Eh. All things being equal, if you are looking at the 30% mark like OP wanted, then you're aiming for a BTC market cap drop of over 75%, reducing the price to <9K.

Doing anything based on dominance which is affected by numerous factors is going to be more-or-less one of those useless infallible theories or those useless general theories. If anyone can work with all those inputs, good for them: I will stick with pragmatism.

---

I share a conjecture with your 'alternative asset flow' towards the tail-end of mania, though I'm assuming that it's primarily based on sentiment and not any heavily-detailed empirical analysis.

There. Trimmed the fat.

I'm not sure why you're trying to predict when an altcoin season is coming when your basis is effectively that very idea: a low Bitcoin dominance means a high market cap for altcoins.
I guess you're right, but it's like me proving that a circle is round because a descriptor of a circle is roundness.

I'm only taking a look via the guest account but it also seems after each bet, both the client and server seed are changed automatically. Any possibility of making client seeds fixed and incorporating some nonce values?

I would either wrap the text in the [quote]<text>[/quote] tags or use actual quotation marks to indicate where I am quoting the article and where I am writing my own reply.

Rest would be fine. This is just in general, though. I don't think anyone is really going to call you out for "plagiarism" in that thread unless they've got a broom shoved all the way out their mouth. The italics are sometimes indicators of a quotation and it's clear what the context of the post is.

Nice work.

Clearly, this guy needs some consultation on his scamming if he's been doing it for years now. Reusing the same email address, fucking up with usernames and discord... god help this kid if he finds a real job.

I would rather avoid this type of conjecture based on a sweeping argument. Moreover, the notion of, "no one will trust all these bankers and government to control their finances," is nice for Bitcoin but certainly not an absolute. Through necessity, culture, or other ideological premises, some entity could control an aggregate chain that is more powerful than a public chain.

As for governments? I'm not much for them but the social contract of giving up freedoms for reciprocated order doesn't have to be untrustworthy: it's just the fact that the larger the government grows, the harder it would be to trust the individuals that are making changes to such a system. Consider it social inflation, a dilution of your voting power and impact on policies.

I think the fact that so many gamblers are (apparently) so vehemently against checking the authenticity of their bets is very distressing.

What's that old saying for that one cryptocurrency that people tend to use, again?

"Don't trust. Verify."

---

Blind trust means that exploitation is possible. Instead of saying, "yeah, but I trust them anyway," why not eliminate the need for trust at all?

Let's retreat back to some productive discourse.

If Tomboy911 is able to produce any crypto address that originally deposited to DuckDice, or perhaps an old withdrawal address, doesn't that show a cryptographic connection?
Signing a message would bring some more evidence for account ownership.

---

If they're able to find an address from 2019, then that should at least show that they own the same wallet.

I've only seen bans when users get reports in the triple-digit numbers, IIRC.

You can go check through this post just to see how some of even the most egregious spammers are still clowning about: BPIP will give you some more insight into deletions for confirmation, as I only included the good reports against the users I submitted.

In fact, take a look at the list of users, sorted by most deleted posts/threads: https://bpip.org/Report?r=postsdeleted

---

There's only one thing that is harder than getting banned for spam, and that's getting banned for trolling.

Tomboy911 claims they are unable to find the bet. Is DuckDice able to provide the details for the specific bet #e47d747386?

If you really wanted to test consistency, you would ask for the bet history of that day, making sure that all the balances made sense alongside the provable fairness verification.

---

Something also itches at the back of my brain: what is that whole server failure that occurred? Was it a common situation or did it simply affect one user? What was the scope and severity?

That might just be a confusing secondary issue.

Maybe theymos is purposefully selecting hardcore Bitcoin users.

The lack of Newbie and safety restrictions would probably eke out a small percentage of incoming users, which would have to stomach the nonstop spam in all the discussion boards. If you're trying to enter a forum and talk about this massive new technology you've discovered, you probably don't want to do it around people with broken English ranting about how

---

I don't know how many times I've seen the same post rewritten in slight variations. Hundreds. Thousands? Certainly at least a few thousand.

Asking for users to make their own ignore list is like saying, "fuck that whole moderator concept, do it yourself".


The users that decide to stay must really love Bitcoin. What is this, a cult?

I would rather have everyone check the trust ratings of all members they transact with as well as verify who they're talking to.

It's not as if it's an equivalency where all users thereby deserve negative trust to invite more awareness, although theymos should definitely do some trust feedback backlink on first-time PMs. The difference between Lauda and active users is that they can respond. It's a unique situation, bearing in mind the only other candidate we have to offer is satoshi, whoever they are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When I PM another user on Bitcointalk to confirm the transaction as a Newbie, they can respond saying, "what in the hell are you talking about?" What does Lauda do in this scenario? (PMs are blocked, afaik)
If the difference is nil and there is even a miniscule difference in consequence, isn't the choice obvious? At least in the current state, I no reason to touch the trust ratings (positive or negative).

FYI, your Discord settings are probably allowing people to send PMs when they share a mutual server.

You can either turn this off globally or start disabling individual servers: if you are getting these messages from bots, up your privacy!
One score and eight grams of prevention are much better than a half-kilo of cure.

It's not necessary to own the same account to impersonate the user.

Let me toss a few scenarios and see what sticks. There's always a way to fool someone:

1. 'Lａuda' registers on the forum, the username is not recognized as fake and the user links to the original account via a PM to other, ignorant users as an attempt to scam. Users see green trust, automatically trust.
2. Lauda impersonators on other platforms message Newbies, link to original account as proof, use whatever means of social engineering to trick user into believing they are the original Lauda.

---

You could simply leave some neutrals, but I think the idea of marking an account that is 100% inoperable with a red trust should be done at least once.

How many of you pay attention to the neutral trust of an account rather than the negative trust?

Assuming the ~1M BTC figure is right, you're looking at around US$34Bn. Most likely, though, if they did want to cash out their coins they would have had some alternate addresses.

Give it a few years. Maybe we'll see hyperinflation and/or 6+ figure BTC.

One particular emphasis on this point is the notion of balancing security and speed. Ideally, a financial network would prioritize its security over its speed (and hopefully improve both). I don't see the purpose of using this secondary layer (lower block times) when one could simply create a layer on top of our pre-existing secure solution.

Also, wouldn't shorter block times reduce the impact of decentralization? You're looking for something that is secure, fast, and decentralized. Pick two.

Is this the only session you played at Cloudbet?

If it is, then consider this possibility:

Cloudbet notices you are playing at a different location from your typical conditions, which is a red flag. They proceed to attempt to verify the account, to which you can only present the proof of identity but not proof of residence - this could be fraud and therefore they await further evidence.

It's not even really a circle-jerk, it's a masturbation squadron. You have all these fucktards shitting on themselves, tripping over one another just to reply to the topic title with whatever asinine combination of regurgitated froth and repetition they could scrape from the posts they do read.

To be honest, I would rather theymos completely wipe that section off the forum. I see no purpose for it and I see no point of hanging on any excuses: it's not as if moderators will have to do much extra work if they just need to get rid of a few ponzis a day. That, or you can just get condoras to do it for them.

---

You can see many sections reduced to this state. Peer into Lending... if you create a new thread as a Newbie and request a loan, I guarantee that within half an hour someone is going to respond with the typical response. Same thing when you talk about any account trading. Same thing in the Scam Accusations section, with slightly more nuance (ooh you didn't read ToS).

Makes me wonder how many Hungry Hungry Sig Spammers have the BTC Address staking thread on "notify me when new posts come", ready to quote the reply?

Assume we reset everything trust-wise from the Lauda debacle and that a few years pass. New members come and go and some users may be ignorant of the thread. If we have nothing but double-digit positive trust and a few neutrals (in the case of mentioning the thread), the likelihood of a Lauda impersonator socially engineering someone (doesn't necessarily have to be via Bitcointalk, though username impersonation comes to mind) is much higher.

The negative feedback brings so much more awareness to the account in the event that something did happen.

Account was banned like satoshi.

Just to insert a bit of the technology for understanding, the reason that users can pay such small relative fees is because the fees are based on the transaction size, but this is measured in bytes and not BTC or dollar figures: the number of inputs and outputs (and a few other factors) determine the fee, so theoretically you could send out multi-million-dollar transactions with pennies in fees, as long as there aren't too many inputs and outputs.