Will Bitcoin / Crypto-currencies play a larger role in online gambling?

[Jack Cartier]

I read an article stating that the number of bitcoin is finite and that each bitcoin value is ever increasing (according to the site the last bitcoin should be generated in year 2140. It's not like other currencies that can follow inflation and deflation. Maybe operators are waiting to see whether it is a viable system or not.

[universal4]

There is no doubt that bitcoin is trying to be a "currency" and that does in fact put it into competition with what we know today as currency.

This does NOT immediately or blindly place it into any kind of "win-win" scenario, and in fact adds greatly to the risk associated with buying or holding coins.

P.S. Also, allegedly what they do is supposed to be better for players than how Seals with Clubs does it in terms of exchange risk.

And what exactly is "allegedly" supposed to be done that is so much better for players than just getting paid in dollars or any other type of REAL currency that reduces risk?

Now is the time that eWallets need to take action and just make their products better, the world doesn't need a new currency, just a little more secure and less expensive way to exchange the currencies of their repective countries.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

There is no doubt that bitcoin is trying to be a "currency" and that does in fact put it into competition with what we know today as currency.

You're completely ignoring the context. The context here is Bitcoin for a role and as an option in the online gambling industry, not Bitcoin vs. other types of money or currency or to the exclusion of them.

This does NOT immediately or blindly place it into any kind of "win-win" scenario, and in fact adds greatly to the risk associated with buying or holding coins.

My statement about "win-win" was obviously just my opinion, and you clearly have yours; but my opinion on the matter is certainly far from "blindly." We already have years of information and experience regarding adoption and use of Bitcoin, growing all the time. It is already common knowledge and has already been acknowledged there are a number of issues and elements of risk and volatility to consider, but it is also my opinion that the case for Bitcoin is a strong net positive. The recent adoption by both Zynga and the WP Network does not exactly fail to support the same opinion either. Also, as already indicated the WPN, for example, is going about it in a way that reduces or eliminates the actual holding of Bitcoin and the risk associated with that, yet another positive in the sum of positives in favor of embracing it merely as an option and giving it a role.

On top of all that, while I can't speak for others, I would certainly suggest that the very nature of what we are all involved with should perhaps lead us to look at the type of risk involved in a more favorable light than if we were just talking about this as people outside the industry with no commercial agenda. We are all inherently risk-takers by the very nature of the business we are in. Risk itself is not bad - it can go both ways. There is also "risk" that by merely including Bitcoin as an option, those who choose it will do much better than if it had not been available. That is certainly exactly what happened with some online poker players who found themselves sitting on Bitcoin winnings that turned them into "overnight" millionaires in real dollars. I like the idea of having this type of risk simply as an option one can choose in addition to the other options, not to the exclusion of them. I would also suggest others who think about that may find themselves liking the idea too. Look how quickly Bitcoin recovered from a ~50% drop by the way; but even if it had not, many who had already bought in just a short time before in the big picture were still doing great - with the ~50% drop. Earlier I have posted about my own experience - and it too was all about "risk." Only I was unwilling to consider any risk with Bitcoin, so consequently I missed out on what might have been investing very modest sums relatively speaking, which in virtually no time at all would have mushroomed into profits in the $millions for pennies on the dollar, and still be in the $millions even after the recent ~50% plunge. So let the "risk" simply be made available to those who are happy to participate in it to some degree, especially if it's done in a way that can minimize any of the negative risk.

And what exactly is "allegedly" supposed to be done that is so much better for players than just getting paid in dollars or any other type of REAL currency that reduces risk?

Didn't you read my summary a little earlier in response #58 to TheGooner? Some of that is covered there. In my humble opinion, even just providing another way like that for players to make deposits who might otherwise have problems doing so is a huge advantage and "win-win" to begin with.

So, the bottom line is again both/and - not either/or. Embrace the win-win advantages. Zynga is now doing it, Winning Poker Network too. Who next? Include Bitcoin simply as an option among all the others for those who desire it; let the players and affiliates decide what to do with it - those who are inherently risk takers to begin with by the very nature of both the activity they come to you for as the former, and the business they are in as the latter. Moreover, let the operators and affiliate programs themselves also potentially benefit from the upward "risk" as well. And be sure to check out the free training video series posted in my signature link if you haven't yet by the way. On top of all that, take advantage of the possibly many new customers that might otherwise not even be able to become RMG customers at all to begin with without an inexpensive and efficient option like Bitcoin.

(A little later...)

P.S. But wait - there's more! As if all of the above was not a mouthful supporting the case for "Bitcoin-plus," here's another juicy one to consider. My name here might be "John US Traffic," but my traffic is hardly all US traffic by any means, and I certainly don't only have accounts with US-friendly programs. However, I completely stopped promoting all the casinos for one of the best known affiliate programs here with also an extremely well known active member of the GPWA forum. And why did I finally do that? Because the payment options for US affiliates are completely and absolutely abysmal, worse than a desert carcass baking all day long in the sun. But if they were only to at least offer Bitcoin as an option since they are apparently unwilling to offer all the more traditional and normally desirable options for US affiliates, I would gladly still be promoting the program's casinos. So they've missed out and are missing out on the traffic and potential profits, I've missed out on the potential earnings, and it's "lose-lose" when it could so much more likely be "win-win."

[geniebet]

A couple of fatal flaws with the system? I'm not so sure. Still getting my head around how to use the wallet, but read an article recently on business insider that seemed somewhat concerning. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/bi...reshold-2014-1

[universal4]

Good article geniebet, I had no idea that potential problem existed.

This means almost any governement or really huge investor could possibly build a supercomputer (or maybe even group that controlled a bot network) could possibly jump in quick and seize control fairly quickly.

Interesting theory.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

Good article geniebet, I had no idea that potential problem existed.

This means almost any governement or really huge investor could possibly build a supercomputer (or maybe even group that controlled a bot network) could possibly jump in quick and seize control fairly quickly.

Interesting theory.

Rick
Universal4

Not seeing any public post or article link from geniebet about that here in the GPWA forum, so unless he's a private member and did that in the private section it's not showing up here: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/search.php?searchid=1778355. Or perhaps it was just sent privately while being alluded to publicly...

In any event, the smoke of this type of doomsday warning has already been blowing for years now, and is older news than yesterday's coffee. As one "Hero Member" of Bitcoin Forum at bitcointalk.org put it:

Old and overblown news. Here's the more detailed tech thread on it, which notes, among other things, hat the basic idea of this attack has been discussed for 3 years now.

Other posters over there were not quite as delicate in their assessment, however...

Here's a useful thread on it from November, which also refers to the one mentioned in the quote in post #2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325225.0

[universal4]

Nothing was being alluded to privately, and it was my mistake that I apologize for that it was a moderated post and since I am a mod I saw the link and mistakenly did not catch that is was a moderated post (which I have since approved).

And as far as the smoke of doomsday, that is NOT being done and the majority of the "smoke and mirrors" are those with hidden agendas that run around all over the internet trying to say how great bitcoin is and to ignore the risk in hopes the value continues to climb so they can cash out. They keep touting how using bitcoin keeps the government from knowing what transactions are being done by whom, and using them allows the users to hide income and assets (this is the exact reason why all governements are concerned).

It is no secret there is a great deal of risk associated with bitcoin, and those that choose to completely ignore the risks "could" lose everything they have if they are not careful.

Bitcoin "may" survive all of this and they may not, but ignoring the risks is NOT a wise decision.

Some countries have already made strong moves toward total bans and the US Governement (as well as other governments) has and is taking very close looks at Bitcoin and all other virtual currencies.

Will they take steps to stop and or crush the industry, will they embrace it, or will they take steps and pass specific laws and banking rules to limit and regulate it? Only time will tell

Passing strict laws and rules to regulate and tax the industry, and well as removing mucjh of the anonnimity may very well spell the end or Bitcoin, or at least damage the value.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

Well, one of the big positives in the net positive for Bitcoin is that the US gov has already expressed a favorable disposition toward it and virtual currency in general. That was one of the exciting recent developments: https://www.google.com/#q=US+government+likes+Bitcoin

There's not really much or any room left for people to try to engage in a "pump and dump" scheme similar to what occurs with penny stocks. The people that were holding Bitcoin are already rich because of how much it has appreciated, assuming they cashed out or may cash out soon to some degree. While there will always be bad apples out there, it's really not about ignoring any types of risks or issues of concern there are, but just about assessing and living with them in a sober and informed way. And the big name players who keep embracing Bitcoin are certainly associated with smart people. Did I mention Richard Branson yet, btw? He's certainly one of them too: https://www.google.com/#q=Richard+Branson+likes+Bitcoin

As for me personally, my agenda is exactly what I've been posting here. I missed out on making big and small fortunes with Bitcoin because I was unwilling to risk even a modest amount originally. But I would like to be able to receive payments in Bitcoin and have it in place as an option for players to be able to make deposits who might otherwise not be able to, hence also the possibility of new earnings that might otherwise not have been possible, as well as new profits for the operators and programs. And I'm happy to engage in a certain degree of risk taking associated with volatility, because as I indicated already that risk can go up as well as down. The $1,000 you may earn in Bitcoin today may be worth $10,000 six months or a year from now if you still have it. In my view it's a much bigger risk to ignore Bitcoin now instead of including it, and one can always drop it later if it ever goes sour.

(A little later...)

P.S. I was just switching over to something besides online gambling and Bitcoin, and this popped up in it nonetheless:

Patrick M. Byrne @OverstockCEO Follow #Bitcoin's first full day on @overstock.com was a huge success: 840 orders, $130,000 in sales. Almost all new customers. #stunned

4:25 PM - 10 Jan 2014

That's the CEO's tweet. Anyone ever heard of Overstock?

[universal4]

The $1000 you earn today in bicoin could be worth zero tomorrow also.

The US Government (or almost any other governement) will only ever completely accept bitcoin or any other form of currency if the anonimity can be removed and all accepted forms of financial transactions currently in place are followed by the "exchangers" (which in my opinion are acting as banks).

It will truly only become more safe for the public when the governement starts backing the "exchangers" (bitcoin banks) like they do the standard financial instituions today.

Sure there are a handful of senators and representatives currently getting behind bitcoin now. I wonder how many of them have disclosed that they currently have some investment in them, or are being paid by lobbyists that do.

And you can just as easily search for
https://www.google.com/#q=US+government+hates+Bitcoin
and read just as many colorful articles and predictions.

This is one I thought was interesting.
http://www.outsiderclub.com/these-go...te-bitcoin/650

but for now it appears U.S. regulators have adopted a wait-and-see approach.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

Looks like the "likes Bitcoin" search is beating the "hates Bicoin" search in content if you ask me. I know the $1000 in Bitcoin can also go to $0, but I want the option of taking that risk. Personally, I also don't even care one bit about the anonymity. Bitcoin is already very safe in terms of security, just not as safe as an FDIC insured bank account, or whatever the equivalent is in one's own country. It also has a few risks that apply to it but not to a currency bank account, and there is no such thing as eliminating all risk with either. I saw a TV news report recently of a man who accidentally threw away a hard drive containing ~$7,000,000 in Bitcoin, and it's gone - poof! If he had only backed it up, he'd be fine. The issue is how much risk and how reasonable it is. Also, no one is obligated to hold Bitcoin; let them hold or liquidate as they please. The issue there is merely taking advantage of and including something as an option while one can. At the barest minimum it can be used as an excellent method of receiving deposits and disbursing payments, and nobody has to keep their Bitcoin much longer than that if they don't want to.

[John US Traffic]

Okay, looks like I'll just have to revise for the better my acknowledgment of the level of risk associated with not having any type of government sponsored insurance on one's Bitcoin holdings:

"World's first bitcoin storage vault opens in London"

"Elliptic Vault claims to be the world’s first insured Bitcoin storage service, with Lloyds of London underwriting any loss or theft for a fee of around two per cent each year."

Two percent may seem undesirable now, but this is only just a start. If this continues as a trend, fees can become competitive. Moreover, if you choose the option of holding your Bitcoin, then perhaps it goes up so much in value that the fee here becomes negligible - but at least you have the option to try that for a while. This is not perfection and this does not have to be perfection: this is what is known as a good start.

Anyone ever heard of Lloyds of London, btw?

[universal4]

Quicktender also wanted everyone to think their money was safe also, but in the end many millions were lost.

They were also trying to break into markets other than gaming.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

Many people here probably know more than me about all that happened with QT, but I understand there were some seizures and perhaps not everyone was able to recover their funds. I did not have a QT account. A lot has changed since then, however, not the least of which includes the great acknowledgment that while not only did the UIGEA not make online gambling illegal, neither did the Wire Act.

Don't you think they know about a Bitcoin based poker business like Seals With Clubs? Why hasn't it been shut down already? Their main public figure is even a somewhat famous American poker pro who has also been active at the Bitcoin Forum. Does anyone think for one moment they have not also known about the US-friendly sites and programs all along until now? What is it that the US-friendly programs and sites are not afraid of while some other non US-friendly programs are not even willing to provide US affiliates with a decent payment option?

And does anyone think for one moment they do not know that we have been in violation of international treaty all this time pursuant to the WTO Antigua affair? The significance of it is very great in my opinion. I highly recommend this site for any not familiar with it: "The Antigua- US WTO Dispute over Internet Gambling" - http:// www. antiguawto.com/WTODispPg.html. While you're at it, I also highly recommend reading this article by I. Nelson Rose if anyone hasn't yet: "Congress Makes Sausages" - http:// www. gamblingandthelaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209:c ongress-makes-sausages&catid=5:columns&Itemid=9

The nature of Bitcoin is that it can't exactly be "seized" to begin with the way things were with QT, or at least it's more or less close to impossible. If anyone hasn't become familiar with that aspect of it then I strongly recommend going through at least some of the free videos referred to in the video training post I made here and included in my signature. That's one of the things people like about it. It also does not make direct use of the banking system, or direct use of what is normally known as "currency." It is "virtual" currency, as in "virtually" currency. Sure, there was already some trouble imposed on some of the exchanges, Mt. Gox being the most famous, but certainly not to the point of any complete meltdown.

I doubt you could find enough people to fill a room who were not already in the know about this industry who have ever even heard of QT in the US, but Bitcoin is something almost everyone in the world is aware of now for all intents and purposes, and has a great deal of popular support growing all the time, and growing mainstream acceptance.

[universal4]

Bitcoin is not an ewallet system, it is trying to establish itself as an actual currency that replaces what we all know as "MONEY".

As such there needs to be regulation and government backing.

Bitcoin exchanges do everything a bank does, but they keep telling regulators and governements they are not banks.

Many many people use and like bitcoin because they can exchanges these "funds" without any government or tax agency in the world see or track the transaction, and then later exchange the bitcoins for real money, again without any government or tax agency seeing or tracking the transaction.

This is why some governments and tax agencies are concerned and want to see changes. Finding articles that state the US Government is taking a wait and see approach does NOT change the fact the government wants regulation and wants all exchanges to register with FINCEN and wants to see them all treated as banks.

If that takes place completely, and if the various governments start insuring those bitcoins as funds, much of that anonimity will disappear, and my guess exchange costs will increase.

If bitcoin can survive all of that, along with the loss of those who only use it because of the "secrecy", then maybe it could become what is known as money.

Rick
Universal4

[John US Traffic]

I don't know why you are apparently so unfavorably disposed to be honest. It doesn't have to replace what we know as money, nor do I believe that is anyone's goal except perhaps among a few "radicals" if at all. It's merely now an additional option that can coexist with what we normally know as money. I doubt the ones who have made fortunes in it are glad about having loads of Bitcoin to spend in the hope that its growing acceptance continues to expand so they can spend Bitcoin alone, but rather I suspect they are glad that it is now worth what it's worth in exactly what we normally do know as money, especially as they cash in to buy new cars or homes, or invest, etc.

Every concern raised about it here is already known and valid to one degree or another, some less and some more. Plenty of people in the world like it now, that is increasing, and basically what I'm saying is just make it an option and take advantage of it now lawfully and indefinitely while one can, which may even be a nice long while.

P.S. My additional advice is - forget about all the "secrecy" and "anonymity" stuff. As far as I'm concerned, that's at best just a dream. I'm not talking about using Bitcoin for anything shady or anything like that. I'm saying just operate under the assumption that every single thing you say and do is already subject to being completely exposed, monitored or recorded, that every piece of hardware, every piece of software, and every electronic or digital medium you ever use is open and subject to such things. With that in mind, I'm just talking about adding Bitcoin as an option for depositing and payments, nothing more, period. If you win or earn any money or Bitcoin, I'm talking about doing all the right things after that as well, period. Get the picture? I've said as much before in another subforum and a different thread. The only real option is to do it right imo.

[universal4]

I am being completely honest, and why just because I post an oposing view you would accuse me of being less than honest.

And as far as forgetting the anonimity, part of bitcoins existience and growth centered on that.

Part of it also came from the ability to mine for it.

Part of the existience of the GPWA is that it gives people from around the world to present opposing views about things and do so without being ridiculed or accused of being less than honest for presenting an opposing view.

The opposing views raised here do not automatically show bitcoin in a good light, maybe they do to you and you are entitled to that opinion, but not everyone agrees with that opinion.

Rick
Universal4

[Jack Cartier]

The problem is not even the currency itself it is the user based which is too small for a global adoption. But bitcoin casino already exists and some are successful such as SatoshiDice, "which has reported earnings of ฿33,310 by 2012 with 78% monthly growth rate on bets. Today SatoshiDice is worth US$ 8.9 million in the stock market. "

[Jack Cartier]

And to (partially) answer to the original question:Will bitcoin play a larger role in online gambling?
A prerequisite is that the number of user increase beyond a threshold. It is because the crypto currency is not widely used amongst gamblers that online casino can't globally adopt bitcoin. [source]

[John US Traffic]

I am being completely honest, and why just because I post an oposing view you would accuse me of being less than honest.

And as far as forgetting the anonimity, part of bitcoins existience and growth centered on that.

Part of it also came from the ability to mine for it.

Part of the existience of the GPWA is that it gives people from around the world to present opposing views about things and do so without being ridiculed or accused of being less than honest for presenting an opposing view.

The opposing views raised here do not automatically show bitcoin in a good light, maybe they do to you and you are entitled to that opinion, but not everyone agrees with that opinion.

Rick
Universal4

Don't you think you've jumped the gun here, Rick? You are a network administrator according to your profile as well as a resident of Florida according to your whois data, and you are not familiar with the normal use of the phrase "to be honest" as being nothing of the sort against you, but rather a statement about oneself, and a very common phrase often used in the course of ordinary communication - even if, for example, there doesn't happen to be some immediately present pausing device like a "," for instance preceding the phrase in print? Is there really anything in the context of the rest of the post that would even support an honest claim of understanding that someone was doing anything of the sort against you? No thought of even asking first perhaps, maybe even considering a "benefit of the doubt" approach given how common the phrase "to be honest" is in this society? Rick, I honestly do hope that you honestly understood me to be doing anything of the sort toward you, however, which I must admit I'm having a very hard time believing, and that this is not instead just a cheap shot dishonest attempt to make me look bad here in the forum. So be assured, I never doubted you were being completely honest in your perplexing degree of opposition to Bitcoin...to be honest.

And I still sure don't know why you are apparently so unfavorably disposed, to be honest.

Now that I've looked at your profile, I'm also doubly surprised you would be so against Bitcoin as a network administrator, given what I have posted of the free training videos produced by one of the most respected CBT companies on the Web and the strong support of Bitcoin by your "peers" in the IT field. In fact, I'd be very surprised if you were not already familiar with that company and its high reputation yourself before I posted it...to be honest.

For the rest of anyone reading this thread - yes indeed, please know that I never did anything of the sort toward Rick here, but was only expressing my surprise at how much he is apparently so against this thing which so many others in the world have supported and embraced. Honest.

[DanHorvat]

then maybe it could become what is known as money.

It couldn't because it's inherently flawed in that aspect, it's deflationary and operates at the same principle as gold (limited supply). The number of bitcoins is finite.

But until the ceiling is reached, people will be under the illusion that Bitcoin wants to be a currency.

The price varies too much and probably always will. As opposed to trusting euro will have pretty much the same value every day, you can't do so with gold or with bitcoins. They're assets, not currencies. Bitcoin has an intentional price variation and doesn't target the stability of euro or dollar.