ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 01:11 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,402
Default

This is what I'm taking about. This would be match point. Question is can Feds shut this down? If not, There is nothing they can do because they already can't touch bitcoin itself. Can't even trace it.


Mt Gox - Bitcoin Exchange
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:05 PM
DrunkenGoon DrunkenGoon is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,835
Default

I understand the transferring part between users but the entry and exit points are a bit cloudy.
__________________
"Elections are not decided by those who vote but by those who count the votes"
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:56 PM
j j is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenGoon View Post
I understand the transferring part between users but the entry and exit points are a bit cloudy.
It is hard to get one's mind around. The way that I think about it is that the inventors have invented a convention. We know non-species backed currencies are only a convention, so they've invented something parallel. Just as with paper money it's not important why you can use Bitcoin to buy a Domino's pizza, just that you can. And it's trustworthy because the inflation rate is defined and the buyer-seller exchanges are all apparent.

I agree that it probably won't catch on, and that if it did the U.S. government will shut it down because they'll say it's the transfer mechanism of choice for terrorists. But as an idea I think it's coherent, and it will be interesting to see what kind of niche they can evolve.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 05:22 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,402
Default

Well bitcoin cannot be 'shut down'. There is no central controlling authority holding and dispersing it. I don't exactly understand but apparently bitcoin is 'tangible'. It exists in some unique electronic form and it is actually possessed by people who have it. If there is value to it meaning people will accept it for goods and services as well as buy it with regular currency, only thing government can do is make it illegal to buy and sell it and try to block all transactions using US dollars. Well, if the demand is overwhelming, good luck with that. Supply will find demand. Only question is whether bitcoin catches on?
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 06:13 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

Mt Gox's issue is that, as I understand it, you send the money to their Japanese bank account (they have an ACH EFT link somehow) and use that to buy/trade bitcoins which you can then transfer elsewhere (to your "wallet" or to another ewallet provider). Mt Gox can be shut down, but the bitcoins sold there are still usable elsewhere. A true P2P method of buying bitcoins would be something like a site where someone says "I'm willing to exchange $1000 for 800 bitcoins", someone accepts it (because they're cashing out) and you wu them the money and leave feedback.

Bitcoin-OTC is kind of there, if not in the most user-friendly presentation... you need to be familiar with IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and know a bit about GNU Privacy Guard.

Still, I'm not totally sure that even if there were only a few hundred individuals in the US trading between bitcoins and cash that the feds would really crack down. The feds want asset forfeiture. They want to seize seven figure bank accounts, mansions, speedboats. Having so many people competing means that a lot will compete on price and they won't have much to forfeit.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 06:25 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

Another thought: this sort of thing would be really good for baseball players... if the more recreational players are still pretty much only playing football and basketball, then there will generally be a lot of people looking to exchange cash for the more-or-less fixed supply of bitcoins in August & September and then to exchange those bitcoins for cash in January and February and again in April. That's going to mean some price movement and the folks who are buying bitcoins in February or April and selling around Labor Day may mean that you only have to be close-to-break-even as a bettor to make a bit of money from bases.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 06:54 PM
luke m. luke m. is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,526
Default

Dear xxxx,

In light of the recent high profile Poker site market withdrawals we just want to assure you that QuickTender continues to support your gaming activities 100%.

Your QuickTender funds can be used to play at a wide variety of gaming sites.

So why not transfer money to one of these listed sites offering poker play today?


•SuperBook
•SportsBook
•Bodog
•Poker.com
•Cake Poker
•Poker4Ever
•24poker



If you have made a recent withdrawal request but would now like to cancel it please contact our 24/7 QuickTender Help Desk.


Sincerely,
QuickTender Team
support@quicktender.com
Fax: +44 870 626 9684
QuickTender Ltd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Originally Posted by harvin

Gonna go ahead and call Vikes +3, MONEY

James Goldstein "NBA Super fan"


i'm adding this to my sig fuzzy! LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:05 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,402
Default

What us it about quicktenderloin that makes it seemingly invincible? They operate like pre UIGEA. No problems, ever.
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 07:11 PM
luke m. luke m. is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,526
Default

they are out of the UK so funding is simple
__________________
Originally Posted by harvin

Gonna go ahead and call Vikes +3, MONEY

James Goldstein "NBA Super fan"


i'm adding this to my sig fuzzy! LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2011, 10:52 PM
j j is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,557
Default

A skeptical take on Bitcoin...

The Bitcoin Bubble | Bottom-up
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2011, 02:27 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j View Post
A skeptical take on Bitcoin...

The Bitcoin Bubble | Bottom-up
I believe that's the Tim Lee post I linked to earlier in the thread... the value of any currency derives from the expectation that people will accept it for things of value. In the case of state-based currency, one thing of value is settling tax debts with it.

Obviously if the number of people willing to exchange dollars or whatever for bitcoin decreases in the future, it's very likely that the value of bitcoins will decline. This is true of every currency though. If China stops buying dollars, the dollar will fall in value and prices will generally tend to rise.

Bitcoin, intermediaries, and information control

Quote:
I’m gratified that my recent writing on the Bitcoin virtual currency project has stirred much conversation and I thought I’d take a moment to continue that conversation.

Tim Lee has written two posts critiquing the viability of Bitcoin from the supply and demand side. Dan Rothschild has responded in part. Tyler Cowen also weighed in.

To address Tim I’ll simply say this: Do I think Bitcoin will replace the dollar? No. Might Bitcoin have certain systemic design flaws that might impede its success? Quite possibly. Will Bitcoin become the de facto, manipulation-proof currency of the internet? Who knows. Tim’s posts are a somewhat technical critique of Bitcoin’s long-term feasibility. It’s a great contribution, but since I’m neither a gold bug nor a Bitcoin booster per se, I don’t find it especially interesting.

That all said, what I do think is revolutionary about Bitcoin is that its developers have solved, without the use of a middleman, the double-spending problem faced by virtual currencies. That gives us license to realistically imagine a world without regulable financial intermediaries online.

While Tim overlooks what makes Bitcoin radical, Tom Sydnor groks it viscerally. Writing in a lengthy comment on my post, Tom expresses dismay at what Bitcoin represents and offers what I would, with apologies, characterize as the cyber-conservative response.

In his work looking at who should govern the internet and who should regulate activities on it, Milton Mueller has made the case for a system of “denationalized liberalism,” which “favors a universal right to receive and impart information regardless of frontiers, and sees freedom to communicate and exchange information as fundamental and primary elements of human choice and political and social activity.” For reasons I won’t go into here, I like the idea of denationalized liberalism. However, short of asking us to show up at ICANN meetings to fight back government encroachments, Milton has not really given us any practical paths to such a world. The reason is that it is very difficult. As Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu have pointed out, governments ultimately have control over the persons (and servers) under their physical jurisdiction.

In “A History of Online Gatakeeping,” (PDF) Jonathan Zittrain catalogs how intermediaries serve as the obvious targets of regulation for governments seeking to control information. Think of Napster, PayPal, and DNS registrars. Ever improving peer-to-peer technologies, like Bitcoin, remove this layer of intermediation by avoiding centralized servers that can be regulated or shut down. Now here is a path to denationalized liberalism: decentralized the infrastructure so that it is less susceptible to bordered control. Bitcoin show us a way to decentralize money transfers, and others are working on P2P DNS systems. It’s this path I want to explore in my research.

Now, it isn’t a clear path. As Zittrain writes:

Quote:
The loss of these natural points of control will cause those with challenged interests to foreground a new and less palatable set of intermediaries: software authors. These authors may be asked to write their software in such a way that it can be recalled or modified after it has been obtained by a user and then put to an undesirable purpose. They may even be asked to program their software to disable the installed software of others. Control over software — and the ability of PC users to run it — rather than control over the network, will be a future battleground for Internet regulation, a battleground primed by an independently-motivated movement by consumers away from open, generative PCs and toward more highly regulable endpoint platforms.
I’ll stay away from the question of “generative” vs. “sterile” devices for now and just say that he’s right that the battle will move to software. Tom Sydnor’s response to my comment highlights how those who oppose an unregulable internet for order and stability reasons will react.

First, Tom says that getting people to run the Bitcoin software (thus creating the Bitcoin P2P network) is fraud because consumers would not engage in what might be legally questionable behavior unless they were “tricked” into doing so. The problem with this logic is that it’s not clear who is doing the tricking or defrauding. There is no Bitcoin company inducing circumvention of financial regulations. That’s the point of decentralization.

Second, and more important, Tom says that the reason running Bitcoin is legally questionable is that an argument can be made that 1) the predominant use of the Bitcoin network is trafficking in illicit goods and services, and 2) running the software should therefore carry vicarious or contributory liability for those offenses. This is in effect an argument for regulation of software, and I suspect this is the type of argument that will be advanced in any efforts to ban software like Bitcoin.

I’ll skip the practical feasibility of banning software short of also banning “generative” PCs, much less doing so globally, and stick to addressing the legal questions. Are Bitcoin’s predominant uses illicit? Well Dude, we just don’t know. But there might certainly be “substantial non-infringing uses,” to borrow a phrase. You can imagine contributing to WikiLeaks and other unpopular organizations, buying banned content under repressive regimes, and preserving personal privacy, say if you’re buying something legal but potentially embarrassing.

More to the point, Bitcoin is less like Grokster, Inc., and more like BitTorrent the protocol. Again, there is no third party inducing bad behavior. Bitcoin is a tool that can be used for good or ill. (A lot like paper cash.) Hopefully governments will prosecute those who do ill, and not simply seek to ban the technology. If they do, that’s a battle we’ll have to be prepared to fight. As for vicarious or contributory liability from simply joining the Bitcoin P2P network, last I checked doing math was not yet a crime. When you run Skype on your computer, you help create the Skype P2P network over which no doubt illegal activities transpire all the time. Should Skype users be held vicariously liable?

I’m looking forward to discussing this further. What other pieces of the online infrastructure can be decentralized? How far can we decentralize? What will the reactions from governments be? What are the implications for crime and security? What are the implications for personal liberty?
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2011, 03:19 AM
howid howid is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,826
Default

nice that something like this is there for when all else fails, but
it is hard to see it becoming all the rage, too many clicks
involved to get something done.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2011, 04:36 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howid View Post
nice that something like this is there for when all else fails, but
it is hard to see it becoming all the rage, too many clicks
involved to get something done.
At this point, the pipes are in. It's the sinks and faucets and other fittings that need to be installed.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2011, 08:05 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

Forbes covers Bitcoin

Quote:
The Internet has left plenty of dead and maimed paper-based institutions in its wake. If Gavin Andresen and his underground cadre of cypherpunks have their way, another archaic slice of pulped tree may be next: the dollar.

Bitcoin is a grassroots nonprofit project that seeks to fashion a new currency out of little more than cryptography, networking and open-source software, and Andresen is the closest thing the project has to a director. Bitcoin is not, he explains, just a new way to digitally spend dollars, pounds and yen. That's been tried before. Remember Beenz and Flooz?

Bitcoin is different: It wholly replaces state-backed currencies with a digital version that's tougher to forge, cuts across international boundaries, can be stored on your hard drive instead of in a bank, and--perhaps most importantly to many of Bitcoin's users--isn't subject to the inflationary whim of whatever Federal Reserve chief decides to print more money.

"Bitcoin is designed to bring us back to a decentralized currency of the people," says Andresen, a 44-year-old software developer and entrepreneur based in Amherst, Mass. "This is like better gold than gold."

As with shiny-metal-backed currencies, Bitcoins derive their value partly through their scarcity, which is defined not by how much can be dug up with shovels but by a cryptographic lottery. Anyone can get Bitcoins without paying cash for them by downloading and running Bitcoin's "mining" program. The machines in Bitcoin's mining network, now in the thousands, compute an encryption function called a "hash" on a set of random numbers, and coins are awarded every ten minutes to whichever miner happens to compute a number below a certain threshold.

That lottery tightly controls how many Bitcoins are created. There are currently close to 6 million in existence. By 2014 there will be about twice that number. Bitcoin's distributed software is set to slow production over time so that there will never be more than 21 million in circulation. "No banker can control it. No evil dictator tyrant can print zillions and destroy the value," says Bruce Wagner, organizer of New York's Bitcoin developer's meet-up.

Of course, the other factor that determines the worth of a currency is whether anyone will accept it in exchange for goods and services. And for Bitcoin, a subculture of geek-friendly merchants is catching on. About $30,000 worth of Bitcoins change hands every day in electronic transactions, spent on Web-hosting, electronics, dog sweaters and alpaca socks.

Also drugs. Particularly illegal ones. Since Bitcoins can be spent on the Internet without the use of a bank account, they offer a convenient system for anonymous purchases. There's no centralized storage of funds, so accounts can't be frozen by law enforcement or PayPal administrators. "Illegal stuff will be a niche for Bitcoin," admits Andresen. "That bothers me, but it's just like any currency. You can't stop dollar bills from being used for the drug trade either. That's an unfortunate feature of any cashlike system."

Bitcoins' anonymity was no accident. The system was originally designed by Satoshi Nakamoto, a mysterious, privacy-obsessed figure who first described the currency's specs in a series of posts on a cryptography e-mail list in late 2008. Nakamoto declined to be interviewed for this story, and not even Andresen, who took over the project as technical lead in May 2010, has communicated with Bitcoin's founder except through e-mail and posts on Web forums. Nakamoto has compared Bitcoin to the systems of anonymous financial transactions sought by the anarchist cypherpunk movement in the 1990s, whose adherents saw cryptography as a way to shift power from institutions to individuals.

Thanks in part to its growing uses, both black- and white-market, the newborn currency is appreciating at a wild clip. In just the year since Andresen joined the project, it's jumped from half a penny in value to about a dollar.

That possibly irrational exuberance may be a sign that Bitcoin is headed for a speculative bubble. The currency already swings as much as 50% in value over some single days. But Bitcoin's supporters are confident the free market can solve that problem as Bitcoin's advantages attract more nonspeculative buying and selling.

One way they hope to bring more normals into the fold: by expanding Bitcoin's applications to the real world. Bitcoin devotees in New York's informal developer group are rolling out an Android app for mobile Bitcoin buying. They're also building open-source software that can be integrated into point-of-sale terminals.

"Someday this will probably have the Fed scrambling," says the New York meet-up's Bruce Wagner. "They still don't know what Twitter is. By the time they figure this out, it will have already taken hold."

I just hope this isn't like when Calvin Ayre appeared on the cover of Forbes.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2011, 08:15 PM
Caitlyn Cwissy Caitlyn Cwissy is offline
Four Paw General
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 37,402
Default

Quote:
That lottery tightly controls how many Bitcoins are created. There are currently close to 6 million in existence. By 2014 there will be about twice that number. Bitcoin's distributed software is set to slow production over time so that there will never be more than 21 million in circulation. "No banker can control it. No evil dictator tyrant can print zillions and destroy the value," says Bruce Wagner, organizer of New York's Bitcoin developer's meet-up.
That is a problem. 21 million is not gonna do it if that's the cap. Needs to be as high as demand? That could mean billions if bitcoin takes off worldwide.
__________________
Cwissy
As gamblers we must understand that there is no such thing as too big to fail. It is bettor to lose it all than win some of it.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2011, 11:17 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

The actual limit is 21 million billion, because a bitcoin can be subdivided to a billionth. If $1,000 buys 1 bitcoin, it's possible to just trade milli-bitcoins that are worth a dollar each.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 12:16 AM
TonyS204 TonyS204 is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1
Default

__________________
restaurant loan

Last edited by Uncle B : 04-22-2011 at 04:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 07:05 PM
luke m. luke m. is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,526
Default

Bitcoin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Originally Posted by harvin

Gonna go ahead and call Vikes +3, MONEY

James Goldstein "NBA Super fan"


i'm adding this to my sig fuzzy! LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 04-22-2011, 09:55 PM
nfleqbc nfleqbc is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,333
Default

1 Bitcoin is now worth about US$1.37 on Mt Gox. A 30% pop in a week:



I'd say that it's probably in full-on bubble mode, but remember money is the bubble that never has to pop.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:14 AM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6