Bitcoin.com Games? Anyone Aff for Them?

[PROFRBcom]

If so, are you seeing great conversions? They claim in their marketing materials 50-60% conversions which seems insanely high for crypto gaming operators to me, but maybe I am ignorant about this niche?

I know they do not operate in US (any US IP redirects to homepage), but I am curious if anyone is having any success with this brand and if so, if they would share what GEOs you see it being popular in?

[Malikbhai]

They rank top 3 for the term Bitcoin. Essentially not needing an affiliate program to begin with. If they are looking for people to sell their brand, I don't know what it says about their conversion.

[PROFRBcom]

Affiliates can rank for 100x as many keywords as an operator.

Everyone needs an affiliate program in this business if they seek to maximize profits.

[Triple7]

50-60% click to deposit or registration to deposit? That's a big difference.

I work with them. So far not very impressed.

[Sherlock]

I am not sure if you know owner of bitcoin.com is Roger Ver. Just another idiot who is trying to kidnap the bitcoin "brand". In his case bitcoin is BCH. Yes he was the original useful idiot for Ayre and others and co-caused the first bitcoin split in 2017.

He is most likely multi-billionaire and what he fights for is his ego. He most likely wants to do something from BCH not from BTC, be aware of it always when dealing with bitcoin.com. 60% is a nonsense.

I however thing he will not directly scam anyone, just indirectly. Also originally big friends with Calvin, they are now enemies: https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-vs...ion-to-appeal/ (this is from Ayre/CSW propaganda site, already shilled on GPWA)

here a photo from the good old times when they tried to kidnap bitcoin together:

[Former Member 14]

As long as your not scamming anyone etc., etc., then business is business.

[wonderpunter]

all brands claim 50% conversions.. 25 is good if you rank for top keywords... those high claims would love to see evidence

[Sherlock]

Everybody is scamming anyone else, and those who pretend they do not, are the best at it.

Whole concept of bitcoin.com, where 2 "bitcoins" BTC and BCH are used is very confusing. There are many cases of people who sent their BTC to BCH address or vice versa and lost their coins. The new formats of addresses nowadays exist to prevent this, but the damage was done. Yes, it is a problem of idiots to not understand the difference. As is a problem of Korean idiots to buy BTG (bitcoin gold), because it is gold and it is cheaper than Bitcoin.

I am just trying to point out at bitcoin.com will be issues and different ones than elsewhere. The biggest is the ego of the owner, who was in the past a symbol #1 of Bitcoin and now he is perceived as freak.

I am curious about experience as well.

[PROFRBcom]

I am not sure if you know owner of bitcoin.com is Roger Ver.

I know who he is.

I like Roger Ver from things I watched on him many years ago. I like his approach to life, to his former businesses, to his stances on freedom, etc.

I would like to meet the guy.

Just another idiot who is trying to kidnap the bitcoin "brand". In his case bitcoin is BCH.

I like the approach they took with BCH because it is actually functional as P2P cash right now, where BTC is not. BCH has a use case in commerce.

Realistically speaking, BCH is more true to the Bitcoin White Paper than BTC is. For whatever that is worth.

Both coins have different purposes and I for one am fine with that.

Also originally big friends with Calvin, they are now enemies: hxxps://coingeek.com/craig-wright-vs-roger-ver-csw-granted-permission-to-appeal/ (this is from Ayre/CSW propaganda site, already shilled on GPWA)

Yeah, the BSV split ruined that relationship.

[Sherlock]

Realistically speaking, BCH is more true to the Bitcoin White Paper than BTC is.

This is not an argument. I read it now from 100times, always someone from USA is arguing by Bitcoin whitepaper and next to it is always meantioned P2P Cash (probably because it is without any context mentioned in the header of the whitepaper). I am pretty bored by it, because in fact I think no one read the whitepaper after the headline. The whitepaper is just technical things, nothing else. I really have no idea why people argue by it. Probably because other people argue by it. It is a madness.

Moreover if the utterly stupid argument that something is more bitcoinish the more the code of the coin is closer to the original Bitcoin, there here are the news: BSV would be then much better than BCH and that was exactly the reason for the BCH/BSV split.

I am not going to go further to 100th useless debate here, because it is... useless. Both BCH and BSV clearly became obsolete shitcoins and if there will be need for a decentralised currency (that is a big IF); surely the standard will not be BCH or BSV (and I am saying this as bagholder of both). I do not believe much even to LN, but even LN has higher chances to be used as the p2p cash (both Electrum and Kraken have to implement it this year). After all I even do not care what /whether there will be some p2p cash, because it is not needed at all by now and highest chances for p2pcash now have stablecoins (soon even at your casino).

Looking forward the experience of bitcoin.com affiliate program. The owner will burn a lot of money as with everything he touched since he bought his BTC, so it can be interesting.

[PROFRBcom]

This is not an argument. I read it now from 100times, always someone from USA is arguing by Bitcoin whitepaper and next to it is always meantioned P2P Cash (probably because it is without any context mentioned in the header of the whitepaper). I am pretty bored by it, because in fact I think no one read the whitepaper after the headline. The whitepaper is just technical things, nothing else. I really have no idea why people argue by it. Probably because other people argue by it. It is a madness.

I have read the white paper.

Both BCH and BSV clearly became obsolete shitcoins and if there will be need for a decentralised currency (that is a big IF); surely the standard will not be BCH or BSV (and I am saying this as bagholder of both).

I disagree with you.

BCH functions very well for online purchases currently. Transactions clear in 10 minutes, 20 at most an all for 1/10th of one cent.

BCH is thus extremely functional for purchasing goods and services online and particularly good for depositors to online gambling sites.

The average small money depositor can not afford to pay $8 to send money from an exchange, wait 4 hours+ for a transaction, spend another $8 sending it to the gambling site, and wait yet again for it to clear. By the time the money arrives, less a huge percentage fee for someone spending $100 at a time on deposits, they no longer want to gamble because half a day has gone by in time!

BTC does not function well for online gambling at this point in time in 2021.

BCH does function exceptionally well and is accepted at virtually every gambling website that accepts crypto that we work with/are aware of.

I am not arguing to hold one's fortune in BCH, BSV, or anything at all.

I am stating that Bitcoin Cash is literally 8,000 times cheaper to use than BTC, and hours faster, and the superior coin for spending when compared to Bitcoin.

Your feelings about Roger Ver aside, you know what I say is true for the effective use case of the coins.

[Sherlock]

BTC does not function well for online gambling at this point in time in 2021.

This is true, but it has nothing to do with Bitcoin whitepaper that you quoted as "argument" before. I have no idea why you "argue" with whitepaper. There is nothing about usability, about gambling, about fees etc. It is Roger Ver propaganda.

The average small money depositor can not afford to pay $8 to send money from an exchange

The withdrawal fees FROM exchanges are on average in fact way higher than 8 USD. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The exchanges charge the premium. That has nothing to do with Bitcoin. That is the hype around cryptos now. Exchanges charge premium to any withdrawal. It is crazy, because blockchain transaction is not the same as financial transactions as any whitepaper researcher is well aware of. So the bulk transactions that exchanges do are in fact much cheaper, because in one transaction they can send for one fee coins to tens, hundreds or thousands of people. They still overcharge by orders of magnitude (by shitcoins like BCH as well, although it is less, because no one wants it).

Another issue is sending the coins FROM the wallet. The sending to bookies oscilates during last weeks anywhere between 7 - 100 sat/B, so roughly 1 - 12 USD per transaction. Not ideal, I agree, but still way cheaper than transactions over credit cards to offshore bookies. Because with credit cards, bookies pay up to and sometimes over 10% on banking fees. Those fees are reimbursed to customers, so they do not see those fees, but the fees definitely exist. If fees of BTC go up, the bookies always have an option to "reimburse" the coins either directly, because they see how much was spent on fees, or indirectly through RBF. Right now the bookies choose 3rd way of reimbursing: they give higher bonuses over bitcoin and those bonuses more than make up the fees used to send the bitcoins to bookies.

Because here is the question: when BTC is so bad, who no one is using BCH or BSV or IOTA (0 fees) or whatever else? 4 years ago Roger Ver said bitcoin is dead because of fees. Well Bitcoin is not dead. Bitcoin is actually used even at the gambling sites and even for buying drugs are darkmarkets (and there it is ridiculous really, because fees can be higher than the few trips). I am honestly surprised, because my bet was that this high fee narrative would cause some spike of BCH/BSV. But last months show, that those bitcoin clones are dead and I am just a stupid bagholder.

I wish all big blockers luck, because I really want to sell my bag of BCH/BSV, so I absolutely wish Roger Ver/Becky/CA success in spreading FUD and other nonsense. But deep inside I know that this was not my best bet. The performance of BTC forks is ridiculous.

I am stating that Bitcoin Cash is literally 8,000 times cheaper to use than BTC, and hours faster,

Wrong. Bcash is either 8000 cheaper OR hours faster. In other words the speed of BTC and BCH is the same, because both chains use the same system, where blocks are being mined each 10 minutes on average (so the 20 mins by BCH is on average just 2 confirmations, many times after 20 minutes there is 0 confirmation just like by BTC).

If you pay the incredibly high fee 10 USD or something like that for BTC transaction, the speed on both chains (BTC and BCH) is the same.

LTC is 4x faster for example (block each 2.5mins). ETH is 40x faster (with very high fees) if it is an issue. Other and newer coins and second layers (like LN of BTC) are even faster while fees are low.

-------------------------------

Anyways this is about bitcoin.com affiliate program right? And this is my concern. If it is run by stubborn idiot, who apparently can do nothing else than like broken record repeat the narrative of high fees. If he admits he was wrong then fine. But he clearly believes his own bullshit. For me this is actually worse than what Calvin Ayre is doing, because CA is smart. He knows how to manipulate people, while he (I hope), knows the truth. Roger Ver seems to me as one of those idiots who is manipulating himself. If he is starting the business based on trust based on some random 50-60% conversions, it just supports the idea, that he just went nuts. I will not touch them until someone has some results.

[PROFRBcom]

I don't have the energy to debate it with you right now Sherlock. You are misconstruing my points, harping on meaningless things I said, and missing the point altogether.

We recommend BCH to customers and it works better for them right now than BTC.

The happiness of our customers is paramount.

And yes, this thread is about Bitcoin.com's casino product. I wish someone would chime in with some information!