Decentralised poker is the future
Didn't read much of this monster thread but...
EU just passed a law to restrict cryptocurrencies and require identification when purchasing and selling. Supposed to be fully implemented in 18 months.
As for me, I'm banking on Ripple and plan on cashing out my Litecoin and Ether early next week before the bubble bursts. I'll keep me crap ton of Ripple in case it booms in a year or two. My Lite and Ether profits will pay for my WSOP trip this year so I guess, in a way, cryptocurrencies have contributed to poker; at least when it comes to my profits going into the poker economy.
EU just passed a law to restrict cryptocurrencies and require identification when purchasing and selling. Supposed to be fully implemented in 18 months.
As for me, I'm banking on Ripple and plan on cashing out my Litecoin and Ether early next week before the bubble bursts. I'll keep me crap ton of Ripple in case it booms in a year or two. My Lite and Ether profits will pay for my WSOP trip this year so I guess, in a way, cryptocurrencies have contributed to poker; at least when it comes to my profits going into the poker economy.
with your checking account number and your bank routing number can they steal all your money? ever heard of cold storage for crypto? your arguments about security are weak and flawed.
do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies? im not going to there are more this year than last year and the trend has been more places accepting cryptos, not less. wake up.
8 years of adoption or 8 years since introduction? so you think that since its been 8 years since bitocin first came along and mainstream adoption has been slow (but progressing) you think that means its not going to progress more in the future? especially in today's climate where more people use and understand what cryptocurrencies are?
you didn't answer my question, which would make it abundantly clear you are wrong about the viability of cryptocurrencies. will they be used MORE or LESS in the future???????
please answer MORE or LESS.
do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies? im not going to there are more this year than last year and the trend has been more places accepting cryptos, not less. wake up.
8 years of adoption or 8 years since introduction? so you think that since its been 8 years since bitocin first came along and mainstream adoption has been slow (but progressing) you think that means its not going to progress more in the future? especially in today's climate where more people use and understand what cryptocurrencies are?
you didn't answer my question, which would make it abundantly clear you are wrong about the viability of cryptocurrencies. will they be used MORE or LESS in the future???????
please answer MORE or LESS.
"do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies?" - Yeah, I'm interested. I'm more interested if you can name any companies that accept bitcoin without a 3rd party in the middle immediately converting it to fiat.
I expect cryptocurrency to be used roughly the same amount as it currently is going forward, which is to say a totally insignificant percentage of global transactions. I don't think it will completely die because it will remain a hobby for many and the network can survive on a few computers with little cost.
Are you even aware of the current cost for a bitcoin transaction?
PokerStars isn't a monopoly, hasn't been a monopoly, and this idea is just nonsense.
Firstly, even if you narrowly define "the" industry as poker (and there's a lot of dispute around that - gambling and entertainment might be fairer segmentations) then there are still a bunch of big competitors in the form of PartyPoker, 888, Zynga, the Asian network IDN, iPoker, Microgaming, and others.
Firstly, even if you narrowly define "the" industry as poker (and there's a lot of dispute around that - gambling and entertainment might be fairer segmentations) then there are still a bunch of big competitors in the form of PartyPoker, 888, Zynga, the Asian network IDN, iPoker, Microgaming, and others.
But the link has changed and the document doesn't show up. From a player's perspective the effects was that Amaya could raise the price with much impunity, well above the otherwise free market equilibrium that couldn't occur because of payment process restrictions and regulations. Perhaps its not really non-sense to point out how favorable for the players it is that other options are now arising because of bitcoin and the crypto currency movement.
I certainly posted a message that was substantially written and reviewed and approved by the leadership of the company - the one that you link to.
But even there, I do not say that higher rake is, of itself, better for the players - because of course it isn't.
Just from an excess of detail, however, let me be very clear that the profitability of a game is a function of many different factors - the skill of opponents, the design of the game, the payout structure, and, indeed, the rake. The rake is just one of a number of different factors that can affect the profitability of the game.
But even there, I do not say that higher rake is, of itself, better for the players - because of course it isn't.
Just from an excess of detail, however, let me be very clear that the profitability of a game is a function of many different factors - the skill of opponents, the design of the game, the payout structure, and, indeed, the rake. The rake is just one of a number of different factors that can affect the profitability of the game.
Originally Posted by Josem as the Head of PS Public relations
In recent weeks, PokerStars has made several changes which have upset some players. We’ve heard these complaints and are genuinely listening to the feedback. No one likes higher costs and we appreciate that point of view.
In recent years, we have also heard many high-volume, professional poker players say that the games are tougher now and it’s harder to win than in the past. This is one of the reasons we’ve actually reduced rake previously, which helps the ROI of these players. But that’s not making the games any softer, which is what would really improve ROI.
In recent years, we have also heard many high-volume, professional poker players say that the games are tougher now and it’s harder to win than in the past. This is one of the reasons we’ve actually reduced rake previously, which helps the ROI of these players. But that’s not making the games any softer, which is what would really improve ROI.
Originally Posted by Josem as the Head of PS Public relations
The funding has to come from many places and it is perfectly reasonable that some of it comes from reducing certain costs, which was the rationale for some of the changes to our VIP program, stemming from a review we began early this year, as well as charging a margin on currency exchange fees. It is also the rationale for our changes to the rake.
You cite the rising costs and barriers that the players know holds them from forming a proper boycott as they effectively had no reasonable alternative because of such regulations:
Originally Posted by Josem as the Head of PS Public relations
Additionally, in order to not only secure our continued place as an industry leader across the globe but also to grow ourselves and the game globally, we continue to lobby for the regulation of online poker and attempt to obtain licenses in many newly regulated, locally licensed jurisdictions. We support regulation because we believe it ensures game integrity, player protection, and increases the recognized legitimacy for the game itself. However, there are obviously significant upfront costs to these efforts as well as ongoing costs in the form of gaming license fees and duties.
Originally Posted by Josem as the Head of PS Public relations
Finally, it has to be said that our rake, our currency exchange rates and our VIP program are all more competitive than those of our major competitors.
No, I am not "providing a form of security over watch". Rather, I am providing some advice on how to mitigate the risk of cheating for a company.
1) CoinPoker is not "mine". I have no ownership stake in it, I am not an employee, as I have explained to you repeatedly. Don't talk about "my" business model, because you're again working on false assumptions.
2) I am not an expert on the finances of blockchains, and thus, I am reluctant to comment on such things. However, I have no reason to doubt the feasibility of the CoinPoker business model.
2) I am not an expert on the finances of blockchains, and thus, I am reluctant to comment on such things. However, I have no reason to doubt the feasibility of the CoinPoker business model.
Yes, it really is. It's creating nothing but a derail of this thread.
An odd thing to bring up, but it's interesting that you do so now, as you seem to be reverting back to the same kind of posting style that's seen you banned countless times before. Earlier on with this account, you seemed to have learned from past mistakes and started posting in a manner that was more conducive to productive conversation. I'm not sure what happened, but that's certainly changed recently.
Thanks? I've more than tripled my money in two months so far. More importantly, the others will be regulated and/or banned in due time. The government will find a way to make sure it gets theirs. Ripple, however, is not a currency but a process. A process American Express and the large banks are loving. When the regulators come cracking their whips, Ripple will be left relatively unscathed and the price will continue to increase.
Seriously, take a look at Ripple. Read about it and research it. The model is much less extreme than the others and is a nice middle of the road approach for investors who don't want to risk buying into a questionable cryptocurrency and prefer to have the backing of the major institutions. After all, it is those very institutions who will be putting their money and power behind the push to shut down the others. Ripple is the first baby step to real change. The others are diving head first into a shallow pool of sharks in the hopes that the sharks will decide to jump out. Ripple is cautiously just putting its toe in.
Seriously, take a look at Ripple. Read about it and research it. The model is much less extreme than the others and is a nice middle of the road approach for investors who don't want to risk buying into a questionable cryptocurrency and prefer to have the backing of the major institutions. After all, it is those very institutions who will be putting their money and power behind the push to shut down the others. Ripple is the first baby step to real change. The others are diving head first into a shallow pool of sharks in the hopes that the sharks will decide to jump out. Ripple is cautiously just putting its toe in.
This is a common strategy for you. While the idea of trying to get everyone to agree on certain principles can be helpful to conversation, a forum thread isn't the same thing as a working group or committee where you move on once you've come up with a consensus on something. Whether you like it or not, posters will come and go in threads, and while you may have a number of "thread regulars" that you think are on the same page with regard to some subjects, there is no collective "we" here for you to refer to.
Yes, it really is. It's creating nothing but a derail of this thread.
An odd thing to bring up, but it's interesting that you do so now, as you seem to be reverting back to the same kind of posting style that's seen you banned countless times before. Earlier on with this account, you seemed to have learned from past mistakes and started posting in a manner that was more conducive to productive conversation. I'm not sure what happened, but that's certainly changed recently.
Yes, it really is. It's creating nothing but a derail of this thread.
An odd thing to bring up, but it's interesting that you do so now, as you seem to be reverting back to the same kind of posting style that's seen you banned countless times before. Earlier on with this account, you seemed to have learned from past mistakes and started posting in a manner that was more conducive to productive conversation. I'm not sure what happened, but that's certainly changed recently.
Additionally, in order to not only secure our continued place as an industry leader across the globe but also to grow ourselves and the game globally, we continue to lobby for the regulation of online poker and attempt to obtain licenses in many newly regulated, locally licensed jurisdictions. We support regulation because we believe it ensures game integrity, player protection, and increases the recognized legitimacy for the game itself. However, there are obviously significant upfront costs to these efforts as well as ongoing costs in the form of gaming license fees and duties.
The funding has to come from many places and it is perfectly reasonable that some of it comes from reducing certain costs, which was the rationale for some of the changes to our VIP program, stemming from a review we began early this year, as well as charging a margin on currency exchange fees. It is also the rationale for our changes to the rake.
The funding has to come from many places and it is perfectly reasonable that some of it comes from reducing certain costs, which was the rationale for some of the changes to our VIP program, stemming from a review we began early this year, as well as charging a margin on currency exchange fees. It is also the rationale for our changes to the rake.
And I think the answer is already quite observably "yes".
Thinking of the problem of a player boycott, that the games get softer as intelligent players leave a given field thus making unilateral boycott actions problematic, we can see that the introduction of a deflationary currency such as bitcoin, has given the average (or professional) player an option in which they can unilaterally deviate from poker stars and have gained significantly simply by parking their roll on a bitcoin based poker site.
In thinking of the new possibility of rake back being issued in finite supply via cryptocurrency tokens, a new metric for value arises from a market of such tokens and so there is a new profitability signal that such prices would highlight. We should expect then the migration from fiat based sites to cryptobased sites to have perpetual and increased pressure based on the continuation of the value trend of the underlying currencies used to purchase chips.
Do we see this new line I speak of?
I would like to refer to it as "asymptotically Ideal Poker".
*****************
Edit. I think this concept of an effective rake target would be possible if a free market of rakeback tokens could create a signal out of what is historically too noisy to use. So the ultimate asymptotic effect would be an observable metric of profitability that is quite accessible to all players of all levels. I think this would have a dramatic effect on the type of poker offerings players demand because players could more accurately judge the profitability of the games offered.
Whichever bank initiated the ACH for all of the money in my checking account without authorization would be liable - and that's why they won't let just any customer initiate an ACH from any random account. My money would be returned immediately and the local authorities would have the option to pursue the person who initiated the unauthorized transaction. Also, ACH payments can be cancelled.
"do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies?" - Yeah, I'm interested. I'm more interested if you can name any companies that accept bitcoin without a 3rd party in the middle immediately converting it to fiat.
I expect cryptocurrency to be used roughly the same amount as it currently is going forward, which is to say a totally insignificant percentage of global transactions. I don't think it will completely die because it will remain a hobby for many and the network can survive on a few computers with little cost.
Are you even aware of the current cost for a bitcoin transaction?
"do you want me to list all the places you can use cryptocurrencies?" - Yeah, I'm interested. I'm more interested if you can name any companies that accept bitcoin without a 3rd party in the middle immediately converting it to fiat.
I expect cryptocurrency to be used roughly the same amount as it currently is going forward, which is to say a totally insignificant percentage of global transactions. I don't think it will completely die because it will remain a hobby for many and the network can survive on a few computers with little cost.
Are you even aware of the current cost for a bitcoin transaction?
so because bitcoin has scaling issues now, it cant be solved? because the cost of transactions now is high it will forever remain the same?
ridiculous. hold onto your newspaper stock buddy.
Thanks? I've more than tripled my money in two months so far. More importantly, the others will be regulated and/or banned in due time. The government will find a way to make sure it gets theirs. Ripple, however, is not a currency but a process. A process American Express and the large banks are loving. When the regulators come cracking their whips, Ripple will be left relatively unscathed and the price will continue to increase.
Seriously, take a look at Ripple. Read about it and research it. The model is much less extreme than the others and is a nice middle of the road approach for investors who don't want to risk buying into a questionable cryptocurrency and prefer to have the backing of the major institutions. After all, it is those very institutions who will be putting their money and power behind the push to shut down the others. Ripple is the first baby step to real change. The others are diving head first into a shallow pool of sharks in the hopes that the sharks will decide to jump out. Ripple is cautiously just putting its toe in.
Seriously, take a look at Ripple. Read about it and research it. The model is much less extreme than the others and is a nice middle of the road approach for investors who don't want to risk buying into a questionable cryptocurrency and prefer to have the backing of the major institutions. After all, it is those very institutions who will be putting their money and power behind the push to shut down the others. Ripple is the first baby step to real change. The others are diving head first into a shallow pool of sharks in the hopes that the sharks will decide to jump out. Ripple is cautiously just putting its toe in.
i will look into ripple, i think you might be overblowing the threat of regulation however.
It seems obvious to me that the arms race between regulation and technology is an ultimate uptrend on our freedom.
Nonethless we can now understand the scenario we are witnessing, that it has been well described in regard to the line called asymptotically ideal poker:
And in regard to a decentralized player driven industry, if it truly were owned and controlled by the players instead of a clear 3rd party that has a contrasting mandate of taking out as much profits as possible from the players point of view I think this quote is also important to understand and apply:
I think the suggestion here is that the coalition to be formed of otherwise competing sites might naturally form if the player's community started to consider their own "token". Finite in nature and supply and expected to be accepted by any coalition participants.
Would that break the rules if the players talked about their own token system if the sole purpose involved no business model and was purely meant to signal intent to serve the player's?
Nonethless we can now understand the scenario we are witnessing, that it has been well described in regard to the line called asymptotically ideal poker:
In the near future there may be a smaller number of major sites used in the world and these may stand in competitive relations among themselves. There is now the “euro" sites and the old history of the UB scandal is past history now.
And there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international site for the Islamic world or for South Asia, or for South America, or here or there. And if “rake targeting" were used as a “line" by the managers handling all of these various internationally prominent sites then there would arise interesting possibilities for comparisons between these major sites. Each of the sites managed thusly would have its officially recognized status in terms of rake as measured by the domestic index of deposits raked of the state of the managers. But also, and this is what is more significant from an internationally oriented viewpoint, the various rakes would have rates of exchange so that they could be realistically compared in terms of their actual value
So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal (rakeless) poker". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic ‘deposits raked’ index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based rake comparisons. The sites being compared, like PSFT, Merge, Party Poker, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their players and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of rake
And there COULD be introduced, for example, a similar international site for the Islamic world or for South Asia, or for South America, or here or there. And if “rake targeting" were used as a “line" by the managers handling all of these various internationally prominent sites then there would arise interesting possibilities for comparisons between these major sites. Each of the sites managed thusly would have its officially recognized status in terms of rake as measured by the domestic index of deposits raked of the state of the managers. But also, and this is what is more significant from an internationally oriented viewpoint, the various rakes would have rates of exchange so that they could be realistically compared in terms of their actual value
So here is the possibility of “asymptotically ideal (rakeless) poker". Starting with the idea of value stabilization in relation to a domestic ‘deposits raked’ index associated with the territory of one state, beyond that there is the natural and logical concept of internationally based rake comparisons. The sites being compared, like PSFT, Merge, Party Poker, etc. can be viewed with critical eyes by their players and by those who may have the option of whether or not or how to use one of them. This can lead to pressure for good quality and consequently for a lessened rate of rake
When one studies what are called ”cooperative games", which in economic terms include mergers and acquisitions or cartel formation, it is found to be appropriate and is standard to form two basic classifications:
(1): Games with transferable utility.
(and)
(2): Games without transferable utility(or “NTU" games).
In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the “lubrication" which enables the efficient “transfer of utility". And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome.
(1): Games with transferable utility.
(and)
(2): Games without transferable utility(or “NTU" games).
In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the “lubrication" which enables the efficient “transfer of utility". And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected to be the outcome.
Would that break the rules if the players talked about their own token system if the sole purpose involved no business model and was purely meant to signal intent to serve the player's?
True, it has been a good couple of months for everyone. I might be overblowing the threat as I do tend to err on the side of caution. But that's also why Ripple speaks to someone like me as a safer gamble. I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts after you look into it.
Rich, with all due respect new technology doesn't take over just because it's new. It has to offer an advantage over current technology. Bitcoin is capped at 3 transactions per second and without congestion it would take up to 10 minutes to post. With congestion your transaction may never post if you didn't bid your fee high enough. It is competing with credit cards and newer payment methods (PayPal and Venmo among others) which post instantly, do not get congested, and have very low fees.
For reference to BTC's 3 transactions per second, major credit cards averaged 8400 per second for the entire year in 2016 and PayPal averaged 240 per second for Q4 2016.
Bitcoin's lack of scalability was the main topic of conversation back in 2012 when we were talking about it on the corners of the Internet. It was a proof of concept, but obviously unviable. The price spiked and so people think it's viable, but it's still the same old proof of concept. The developers can't agree on how to expand the capacity of the network - that's why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off.
BCH's transaction limit is 23 per second, not much better.
For reference to BTC's 3 transactions per second, major credit cards averaged 8400 per second for the entire year in 2016 and PayPal averaged 240 per second for Q4 2016.
Bitcoin's lack of scalability was the main topic of conversation back in 2012 when we were talking about it on the corners of the Internet. It was a proof of concept, but obviously unviable. The price spiked and so people think it's viable, but it's still the same old proof of concept. The developers can't agree on how to expand the capacity of the network - that's why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off.
BCH's transaction limit is 23 per second, not much better.
The limitation you are stating is explained as a feature rather than a bug by Nick Szabo who is easily the most respect expert in the bitcoin industry:
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/201...alability.html
You are really not understanding the purpose and intended use case of the technology. Nor do your observations justify a 300 billion usd market cap.
http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/201...alability.html
“That is what proof-of-work and broadcast-replication are about: greatly sacrificing computational scalability in order to improve social scalability. That is Satoshi’s brilliant tradeoff. It is brilliant because humans are far more expensive than computers and that gap widens further each year.”
Nooseknot, can you explain to me why a 3 transaction per second limit is a good thing without quoting anything.
Szabo explains Satoshi's brilliant insight was that it doesn't scale. You are asking why not scaling is a good thing. You have not understood that Satoshi realized the system is valuable for other reasons than being a low fee highly transactable currency.
Simply put you are denying lighting channels, micropayments, and alt coins and the use of them to play poker when players would otherwise have few if any options. There is no problem here and you sound out of place on a forum whos members see the option of bitcoin poker sites as a god send to unfair regulations and payment processing restrictions.
That's why I ask if you work for the government.
Rich, with all due respect new technology doesn't take over just because it's new. It has to offer an advantage over current technology. Bitcoin is capped at 3 transactions per second and without congestion it would take up to 10 minutes to post. With congestion your transaction may never post if you didn't bid your fee high enough. It is competing with credit cards and newer payment methods (PayPal and Venmo among others) which post instantly, do not get congested, and have very low fees.
For reference to BTC's 3 transactions per second, major credit cards averaged 8400 per second for the entire year in 2016 and PayPal averaged 240 per second for Q4 2016.
Bitcoin's lack of scalability was the main topic of conversation back in 2012 when we were talking about it on the corners of the Internet. It was a proof of concept, but obviously unviable. The price spiked and so people think it's viable, but it's still the same old proof of concept. The developers can't agree on how to expand the capacity of the network - that's why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off.
BCH's transaction limit is 23 per second, not much better.
For reference to BTC's 3 transactions per second, major credit cards averaged 8400 per second for the entire year in 2016 and PayPal averaged 240 per second for Q4 2016.
Bitcoin's lack of scalability was the main topic of conversation back in 2012 when we were talking about it on the corners of the Internet. It was a proof of concept, but obviously unviable. The price spiked and so people think it's viable, but it's still the same old proof of concept. The developers can't agree on how to expand the capacity of the network - that's why Bitcoin Cash (BCH) forked off.
BCH's transaction limit is 23 per second, not much better.
Ripples transaction limit is equivalent to VISA.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ripp...oroughput-now/
Bobo was right and should start a tally of these
I agree. I was using bitcoin last year because it was faster and cheaper to get my money to/from Bovada not because it was new. To think that Bitcoin can't scale wont scale and that no other cryptocurrency can solve that problem is the position you are taking. I think that is incorrect.
Ripples transaction limit is equivalent to VISA.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ripp...oroughput-now/
Ripples transaction limit is equivalent to VISA.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ripp...oroughput-now/
You like ripple, but stellar is better.
I wonder if we should really let this thread fill up with people accusing me of spamming while they themselves are arguing about which coins are legitimate versus other coins. That kind of content does not belong in this thread.It's contentless spam.
My understanding, and I am be no means an expert, is they are both similar and Stellar ripped off the source code of Ripple after a disagreement with the owner or something. It seems Stellar is more concerned with microloans and providing for impoverished would-be entrepreneurs whereas Ripple has a vision of helping established banks save time and money with global transactions. While Stellar has an interesting social component, I feel Ripple is better for future profitability and, therefore, the bulk of my investment. However, I'll take a closer look at Stellar and consider throwing a bit their way to see what happens.
Lol! Look at this tool talking about contentless posts! Word of advice: if a mod has to come in and tell you to stop being a dbag, you're doing it wrong and should consider taking a break. There's a reason nobody is backing you up on anything you're saying.
My understanding, and I am be no means an expert, is they are both similar and Stellar ripped off the source code of Ripple after a disagreement with the owner or something. It seems Stellar is more concerned with microloans and providing for impoverished would-be entrepreneurs whereas Ripple has a vision of helping established banks save time and money with global transactions. While Stellar has an interesting social component, I feel Ripple is better for future profitability and, therefore, the bulk of my investment. However, I'll take a closer look at Stellar and consider throwing a bit their way to see what happens.
True that Ripple's inventor is also responsible for Stellar (and Mt. Gox), but Stellar and Ripple are no longer based on the same code and haven't been for awhile. Ripple is a deflationary enterprise solution for bank settlements whereas Stellar is an inflationary consumer facing solution for microtransactions. They both have their place, but if microtransactions gets solved thats a huge piece of pie for Stellar that inevitably doesn't end up in the banks using Ripple.
To keep certain people from getting butt hurt, I wonder if Stellar would be a good fit for poker or whatever.
Europe is already working on strong legislation requiring strong identification for crypto currency wallets and exchanges. The US will likely follow suit.
Digging a little more through the CasinoCoin project I think addresses some of PTLous sentiments. This project means to comply. So it is like a layer that would interact with the noose protocol interface:
A new team recently took over the CasinoCoin project and formed a foundation with the aim of creating real world utility for the cryptocurrency. You can read more about this at: https://casinocoin.org/casinocoin-la...n-isle-of-man/
The Foundation’s team, which includes former PokerStars Marketing Executive John Caldwell and ex-Senior Project Manager of Research & Development for Rational Group Duncan Cameron, is committed to educating the commercial (regulated) gambling industry to the benefits of CSC, and cryptocurrency in general.
John Caldwell, Director of Advocacy for the Foundation, said: “The only sustainable way forward for cryptocurrency in the gambling world is to work with regulators and operators from day one and focus on regulated markets.
“Our aim with CasinoCoin is to provide a currency and related technical tools that are designed and accessible for both operators and ordinary players in the regulated gambling industry.
“We are excited to reintroduce CasinoCoin to the industry, and believe the Foundation will play an integral part in driving the coin’s future success.”
John Caldwell, Director of Advocacy for the Foundation, said: “The only sustainable way forward for cryptocurrency in the gambling world is to work with regulators and operators from day one and focus on regulated markets.
“Our aim with CasinoCoin is to provide a currency and related technical tools that are designed and accessible for both operators and ordinary players in the regulated gambling industry.
“We are excited to reintroduce CasinoCoin to the industry, and believe the Foundation will play an integral part in driving the coin’s future success.”
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE