dropping litecoin and ether for ripple????? good luck.

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?

I'm not so sure.


I'm usually caught saying "de facto monopoly" and I am refering to the 70% market share as cited from this document: http://www.amaya.com/wp-content/uplo...r-Website1.pdf

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.

This is a great admission, that rake is not necessarily controlled solely by the % offered but that there are other hidden factors which effectively control the profitability of the games offered. There is kind of a strange incompatibility observable here if we consider your admission here with previous statements (that may or may not be a reflection of how you actually felt at the time or feel now):

So you raised the cost for the player and begin to cite the idea that lowering the rake % didn't increase the profitability from the player's view.

The costs Poker Stars faces were directly paid for by the players profitability by affecting one of the hidden factors of effective rake-rackeback policies.

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:

And then you say something completely ignorant to the truth you admitted in your post. That rake is not solely comparable based on %, which is significant because it cannot be said at that time, especially given the rakeback changes (effectively an increase in rake), that poker stars was the most profitable site from the players view:

I think I am forgiven from this assumption since their website states you as their head of security.
I am quite sure their stated model is no longer feasible and that the developers are discussing this problem if they are at all competent and serious. This is a dramatic development that significant affects coinpoker's pseudo random rng model. This project no longer scales on ethereum as described in the whitepaper.

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.

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.

I sympathize with this, and see you are trying to explain something. But its something I cannot perfectly harness. I promise I am trying though. We can shift the focus from Josem to an underlying point that was possibly written by the general staff involved in overseeing such a statement:
I think we can ask the question as to whether or not the advent of bitcoin and crypto currencies and especially the possible of the advent of a similar p2p shuffling/dealing architecture might have the effect of passing on cost savings to the player's from the increased "customer liquidity" and competition a freer market would provide. This may or may not be a savings that Poker Stars benefits from.

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.

something ridiculous like 15 bucks. i guess only time will tell if you are right or wrong but i think its completely ludicrous for you to think that cryptos are going to be used THE SAME as they are now in the future. LOL!!!! what about buying things online??? you think online shopping is going to remain the same or grow??? you don't foresee amazon accepting some form of crypto in the future?? hmmmmmmmmm doesnt make sense to me.

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.

anyone holding any crypto for two months tripled so im not impressed .

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?

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.

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.

Nooseknot, can you explain to me why a 3 transaction per second limit is a good thing without quoting anything.

It's a wrong question. The hidden insight is that the first layer doesn't scale, and the conjecture is so strong that it was the crux of the solution that allowed bitcoin to finally exist. The problem of an ecurrency was 95% solved. Over the years there were different attempts to create a money with an elastic supply but always the system was inflationary and/or couldn't scale. There was a necessary relationship between security of value and scaling.

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.

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/

Bobo was right and should start a tally of these

Oooohhhhh look at this guy! Singing the praises of Ripple! I love it!

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.

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.

Which is why I'll probably throw a little behind Stellar and have a piece of both. Plus, Stellar is cheap so I can get a large amount of it without risking too much.

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.

Hmm, I never considered this possibility...do you think they might try to ban poker too?

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:

This group seems to somewhat function on the isle of man, perhaps it was them reading my articles:
So we are certainly seeing models arise that could integrate with a common core architecture and then their service and speciality would be working with front end project that want to legally offer games. Any interesting point about this project is they are migrating to a new blockchain in 60 days. The block they are truly looking for is one that functions from the paradigm of a common core aka "noose protocol". That they can choose to migrate blockchains is part of the basis of, for example, cypherpoker's design.