases your overall trust in smaller amounts). In general while one could spam ratings to get somebody green, anyone caught doing that would be kicked off DefaultTrust anyway making their trust worthless.


Not true. Tradefortress is also in the red. Status doesn't matter.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=67058

No, I'm pretty sure your right. See the thing is that your idealised aims are different - in martingale you are looking to make a profit and so you continue to play until you either make that profit or go bust. In comparison in this case you play to reach a certain specified goal. The problem I have in my head, is that probability doesn't give a crap about your aims it's irrespective of it so your expectation shouldn't change with differing betting patterns. But the maths clearly contradicts this. So right now I'm not really too sure what to tihnk.

If your solely looking for move from 1 to 2 or n to k then split bets should give you a better expectation than a single massive bet (if the math in my previous post is right). I'm not sure how this maths works out with the idea that martingale is bad, I'm not sure whether it's bad because of expectation or because your more probable to go bust.

I'm just running 'deseed' in the console, so I'm not sure if the syntax is right. But this is what I get back.


I'm getting the feeling I'm doing it wrong. What is the correct syntax for deseeding a wallet?

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/obkfifgbnl

Where 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.

Mathematically impossible. Please stop selling this, it is a SCAM.

Secondly, I would advise against anyone trying this, more than likely it is a keylogger to gain your credentials to the site so OP can go ahead and steal your coins.

Or you could just download the compressed tarball and extract it then compile it from there. You can get the tarball at the top here: https://electrum.org/download.html

Just use some google-fu to work out how to compile programs from source (it's just a few terminal commands which should be easy if you're smart enough to use Linux).

Can Darkcoin sign and verify messages like Bitcoin can? You'll have to do some research (in all probability it's unlikely) but that might give some credence to your claim. The only one who can help you is theymos, the mods cannot help you regain control of your account.

If you're not too attached to that account, my advice would be to use your new one and get someone (preferably on DefaultTrust) to neg rep the old one so that people are warned about it.

Either deal on localbitcoins with people who have crap tons of trusted feedback or try the currency exchange subforum over here with, once again, people with a boatload of positive trust so you don't get scammed by people who want to chargeback the second you send the coins. How urgently do you need the cash?

What are you buying on BFL? Last I heard they have been having numerous and extensive delays with their vaporware...

Anyway, do you have any collateral to offer?

As in you lost 150 bets in a row of which you were betting with a 90% chance to win?

If that's the case that is so statistically improbable that I would seriously question the fairness of PD, but on the other hand it's far more likely I've misinterpreted. Could you please confirm whether I have in fact thought about this correctly?

I've been wondering whether it's possible/ever will be possible to sign transactions offline but with imported private keys instead of key generated from the seed?

It's been stated it can be done. But the 'deseed' function doesn't seem to be working and I'm not too sure whether the functionality for this was removed.


Would anyone know whether it can be done?

If you're here for the long haul then there really isn't anything wrong with buying now and waiting for the price to eventually rise (as Bitcoin gains traction and the necessary supporting infrastructure is created and refined). Of course, if you're expecting another bubble and it to burst you could try getting in at the bottom of the bubble, but for all you know that bottom could still be higher than where we are now (same with the $150 to $1000 bubble - we never saw it reach $150 again).