Loading...

Follow Bitedge Blog on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

BitEdge had a Facebook page which we used to share whatever was on our mind about crypto, sports and gambling. The page had about 150 likes.

We chose not to force ourselves into Facebook users’ news feeds. People visited our page if they wanted to, or saw our posts in their news feed if they chose to like us. Everyone was happy with this except Facebook.

Our page was unpublished with no notification or reason given. When I requested to have our page re-published Facebook made me fill out and sign multiple forms, questionnaires, addendums and declarations. It was so stringent because our page was gambling related so there are extra requirements. When I got through it all they said

“your domain is onboarded and you can start with advertising”

Facebook had made me apply for approval to run paid ads. That’s not what I wanted, I just wanted our page re-published, which had still not happened. When I told Facebook that they said

“Pages may not promote real-money gambling on the platform, unless prior approval has been provided by Facebook.”

When I asked how to request such approval I was told

“You will have to reach out to your Facebook Representative in order to submit new request”

When I asked how to contact our Facebook Representative I was told

“Facebook actively reaches out to Page admins for marketing support. There is not currently a process to obtain a dedicated Facebook representative.”

That means I can’t even ask for our page to be re-published until I become a paid advertiser (“marketing support” is for paying advertisers only) and pay enough to warrant a representative contacting me.

That is not just my interpretation, a lot of page admins have gone through this and found they have to spend more than $10,000 a month advertising on Facebook to keep a gambling page published, as detailed here [1] [2] [3] [4].

If you don’t pay for advertising, you can’t keep a gambling related page published.

Spammers welcome, actually, spammers only!

Facebook takes advantage of the fact that they can put special rules on gambling content, to make it only allowed for paying advertisers. It does not sound like censorship because people expect gambling content to be limited and have specials rules and restrictions. Facebook could not get away with this for most topics.

This explains why all the gambling content on Facebook feels spammy. Facebook only lets spammers have gambling pages. If your’e not a spammer, like BitEdge is not, then Facebook will deplatform you. In general Facebook encourages spamming, in the case of gambling Facebook requires spamming, offering its platform exclusively to spammers!

This obviously has a very detrimental effect on the quality of gambling content on Facebook.

Incompetent bureaucracy with bad support

To get clarity on this took almost 2 months and support were terrible. I was told to visit urls that were broken links, told to re-submit things I had already submitted, I was lead around in circles. All the worst experiences you get when dealing with a large organization that has no interest in actually helping you.

Most Fakebook ad clicks are fake

I tried running Facebook ads after I got a $150 Facebook advertising voucher at a conference. Over 90% of clicks/impressions were from bots. I could tell because almost all the “users” who came from the ads had JavaScript disabled. Human’s browsers run Java Script, bots don’t.

This is a known problem advertising on Facebook as detailed by hundreds of reports including Forbes, Inc. and Reddit.

Onward and upward without Failbook

We will be more active on 2 better social media networks that are slightly less censoring and greedy, those being Twitter and Youtube, please follow us there.

The post Facebook deplatformed us for not advertising appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Because there is a bitcoin block every 10 minutes on average, I assumed if I made a transaction it would get 1 confirmation 5 minutes later on average.

It seems like reasonable common sense and logic that with an average block interval of 10 minutes, any random time will be on average 5 minutes until the next block. Here is why I was wrong and the real world bitcoin data to prove it.

You’re more likely to make a transaction in a long block interval than in a short block interval

If there was a new block exactly every 10 minutes, then the average interval between a random time and and the next block would be 5 minutes.

In this timespan random times average 5 minutes until the next point.

However in bitcoin the time between blocks is not regular. It varies greatly, from 0 minutes up to… well in practice the longest block interval is 1508 minutes (not counting block 0 to block 1).

That means a random time might fall in a shorter interval of less than 10 minutes, or a longer interval of more than 10 minutes. It’s more likely to fall in an interval of more than 10 minutes, simply because those intervals last longer.

This is easy to understand with a small scale example. Consider a 20 minute timespan in which 2 blocks are found, one with a 2 minute block interval and the other with an 18 minute block interval.

Now think of a random time in that 20 minute timespan. Is the random time more likely to fall in the 2 minute block interval or in the 18 minute block interval? It’s 9 times more likely to fall in the 18 minute block interval because that interval lasts 9 times longer!

A random time is more likely to fall in the 18 minute interval than the 2 minute interval.

In probability terminology this is because bitcoin block intervals follow a poisson distribution.

Real world proof with bitcoin block data

There is no need to take anyone’s word for it. I have proven that bitcoin blocks follow a poisson distribution and that on average the next block is 10 minutes away from any random time, such as the time you made your transaction.

First I downloaded the block timestamps from the 15th of March 2018 to the 15th of March 2019. That gave me 53,542 block times. Then I got 9968 random datetimes from within that timespan. All the datetimes were in the format

yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss

For example

2018-03-15 10:03:26

In order to convert those to unix epochs I used the spreadsheet formula

SUM=(A5-DATE(1970,1,1))*86400

Where A5 is the cell containing the datetime I want to convert.

Unix epoch is the number of seconds since 1970. This makes it easy to calculate the number of seconds between datetimes.

The final step was calculating the interval between each random datetime and the next block. I did that by combining all the datetimes in a column ordered by time, with the random datetimes identifiable by color. Lastly subtracting the unix epoch of the random datetime from the unix epoch of the next block gave me the number of seconds between them.

The average is 9 minutes and 38 seconds. Exactly what the poisson distribution theory predicts! All of this can be seen, downloaded and played with on this google sheet (there are 2 tabs).

Of course this applies to other blockchains with variable block intervals. For example, litecoin and dash have 2.5 minute block intervals, so the average time from when you made your transaction until it gets 1 confirmation is 2.5 minutes.

Why its less than 10 minutes and not closer to exactly 10 minutes

In theory there is a bitcoin block found, on average, every 10 minutes. In reality it will tend to be slightly shorter than that in a difficulty period in which network hashrate increases, and it will tend to be slightly longer than that in a difficulty period in which network hashrate decreases.

Bitcoin miners have to solve math problems to find blocks. The more computing power they have, the faster they will solve the problems and find new blocks.

If miners find blocks faster than 1 every 10 minutes, then the bitcoin difficulty adjustment will make it harder for them, but that only happens every 2 weeks (2016 blocks). If the amount of computing power miners have increases in the first week of a difficulty period, they will have another week to find blocks faster than 1 every 10 minutes before the difficulty adjusts again.

The amount of computing power miners use is measured by hashrate. In March 2018 the bitcoin network performed around 25 million terahashes per second. By March 2019 it is around 43 million terahashes per second.

So during the timespan of this data the miners computing power was increasing, allowing them to find blocks slightly faster than every 10 minutes. During the timespan of this data a block was found every 9:49, which is 589 seconds. The average interval between a random time and the next block was 9:38, which is 578 seconds . Only 11 seconds apart.

What is the similarity/difference between these intervals as a %?

(578/589)*100 = 98.13% similarity
100-98.13 = 1.87% difference
Tools and resources used

The post The next block is 10 minutes away: Proving bitcoin’s poisson block intervals appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
But don’t worry, other cryptos are getting better

None of this is theoretical. I have had 100% of my savings and income in crypto since 2013. Over 6 years I have made dozens of bitcoin of transactions every month. I still pay staff in bitcoin, I paid for my last holiday in bitcoin that I won betting with bitcoin!

I was a bitcoin true believer and having built this business around bitcoin, I have every motivation for wishing it to continue to succeed.

I am more excited than ever about the positive changes I thought bitcoin would bring to my own life and society as a whole. Now I realize those changes will come from multiple competing cryptos, with bitcoin taking an increasingly small role.

In 2015 bitcoin was the best at everything, how about now?

The bitcoin scaling debate turned toxic in 2015. That is the landmark year in the story of bitcoin’s continuing product failure. At that time bitcoin was the best currency for everything, including these top 10 most important use cases and characteristics;

  • Savings.
  • Spending.
  • Trading.
  • Speculating.
  • Micro transactions.
  • Smart contracts.
  • Stability.
  • Privacy.
  • Security/decentralization/censorship resistance.
  • Easy of use.

In 2019 what is left? In which of these 10 key areas is bitcoin still king?

Savings

This one is debatable and it depends on your risk appetite.

If you are a low risk saver and want stability, you are better off with a stable coin.

If you have a medium risk appetite, bitcoin could still be the best crypto for savings.

If you are a high risk saver and want growth, you are better off with a crypto that is getting more useful and increasing its market share, bitcoin is doing the opposite.

Spending

Many payments focused cryptos like dash, litecoin and bitcoin cash provide a better experience for making payments compared to bitcoin with its high fees and long wait times.

Bitcoin’s advantage is the amount of people who accept it, but that advantage is shrinking fast. Previously most merchants who accepted crypto only accepted bitcoin, now most of them accept multiple cryptos.

Bitcoin is no longer the best crypto for spending.

Trading

Bitcoin is no longer suited to arbitrage or any trading that involves quickly and cheaply moving money between exchanges. However for other types of trading bitcoin is more or less equal with ethereum for having the most trading pairs and highest liquidity.

On balance bitcoin is still one of the best, perhaps the equal best, crypto for trading.

Speculating

For a long time you have been able to get higher lambo moon gains from new crypto projects. Bitcoin is no longer the best crypto for speculating.

Micro transactions

Bitcoins fees are now too high for it to be useful for micro transactions.

Smart contracts

With advances in smart contract platforms like ethereum and EOS, bitcoin is no longer the best crypto for smart contracts.

Stability

With advances in stable coins like Tether, TrueUSD, Maker and Gemini coin, bitcoin is no longer the most stable crypto.

Privacy

With advances in privacy coins like Monero, Zcash and Zero coin and with bitcoin development stagnating, bitcoin is no longer the most private crypto.

Security/decentralization/censorship resistance

Bitcoin is still the most secure network but for all practical purposes it’s the equal most. Yes bitcoin is more immutable than, for example, litecoin, but there are no use cases for which litecoin is not immutable enough.

Same goes for things like decentralization and censorship resistance. Sure, technically bitcoin is more censorship resistant that litecoin but for all practical purposes it’s the same because there are no use cases for which litecoin is not censorship resistant enough.

Ease of use

With its high fees, long wait time and developers who don’t priorities ease of use, bitcoin is no longer the easiest to use crypto. Cryptos like dash and stellar are easier.

Bitcoin’s product failure

Of the top 10 most important things that bitcoin did better than any other currency in 2015, it is still equal best in only 3 of them. That is what you call a product failure.

The failure is reflected in bitcoin’s market share. Even after the explosion of thousands of other cryptos in 2015 bitcoin had around 90% market share, it’s now around 50% and long term trending lower.

Bitcoin is even getting worse compared to banks!

In 2015 it took 1-3 days to send a domestic bank to bank transfer and more than a week for international transfers. Domestic transfers now take a few hours and international transfers take 1-3 days.

Domestic transfers are now free and bank fees in general have gone down, while speed and ease of use has improved. Online banking has gotten a lot better as well. Banks suck but they can improve, it seems bitcoin can’t.

In that same time period bitcoin has gotten slower, more expensive and more difficult to use! Before blocks got full, all the sportsbooks listed on this site had 0 confirmation betting. Now its 1-3 confirmations and confirmations take longer because your wallet might not have paid a big enough fee to get in the next block. That makes bitcoin harder to use.

Using bitcoin is still better than the banks but its lead is decreasing. When you are a cryptocurrency innovating slower than the legacy banking system you know you have a real problem.

How did it get to this

The number of transactions bitcoin can process, in other words, how much it can scale, is determined by 3 things.

  • Block size
    Bigger is better, more transactions can fit into each block.
  • Block frequency
    Faster is better, more blocks of the same size means more transactions in total.
  • Transaction size
    Smaller is better, more transactions can fit in a block.

As bitcoin blocks started to fill in 2015 bitcoin core developers chose to only make improvements in transaction size. Starting with SegWit and still ongoing, these efforts have increased bitcoin’s real world capacity from about 3 transactions per second (TPS) to about 5 TPS.

Bitcoin core developers decided not to increase the size or frequency of blocks. This resulted in blocks getting full and bitcoin becoming almost unusable. Transactions took hours to confirm and fees were around $50! Worse than banks and Western Union, let alone other cryptos!

This crashed the market and caused a lot less people to use crypto.

While bitcoin fails to scale it can not improve in any other ways

Bitcoin core developers also decided to work on complex 2nd layer scaling solutions like side chains and lightning network. After more than 5 years of development these have not improved the scalability or usability of bitcoin. They are unnecessarily complicated and too technically difficult for the average user.

having bitcoin developers focusing so much time and effort on SegWit and these failing 2nd layer scaling solutions, has meant they have not done anything else that could improve bitcoin in other areas, like privacy, ease of use or smart contracts.

Other cryptos that have not gotten stuck on scaling have moved on to other improvements like monero improving privacy, dash improving ease of use and ethereum improving smart contracts.

Bitcoiners do have plans and proposals for other improvements, like schnorr signatures,  mast and compact block relay. But they have gotten nowhere with any of this because they are stuck spinning their wheels trying to scale in the most difficult way possible, ignoring the easier ways to scale while other projects go past them!

Why doesn’t bitcoin scale the quick and easy way?

Bitcoin core development is lead by neckbeard augsburg-tards who want to spend endless hours tinkering with minute details aiming for technical perfection.

The 2 main reasons they say increasing the blocksize and/or block frequency does not appeal to them are

  1. It would make the blocks and blockchain bigger, so that it would be harder to run a full node on a computer with a small hard drive and a slow internet connection. They call this “centralization risk”.
  2. They want higher fees because when the block reward runs out in 100 years, fees might help sustain the network.

Other reasons are because it’s not technically cleaver and elegant. It does nothing for their ego and self image as genius engineers.

A lot of bitcoin core supporters (mostly subconsciously) don’t want bitcoin to go mainstream because they want it to be their edgy rebellious tech project that they can sound cool talking about in IRC channels and developer meetups.

Most bitcoin core developers don’t care enough about non-technical users and ease of use. When I get frustrated waiting for a bitcoin transaction to confirm bitcoin core supporters say things like “You should have set a higher fee”.

Passing the problem off to the users, in this case expecting them to use advanced features that a lot of wallets don’t even have, while also ruling out the key use case of micro transactions, is not how to make a successful product.

A lot of bitcoin core leadership and supporters say things like;

bitcoin is not supposed to be the everything blockchain, its strengths are

  • Network stability.
  • Immutability.
  • Store of value.
  • Large transactions.

It’s not for buying coffee or playing online games or buying drugs or for your grandmother to use or for moon lambo speculation, use other things to do all that.

The sad thing is bitcoin used to be the best tool for all of those things. All it had to do to keep the lead, conquer the world and make all our lives better, was to scale, which it could have easily done.

Instead it has lost all those use cases and strengths to other projects and for all practical purposes those other projects match bitcoin at it’s strength.

This has cost anyone with a large holding of bitcoin millions of dollars in purchasing power and it has set back the cause of non-government, censorship resistant, sound money by several years.

The future for crypto and bitcoin

The future for crypto is incredibly bright, it will take over the world and have a transformative positive impact on society and the lives of billions of people all around the world.

Bitcoin will be able to scale due to general technology improvements like global 5G/fiber optic rollout and moore’s law. Their layer 2 solutions like lightning network might even work eventually. However blocks will probably get full again and bitcoin will probably crash the market again before that happens.

By the time bitcoin gets past scaling it will only be matching other top cryptos in that regard. Those other projects will already be miles ahead of bitcoin in all other areas and use cases.

The toxic scaling debate left a lot of the wrong kind of people in leadership positions in bitcoin. Bitcoin’s scaling problems are a failure of governance. Dash used its governance system with on chain voting to propose and approve a block size increase in about a day, before it was urgently needed (when it was needed it was implemented without a hitch).

Even when bitcoin gets past scaling the governance will not have improved. Since bitcoin leaders dropped the ball so badly on scaling, what reason do we have to think they will do a good job with other challenges?

Crypto overall is a strong buy. I hope bitcoin turns around but based on the evidence, it’s a sell.

The post Bitcoin is not only stagnating, it’s getting worse appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

I find myself in the strange position of disliking FIFA and disliking nation states, yet loving the FIFA World Cup; an event organized by FIFA for nation states.

Most soccer fans are with me when it comes to disliking FIFA. They are a corrupt untransparent hypocritical mafia, whose leaders leach incredible personal fortunes though secret harmful backroom deals [1][2].

Most soccer fans are not with me when it comes to disliking nation states, so let me explain the basics;

  • National governments are responsible for most unnecessary man made suffering, violence and death. For example, war and imprisoning innocent people.
  • National governments make us poorer. They do this through taxation, inflation of government currency and closed borders (open borders would make us all twice as rich on average).
  • Nation states divide and pit people against each other, they teach people to see those from other nation states as less important. Nations states cause nationalism.
  • Nation states are the main structure around which politics is organized. Do you like politics and politicians?
Cultural identities enrich the tournament

One of the things I love about the World Cup is the cultural/national identities. I enjoy the feeling of unity and belonging soccer fans get by cheering on their national team with a crowd of fellow countrymen.

I admire Mexican fan culture; dressing in Pancho Villa and Aztec costumes, singing mariachi songs, and shouting a local obscenity in unison every time the opponent takes a goal kick.

I marvel at how the Brazilian team reflects everything that is good and bad about Brazilian society. The flare, the joy, the samba, but also the instability, indiscipline and posing.

Governments ruin everything

A Mexican never feels more Mexican than when cheering on Mexico in the World Cup, a Brazilian never feels more Brazilian. That opens the door for nationalism. National identities empower nation stats to do the harm listed above.

National governments use community and cultural pride and that sense of unity and belonging, to produce national pride and loyalty to the nation state.

Governments essentially tap into tribalism and use it to create what they consider to be “good citizens”. Meaning obedient taxpayers who see people from other countries as less important, allowing them to support the government’s military and so on.

It’s normal to root for people you relate to

I am not a big fan of my own country, Australia. There are things I love about Australian culture and society but Australia as a nation state has all the problems listed above. Things like a discriminatory immigration system, taxation, military, imprisonment of innocent people (like non-violent drug offenders and allium seekers), a central bank and government currency, and it’s a source of nationalism.

Given that, I wondered why I still wanted the Australian soccer team to win. I thought perhaps I should hope other countries beat us, countries with a larger population of people who care and need the pick-me-up that a successful World Cup would give.

I realized I don’t still support the Socceroos out of national pride, but because I can relate to the players. Their stories, values, speech, look, et cetera are similar to mine and the people I know. We have a camaraderie that comes from shared experience and history and, for some people, pride.

Be proud of your community and culture, not the political entity of your nation state

It’s pride in our community and culture, not pride in the political entity that is the nation state of Australia. However the nation state government will use that pride for their harmful purposes.

Heck the Mexican fans dress up as outlaw bandits. If they were supporting the Mexican nation state they would dress as politicians or soldiers or tax collectors.

I wish our community and cultural identities that I love were not intertwined with political entities that I hate. Oh well, supporting the Socceroos has never been easy!

The post Supporting your national team but not your nation appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

I find myself in the strange position of disliking FIFA and disliking nation states, yet loving the FIFA World Cup; an event organized by FIFA for nation states.

Most soccer fans are with me when it comes to disliking FIFA. They are a corrupt, untransparent, hypocritical, mafia whose leaders leach incredible personal fortunes though secret harmful backroom deals [1][2].

Most soccer fans are not with me on disliking nation states, so let me explain the basics;

  • National governments are responsible for most unnecessary man made suffering, violence and death. For example, war and imprisoning innocent people.
  • National governments make us poorer. They do this through taxation, inflation of government currency and closed borders (open borders would make us all twice as rich on average).
  • Nation states divide and pit people against each other, teaching people to see those from other nation states as less important. Nations states cause nationalism.
  • Nation states are the main structure around which politics is organized. Do you like politics and politicians?
Cultural identities enrich the tournament

One of the things I love about the World Cup is the cultural/national identities. I enjoy the feeling of unity and belonging soccer fans get by cheering on their national team with a crowd of fellow countrymen.

I admire Mexican fan culture; dressing in Pancho Villa and Aztec costumes, singing mariachi songs, and shouting a local obscenity in unison every time the opponent takes a goal kick.

I marvel at how the Brazilian team reflects everything that is good and bad about Brazilian society. The flare, the joy, the samba, but also the instability, indiscipline and posing.

Governments ruin everything

A Mexican never feels more Mexican than when cheering on Mexico in the World Cup, a Brazilian never feels more Brazilian. That opens the door for nationalism. National identities empower nation stats to do the harm listed above.

National governments use community and cultural pride and that sense of unity and belonging, to produce national pride and loyalty to the nation state.

Governments essentially tap into tribalism and use it to create what they consider to be “good citizens”. Meaning obedient taxpayers who see people from other countries as less important, allowing them to support the government’s military and so on.

It’s normal to root for people you relate to

I am not a big fan of my own country, Australia. There are things I love about Australian culture and society but Australia as a nation state has all the problems listed above. Things like a discriminatory immigration system, taxation, military, imprisonment of innocent people (like non-violent drug offenders), a central bank and government currency, and it’s a source of nationalism.

Given that, I wondered why I still wanted the Australian soccer team to win. I thought perhaps I should hope other countries beat us, countries with a larger population of people who care and need the pick-me-up that a successful World Cup would give.

I realized I don’t still support the Socceroos out of national pride, but because I can relate to the players. Their stories, values, speech, look, et cetera are similar to mine and the people I know. We have a camaraderie that comes from shared experience and history and, for some people, pride.

Be proud of your community and culture, not the political entity of your nation state

It’s pride in our community and culture, not pride in the political entity that is the nation state of Australia. However the nation state government will use that pride for their harmful purposes.

Heck the Mexican fans dress up as outlaw bandits. If they were supporting the Mexican nation state they would dress as politicians or soldiers or tax collectors.

I wish our community and cultural identities that I love were not intertwined with political entities that I hate. Oh well, supporting the Socceroos has never been easy!

The post Support your national team but not your nation appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Group 1: Libertarians

Libertarians are people who don’t want rulers and don’t want other people to have control over them or responsibility for them. They want to be independent and responsible for themselves.

It follows that they don’t want to be other peoples rulers, they don’t want control over, or responsibility for, other people. They think other people should be independent and responsible for themselves.

They want to live and let live. Because of that they do not try to force their belief and way of life onto others.

They are a minority.

Group 2: Non-libertarians

Everyone else (collectivists, but most of them would not self identify as collectivists) does want rulers and does want other people to have control over them and responsibility for them. They want to be dependent and share responsibility for themselves.

It follows that they do want to be other peoples rulers, they do want control over other people and shared responsibility for other people. They think other people should be dependent and share responsibility for themselves.

They want others to live like them. Because of that they try to force their belief and way of life onto others (most of them are not consciously aware of any of that).

They are a majority.

Liberty will not win that contest

In the above scenario, liberty with its minority of non-forceful people, will not win against collectivism with its majority of forceful people. Collectivism will win with large and expanding government, social “services”, welfare, taxation, restrictive laws, central planing, et cetera. That’s why we have all those things.

A minority libertarian society will not be libertarian.

Most people want collectivism, not liberty

You may wonder if enough people could come around to libertarianism to make them a majority. This will not happen in our lifetime and probably never on a large scale over a long time.

Groups of people tend toward collectivism, this is proven by history and society as it is today. Most people who feel oppressed by tyrannical rulers do not want to have no rulers, they want to replace the tyrants with kinder rulers.

Most people who are unhappy with how their government is using its power, do not seek to reduce the power of government, they seek to make the government use that power in a way they like.

Consider our greatest historical and contemporary symbols of freedom fighting against oppressive rulers.

Braveheart, William Wallace, “They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!” Scottish independence fighters did not fight for individual liberty, they fought to live under Scottish rulers rather than English rulers.

Nelson Mandela and the freedom movement he lead did not struggle for minimal government, they struggled to replace a big apartheid government with a big non-apartheid government.

That is normal, people don’t want no rulers to have control over their lives. People want better rulers to have control over their lives (or to be rulers themselves with control over other peoples lives).

Why though?

There are many psychological and evolutionary reasons why most people want collectivism not individual liberty. People don’t want full and sole responsibility for themselves, they don’t want to be one mistake or one stroke of bad luck away from falling into poverty with no safety net. That concern extends to other people they care about.

There are also moochers who like that a more collectivist society gives them a better chance to extract value from other people without providing value themselves.

This type of collectivism was better suited to the way people have been organized for the vast majority of human history; tribal groups of around 100 people who all know each-other. The same logic does not work as well when expanded to nation states made up of millions of otherwise disconnected people.

Anyway, a majority of people will not become libertarians. How else could a libertarian society come about?

Try to create a libertarian society

The only alternative is to make a new society out of mostly libertarians, only allow mostly libertarians to enter, and indoctrinate most children born into this society to libertarian beliefs and way of life (I will refer to this society as Liberland).

The way people on earth are currently organized this could only be done as a nation state with a government. Otherwise it would be prevented by the government of whatever nation state it was in.

Manny libertarians do not believe nation states with governments should even exist! To create and maintain Liberland would be, in some ways, anti-libertarian.

Libertarians believe it’s fine if someone moves next door to them who does not share their belief and way of life, no problem. But it would be an existential problem for Liberland. If most of your neighbours are non-libertarian, they will destroy Liberland and you will be back to a collectivist society.

Liberland may be an impossible contradiction because its creation and maintenance would require libertarians to force their belief and way of life onto others. For example, by not allowing some non-libertarians to live where they want to live.

Still most libertarians would be willing compromise on this if Liberland was practically possible. It’s not, there is nowhere to put it. There is no unclaimed uninhabited territory and there is no nation state who will relinquish sovereignty to allow for Liberland.

Communist societies can launch while libertarian societies can’t

Communist societies have been able to form in similar conditions where libertarian societies have not for 2 main reasons

  1. Communists are more willing than libertarians to use violence to bring about the society they want.
  2. Communism seems more appealing than libertarianism to the majority of the population.

So we have a situation where communist societies can start but not succeed while libertarian societies would have a better chance at succeeding, but can’t start.

The best option left: Good democracies

Given most people are non-libertarians if you want to live in an open, inclusive society made up of a wide range of diverse people, that anyone can be a part of, then it will not be libertarian. If you want to live in a normal place with normal people you have to accept collectivism.

Non-libertarian societies can take manny forms; communism, democracy, dictatorship, feudalism, monarchy, the list goes on.

Of all possible non-libertarian societies, a good meritocratic democracy with limited government and low taxes is probably as good as its going to get for libertarians.

Given a libertarian society is impossible for now, libertarians living in democracies may already be living in close to the best type of society possible.

The best chance libertarians have of improving their lives and the lives of those they care about is by trying to make their democracy more meritocratic with a more limited government and lower taxes.

The good news for libertarians

Societies are not binary 100% libertarian or 100% collectivist. Try to focus on and expand the more libertarian aspects of society as it is.

It makes no sense to be angry at non-libertarians who deny everyone liberty. There are reasons most people are like that, it’s not their fault, they are the normal ones.

The combined efforts of libertarians and non-libertarians to improve our rulers is part of what has lead to the most prosperous world with the highest quality of life that has ever existed; right here right now.

It’s perfectly possible to have a successful, prosperous and happy life as a frustrated libertarian in society as it is.

The post Why there are no libertarian societies appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

BitEdge had a Facebook page which we used to share whatever was on our mind about crypto, sports and gambling. The page had about 150 likes.

We chose not to force ourselves into Facebook users news feeds. People visited our page if they wanted to or saw our posts in their news feed if they choose to like us. Everyone was happy with this except Facebook.

Our page was unpublished with no notification or reason given. When I requested to have our page re-published Facebook made me fill out and sign multiple forms, questionnaires, addendums and declarations, it took weeks! It was so stringent because our page was gambling related so there are extra requirements. When I got through it all that they said

“your domain is onboarded and you can start with advertising”

Facebook had made me apply for approval to run paid ads. That’s not what I wanted, I just wanted our page re-published, which had still not happened. When I told Facebook that they said

“Pages may not promote real-money gambling on the platform, unless prior approval has been provided by Facebook.”

When I asked how to request such approval I was told

“You will have to reach out to your Facebook Representative in order to submit new request”

When I asked how to contact our Facebook Representative I was told

“Facebook actively reaches out to Page admins for marketing support. There is not currently a process to obtain a dedicated Facebook representative.”

That means I can’t even ask for our page to be re-published until I become a paid advertiser (“marketing support” is for paying advertisers only) and pay enough to warrant a representative contacting me.

That is not just my interpretation, a lot of page admins have gone through this and found they have to spend more than $10,000 a month advertising on Facebook to keep a gambling page published, as detailed here [1][2][3][4].

If you don’t pay for advertising, you can’t keep a gambling related page published.

Spammers welcome, actually, spammers only!

This explains why all the gambling content on Facebook feels spammy. Facebook only lets spammers have gambling pages. If your’e not a spammer, like BitEdge is not, then Facebook will deplatform you. In general Facebook encourages spamming, in the case of gambling Facebook requires spamming, offering its platform exclusively to spammers!

This obviously has a very detrimental effect on the quality of gambling content on Facebook.

Incompetent bureaucracy with bad support

To get clarity on this took almost 2 months and support were terrible. I was told to visit urls that were broken links, told to re-submit things I had already submitted, I was lead around in circles. All the worst experiences you get when dealing with a large organization that has no interest in actually helping you.

Most Fakebook ad clicks are fake

I tried running Facebook ads after I got a $150 Facebook advertising voucher at a conference. Over 90% of clicks/impressions were from bots. I could tell because almost all the “users” who came from the adds had JavaScript disabled. Human’s browsers run Java Script, bots don’t.

This is a know problem advertising on Facebook as detailed by hundreds of reports including Forbes, Inc. and Reddit.

Onward and upward without Failbook

We will be more active on 2 better social media networks that are slightly less censoring and greedy, those being Twitter and Youtube, please follow us there.

The post Facebook deplatfomed us for not advertising appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 
# Socceroos MP W D L GF GA GD P
1  With-Ange 4 2 2 0 6 3 3 8
2  After-Ange 4 0 1 3 2 5 -3 1

The same generation of Australian players that Ange Postecoglou coached are now playing together under other coaches. Let’s see if results got better or worse.

In the above league table After-Ange’s results are for the 4 games since Angel left. With-Ange’s results are for Ange’s last 4 games (no friendlies).

After-Ange record
Date Comp Home* Score Away
15/01/19 AC Australia  Syria
11/01/19 AC Palestine  Australia
06/01/19 AC Australia 0 – 1  Jordan
26/06/18 WC Australia 0 – 2  Peru
21/06/18 WC Denmark 1 – 1  Australia
16/06/18 WC France 2 – 1  Australia

*All of these matches were at neutral venues.

With-Ange record
Date Comp Home Score Away
15/11/17 WCQ Australia 3 – 1  Honduras
11/11/17 WCQ Honduras 0 – 0  Australia
10/10/17 WCQ Australia 2 – 1  Syria
05/10/17 WCQ Syria 1 – 1  Australia
05/09/17 WCQ Australia 2 – 1  Thailand
31/08/17 WCQ Japan 2 – 0  Australia
These games are comparable

Right now we have a small sample size, but I will maintain the table until both teams have 33 competitive games, the total number Ange coached.

Strength of opponent

The average FIFA ranking of teams Ange faced in his last 4 games was 71, in the 4 games since then it has been 35.

Taking that into account the conclusion is still that the Socceroos were better with Ange. At most the different strength of opponent means With-Ange could be expected to have around twice as manny points, its 8 to 1!.

We know that FIFA rankings are BSSyria were under-ranked because their “home” games were not in Syria. The gap in strength of opponent will reduce, then disappear as the sample size grows. Let’s see if After-Ange closes the gap on the table.

Disastrous post-Ange coaching appointments

The Socceroos coaching appointments since Ange leftI have been terrible. In one case the Football Federation of Australia (FFA) took the wrong approach and in the other case they appointed the wrong person.

Short term mercenary instead of long term leader

After Ange left the FFA should have found the right man for the job and hired him to lead us until the end of the 2022 World Cup campaign (5 years at the time). They should not have hired a short term mercenary just for the 2018 World Cup.

They got Bert Van Marwijk for 3 games; 2 losses and a draw. We had no direction or plan or identity. This was not BVM’s fault, he did his best in limiting circumstances. The Socceroos would be doing much better now if BVM was still there on a 5 year contract.

Re-hire someone who failed last time

Re-appointing Graham Arnold was stupid, because he had already had the job and failed badly! The circumstances are almost identical to the last time around; he is taking over from a big name, short term, Dutch coach, right after the World Cup heading into the Asian cup.

His record last time was an abysmal 14 games for 5 wins 4 draws and 5 losses. That’s faltering because one of the “draws” was when we lost on penalties and were eliminated from a disastrous Asian Cup campaign. Remember he had one of best Socceroos squads ever, with players like like Aloisi, Bresciano, Cahill, Culina, Emerton, Kewell, Neil, Schwarzer and Veduka.

Unsurprisingly he is repeating his past performance. This is nothing against Arnie, he is a top bloke and a great servant of the game in Australia. This is entirely the FFAs fault for giving him a job he had already proven he is not up for.

Ange was good until he hurt the team by leaving

Ange Postecoglou is a divisive figure amongst Australian soccer fans. He is called everything from our greatest ever coach to a disaster for the national team. I think he was both.

Ange had a great record, he won us the Asian Cup! But he took a contract to coach the Socceroos until the end of the 2018 World Cup campaign. After qualifying the team he lacked the courage to see it through.

Sure there is a lot we don’t know, maybe the FFA were bad to work for, maybe the media were annoying. Geewiz, so everything was not perfect, have some fortitude and finish your job! It was obviously going to be difficult from the beginning. Do you think it was easy to coach Panama or England or Egypt to the World Cup? Ange was in a brilliant position, the position he chose!

The FFA should have never been put in the position of having to find a new coach 6 months before the World Cup. Ange’s cowardly exit left us in the lurch and lead to the disastrous hiring decisions of BVM and Arnie.

The post Socceroos with and without Ange appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Gambling is a big part of my life story; at times it has provided me great opportunities and at other times it has cost me a lot. I have been a bettor, worked at sportsbooks and run this gambling information site.

As a bettor I have been everything from a consistently profitable professional to a degenerate loser. All from my laptop, all around the world.

I have had great wins and periods of disciplined smart betting resulting in consistent profit. However, I have also gone broke gambling 5 times.

Spanning 11 years, in chronological order, here are my biggest wins and the times I lost almost everything I had.

Big Loses Laying the hottest team in baseball
2007 – lost $10,000

I had a successful MLB regular season winning about $10,000, which was enough given I was living in Nicaragua. I was not going to bet on the playoffs, my last play was martingaling against the Colorado Rockies as they went on one of the greatest winning runs of all time.

They were a middle of the table team that looked they would miss the playoffs before they won an unheralded 21 out of 22 games to make the wildcard spot and go all the way to the world series.

The heartbreaker that did my nuts was a game in which the Rockies were heading for defeat until an obviously wrong home plate call gave them an undeserved walk-off win in the bottom of the 13th inning.

Horse racing
2010 – lost $7000

Living in Australia I left my boring 9-5 and start back up as a full-time sports bettor. I tried martingaling the pony’s and lost all my savings. I went back to the boring 9-5 to save up a bank roll to try again as soon as possible.

Roulette
2011 – lost $10,000

I moved to Thailand with a $10,000 bank roll I had saved to bet on the NBA. I needed the income I planed to generate but a player dispute delayed the start of the season by 2 months. It looked like there would be no season and I thought I needed to try other types of gambling. I tried my hand at roulette, martingaled and went broke.

Wimbledon
2013 – lost $8000

I had been betting small and struggling to break even for all of 2013. I lost my patience and decided to bet big. I broke one of my rules to not bet on individual sports, in this case tennis.

At the start of the day’s play I picked 6 players I liked. The first 2 were short priced favorites and I put half my bankroll on each of them, planning to roll winnings over to the other 4 that played later. Both bets lost, one due to the player being injured but hobbling on until the end of the match. A perfect example of why I have that rule.

Of course my other 4 picks all won without me having any funds left to bet on them.

Just Dice
2014 – lost 18 bitcoin ($15,000)

I had just put all my savings into bitcoin after falling in love with the technology, politics and philosophy of the community, which at that time was positive, idealistic and unified.

I lost all my bitcoins martialing on Just Dice . I was betting to roll under 33.33 which should win 1 in 3 times. I went broke on my 36th consecutive losing roll. I did 1 more roll with a 0 stake and won on the 37th roll, 1 after I had lost it all. If I had have started with a smaller stake I would have been fine.

I was crushed, this loss affected me deeply, I remember the hollow feeling in my stomach and thinking that I was a piece of shit. I could have gone to a dark place if not for the fact that I was still passionate about bitcoin, and this website had just starting making bitcoin profit, so I had something positive to dedicate myself to.

How I turned it around

For all the big losses I had some excuse how it was unlucky or not my fault. Those excuses are meaningless; if I did not go broke then I would have gone broke on some other bet in the next couple of months. I had a losing gambler’s mentality and habits. I broke my rules, chased losses and bet with no edge.

It’s notable that I had all my big losses in the beginning, and since then I have been profitable. What allowed me to turn the corner was improving my gambling IQ, so now I only bet if I have an edge.

Also this website gave me a regular income outside of betting. So now if I am in the mood to bet I do it for fun with no pressure. It’s a lot easier to win in that state of mind rather than thinking you have to win to pay the bills.

Big wins American Pharaoh triple crown
2015 – won 11 bitcoin ($2500)

American Pharaoh was obviously the best hours in the 2015 Belmont stakes. The question was would the grueling triple crown schedule of 3 long distance races in 5 weeks, plus travel, take its toll?

When I saw American Pharaoh’s track work leading up to the race and heard he had put on weight, I knew the answer and placed my bets (and 2).

NFL survivor pools
2016 – won 40 bitcoin ($13,000)

I knew nothing about NFL betting or survivor pools until I saw the free ones at Nitrogen Sports (review). I loved the idea so I jumped into the deep-end and entered multiple high stakes pools.

Every weekend of that season was exciting with a different team to root for. I was living in the Philippines and watched the games with a group of American friends at a beach side bar. I won 2 pools outright and came equal first in another.

Mayweather vs McGregor
2017 – won 5.4 bitcoin ($23,500)

This is the easiest money I have ever made. There was never any doubt about what the result would be and I was able to make bets with a huge edge.

2018 FIFA World Cup
won 2.5 bitcoin ($18,500)

The winning bets paid for the trip of a lifetime to Malaysia, Australia and Honduras for the Socceroos Word Cup qualifiers, then to Russia for the finals!

Hedging agains my NFL survivor pool position
2018 – won 14.5 bitcoin ($55,000)

In the last week of the season I hedged against my survivor pool position. I lost the survivor pool but won the bets.

When I am not betting big

The vast majority of my gambling outside the big wins and losses has been profitable. When I have been disciplined and followed my rules I have ground out consistent profit on low stakes sports betting.

This made the big loses all the more frustrating. I knew I could succeed and achieve stability in my life, if I could cut them out, which is exactly what happened.

Conclusion and lessons learnt
Total big losses -$50,000
Total big wins $112,500
Balance $62,500

There are a few lessons from all of this

  • Do not martingale without a stop loss. That was the cause every time I lost big!
  • Stick with what you are good at. Most of my big wins are sports betting and most of my big losses are not sports betting. I should stick with sports betting.
  • If you are not a successful gambler right away, you can learn, improve and become one. Start with the sports betting guide.

The post My biggest gambling wins and losses appeared first on BitEdge.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview