- no more bounced checks *stop writing checks -- problem solved!  Yes, stop writing or accepting checks and start spending/accepting bitcoins and you no longer have to deal with bounced checks or waiting days to see if they clear. - no more ATM withdrawal fees *no more ATMs -- duh. Yes, another bitcoin advantage that the OP can add to his list. - no more credit card fraud/identity theft *no more credit cards -> no more credit Credit is just a loan. BTC loans exist. We would still have credit. *cancel credit cards ->problem solved! Yes, stop using and accepting credit cards and start using bitcoins for your online transactions and you no longer have to deal with credit card fraud/identity theft. |
|
|
|
|
- no more bounced checks
- no more ATM withdrawal fees
- no more credit card fraud/identity theft
|
|
|
|
1.1 BTC has been transferred to my BTC Address 15YHUwqfkBWNe6czXAqQMwEW6hzgTs9q7X and is awaiting confirmation.
Address:
15YHUwqfkBWNe6czXAqQMwEW6hzgTs9q7X
Message:
I have at least 1.1 BTC, whalng&n@)/@/&*]%]¥\; 7/20/13
Signature:
G3OE5Vnd7GjzwZ/E5+jAKpjOXV/+glfqWCLrCSMey+jVA0ymayynMVWKuDS10WiedyFcLq8Ghjk6CtBF7W7/KTk=
Cool, do you have an email to send it to you? Just send it via PM. That's how I've always done it in the past. |
|
|
|
|
1.1 BTC has been transferred to my BTC Address 15YHUwqfkBWNe6czXAqQMwEW6hzgTs9q7X and is awaiting confirmation.
Address:
15YHUwqfkBWNe6czXAqQMwEW6hzgTs9q7X
Message:
I have at least 1.1 BTC, whalng&n@)/@/&*]%]¥\; 7/20/13
Signature:
G3OE5Vnd7GjzwZ/E5+jAKpjOXV/+glfqWCLrCSMey+jVA0ymayynMVWKuDS10WiedyFcLq8Ghjk6CtBF7W7/KTk=
|
|
|
|
I'll buy your moneypak, if you're willing to send the code first.
I would love to, but I am a little nervous, how about if we go through John K.? I can cover the fee. Sure, no problem. Set it up and ask him to PM me. John K. can't do MPs, but I would be willing to send first, since you have good reputation. Give me a few hours, as I'm out now. I will back in about 3 hours, is that ok? Alternatively, we could do it tommorow. Later tonight or tomorrow, whichever works best for you. I'm in no rush. I'm almost home; just as a precaution can you sign "I have at least 1.1 BTC, whalng&n@)/@/&*]%]¥\; 7/20/13" from an address that has at least 1.1 BTC? Sure. Give me a few minutes to make a transfer from my just-dice.com account to an address in my blockchain.info wallet. |
|
|
|
- Remove Battery
- Fill tank up to prevent condensation (not overfill)
- Shut off the fuel petcock and drain the carburettors and the fuel lines.
- Try to keep tires of ground (flat spot, if not inflated)
- Exhaust rust fast, may plug holes with plastic bag to prevent moister getting in
- Lube the cylinder(s) if stored a very long time (remove spark plug put spoon full of oil in and crank over)
- Keep out of sun and rain
I once made the mistake of keeping a motorcycle stored for a year with no fuel in the tank. The inside of the tank rusted out on me and it had to be replaced. |
|
|
|
I have a $300 MoneyPak, looking for 3.2 BTC. Escrow or you send first. Check my trust for recent transactions.
I'll buy your Moneypak and I'll send first since we've already had a successful trade. Just let me know what address to send to. BTC payment sent. Do me a favor and hold the moneypak code for a day or two. Seems I'm only able to load $500 per day and I already loaded $300 earlier today. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I'll buy your moneypak, if you're willing to send the code first.
I would love to, but I am a little nervous, how about if we go through John K.? I can cover the fee. Sure, no problem. Set it up and ask him to PM me. John K. can't do MPs, but I would be willing to send first, since you have good reputation. Give me a few hours, as I'm out now. I will back in about 3 hours, is that ok? Alternatively, we could do it tommorow. Later tonight or tomorrow, whichever works best for you. I'm in no rush. |
|
|
|
I'll buy your moneypak, if you're willing to send the code first.
I would love to, but I am a little nervous, how about if we go through John K.? I can cover the fee. Sure, no problem. Set it up and ask him to PM me. |
|
|
|
I have a $300 MoneyPak, looking for 3.2 BTC. Escrow or you send first. Check my trust for recent transactions.
I'll buy your Moneypak and I'll send first since we've already had a successful trade. Just let me know what address to send to. |
|
|
|
|
I'll buy your moneypak, if you're willing to send the code first.
|
|
|
|
|
Please, no margin / fractional reserve investing. That just shifts more unnecessary risk to those that aren't leveraged.
|
|
|
|
Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.
Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days. If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining. IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on. For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest. That suggestion is logically unsound. Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it. Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools: Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC Pool 2 took all action If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site. If pool 2 has less than 2k BTC then that means that investors don't want to deal with the variance of the bigger bets. If no one wants to back the house on those bets, then why force them? Investors will just divest when a whale arrives and reinvest when he leaves. Why not just make this process automatic? If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2.
Why is pool 1 now needed? Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1. And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits.
Pool 1 will have fewer swings and will help stabilize the site's overall combined bankroll. By having one large pool, investors will just divest while a whale is playing, which also reduces max bet. The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects:
1. It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet)
2. It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1.
3. It gives low risk investment opportunity - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2.
1. Divesting while a whale is playing also does this. 2. Those in pool 2 would be sharing in pool 1's profits, but they would have all of pool 2's profits to themselves, which actually means more profits for them. 3. Nothing wrong with that. That's what some investors want. But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist? It doesn't add to max bet. It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2. Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist.
To stabilize the overall combined bankroll of the site. With two pools, the combined bankroll wouldn't be exposed to the higher variance, only the portion of the bankroll provided by investors that choose to be exposed to the higher variance. It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover. I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves. The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream?
It's a concept that's allows those who don't want to deal with the high variance to opt out of that action and the profits that come along with it, leaving more profits for the investors that can stomach the roller coaster ride. Yes, the less profitable low-variance action will be shared with more investors, but the more profitable high-variance action will be shared with fewer investors. The higher profits from the latter will more than compensate for the lower profits of the former. You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place. It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets. It's to cover the 200 BTC bets. And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action.
What you fail to understand is that an investor can allocate more funds to pool 1 in order to gain more exposure to the rewards of the low-variance action, if that is what's important to him. Your argument is fundamentally flawed in a bunch of ways. Two key ones being: It's not the same as someone divesting when a whale appears - as they don't get to keep ongoing profits from small bets when they do that. Of course it's not the same, but divesting when a whale arrives is currently the best option for those who don't want exposure to that action. When the whale is gone, they can simply reinvest to gain exposure to the low-variance action. The small bets don't give any significant variance to the BR as a whole - ALL of the significant variance comes from (relatively) large bets. Pool 1 doesn't reduce that variance at all.
Pool 1 wouldn't be affected by the variance of pool 2. Clearly, that reduces the variance of the site's overall total bankroll, especially if pool 1 is significantly larger than pool 2. Just depends on how much demand there is for backing the low-variance action. Pool 1 ONLY impacts the site's overall bank-roll if that bank-roll would otherwise fall so low as to no longer support a 20 BTC max bet. All the time max bet is above is that pool 1 just leeches off low-variance profits whilst not increasing max-bet or doing anything useful.
Pool 1 shouldn't be set up to support a 20 BTC max bet. It should be set up to support a max bet of, for example, 0.1% of funds invested in pool 1. Any bets over that 0.1% would be covered by funds in pool 2. If an investor is concerned about losing the low-variance profits in pool 1, they simply allocate more funds to pool 1. Each investor can choose for himself how much exposure he has to each pool. It benefits noone except those in pool 1.
False. Those in pool 2 benefit because they do not have to share the profits of the high-variance action with those in pool 1. Dooglus gets a lower max-bet, has to implement changes and then offers higher CP-exposure (assuming there's some who won't invest at present who would otherwise).
Bettors get a lower max-bet.
Pool 2 get less of the low-risk profit.
Dooglus will have a low max bet in the short run, but as the investors in pool 1 start putting some of their profits in pool 2 max bet will grow over time. Bettors will also have a lower max bet when investors divest because they can't handle the variance. Pool 2 can get more of the low-variance profit by allocating more funds to pool 1. All to allow some people to provide unneeded investment (to cover stuff that pool 2 could cover on its own). As the existence of Pool 1 wouldn't help bettors, dooglus or Pool 2 it's just a charity if it ever existed - existing purely to help itself and offering nothing of value in return plus causing harm to everyone else just by its very existence. It actively promotes totally inefficient investment - holding cash for the sake of it with no purpose (unless needlessly dikuting profits is a valid purpose).
It's not a matter of pool 2 being able to cover the pool 1 bets. It's that pool 2 would no longer have to share their profits with pool 1--pool 2 benefits. Pool 1 would be for the investors that don't mind giving up some profits in order to have less variance. As pool 1 grows larger and profits shrink, investors can move a portion of their funds to pool 2. They would be able to balance between variance and profit by allocating funds to each pool accordingly. I think there's about 0% chance of dooglus implementing it so I'm done discussing it.
Who knows, he has considered something along these lines: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242962.msg2730713#msg2730713 |
|
|
|
Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.
Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days. If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining. IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on. For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest. That suggestion is logically unsound. Remember the purpose of the site having investment is because it needs it. Consider a simple implementation where there were two pools: Pool 1 only took action on bets under 20 BTC Pool 2 took all action If pool 2 had less than 2k BTC in it then max bet would have dropped to 20 BTC - obviously bad for the site. If pool 2 has less than 2k BTC then that means that investors don't want to deal with the variance of the bigger bets. If no one wants to back the house on those bets, then why force them? Investors will just divest when a whale arrives and reinvest when he leaves. Why not just make this process automatic? If pool 2 had more than 2K BTC in it then max bet would be 1% of pool 2.
Why is pool 1 now needed? Pool 2 can cover ALL bets without pool 1. And by getting rid of pool 1 you may get some of that money back into pool 2 - increasing max bet and hence the site's expected profits.
Pool 1 will have fewer swings and will help stabilize the site's overall combined bankroll. By having one large pool, investors will just divest while a whale is playing, which also reduces max bet. The existence of the 2 pools has precisely three effects:
1. It lowers the house's expected profits (reducing max bet)
2. It lowers profit for those in pool 2 - as they unnecessarily share profits with those in pool 1.
3. It gives low risk investment opportunity - encouraging people to invest in it rather than pool 2.
1. Divesting while a whale is playing also does this. 2. Those in pool 2 would be sharing in pool 1's profits, but they would have all of pool 2's profits to themselves, which actually means more profits for them. 3. Nothing wrong with that. That's what some investors want. But pool 2 is what dooglus needs - so why should he want pool 1 to exist? It doesn't add to max bet. It increases CP risk which may reduce capital in pool 2. Some of the investment there would be in pool 2 if pool 1 didn't exist.
To stabilize the overall combined bankroll of the site. With two pools, the combined bankroll wouldn't be exposed to the higher variance, only the portion of the bankroll provided by investors that choose to be exposed to the higher variance. It's a concept that essentially asks dooglus and those willing to back vs big bets to charitably give some profit to people offering UNNEEDED investment - in the process reducing the high-risk cover. I'm just not seeing why people believe they have an entitlement to low-risk profit where their investment provides no benefit to anyone other than themselves. The low-risk action can be covered just by people who are also willing to take on the high-risk action - so WHY do dooglus or those willing to take on the risk want to give profit to those who just want a safe steady cash-stream?
It's a concept that's allows those who don't want to deal with the high variance to opt out of that action and the profits that come along with it, leaving more profits for the investors that can stomach the roller coaster ride. Yes, the less profitable low-variance action will be shared with more investors, but the more profitable high-variance action will be shared with fewer investors. The higher profits from the latter will more than compensate for the lower profits of the former. You (and plenty of others) fundamentally fail to understand why investment of this scale is needed in the first place. It's NOT to cover the 0.1 BTC bets. It's to cover the 200 BTC bets. And the low-variance action is the reward for accepting the high-variance action.
What you fail to understand is that an investor can allocate more funds to pool 1 in order to gain more exposure to the rewards of the low-variance action, if that is what's important to him. |
|
|
|
Changing things in an emotionally reactive way is bad. Changing things confuses people, makes the future harder to judge. Adding complexity is bad. The site is in its infancy. Just observe it over a long enough timeframe to understand what it is, before trying to turn it into something else.
Yes, no reason to be changing the rules based on the variance of the last few days. If the variance was going in favor of the investors, then they wouldn't be complaining. IMHO the only adjustment that should be considered is allowing investors to determine which bets they want action on. For those investors that can't handle the wild swings, it would be nice if they could automatically avoid exposure to the whales' action without having to divest. |
|
|
|
Is it possible for JD to have, let's say, three different bankrolls? Bankroll A for investors that want 0.1% max profit per bet, Bankroll B for investors that want 0.5% max profit per bet, and Bankroll C for investors that want 1% max profit per bet. When a whale comes along, only BTC in Bankroll C is at risk. People would be able to allocate their investment in each bankroll according to their risk tolerance. Edit: Or should I say "variance tolerance"?  |
|
|
|
I think Dooglus actually was one of the people who divested (someone in chat said so).
In that case, it must be true. |
|
|
|
Man, I am in a deep hole now as an investor - 20% of my initial investment already gone in a week. We are definitely doing something wrong with J-D.
Double your investment now and you'll only be down 10%. That would be poor bookkeeping Profit needs to be calculated over the capital invested. By doubling the capital invested today, the loss still remains x amount of coins. Return calculation is x amount of coins lost / average capital invested. By no means am I an accountant. But, if I initially invested 10 BTC and was now down 2 BTC (20%) and added another 10 BTC to my investment, I'm now only down 2 BTC out of 20 BTC (10%). Sure, the number of coins lost remains the same, but as a percentage of the total invested, my loss is cut in half. |
|
|
|
Man, I am in a deep hole now as an investor - 20% of my initial investment already gone in a week. We are definitely doing something wrong with J-D.
Double your investment now and you'll only be down 10%. |
|
|
|
lol, he just won 2200 BTC in 11 straight wins in like 20 seconds. sick life
2220 BTC won in 27 seconds:  Will That is beyond luckly. Phil Put it in context though... He lost 10/11 IMMEDIATELY before that.  I had my finger on the trigger and fortunately, I was able to divest 20 BTC at or near the end of celeste's losing streak while JD was up about 500 BTC. It's now been reinvested. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
