Free Binary Options Demo Accounts Without Deposit 2020
Online trading platform for binary options on forex, stock ...
Binary Options Demo Account - CloseOption
Trading Binary Options In MetaTrader 4 (MT4) Binary Today
Binary options trial account - eyesthetica.com
Binary Options Demo Account 💡 Get Free Binary Trading Demo
Binary Options Managed Account - 2020's Best Manager Services
Free Binary Options Demo Accounts: Don't Risk your Money
RESULTS of the State of the Game Survey: September 2020
Hi all, It’s time for the results! Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond - we had over 1,750 responses, which is great! These insights wouldn’t be possible without your time and support. As always, neither myself nor this survey are associated with Intelligent Systems or Nintendo in any way. Please direct feedback about the game itself to the official channels. Now let’s get into it!
PreviousSurveyResults: April_2020_State_of_the_Game_Survey ~ Demographics ~ 53.8% began playing FE:H in February 2017, with 20.0% more joining during the first year of the game. 12.0% of respondents joined during the second year, 8.7% joined during the third, and 4.0% joined during the fourth year (the last ~7 months). The age range breakdown of respondents is as follows:
(2.6%) 12 – 15 years old
(15.0 %) 16 – 18 years old
(23.4 %) 19 – 21 years old
(21.8 %) 22 – 24 years old
(25.8 %) 25 – 30 years old
(8.2 %) 31 – 40 years old
(1.0 %) 40+ years old
75.8% of respondents identified as Male, 18.4% as Female, and 3.0% as Non-binary. 24.6% of respondents have never missed a daily login, while a further 38.8% have missed less than a month’s worth of logins, 11.7% missed 1-2 months, 9.9% missed 3-6 months, 5.8% missed 7-12 months, and 4.7% missed over a year’s worth. 33.5% report being F2P, while 28.7% have spent less than $100, 18.3% spent between $100 - $499, 7.3% spent between $500 - $999, and 8.7% have spent over $1000. 46.6% last spent money on FE:H during the fourth year of the game (the last 3 months), while 6.6% last spent money during the third year of the game, 5.8% last spent during the second year of the game, and 5.1% last spent money during the first year of the game. ~ Summoning ~ “Which of the following banners have you used orbs on at least once?”
~ Summoning Mechanics ~ 33.7% spent orbs on the Hero Fest banner AFTER Intelligent Systems announced how they would be compensating players for the Hero Fest banner glitch, compared to 61.7% who did not. 30.5% say that knowing about the compensation for the Hero Fest banner glitch caused them to spend more orbs on the banner than they would have otherwise, compared to 41.5% who say it did not. 28.0% did not spend orbs on the Hero Fest banner. 34.3% feel positively or very positively about the quality of 4* focuses on regular banners, compared to 26.9% who feel negatively or very negatively. 69.7% feel positively or very positively about the quality of 4* focuses on seasonal banners, compared to 7.8% who feel negatively or very negatively. 53.8% report that the system guaranteeing a free 5* after 40 summons generally makes them summon more, while 5.4% report that it generally makes them summon less and 36.1% report no change in their summoning habits on New Heroes banners. “If all New Heroes Banners used the permanent 40-summons-for-a-guaranteed-5* system that CYL4 used, how would your orb-spending habits on New Heroes banners change?”
(1.8%) I would spend fewer orbs than I did before
(22.3%) I would spend the same amount of orbs I usually do
(10.3%) I would spend more orbs than I did before
(62.2%) My spending would depend more on the Heroes offered
~ Choose Your Legends IV ~ “Which CYL4 Brave Heroes have you summoned, whether from the guaranteed choice banner or the regular banner?”
Of the summoning milestones on the CYL4 banner:
(20.2%) did not reach any of these summoning milestones
(79.7%) reached 40 summons
(41.0%) reached 80 summons
(19.8%) reached 120 summons
(11.1%) reached 160 summons
45.7% say that the free 5* hero at 40, 80, 120 and 160 summons caused them to spend more on CYL4 than they would have otherwise, while 50.3% say it did not. 22.8% say that the potential use of a new Brave Hero in future F2P Guides for content such as Hero Battles influenced their Brave Heroes summons, compared to 74.0% who say it did not. “If you could only get ONE of the new Brave Heroes, which one would you choose?”
“Which Brave Hero do you believe is the overall strongest?”
“Which Brave Hero do you believe is the overall weakest?”
“Which Brave Hero do you believe has the best art?”
“Which set of Brave Heroes is your favorite overall?”
23.6% feel positively or very positively about the addition of Jorge as the CYL4 GHB hero, compared to 33.0% who feel negatively or very negatively. 86.3% believe CYL5 should add further protections against vote botting, compared to 4.4% who do not. 70.1% believe CYL5 should require Nintendo Account sign-in to vote, compared to 12.6% who do not. ~ Feh Pass and Resplendent Heroes ~ 41.2% feel negatively about the addition of the Feh Pass (down 15.8% from the last survey), compared to 11.6% who feel positively (up 1.5% from the last survey). 46.1% are neutral (up 14.3% from the last survey). 40.2% have purchased the Feh Pass, compared to 59.8% who have not. This is a 9.5% increase compared to the last survey, following a 6.7% increase before that. Of those who have subscribed to Feh Pass, 17.4% have purchased Resplendent Heroes separately (up 12.9% from the last survey), compared to 82.6% who have not. “Which Resplendent Hero has your favorite art?”
“Which Resplendent outfit theme is your favorite?”
~ Miscellaneous ~ 15.8% feel positively about the introduction of Harmonized Heroes, compared to 31.3% who feel negatively. 29.5% have a Harmonized Hero, compared to 70.1% who do not. 14.6% feel positively or very positively about the Resonant Battles game mode, compared to 51.5% who feel negatively or very negatively. 4.6% say that the Resonant Battles game mode influenced them to pull for Harmonized Heroes, compared to 94.5% who say it has not. 34.8% believe the new Arena maps are better than the maps they replaced, while 7.4% believe they are worse, and 36.7% believe they are about the same. “How often do you use Auto Dispatch in Aether Raids?”
(34.3%) All of them, always
(0.2%) All of them, in Light Season
(3.6%) All of them, in Astra season
(24.3%) Only sometimes
(37.6%) I never use it
“IV Mango” is the preferred term for Trait Fruit according to 32.2% of respondents, followed by “IVcado” at 28.9%, “Fruit” at 7.6%, and “Dragonfruit” at 6.6%. The remaining 24.7% prefer to just call them Trait Fruit. 39.3% say they will use their first Trait Fruits on a Heroic Grails unit, while 32.9% say they will use them on a Summonable unit, and 1.3% say they will use them on an Askr unit. 58.7% prefer Stat Boosts for Legendary Heroes, compared to 26.3% who prefer Pair-Up. 56.5% generally prefer Regular Duo Heroes, compared to 8.8% who prefer Harmonized Duo Heroes. 1.8% say that the update that raised the minimum hardware/software required to play the game affected their ability to play FE:H, compared to 95.8% who say it did not. ~ Recurring Miscellaneous ~ “Which game do you want a New Heroes banner from the most?”
(26.0%) Three Houses (-1.9%)
(9.7%) Radiant Dawn (+0.5%)
(7.7%) Sacred Stones (+0.2%)
(7.5%) Awakening (-3.1%)
(6.4%) Genealogy of the Holy War (-1.3%)
(6.1%) Path of Radiance (-0.9%)
(6.0%) Gaiden / Shadows of Valentia (+2.7%)
(5.9%) TMS #FE (+1.9%)
(5.4%) Blazing Blade (+1.3%)
(5.0%) Fates (+1.0%)
(4.2%) Thracia 776 (+0.8%)
(2.4%) Binding Blade (+0.6%)
(0.8%) Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light / Shadow Dragon (-1.0%)
(0.8%) Mystery of the Emblem / New Mystery of the Emblem (-1.1%)
“How much do you care about your rank in the following modes?”
(2.90/5.00 average) Arena
(2.82/5.00 average) Aether Raids
(2.48/5.00 average) PvE game modes with player ranking boards
(1.82/5.00 average) Arena Assault
“How have recent changes to FE:H changed your opinion on the game as a whole?”
(39.3%) My opinion was positive and has stayed positive
(5.7%) My opinion used to be negative, but has turned positive
(9.9%) My opinion used to be positive, but has turned negative
(5.1%) My opinion was negative and has stayed negative
~ Intelligent Systems Approval Ratings ~ The approval ratings are calculated by the proportion of Approve responses compared to the number of both Approve and Disapprove responses. Percent who approve of the way Intelligent Systems is handling:
74.6% - The addition of new heroes / characters to the game (+11.9)
69.4% - The gacha mechanics and summoning banners (+5.5)
59.2% - The story/plot (+9.4)
85.2% - Unranked PvE game modes (Hero Battles, Forging Bonds, Tactics Drills, Lost Lore, Hall of Forms) (-1.2)
50.7% - Ranked PvE game modes (Voting Gauntlets, Tempest Trials, Grand Conquest, Allegiance Battles, Rokkr Sieges, Mjolnir's Strike) (-2.6)
34.6% - Arena (-6.2)
48.0% - Arena Assault (+6.7)
45.8% - Aether Raids (+12.7)
40.5% believe Intelligent Systems cares about its Free to Play userbase (up 10.1% from the last survey), while 34.7% do not. This continues the upward trend from the previous survey, bringing us to 8.8% down from where we were before the February drop). 42.9% approve of the way Intelligent Systems is handling Fire Emblem: Heroes as a whole (up 14.8% from the last survey), while 16.9% disapprove. This continues the upward trend from the previous survey, bringing us to only 2.5% down from where we were before the February drop).
A NOTE ABOUT METHODOLOGY: The overall approval ratings question above has traditionally been the exact percent of Approve responses, as a proportion with both Neutral and Disapprove responses. Note that this is different than the way approval is calculated for individual modes (the proportion of Approve responses compared to the number of both Approve and Disapprove responses), where Neutral responses are excluded. The difference in calculation has continued this way in order to maintain comparability with previous survey results. For comparisons sake, the overall approval rating trend going by raw Approval percentage over the last 4 surveys is: 50.6% (Dec) -> 22.9% (Feb) -> 28.1% (Apr) -> 42.9% (Sept) Whereas the overall approval rating trend going by proportion of Approve/Disapprove with the Neutrals excluded over the last 4 surveys is: 82.2% (Dec) -> 41.0% (Feb) -> 51.3% (Apr) -> 71.7% (Sept).
~ Bonus Questions ~ “Who is your Favorite Hero added since the last survey?”
Dimitri (Brave) is the winner, followed by Edelgard (Brave), then Claude (Brave).
“What would be the best Harmonized Hero (a pair of two heroes from different games) and why?”: Rather than selecting a subset of responses this time, the link below is to a google sheet of almost all unique responses. I cleaned it up a little bit to remove “idk” type answers, duplicates, and partial string duplicates, so don’t worry if you don’t see your exact response in it. [Full Responses]. ~ Feedback ~ As always, I received lots of great feedback, both in your survey responses and in the thread itself. A heartfelt thank you to all participants for your encouragements and criticisms - these surveys wouldn’t be where they are without your feedback. But it’s not all serious; feedback messages also included:
“There once was a CYL4 banner / That hit my orbs hard like a hammer / The very next day / FloomMom Duo came our way / Now I'm stuck bartering with a loan planner”
“bonk, go to survey jail”
“Am I also allowed to put in "Norne and Azura" for a Harmonized Hero pair? No reason.”
“Brace yourself. Winter (armours) are coming!” “Brave Hector's refine has made me so very happy with it's inclusion. Go shove your bow up your butt Legendary Chrom.”
“Give me villager alts or give me death”
“I expect the next survey to come with +12 to attack, null follow up, and special cooldown reduction.”
“The true best Harmonized Hero would be Azura and Roy since it would make me uninstall the game and never want to play a gacha ever again”
“My headcanon for the dream storyline is that the evil fairies have the Summoner off picking up pebbles that look like orbs. Fredrickson would be proud.”
“Where's the most wanted unit to add to the game question so I can shout my want for Seteth into the void?”
“I no longer dab, for Legendary Seliph has finally appeared.”
And greetings from Argentina, the Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, the UK, Vietnam, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Toronto, and St. Louis, as well as from many fictional locations!
And some personal/meta comments:
“Any chance we end up seeing another Super Serious Survey in the not-so-distant future?” -> I could not believe it’s been over a year since the last one! We’ll have to do one soon!
“Feels like the end of an era, not having to count all my five stars” -> I know, right? I may have it return in a side survey for the most hardcore of respondents at some point, since some people are asking about it and it would be good to get data on it every once in a while.
“I was looking through your Nornes skills and saw you haven't given her live for bounty yet! It's the best skill for her, what are you doing!?” -> I am a fraud :( I have given her Live for Honor though :P
“What do you hope for in FEH?” -> Norne alt, Resplendent Jaffar, and Shamir
Multiple people mentioned that they had returned after a long break and were surprised to see Norne instead of Azura! Welcome back!
I also missed a bunch of other possible Trait Fruit nicknames, which I knew would inevitably happen. Sorry!
Note: Please don’t ask me to feature your feedback comment; it’s the only guaranteed way to not have your comment added! Finally, the suggestion to have separate options for serious vs non-serious feedback was a good idea, I’ll try that out on the next survey! ~ Closing Remarks ~ If you missed out on responding to this survey when it was available, consider subscribing to FEHSurveys. This subreddit serves as a place to organize FE:H-related surveys, make new releases more visible, and make it easier for users to see when surveys are active. Thanks again to everyone who participated! I hope you find the results interesting, and if there’s anything else you think can be discovered from the data, let me know and I’ll do my best to oblige!
Forex Signals Reddit: top providers review (part 1)
Forex Signals - TOP Best Services. Checked!
To invest in the financial markets, we must acquire good tools that help us carry out our operations in the best possible way. In this sense, we always talk about the importance of brokers, however, signal systems must also be taken into account. The platforms that offer signals to invest in forex provide us with alerts that will help us in a significant way to be able to carry out successful operations. For this reason, we are going to tell you about the importance of these alerts in relation to the trading we carry out, because, without a doubt, this type of system will provide us with very good information to invest at the right time and in the best assets in the different markets. financial Within this context, we will focus on Forex signals, since it is the most important market in the world, since in it, multiple transactions are carried out on a daily basis, hence the importance of having an alert system that offers us all the necessary data to invest in currencies. Also, as we all already know, cryptocurrencies have become a very popular alternative to investing in traditional currencies. Therefore, some trading services/tools have emerged that help us to carry out successful operations in this particular market. In the following points, we will detail everything you need to know to start operating in the financial markets using trading signals: what are signals, how do they work, because they are a very powerful help, etc. Let's go there!
What are Forex Trading Signals?
https://preview.redd.it/vjdnt1qrpny51.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc541fc996701e5b4dd940abed610b59456a5625 Before explaining the importance of Forex signals, let's start by making a small note so that we know what exactly these alerts are. Thus, we will know that the signals on the currency market are received by traders to know all the information that concerns Forex, both for assets and for the market itself. These alerts allow us to know the movements that occur in the Forex market and the changes that occur in the different currency pairs. But the great advantage that this type of system gives us is that they provide us with the necessary information, to know when is the right time to carry out our investments.
In other words, through these signals, we will know the opportunities that are presented in the market and we will be able to carry out operations that can become quite profitable.
Profitability is precisely another of the fundamental aspects that must be taken into account when we talk about Forex signals since the vast majority of these alerts offer fairly reliable data on assets. Similarly, these signals can also provide us with recommendations or advice to make our operations more successful.
»Purpose: predict movements to carry out Profitable Operations
In short, Forex signal systems aim to predict the behavior that the different assets that are in the market will present and this is achieved thanks to new technologies, the creation of specialized software, and of course, the work of financial experts. In addition, it must also be borne in mind that the reliability of these alerts largely lies in the fact that they are prepared by financial professionals. So they turn out to be a perfect tool so that our investments can bring us a greater number of benefits.
The best signal services today
We are going to tell you about the 3 main alert system services that we currently have on the market. There are many more, but I can assure these are not scams and are reliable. Of course, not 100% of trades will be a winner, so please make sure you apply proper money management and risk management system.
1. 1000pipbuilder (top choice)
Fast track your success and follow the high-performance Forex signals from 1000pip Builder. These Forex signals are rated 5 stars on Investing.com, so you can follow every signal with confidence. All signals are sent by a professional trader with over 10 years investment experience. This is a unique opportunity to see with your own eyes how a professional Forex trader trades the markets. The 1000pip Builder Membership is ordinarily a signal service for Forex trading. You will get all the facts you need to successfully comply with the trading signals, set your stop loss and take earnings as well as additional techniques and techniques! You will get easy to use trading indicators for Forex Trades, including your entry, stop loss and take profit. Overall, the earnings target per months is 350 Pips, depending on your funding this can be a high profit per month! (In fact, there is by no means a guarantee, but the past months had been all between 600 – 1000 Pips). >>>Know more about 1000pipbuilder Your 1000pip builder membership gives you all in hand you want to start trading Forex with success. Read the directions and wait for the first signals. You can trade them inside your demo account first, so you can take a look at the performance before you make investments real money! Features:
Forex signals sent by email and SMS
Entry price, take profit and stop loss provided
Suitable for all time zones (signals sent over 24 hours)
Digital Derivatives Markets (DDMarkets) have been providing trade alert offerings since May 2014 - fully documenting their change ideas in an open and transparent manner. September 2020 performance report for DD Markets. Their manner is simple: carry out extensive research, share their evaluation and then deliver a trading sign when triggered. Once issued, daily updates on the trade are despatched to members via email. It's essential to note that DDMarkets do not tolerate floating in an open drawdown in an effort to earnings at any cost - a common method used by less professional providers to 'fudge' performance statistics. Verified Statistics: Not independently verified. Price: plans from $74.40 per month. Year Founded: 2014 Suitable for Beginners: Yes, (includes handy to follow trade analysis) VISIT -------
If you are looking or a forex signal service with a reliable (and profitable) music record you can't go previous Joel Kruger and the team at JKonFX. Trading performance file for JKonFX. Joel has delivered a reputable +59.18% journal performance for 2016, imparting real-time technical and fundamental insights, in an extremely obvious manner, to their 30,000+ subscriber base. Considered a low-frequency trader, alerts are only a small phase of the overall JKonFX subscription. If you're searching for hundreds of signals, you may want to consider other options. Verified Statistics: Not independently verified. Price: plans from $30 per month. Year Founded: 2014 Suitable for Beginners: Yes, (includes convenient to follow videos updates). VISIT
The importance of signals to invest in Forex
Once we have known what Forex signals are, we must comment on the importance of these alerts in relation to our operations. As we have already told you in the previous paragraph, having a system of signals to be able to invest is quite advantageous, since, through these alerts, we will obtain quality information so that our operations end up being a true success.
»Use of signals for beginners and experts
In this sense, we have to say that one of the main advantages of Forex signals is that they can be used by both beginners and trading professionals. As many as others can benefit from using a trading signal system because the more information and resources we have in our hands. The greater probability of success we will have. Let's see how beginners and experts can take advantage of alerts:
Beginners: for inexperienced these alerts become even more important since they will thus have an additional tool that will guide them to carry out all operations in the Forex market.
Professionals: In the same way, professionals are also recommended to make use of these alerts, so they have adequate information to continue bringing their investments to fruition.
Now that we know that both beginners and experts can use forex signals to invest, let's see what other advantages they have.
When we dedicate ourselves to working in the financial world, none of us can spend 24 hours in front of the computer waiting to perform the perfect operation, it is impossible. That is why Forex signals are important, because, in order to carry out our investments, all we will have to do is wait for those signals to arrive, be attentive to all the alerts we receive, and thus, operate at the right time according to the opportunities that have arisen. It is fantastic to have a tool like this one that makes our work easier in this regard.
»Carry out profitable Forex operations
These signals are also important, because the vast majority of them are usually quite profitable, for this reason, we must get an alert system that provides us with accurate information so that our operations can bring us great benefits. But in addition, these Forex signals have an added value and that is that they are very easy to understand, therefore, we will have a very useful tool at hand that will not be complicated and will end up being a very beneficial weapon for us.
»Decision support analysis
A system of currency market signals is also very important because it will help us to make our subsequent decisions. We cannot forget that, to carry out any type of operation in this market, previously, we must meditate well and know the exact moment when we will know that our investments are going to bring us profits . Therefore, all the information provided by these alerts will be a fantastic basis for future operations that we are going to carry out.
»Trading Signals made by professionals
Finally, we have to recall the idea that these signals are made by the best professionals. Financial experts who know perfectly how to analyze the movements that occur in the market and changes in prices. Hence the importance of alerts, since they are very reliable and are presented as a necessary tool to operate in Forex and that our operations are as profitable as possible.
What should a signal provider be like?
https://preview.redd.it/j0ne51jypny51.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=5578ff4c42bd63d5b6950fc6401a5be94b97aa7f As you have seen, Forex signal systems are really important for our operations to bring us many benefits. For this reason, at present, there are multiple platforms that offer us these financial services so that investing in currencies is very simple and fast. Before telling you about the main services that we currently have available in the market, it is recommended that you know what are the main characteristics that a good signal provider should have, so that, at the time of your choice, you are clear that you have selected one of the best systems.
»Must send us information on the main currency pairs
In this sense, one of the first things we have to comment on is that a good signal provider, at a minimum, must send us alerts that offer us information about the 6 main currencies, in this case, we refer to the euro, dollar, The pound, the yen, the Swiss franc, and the Canadian dollar. Of course, the data you provide us will be related to the pairs that make up all these currencies. Although we can also find systems that offer us information about other minorities, but as we have said, at a minimum, we must know these 6.
»Trading tools to operate better
Likewise, signal providers must also provide us with a large number of tools so that we can learn more about the Forex market.
We refer, for example, to technical analysis above all, which will help us to develop our own strategies to be able to operate in this market.
These analyzes are always prepared by professionals and study, mainly, the assets that we have available to invest.
»Different Forex signals reception channels
They must also make available to us different ways through which they will send us the Forex signals, the usual thing is that we can acquire them through the platform's website, or by a text message and even through our email. In addition, it is recommended that the signal system we choose sends us a large number of alerts throughout the day, in order to have a wide range of possibilities.
»Free account and customer service
Other aspects that we must take into account to choose a good signal provider is whether we have the option of receiving, for a limited time, alerts for free or the profitability of the signals they emit to us. Similarly, a final aspect that we must emphasize is that a good signal system must also have excellent customer service, which is available to us 24 hours a day and that we can contact them at through an email, a phone number, or a live chat, for greater immediacy. Well, having said all this, in our last section we are going to tell you which are the best services currently on the market. That is, the most suitable Forex signal platforms to be able to work with them and carry out good operations. In this case, we will talk about ForexPro Signals, 365 Signals and Binary Signals.
Forex Signals Reddit: conclusion
To be able to invest properly in the Forex market, it is convenient that we get a signal system that provides us with all the necessary information about this market. It must be remembered that Forex is a very volatile market and therefore, many movements tend to occur quickly. Asset prices can change in a matter of seconds, hence the importance of having a system that helps us analyze the market and thus know, what is the right time for us to start operating. Therefore, although there are currently many signal systems that can offer us good services, the three that we have mentioned above are the ones that are best valued by users, which is why they are the best signal providers that we can choose to carry out. our investments. Most of these alerts are quite profitable and in addition, these systems usually emit a large number of signals per day with full guarantees. For all this, SignalsForexPro, Signals365, or SignalsBinary are presented as fundamental tools so that we can obtain a greater number of benefits when we carry out our operations in the currency market.
Grab your nuggets, I'm about to drop some bear shit on your CRO holdings. TL;DR - It don't add up, I smell bear shit I'm a gambler, some bio-tech firm in phase 3 trials for a Swiss Army dick transplant, sure, those blokes waiting for core samples on a big copper deposit, ok. These are bets, the payoff is known and binary, win/lose. But this isn't that. CRO at .041 x Revenue of just $462k, yep thousands and trending down from $670k previous x No profit, again x Market cap at $63Million o.O WTF x Current liabilities are four times current assets x Nine staff and a 404 on their Team page x Been around in some form or another since 2001 and still hasn't rocketed x Twitter account is all about shareholders, not customers x Pivoted from Pool Management software with failed implementation at Clark Rubber into whatever they do now It just doesn't smell right. Now you're about talk to me about free money with their cheap Options offer, announced in a timely way, get in quick (Wednesday) or you'll miss out. FOMO!!! Ain't no such thing as free money with no downside, don't be retarded. I don't hold CRO. I do have bets on Z1P TNT OSL RKT:NYSE Flame suit on, burn away spastic believers and tell me about your true religion.
UPDATE: The Game is over. Unfortunately, this particular game has ended up being something of a failed experiment. Thank you to everyone for playing, and my apologies that I didn't do a better job structuring it. WHAT IS NOMIC? Nomic is a game about making up the rules of the game as you go. Like Calvinball, but a little more structured. WHAT ARE THE RULES? The game starts with a very basic set of rules, all about how to create or amend new rules, as follows: RULE 1: To propose a new rule, post it as a top level comment in this thread. Once it has 15 more upvotes than downvotes, it is a rule of the game that everyone must comply with. Rules that were proposed before this comes into effect shall be judged by the previous system. RULE 2 To amend or repeal an existing or proposed rule, reply to the top level comment with your modification. Once it has 15 more upvotes than downvotes the top-level comment will be read as if your modification applies. RULE 3 a vacuously satisfied rule (so to be compatible with its uselessness), instead of the current contradiction. Additional rules have been added to the game, as follows: Always sort by controversial: Everyday, the proposed rule with the highest "controversial" score gets accepted, regardless of its absolute score. Lynch mcjunker: The user mcjunker shall be lynched at dawn on Thursday, August 28th 2025 Rules Have Names: Any post proposing a rule or amendment must include a bolded title for the rule. The Basic Interpretation Rule: Where there are disagreements about how to interpret a rule, a person may post a "Proposed Interpretations for [Rule Name]:" comment. Any person may reply to this comment with their preferred interpretation of the rule as a separate comment. After the proposed interpretations comment is 24 hours old, the reply that has the highest score becomes the binding interpretation. Universal Starting Income Rule: Each player has an in-game wallet which begins containing 100 coins. Conflict Of Rules: In the event that two or more rules (of the same classification, if separate classifications exist) conflict, then the latter adopted rule automatically controls. Gem Acquisition Rule: When a rule proposal is implemented, the player who proposed it gets one gem. Physical Locality Rule: The game map is an infinite binary tree. Players can choose their initial location on this map once by replying to this rule proposal with a string made up of a sequence of "L" and "R". The Anti-Sneakiness Rule: The text of a rule must not have been edited to get accepted. Adjudication Of Disputes: In the event of a dispute or interpretation that requires adjudication, a panel of three members of TheMotte shall sit as adjudicators. The adjudicators shall be selected from the following list, which may be amended by later rules: crc128, AshLael, revengeclaus The process by which the adjudication proceeds shall be determined by the three adjudicators, and need not include community input. By a majority (>51%) vote of the sitting adjudicators, the adjudication becomes final and unappealable. Adjudications do not set precedent, and are not mutually binding, unless this is changed by a later rule. Rule List: All rules must be written down in the main post of the game once they are added. Sequential Evaluation Of New Rules: When new rules are added, they must meet all currently existing rules, prior to the application of the new rule's text, unless the new rule explicitly states that it is overriding prior rules. Rules which do not meet this bar are not adopted, regardless of the disposition of votes, and shall have no effect. No Ex Post Facto: Rules do not apply to themselves nor rules older than themselves. Amendment - Self-Referential Ex Facto(r): Rules containing any form of self-reference (however indirect), such as this rule, must abide by themselves. Rule 1 Clarification: In "After the post is 24 hours old, if it has more upvotes than downvotes, it is a rule of the game that everyone must comply with", the post and it refers to the proposal comment itself, not the top-level thread. A Rule to Deter Rule Proposal Spam (1) Anyone for whom the number of his rejected new rule proposals is more than three times the number of his accepted new rule proposals, loses immediately, unless he has made fewer than five new rule proposals. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), any new rule proposal deleted by its author more than one hour after its posting shall be considered rejected. If one's rule proposal is rejected, one shall drink one shot. Individuals consuming shots of alcoholic beverages because of this game shall consume no more than 40g of pure alcohol on each day of the game.Those who avoid alcohol for reasons of faith, addiction, or other moral reasons may substitute a shot of a non-alcoholic beverage of their choice. Contradiction resolution: Rule 3 should be replaced with a vacuously satisfied rule (so to be compatible with its uselessness), instead of the current contradiction. No Pay-To-Win Rule: No rule other than this one can make reference to real-world money or any resource (such as reddit gold or cryptocurrency) typically acquired with real-world money. RULE 0: Have fun! SKIN IN THE GAME: The user that proposes a rule must follow that rule prior to the rule being accepted. If they do not follow the rule then the rule will be automatically rejected. RULE BY POPULAR VOTE: Rules proposed within the previous 24 hours are considered all at once but implemented in order of popularity (rather than chronologically).If RULE BY POPULAR VOTE is enacted, then the newly proposed rules will be considered at a specific time each day, called the "Evaluation Time". The initial value of the evaluation time will be determined by the Motte Nomic President, if there is one, or by AshLael if no Mott Nomic President has been selected. Sort By New Rule: The reddit thread for game conversation is to be sorted by "New". Parentheses Rule: Only rule text not inside parentheses is binding. Text inside of parenthesis is still recorded on the list, and may be used for interpretation or asides. (So far this seems to go without saying but it's nice to have it in writing.) Book Review Meta Win Condition: The presumptive winner must submit a book review effort post to TheMotte subsequent to meeting all other win conditions besides this one to officially win the game. The book to be reviewed will be "Twilight", or something equally horrible as agreed on by other TheMotte users. The winner will have to actually read this book, and give it a glowing review. Said book review must be strive to be apophenic and make substantial defensible references to Meditations on Moloch, The Pentateuch, and prominent culture war issues at the time of posting. The Archipelipatchwork Rule: Should the US Federal government be legally dissolved during this game, due to circumstances including but not limited to the election of Scott Alexander or Curtis Yarvin as President in November 2020, the existing Rules shall form the founding Constitution of at least one (1) successor microstate. Prosecution System: A player may publicly accuse another player of rule breaking. In making such an accusation, the accused player and the allegedly broken rule must be named. The accused player must choose how they shall be tried in 24 hours counted from the making of the accusation and start their chosen option during this interval. If they fail to do this, they are convicted. He may choose from the following options: Trial by Voices - The accused player must state that he is innocent. If his post stating innocence has more upvotes than downvotes after 24 hours, he is acquitted. Otherwise, he is convicted. Trial by Combat - The accused player may face his accuser in a 1 on 1 contest. If the accuser and the accused can agree on a contest, that will be the contest for the trial by combat. If the accused player wins, he is acquitted. If he loses, he is convicted. The precise nature of the contest is to be determined by amendment to this rule. Trial by Ordeal - The accused player must complete a challenging task. If the accuser and the accused can agree on a task, that will be the task for the trial by ordeal. If he succeeds, he is acquitted. If he fails, he is convicted. The precise nature of the ordeal is to be determined by amendment to this rule. A successfully convicted player becomes a thrall of his accuser. A thrall may only win the game if his master also wins. If a player is accused of rule breaking by another player, no player can accuse the accused player of the same rule-breaking case later (not even the original accuser). However players can accuse the accused player of breaking the same rule later provided that the alleged breaking of the same rule constitutes a different case. PUBLIC SPIRITED: Rule proposals must apply to everyone equally. No singling out specific users. Amendments to rules can still single out specific users. The Hemlock Rule: No player shall corrupt the youth of Athens. Amendments may be Amended: Amendments may themselves be amended by further amendments. Amendments and amendments to amendments don't have to be direct responses to the rule they're amending. (For example, this ought to be valid as an amendment despite the objection by Taleuntum: https://www.reddit.com/TheMotte/comments/fxlufo/the_motte_plays_nomic/fmymmm9/?context=10000 ) Ke2!: All chess matches relating to this game, whether they be a means to settle a dispute or related for some other reason, are to be played on lichess.org, and are especially not to be played on chess.com. The Game End Rule: A single player winning or losing does not cause the game to end. The game ends when all players have won, lost, or both. Not Actually A Rule:cjet79 asked us to take off the time-based vote hiding system. I assume this is either an attempt to make the game more interesting, part of a clever strategy, or simply sowing chaos, and in all cases I'm all for it. I've taken off the score filter for now; it'll be put back up when a moderator decides to put it back up. It is not a coincidence that this is formatted as a rule and I encourage you to upvote/downvote accordingly. Slavery Players may transfer ownership of thralls between each other in exchange for in-game currency (such as Gems and Coins, as currently proposed in other rules). A thrall is a player who has gained a win condition requiring his master to also win the game. A thrall may purchase his own freedom using this method. If a situation arises where there is exactly one player who, for every other player, is at the end of a chain of Thrall->Master connections starting from that other player, then that one player wins the game. A "player" for this purpose is defined as "anyone who has posted in the Nomic thread and has not lost the game". If a closed loop of Thrall -> Master connections arises, then all connections in that loop shall be extinguished. The General Store Rule: There is a general store that sells items, including three potions: a green potion (10 coins), a red potion (20 coins), and a blue potion (50 coins). A player may obtain an item from this store by spending a number of coins equal to the label price. Gems can be sold at the general store for 25 coins. Robbers' Cove Rule: Locations on the map (of the Physical Locality Rule) with more "L"s than "R"s belong to the blue team. Locations with more "R"s than "L"s belong to the red team. Locations with an equal number of "L"s and "R"s belong to the purple team. Coin Gifts Rule: Players may give coins as a gift to other players by publicly invoking this rule and naming a number of coins and a target player. Only positive numbers of coins may be given via the Coin Gift Rule. When coins are given to a target player via the Coin Gift Rule, the same number of coins is subtracted from the invoking player's number of coins. If a player who does not have a positive number of coins invokes the Coin Gift Rule, the invocation of the coin gift rule is invalid. If a gift via the Coin Gift Rule would cause the invoking player to have less than 0 coins, an amount equal to the invoking player's number of coins is given instead. The Bleen/Grue Rule: The word "wins", if used in rules enacted before the beginning of April 13th 2019 A.D. (in UCT), is defined to mean something different from the standard meaning of wins and people who "win" are to be thought of as lower status. The Fair Voting Proposition for Democracy: If a rule involves a vote with a single winner, and the voting system is not mentioned, then use approval voting by default. The Anti-Paradox Rule: No rule may directly or indirectly cause a paradox or infinite logical loop. Lost in Space Rule: If your location on the map (of the Physical Locality Rule) is longer than 16 characters in length, you can invoke this rule. Other players will propose new locations of no more than 16 characters in length in the replies to your invokation. The proposed location with the most upvotes, if this upvote count is positive, becomes your new location. The Reddit Rule: Only reddit accounts may win.
So, this is a bit complicated. There are three states involved, and a long history of issues. I currently live in Tennessee, my ex husband lives in Texas, and the divorce and parenting plan are out of Washington state. During the divorce I was in college pursuing a Bachelor's degree. I left my ex husband in July of 2011, from the country of Palau, and moved to Spokane, WA into domestic violence shelter. I filed for divorce and an order of protection sometime in early 2012 after he took the children and left for TX with them. The judge ordered him to return with the children under threat of issuing an amber alert and bench warrant. This kicked off a long, drawn out divorce where he used every tactic to delay the trial until I could no longer pay my attorney, who quit. At that point the judge ordered us into mediation, and I got bullied into signing a 50/50 agreement because we were not allowed to leave without signing a parenting plan. This parenting plan finalized our divorce. There are additional issues with how our divorce went down. Everything from me having evidence of his abuse of both me and the children, even his own admission to such, which were completely ignored by the court. His forcing the employment of a guardian ad litem, who spent precisely 1 hour interviewing me when she first took the case, said she would schedule multiple follow ups, and never did. The only other time she spoke with me directly was about a poem I'd written for a class, and a student film I was in. Both were found by my ex through cyber stalking me (also proven to the court, and ignored) and brought to her attention. Part of his cyber stalking included him hacking my email and bank accounts, also proven and admitted to, but ignored. The guardian ad litem never interviewed anyone on my list of contacts, but spent copious amounts of time talking to all of his. I know that at one point he threatened to get her disbarred because he didn't like the way she was conducting her investigation. This was very near the beginning, and I believe that he heavily influenced her recommendation, which eventually came out as supporting a 50/50 plan in spite of the proven abuse, manipulation, and stalking (which she acknowledged in her submission to the court). In January, I moved to China. The agreement between me and my ex was for him to follow at the end of school year. In March I realized I would have to move back to the US, and my ex informed me that he would be moving to TX. I had to move to Missouri because that was where my family was, and the only place I had to get my feet back under me after the unexpected return from China. After several months in MO, I received a job offer in Nashville, TN and moved there. I had multiple reasons for not wanting to move to Texas. After my return from China, he began to use the children, and them spending time with me, as a weapon. Since I was having trouble getting my feet under me, and didn't have a place to house them, I employed a variety of strategies to safely house them, from spending time with them at his parent's, to getting AirBnBs and going on road trips with them. During this time he would allow me to see them 2-3 times a year. Even when I did have roomy enough housing, he still refused to let me see them for more than 2 weeks at a time, and usually only allowed 1 week. He has steadfastly refused to give me extra time in summer. I am now engaged, and my fiancé is purchasing a 5 bedroom house specifically so we have room for them. My ex has consistently said that once I had room for them he would allow me "increased" time with them (read 4 visits a year, up to 3 weeks each). Now that I have a house, he is saying that he is "not comfortable" with them spending time in the house. He is willing to allow me to see them, but only if I take them on a road trip, rent a hotel room, etc. This is where the GRSM issues come in. For clarity going forward I will reference individuals as such: my fiancé: Z; his boyfriend: C; his boyfriend's 4yo daughter: M; my 11yo daughter: R; my 10yo daughter: F; my ex husband: S. My fiancé has a boyfriend who is trans, and this boyfriend has a 4 yo daughter. When the girls visited the last time (in August) they stayed in our 2 bedroom apt and shared a room with M, while Z, C, and myself shared the other bedroom. S is a fundamentalist, conservative Christian, and belongs to the Seventh Day Adventist church... which he believes is too liberal and worldly. As such, he is strongly anti-GRSM, and we've had discussions about it in the past, mainly in reference to me having non-binary friends. When discussing them with the girls I used gender neutral pronouns, and they asked whether they were boys or girls and I explained what non-binary is. My ex was upset about this, but ultimately, reluctantly, agreed that I could teach them what I desired when they were with me since he didn't allow me any say in what they learned while with him. Now he is refusing to allow them to come visit the house because C is trans. He said that we were forcing the girls to use "the wrong pronouns" (we didn't, we didn't even bring it up, we just used he/him pronouns even though we were around them). He then had the girls write me letters, both worded very similar and saying the same things: they don't like gay influences, we shouldn't buy the house, and they don't want to see anyone else in the house again. Now, none of this had been an issue with them when they were visiting, or in any conversation I had with them following that. In fact, the conversation I had with them the day before my ex called to tell me all this, they'd been excited about the house and talking about how they wanted to decorate their bedrooms and everything. After that phone call with him, I refused to discuss anything with him on the phone again. And said that I would only discuss things over email going forward. It's a policy I should have instituted long ago, and had to varying degrees of success at various points. Prior to that phone call we had been discussing a December visit. Now he is saying he won't let me see the girls at all unless it is outside of the house. So, thank you to anyone who actually read this all the way through. It is a complicated and frustrating situation. I can't afford a lawyer, and don't even know what my options or chances are here. I know I screwed up at various points along the way. I want to get them away from the psychological and religious abuse, and in general just get to have my children again.
Abstract — I discuss several models for assigning probability to timelines under the assumption that time travel is possible, but paradoxes are absolutely impossible, as is the case in many fictional worlds. The models are mathematically precise, and illuminate issues that have previously confused many people about what sort of timelines are "most likely". I discuss an example due to TimTravel in a old post on /HPMOR, then analyse whether time travel can be used to solve the halting problem. I outline how timeline probability may interact with physical probabilities, often used to justify physics "conspiring" or contriving a certain outcome to prevent paradox. Total length: ~5000 words, or about 15-20 minutes of reading. Edit: commenters have pointed out similarities between this and the Ted Chiang story, What's Expected of Us. The similarity was not intentional, but is undeniable. Note: The text of this post has been revised in response to objections, and some commenters may be reacting to the initial version of my arguments.
Model A: Path Realism
Model B: Local Branch Realism
Model C: Reroll Realism (or, Bayesian Branch Realism)
Model D: Weighted Branch Realism
Which Model is Best?
Example: The Time Thief Puzzle
Alice and Bob
Interlude: TIME FORCE
Back to Alice and Bob
Applications to More Permissive Time Travel Schemes
Bound Time Travel
Free Time Travel
Let's say you're walking down the street one day when a wizard appears in a clap of thunder, and places a strange gray device of buttons and switches into your hands. You're looking down at it, struggling to make heads or tails of it, and then you look up and the wizard is gone. At the top of the device, there is a slider, already set to the leftmost extreme. Below it, two switches: a power switch already set to ON, and an stiff, unlabeled switch, the exact gray of the surface, rising so inconspicuously low off the surface you almost miss it. Below that, two LED buttons, both inactive. Suddenly, the left LED glows blue. Confused, you press the button (it goes in with a satisfying click) and the light flashes off instantly. Furrowing your brow, you decide to press the button again. The blue light quickly comes on while your finger's still moving, and it again winks out immediately as the button is depressed. You try pressing the button again and again, and each time the blue light turn on, seeming to predict or anticipate the button press. Then, the other LED button glows red. You press it, and it turns off; several tries later, you conclude it behaves exactly the same. You decide now to deliberately not press either button, even if the lights were to shine encouragingly. But nothing happens; neither light comes back on. You move your finger closer to a button, determined to arrest its motion at the last possible second. But the light doesn't come on, even when your skin is brushing the cool metal. You forget it and press the button. The light blinks bright blue milliseconds before you've even decided. Now, you (you, dear reader, not the above character) have already read the title of this post. This is strange device sends information backward in time. Specifically, it sends a single bit back in time one second. Or well, you fiddle with the slider, and notice it controls the interval; you can set it to one minute, an hour, or even a day. All that established, it's time to test something. "Red is heads, and blue tails," you say. A coin from your pockets is flipping in the air until you catch it and slap it down on your wrist. The device shines blue. You lift your hand. It's heads. You push the blue button anyway, out of habit, the light flashing off. And then it hits you: you have to commit intently to pressing the right button even when (especially when) the device is wrong. Another test: if the device shines red again, you'll press blue. But if it shines blue, you'll press still blue. There's a noticeable delay before the device tentatively shines a light. It's blue. Call this act forcing. You can force the device to be red or blue. You try the coin flip test just a few more times. Now, the device is always right, even if it seems to pause a random interval before shining a light. The opposite of forcing would be splinting (after 'splinterpoint'). This is, pressing the button for whichever light comes on next, with no tricks and no conditionals. Finally, the last thing you can do — for a broad notion of 'can' — is what we'll call crashing. This is: pressing the button of whichever light doesn't blink on. It's less that you can do this, and more that you can intend this, and reality responds to that. You give it a try right now: you commit to crashing if your next coin toss doesn't come up heads. You flip the coin, anxiously watching it's path through the air, catch it, slap it down on your wrist, spend a few seconds working up the nerve and then lifting your hand. It's tails. You take a deep breath, and look expectantly at the device. No light comes on. You're waiting for a few minutes. And then it hits you; the device isn't binary, it's trinary. Sure, it can shine red or blue — but so too can it not shine at all! And if it either light leads to paradox, why would any light come on? The only winning move is not to play. Is that it, then? Are your dreams of munchkinry doomed to fail? Was it just a coincidence that 'forcing' seemed to work earlier? And then the red light comes on. You grin triumphantly, with not a little dread. You're about to destroy the universe! Before the implications catch up to, you're flinging your hand forward, jabbing it at the device. You don't want to lose your nerve. You look down, and see that you missed, pressing the red button, rather than the blue like you planned. Is this fate? Is the world itself conspiring to prevent paradox, just like in the stories? You want to give crashing another try, but the last thing you want is to wait those long minutes for the light to come on again. You glare down at the device, and then you notice the second switch. You'd almost forgotten about it. You idly flick it, and immediately the blue light comes on. It forces a prediction? Maybe your plans aren't doomed. You consider giving crashes another try, but maybe destroying the whole timeline is not worth the risk. You decide to spare the universe, and press the blue button. You need to understand how this device works before you can really exploit it. And you have just the idea for another experiment. What if you splint, and if the splint comes out blue, you force blue again, but otherwise you just splint again. After two button presses, you turn off the device. It's clear there are three possibilities: blue-blue, red-blue and red-red. But which are most likely? You run this experiment a hundred times, and keep track of the results. Call it the double blue experiment. There are a few ways it could turn out:
Model A: Path Realism
It seems that consistent timelines are the only thing that matters. It's as if the universe has already set aside exactly the number of timelines there needs to be, and you're already in a certain timeline, you just don't know which one yet. In the double blue experiment, there are three possibilities, and every one is equally likely. p(red,red) = p(red,blue) = p(blue,blue) = 1/3 You find it strange, as a follow-up experiment aptly demonstrates: Splint once. If it comes out blue, force blue twenty-nine times. Otherwise, do nothing. Turn off the device. On the face of it, it's crazy that you can even experience the second possibility. It's like winning the lottery half the time. Then again, maybe it's not so crazy? If you were to just force blue twenty-nine times, it's equally unlikely on the face of it; like flipping dozens of coins that all come up heads. There's a weirder consequence, though. If you splint ten times, you can see any combination of reds and blues; red-blue-blue-red-red-red-blue-red-red-red and all the others, with uniform probability. But if you splint ten times, and if and only if every splint came up blue, you splint ten more times, you'll find that the first set of splints come up all blue half the time! This is easy to reconcile with path realism. There are 210 = 1024 through the ten splints. Each is as likely as the other. But if you commit to doing ten more splints if and only if the first set comes up all blues, then there are 211 = ~2048 paths down the time-tree. If each is as likely as the other, then half of them are located under one branch!
Model B: Local Branch Realism
It seems that splints are basically coin tosses; it either comes up blue or it comes up red. The exception is if one of those options always leads to paradox. If you commit to causing paradox when the light shines blue, then it will always shine red. If you commit to splinting then crashing when the first splint comes out blue, then the splint will similarly always shine red. The intermediate is more interesting: if you, as in the original experiment, splint and then splint again and crash if both splints come out blue, then half the time the first splint will come out red, but if the first splint comes out blue, the next one always comes out red. In numbers, the possibilities are p(red,red) = p(red,blue) = 1/4, and p(blue,red) = 1/2. It's like the universe is a savescumming gamer: it saves to a slot to every time a time travel event is about to happen. If a paradox happens, it reloads from its saves on after another, finding newest one that lets it avoid the paradox.
Model C: Reroll Realism (or, Bayesian Branch Realism)
Edit: a commenter pointed out that this resembles Tim's model. You're not sure if paradoxes really don't happen. You've looked at the numbers. What it suggests is that, rather than avoiding paradoxes, paradoxes could simply cause the universe to restart. The stats from the double blue experiment don't lie: p(red) = 2/3, p(blue,blue) = 1/3. Imagine you were simulating the universe. 1/2 the time, red comes up and you're just fine. 1/2 the time, blue comes up. 1/2 the time after that (for a total of 1/4 the time), blue comes again, and you've got a paradox on your hands. What if you just, restarted the universe, and hoped it didn't happen again? Well, there's a 1/4 chance it will. Since you have a 1/4 chance of restarting in the first place, that's 1/16 of the time you'll restart twice. Luckily, it's getting exponentially less likely. Looked at another way, the odds of it coming up red is the limit of the infinite sum: 1/2 + 1/4 * 1/2 + 1/16 * 1/2 + 1/64 * 1/2 + 1/256 * 1/2 ... This series converges on 2/3. But there's another interpretation, with seems less like the work of a lazy programmer and more like something a statistician would come up with. Suppose, as we must, that the timeline is consistent. What is the posterior probability of that timeline being red, given that 100% of red timelines are consistent, and 50% of blue timelines are consistent? Or, in symbols:
Even more intuitively: you have four balls (timelines) you paint half of the balls red and half blue (splinterpoint), and you take away one blue ball (paradox). 2/3 of the remainder is red. You'll recognize this as Bayes' Theorem.
Model D: Weighted Branch Realism
The reality is more subtle than you thought. It seems that, while you've never seen a paradox, if a branch has a path through splinterpoints that ends in paradox, that fact subtracts probability from the branch and gives it to its counterfactual sibling. This happens in Local Branch Realism too, but not to this degree: the very possibility that a time-path has a paradox however many days or years down the line always shaves some degree of probability, if only just a sliver; but naturally, that sliver increases as the paradox gets closer. Thus, the results of the experiment are: p(red, red) = p(red, blue) = 3/8, while p(blue, blue) = 1/4 = 2/8. You can see it clearer with a more involved experiment. Take your device and a sheet of paper and: Splint, call this splint A:
if A is red, write "foo" on the paper
if A is blue, splint and call it splint B
if B is red, write "bar" on the paper
if B is blue, splint and call it C:
if C is red, write "baz" on the paper
if C is blue, crash
According to weighted branch realism, the probabilities look like: P(foo) = 20/32 = 5/8, P(bar) = 9/32, P(baz) = 3/32. To understand this result, we have to define a notion of "static paradox fraction", or spf. If you intend to force blue, then the spf is 1/2. Why? To force blue you must (intend to) cause a paradox in the event that not-blue happens. Despite that fact that paradoxes never happen, static paradox fractions seems be a real quantity in Weighted Branch Realism. It is as if the device is looking at every possible and impossible timeline, and measuring which ones are paradoxical. (Note that static paradox fractions are diminuted by splints. So if you splint and when the splint is blue you then force red, the spf of the first splint is 1/4, even if there is no second splint whenever the first is red. This distinguishes it from simply counting paradoxical timelines; 1/3 of the timelines are paradoxical, but a paradox behind a splinterpoint has lesser weight.) Furthermore, let's have a notion of "intrinsic probability" or ip. The ip of both splint outcomes is 1/2, even if one of them is paradoxical. Thus:
(Note for the pedants: normally, the ip is actually 1/3, and ditto for spf; we're ignoring that the device can not shine a light, because you can just flip a switch and force a light on. Even without the switching, committing to either turning the device off, or splinting endlessly once the the experiment is over means the probability of the device choosing to not shine drops exponentially while the alternatives remain constant.) This model is somewhat unintuitive, because despite the name, it has more in common with Path Realism than the other two _ Branch Realisms. You can't emulate the probability distribution of WBR by running one timeline and restarting (either from the beginning (Bayesian), or from the nearest viable alternate splint (Local)). This is entirely the fault of a phenomena we can call "paradox by association"; in the foo-bar-baz experiment, in a certain sense, just as 1/8 of quasi-timelines are paradoxical because they end in crashing, 1/4 of the quasi-timelines ending in baz are paradoxical just because baz timelines are near to the paradox. This accounts for the numbers: p(foo) is 5/8, 4/8 intrinsic + 1/8 from the paradox. p(bar) is 9/32: 8/32 intrinsic + 1/32 from baz's paradox by association. p(baz), lastly is 3/32 owing to loosing 1/32 from paradox by association. (Why 1/4? Good question. There must be a reason, and it's clear this is the number that comes out of the equations. Alas, I'm not smart enough provide a reason in words and not symbols.)
Which Model is Best?
Path Realism and Local Branch Realism are both pretty wack. Path Realism discards all local information about plausibility, and allows munchkins to blow up the probability of their favorite timelines arbitrarily high. Local Branch Realism does the same thing from the opposite direction; wanton invocation of paradoxes intuitively should be penalized, but Branch Realism simply says I don't mind. Between Weighted Branch Realism and Reroll Realism, I'm inclined to prefer the latter. WBR is the first I thought up, but RR is just more natural. It has two obvious interpretations, both things that anyone would come up with after thinking about it for a little while. WBR, in the other hand, is harder to conceptualize in terms of what mechanism would actually cause the probabilities to look like that (I've tried; the results are not pretty). "Paradox by association", while potential a fresh concept to use in a story, is a truly strange mechanism. Now, how does the connect with TimTravel's ideas? Just as he proposed, it is, in some models the case that the most probable timelines are the ones in which time machines are never invented. In Local Branch Realism, this is not true (unless some bad actor arises in every single timeline and causes paradox. Time Beast, anyone?). In Path Realism, this is again never true without positing a Time Beast. However in WBR and RR, it's more or less true. In general, timelines with fewer instances of retrocausation are more likely, only because instances of retrocausation are a proxy for instances of paradox. Now, if paradoxes are rare, this argument would be weak. (But to be fair, most meaningful uses of time travel require copious paradox; it's the oil in the engine.) That said, I believe it is admissible for a work to posit that the characters find themselves in the (slightly unlikely) timeline where retrocausation happens. After that, though, the principles constrain the probability space.
Suppose Alice has a bag of money with a dollar on it. If anyone steals it, she'll go back in time and see who did it. Bob wants to steal it. He knows she has this policy. He decides he'll give himself the thumbs up just before he leaves the future if all goes well stealing it and she doesn't see him. If these policies are followed then it leads to a paradox, so something must prevent them both from simultaneously following their policies. Either Alice wins because Bob goes to the past without getting an honest thumbs up from himself or Bob wins because Bob sees the honest thumbs up and Alice doesn't go back and check who stole the money for some reason, or some third possibility prevents both. There is no reason to think that either of them automatically wins in this situation. Timelines in which Alice wins should be about equally frequent as timelines in which Bob wins. Numerous characters have implicitly assumed that there is a reason to think one of them automatically wins in such situations.
We'll have to change this scenario a little bit to fit with the schema we've been using so far. (Besides, Tim's example is kind of unclear and it's not even obvious that paradox must occur in all permutations. If Bob doesn't get the thumbs up, wouldn't he not steal? Puzzle solved.)
Alice and Bob
Let's say that in the morning Alice has acquired a bag full of money from sources unknown, and has come to an arrangement with a shadowy individual: leave a dufflebag full of money with a dollar sign on it at a dropoff location, and in exchange, the individual will leave a limited print run of all eleven books of Worth the Candle at the same location. Alice knows people want to steal that money, but part of the arrangement is that she can't be there guarding it when the shadowy individual arrives. On Tuesday morning, the deal is still in its negotiation stage, and there are two places Alice can think of to arrange for dropoffs: atop the looming mountains outside of town, or deep into the mysterious catacombs below it. Both of these hiding places will take two hours to enter and two to leave. (Pretend the mountains have a rogue paramilitary that shoots down helicopters or something.) Due to work obligations, Alice can only make the dropoff in the early morning, and return that evening to pick up the books. Meanwhile, Bob, the thief, knows all this and certainly doesn't want to get caught. He can't go into either location until Alice has left, else he'll be seen. Lucky for him, that leaves a large window for him to do the deed. Both of these characters have the same magical devices from the earlier section, and they'll naturally use them to ensure success; except, for obvious reasons, we'll call their predictions "catacombs" and "mountains". Before she goes to hide the money at 5:00 AM, Alice consults her device for where to hide it. Four hours after he has seen Alice leave, at 9:00, Bob consults his device to determine where she hid it. If the predict is wrong, he forces a paradox. When Alice returns to get the money, at 17:00, if it's there, she confirms the location that the device advised. Otherwise, she presses the opposite button, forcing a crash via paradox. What happens? This requires introducing yet another notion.
Interlude: TIME FORCE
The TIME FORCE is any one in a billion freak accident that happens 100% of the time to prevent a paradox from occurring. TIME FORCE is a quantum fluctuation that causes right neuron to misfire which butterflies into changing your whole decision. TIME FORCE is random air currents that causes a bird to fly by and drop a rock on the right button of the time-device. TIME FORCE is the lightning in the clear blue sky which spells out Do not mess with time in typographically perfect serifs. There are a few things we can say about TIME FORCE. Let's say that the general odds of TIME FORCE acting on a given person in a given second is extremely, astronomically unlikely. One in a billion, or one in a trillion sounds about right. But from that, it follows that the odds of TIME FORCE acting over an interval of time is proportional to the length of that interval. (It's at least monotonic. Difficult/impossible to say how fast it grows.) It also follows that the odds of TIME FORCE acting is increased if an agent is acting in concert with it, and decreased if they are acting in opposition, proportional to the efficacy of that agent. I.e., an agent is defending against TIME FORCE, or attempting to utilize TIME FORCE. (consider: if Bob, after stealing, were to proceed to try to also steal Alice's device or persuade her to cancel her prediction herself (e.g., by faking a dire emergency which requires her foreknowledge to solve), then TIME FORCE would provide some boost to the probability of success.) An obvious corollary to all this is that TIME FORCE is almost never relevant. If you had a bigger device that spat out 32 red/blue pairs at a time, you could predict the lottery without seriously worrying about TIME FORCE. One common confusion which leads people to overstate the importance of TIME FORCE is the fact that parallel universes and timelines aren't necessarily the same thing. Let's say you wanted to force a coin to come up heads. Turn on your device. Then, splint. If the result was blue, flip the coin. If the result was red, splint again. The idea is to have the device spawn as many timelines as possible. Pressing buttons (subtly) alters the configuration of your brain and muscles and the microcurrents of air in the room, and the hope is a certain combination of buttons at a certain rhythm is prod you into the right configuration to flip the coin heads. This is almost certainly true in this specific example, but if the coin is flipped before the device is turned on, time cannot help you. And if you don't have intimate control over the outcome, time cannot save you. E.g., if a meteor is flying towards your town, forcing a paradox if it hits true cannot avert its course. Of course, if you splint long enough, maybe the branches describe a powerful, quickly-createable, meteor-destroying technology in morse code. Or maybe it just spells out "You needed worth opponents," and you give up and let the asteroid take you. (There is one slight exception, and this is where the different formulations of Bayesian Branch Realism and Reroll Realism differ. In BBR, the universe is posited to either A) know before splintering the posterior probabilities of each branch or equivalently, B) have so many timelines that destroy paradoxical ones leaves the distribution looking as it should. However, in RR, paradoxes are posited to cause the universe to restart from the beginning (or when the device was turned on). This means that in RR, simply flipping a coin and forcing a paradox if it's tails is all you need. That is, assuming quantum fluctuations making the coin heads is more likely than quantum making you decide not to crash, or failing to crash. Or dying instantly and having the wizard return to push the button.) There's one last possibility, and that's if you posit that quantum randomness itself are biased by time travel, so each quantum measurement counts as a splinterpoint. I'm reluctant to do such, because the edict I've heard over and over again is that when worldbuilding, Do Not Mess With Physics. I'm going to continue writing this article with the assumption that physical randomness is not biased by timelines. Extreme improbabilities are still extremely improbable, but, to mangle the quote, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must happen.
Back to Alice and Bob
So, with TIME FORCE in mind, what happens to Alice and Bob? It's 4:50. Alice is sitting beside her bag of money with a dollar sign on it, her device in front of her. If the device shows 'catacombs', she intends to, when she returns from work, press 'mountains' in case her bag was stolen and she doesn't have her book, or otherwise she will confirm 'catacombs' (and vice versa). She waits. And the device doesn't say anything at all! It's well known that sometimes there are random delays before the devices spit out answers. Some users interpret it as an omen, suggesting that whatever you're asking is so likely to lead to paradox, time itself has to work up the nerve to allow it to happen; the theorized mechanism is 'paradox aversion', where in some models, the odds turn against timelines long before the paradox is even nigh. (But as far as Alice knows, no one has never proved which model they live in.) She decides to buck superstition and conjecture, and reaches out to flip the switch which forces an output. Record scratch, freeze frame. What happens next? A) TIME FORCE intervenes before Alice can flip the switch. B) Alice flips the switch, but TIME FORCE subverts the resulting prophecy. (I.e., the bag is stolen, but events contrive to have the incorrect button on the device pressed anyway.) C) Alice flips the switch, and TIME FORCE subverts Bob's prophecy instead, sending him to the wrong location. Her bag is not stolen, and she happily reads the ending of WtC. D) Alice presses the secret button, and TIME FORCE subverts both prophecies. (Stop reading now if you want to try to work out an answer yourself.) The correct answer is B, which is about three times more likely than anything else, barring unspecified details. A requires TIME FORCE to act in the acute interval before Alice presses the button, which is at best a few minutes long. C requires TIME FORCE to act in the four hour interval of 9:00-13:00. D is the conjunction of A and C, and less likely than both. B is the winner, because it only requires the TIME FORCE to act on the long, twelve-hour interval of 5:00-17:00 I think this goes even if timelines nudge physical probabilities. Exercise for the reader, though. (((Now, one may object that this formulation bears little resemblance to Tim's example. My only excuse is that Tim's model was too unclear for me to formalize specifically. When I tried, I got this scenario: First, Alice gets a prediction from the device: stolen, or untouched. Iff it says stolen, she waits to see who the thief is, and gets them. Else, she goes about her day, secure knowing her money is safe. Then, Bob consults his device as to whether his theft would be successful: if it says yes, then either 1) Alice is there, catches him, and he triggers a paradox, or 2) Alice isn't there, he gets away, and she triggers a paradox later. However, if it says no, then he just sighs, and fucks off, no paradox to worry about. Even if I missed something/misinterpreted TimTravel and this situation is paradoxical all four ways, it still follows that Bob will probably win (if not so overwhelmingly so) because he spends less time in temporal limbo where TIME FORCE might fuck with him.)))
It's clear that if one were to disassemble the strange device and hook up a few wires to its circuit boards to a computer, you'd create a hybrid device capable of advanced feats of computation. What is the exact strength of this retrocausal computer? As mathematicians are wont to do, we will dispense with practicalities like having to use at most as much space as actually exists, or needing our computations finish before the heat death of the universe. Given all this, if we have an idealized retrocausal computer, a la the idealized turing machine, what can we do? Let's try the halting problem, a classic test of strength. Say we have a computer program, and we want to know if it's ever stops running. Well, either it does or doesn't. Consider a slightly different device, instead of red/blue leds, it has magic screen which can display any integer. (For models where it matters, the intrinsic probability of an integer n is equal to 2-k, where k is smallest number with 2k > n and k > 0.) It also has a numpad now, which allows the input of any integer. With this device, to determine when a program halts, given that it halts, is as simple and looking at what number comes up on its screen, and running the program for that many steps. If it halts before then, input when it halted (causing paradox). Otherwise, input the number it gave you. Otherwise otherwise, cause a paradox via your preferred means. If the program might run forever, things are trickier. What you can do is interpret the number the screen outputs as the index of a proof of (not) halting. This isn't sufficient, however, as no computably-checkable proof system can prove that any turing machine (never) halts, essentially by definition. But we can use the fact that if a program runs forever it doesn't halt: simply try over and over again until 1) you learn the program does not, or 2) the odds of it halting given that you found no proof is as astronomically low as satisfies you. By construction, the odds of the screen outputing the right halting time decreases exponentially as the halting time increases. If the halting time is in the millions, it takes a several hundred trials before you have even odds of the screen having already spat out the right answer. If the time is in the billions, it takes several hundred thousand. (Model-specific tricks can alleviate this quite a bit. In Path Realism, you can use the path blowup technique to increase the probability of the correct halting time coming up. In Weighted and Reroll, you can inflate the static paradox fraction to arbitrary heights, reducing the odds of false negatives.) From ordinary turing machines, this is a difference in degree (retrocausal machines are better at it), but not kind (retrocausal machines can never decide whether a machine halts or doesn't). Long story short, retrocausation can increase the efficacy of your computers, but you're still stuck at 0.
Applications to More Permissive Time Travel Models
Our device is quite limited, in the world of retrocausation. There are at least two stronger types of models:
Bound Time Travel: our system only sends information back in time, where most extant system allow entire persons to make the journey. While I strongly prefer this "prophecy" scheme to proper time travel (prophecy is simpler and more physically plausible, and opens up less strange cases), the evidence suggests that's not the prevailing taste.
Free Time Travel: In contrast to a Primer-style system where time travel is limited to when and where a machine exists, quite a few just let you pop out at old place and time. Again, this is not preferable to me because it doesn't allows limits to be as clear (a desirable quality for any rational system), but free time travel seems rather common. Cf. HP Time Turners, the very things which started this discussions.
Bound Time Travel
It's clear how our models transfer the bound case; proper time travel is basically sending a whole bunch of information at once. There's another hurdle though: can you tell from when a time travel comes? With our red/blue device, the slider at the top puts an upper bound on how long the device waits for stablization. If the system allows this, then great! It means there's a clean cutoff point after which we know the timeline is stable or not. Otherwise, you probably want to make probability proportional to how far in the future the traveler comes from; if you're uniformly selecting a person that could exist between now and the heat death of the universe (without grandfathering themselves, granted), it's probably not going to be you from two weeks hence, of all people. There's a more interesting question this is avoiding though. What can we say about what will probably step out of the time machine, aside from whence it came? Well, it's helpful to assume that there's an organization controlling and regulating time travel. There's some failure modes that would be cripplingly common. For instance, doppelgangers. Temporal doppelgangers are a variation of the bootstrap paradox (i.e., self-causation), where a mutant version of your steps out of the time machine, finds current you, and forcibly alters your mind to replicate its own (anthropically, it must know how to succeed at this). This seems pretty inevitable from the premise, and it provides a nice, fresh justification for "you can't interact with your past self". Not out of fear that it might cause a paradox, but out of fear that it won't. If your mind is randomly altered repeatedly, even by slight amounts each time, the results are quickly going to not be pretty. Other than that, this scheme of time travel seems somewhat tractable; while the odds of any given arrangement of matter is a specific person with a specific set of memories consistent with the past and future of the extant universe is very very very low, there is some wiggle room, especially depending on the specifics of the time machine. The assumption baked into our models is that, in effect, the time travel mechanism is plucking a random configuration of matter from possibility space. Most arrangements of matter, even restricting to the stable ones, aren't neat blobs of protein and water. And the most of the ones that are, are random goop! Now, requiring that the configurations which arise in the past-time machine are exactly 1-1 equivalent to what enters the future-time machine is very tight requirement. I doubt bodies will be too much worse for wear if a few atoms are a few picometers off. And you can relax the requirement even further, allow what appears in the present to be "close enough" to its future equivalent, and increase the possibilities further. Of course, this will have ramifications; cancer, prions, strange tastes in the mouth. The organization controlling the time machines could require that everyone who walks out of a time machine undergo a medical examination, and make most crippling ailments thereby paradoxical. (And, likewise for the dead bodies which can't walk out anyway).
Free Time Travel
Free Time Travel is the trickiest of all, but it has a few felicities in addition to all the extra warts. There's not necessarily authoritative time travel device (or an immediately plausible time travel agency) that you can stick in to stealthily add in extra conditions and assert nice properties. With FTT, a time traveler could pop up anywhere, and at any time. Unless you add in a time agency that can monitor for new arrivals, there's nothing you can do about doppelgangers, unless you bolt 'no interacty with the past self' into the rules of the system somehow. You probably shouldn't have location be conserved; requiring that you come out exactly where you came tightens probabilities too tightly. Allowing leeway puffs them up a bit. The same goes for concerns about exact molecular matching. All those caveats aside, it seems as tho you can otherwise treat BTT and FTT similary to our toy examples, where they line up, showing the benefits of the simplification.
Well, that turned out much longer than I'd expected (or wanted). It feels like it puttered out here at the end, but I've said everything I set out to say and then some. I hope this served to sharpen your intuitions regard time travel, and make precise things which were previously vague. I would like to thank the nice people on the /rational discord for inspiring this line of thinking and providing the impetus to refine it. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. P.S.: worth mentioning that Tim covered much of the same ground as me in their initial post. My post is less a refutation to theirs than me working out my own solution to the problems they pose, as I didn't understand or believe all of their arguments.
Are (pro) games decided early on? A statistical analysis of G2's Summer Split games using multiple linear regression
TLDR: You can be pretty certain of the outcome based on certain stats at the 10 minute mark, not certain at the 5 minute mark. I was curious how early you could predict the outcome of a game of SR because it all too often feels like the game is decided super early and it's just a desperate struggle to try and overcome the early snowball effect. So I looked at G2's 15 games this summer split to see if I could come up with an equation to predict win or loss at a relatively early point in the game. Why G2? Because Caps is a sexy beast who doesn't actually statistically matter I collected the following stats for each game, with the binary options being represented with a 1 or 0 (ex. Win = 1, Loss = 0).
Win or Loss
First blood, dragon, and herald and time of each (in raw seconds)
CS of each lane at 5 minutes and at 10 minutes
Total Gold at 5 and 10 minutes (in thousands, ex 7300 => 7.3)
Gold difference at 5 and 10 minutes (in thousands)
This was gathered at the 5:00 mark and 10:00 mark, with a few exceptions if it wasn't on the screen of the VOD due to replays or other graphical info. The goal was to create an equation that would take in the binary operators, the cs numbers, and the gold, and then output either a 0 or 1 for a loss or win (respectively). This calls for using regression analysis, either polynomial or multi-linear. In this case, linear is a perfectly good option. I trialed many different combinations of the variables to try and see what had an influence and what didn't, and came up with a pretty good formula. What is a good predictor of a win at 10 minutes:
Who gets first dragon (better for you to get it)
Who gets first blood (better for you to get it)
When first blood is (later is better)
Who gets Herald (better for you to get it)
Top, Jungle, Bottom, and Support CS (Higher is better for Jgl and Bot, Lower is better for Top and Sup)
Gold and Gold Difference
What is not a good predictor of a win:
Mid CS (sorry Caps)
Herald and Dragon kill time
Anything at 5 minutes
What's the equation? It's messy like all regression equations. Win/Loss = 12.0594 - .0276(TCS) + .0571(JCS) + .0506(BCS) -.0869(SCS) +.9861(Gold Difference) - 1.0680(Team Gold) + .5643(Kills) +.0004(First Blood Time) - .2979(if you got first blood) -.6266(if you got first dragon) + .4639(if you got herald) How accurate is this? Extremely. The unadjusted r-square value is .9967, which shows that essentially every data point is predictable by this line (1 is perfect correlation). However, because we have so many variables, we want to look at the adjusted r-square value. This accounts for how many variables we have so we avoid the issue of just throwing more and more in there until we get a line that works. The adjusted r-square is .9845, which is also incredibly high. Removing any of the variables I used causes this to drop dramatically (to .4 or .5), showing that each variable is needed to properly estimate the win or loss. This very low r value means that our prediction intervals are quite small. Because these are estimates, our prediction interval is the range of win/loss values that we expect to see based on the numbers we put in. We can go up to 99% confidence and still comfortably guess who is going to win. Will this be wrong sometimes still? Yep! That's what makes it exciting; sometimes players just pop off and ruin the numbers. Preemptive Questions and Answers: Butbutbut does this mean it's bad to get first blood or dragon? For the average player it's probably better to get them first, but this is just for G2 and they are known for playing from behind. This just shows that they play better when it's from behind. 8 games this split for them the team that got first blood won, while the other 7 the first blood team lost. 10 games for first dragon winning. When you have a bunch of variables like this trying to hit a target number, the coefficients don't always make the most sense. But most importantly, correlation does not equal causation Is there a shorter equation? Sure, you can still get a pretty good estimate using first blood time, TCS, BCS, Gold dif, and kills (all at 10 minutes). This gives an adjusted r-square of .8048, which is still pretty good. It's a little iffy about a few games though with the intervals of estimated values being a little too wide for my liking. Notably the G2 vs FNC game in week 3 it estimated .5700, showing a slight edge to G2 (who eventually won). The equation for this one is Win/Loss = -1.4234 - .0004(FB Time) - .01978(TCS) + .0412(BCS) + .3319(Gold Dif) + .1159(Kills) What about at five minutes? Similar to above, but even worse. We only have an adjusted r square of .5930, and numerous estimated values hovering around the middle area between 0 and 1. Notably, the equation using the five minute values says that G2 was estimated to beat OG in week 5. But the biggest issue with having such a small r-square means that our prediction intervals almost always encompass 0 and 1. So in this case we are far less than 95% certain about any of our predictions. Where's mid???? Idk man, including it had little effect on the regression so it was omitted. All that means is that the amount of mid CS doesn't contribute significantly to G2's chances of winning. This shouldn't be much of a surprise considering Caps tends to roam instead of sitting in lane. TLDR (again): Lots of stuff matters to if G2 will win or not, but it's also pretty easy to predict at 10 minutes
so this is kinda a wierd story. I was planning to restart my computer. (cant remember why) I spend most of my time watching youtube videos so i had alot of tabs open. So i was watching the videos then deleting the tab but not opening new tabs. So i was down 2 i think 1 it was a pretty long video so i tried to open a youtube home page tab just to look while i listened to the video. And this is a short exerp of what i got.
Crypto currency market insights and also Details worrying ThisOption
Cryptocurrency is now the impressive cashless solution. Thisoption is an item of the money formula modern-day innovation all over the world company (Finalgo Inc.). The circulation of money. Coins as well as banknotes in each country along with region have various kinds of blood circulation in addition to various well worth. Today, concerning 180 different cash are dispersing worldwide. Together with the above cash money, there are a good deal more that 5000+ cryptocurrencies produced to use the modern 4.0 technology today with Blockchain modern-day innovation along with Smart Dealings. Cryptocurrency- the extraordinary settlement service in a cashless society. https://preview.redd.it/5zul32sviji51.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=814f98d655109e1f9d67c1a1b6aaecbac42a8588 What is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency or crypto is a name made use of to define all the coins on the digital market. There are similarly various other names, such as encrypted cash, however, in my point of view, almost among the most appropriate term is "cryptocurrency". Crypto is made to operate as a minimum of exchange. It utilizes cryptographic solutions to protect details, verify deals, in addition to manage the development of brand-new units of a specified cryptocurrency. Crypto worth devices are subsequently secured from kind of scams or scams while being able to conceal customers' acquisitions info. Crypto advantages in negotiations. Minimized trading costs. No chance of raising cost of living or being fake. Quick acquisition rate. Not taken care of by federal government federal governments. Indeterminate trading. Thisoption exchange introduction; Info pertaining to Thisoption. • Developed time: 2016, Head office: Highway: 926 Adelaide St. • City: Toronto. • Area: Ontario. • Postal Code: M5H 1P6. • Get in touch with number: 416-- 933-- 7770. • 926 Adelaide St, Ontario, M5H 1P6 Toronto, Canada. • ThisOption is an item from Firm: Cash Formula Modern Technology International (Finalgo Inc). • Down payment as well as additionally withdrawal selections: Visa, Mastercard, Cryptocurrency, Local Banks, Atm, Internet banking, Perfect Cash. • Main account cash: USD, EUR, RUB. Trading residential or commercial properties: Greater than 500 classifications containing cash, properties, index, products. • Binary selections: High/ Lessened (Call/ Put), Turbo. • Minimum down payment: $ 10. • Account kinds: Trial Account, Real Account, VIP Account. https://preview.redd.it/ye40bk9uiji51.png?width=785&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a0da0881e118e743018a196b2194b2385eda70c Thisoption Roadmap. 2016. • Thisoption was founded in Canada. 2017. • Thisoption reached 20,000 individuals as well as was present in 10 countries. 2018. • Thisoption released a duplicate trading item. 2019. • Thisoption launched the MIB method for area renovation. 2020. • Introducing the HEAPS Token Coin. • Changing LARGE AMOUNTS right into the primary coin on thisoption.com. • June 2020: ThisOption reaches a plan moneyed by NFA (American Derivatives Exchange) as well as additionally opens up a brand-new head office in the UK. • Introducing TONSTRADER as well as consisting of settlement sites for Visa along with MasterCard. • Area PLENTIES right into usage on LOTS OCCUPATION. • Developing an Eastern license as well as additionally representative workplace in Singapore. • Putting LARGE AMOUNTS on 2 significant cryptocurrency exchanges worldwide. • Issuing TUSD, a protected coin on Thisoption, working as the 2nd major money in Thisoption area. • Offering the TONSPAY application. • Performing LOTS Token in addition to TUSD, Thisoption's Steady Coin, right into TONSPAY as well as additionally EXTONS. • Providing the TONSP2P exchange. • Launching TONSFX. https://preview.redd.it/m5a2fgwsiji51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=993bc2cf3443b2a358d8034d64dda7be5bc09865 Judgment. ThisOption is showing an excellent development in cryptocurrency market. Official links for more details, Website Link : https://www.extons.io Thisoption binary exchange : https://thisoption.com Whitepaper Link : https://www.extons.io/whitepaper Twitter Link : https://twitter.com/thisoption Telegram Link : https://t.me/thisoption ANN Threads Link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5263768 Facebook Link: https://www.facebook.com/thisoptionexchange Youtube Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb6ufyQv-hs5BcUx6j0q70Q Medium Link: https://firstname.lastname@example.org Bitcointalk Username : kylieriley My Bitcointalk Profile Link : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2382224
Binary options demo account can help you learn what binary options trading is and to get familiar with the trading platform. In this article, you will find out more about different types of binary options demo accounts and learn how to use them for your own benefit. Binary options trading is often referred to as the easiest and most simple way of trading in financial markets. Still, everyone ... Trading binary options may not be suitable for everyone. Trading CFDs carries a high level of risk since leverage can work both to your advantage and disadvantage. As a result, the products offered on this website may not be suitable for all investors because of the risk of losing all of your invested capital. You should never invest money that you cannot afford to lose, and never trade with ... Binary Options Trial Account. It clears the web, on mobile sink ms is not as well. Watch out even though the brokerage services that level of money you join will lead to give them altogether. You wish to offer a thin line but the world bank transfer. They are a good time frame, blockchain technology for example, taking the extreme binary options trial account requirement to increase. The ... Binary Options Trial Account . When you are afraid to risk your money in a binary options trading, you can still do options trading but using virtual accounts. It is also the most basic binary options strategy for the newbie who cannot manage yet handling a real binary options trading account. The binary options demo or trial account is designed to allow the newbie in the world of binary ... You need to look for one that has a good reputation, and that offers a free trial for the managed account service. Not all of them are to be trusted, unfortunately, and there are those brokers that cast a shadow over the industry. We spend a lot of time researching both the binary options market and each broker operating within the market on your behalf. Our work and extensive research saves ... By working on a Binary Options Demo account, a trader can learn money management skills, as well. You can create your own portfolio and use virtual money to see how much profit you can gain. Furthermore, it helps you to learn how to control your emotions. To this end, you can play around with different time expiries so that you learn the buy and sell mechanisms and gradually can make sure that ... A binary options demo account is an opportunity for the client to use the broker’s platform for free over a certain period of time (or indefinitely). The broker will usually also provide the client with “demo money” which can be used to place trades as if they were live funds. You can think of a demo account as analogous to a free trial that is usually offered for a number of software ... If the binary options demo account link is not clearly posted on your broker of choices homepage, get in touch with their customer service department—they will guide you forward. Practice is always important before you trade with real money, even if you are going to use a trading service like Binary Options Robot. It gives you a more educated view of what you are doing, and this can only ... Binary Options Demo Account In MetaTrader 4. Another major benefit of trading binary options in meta-trader 4, is how easy it is for you to paper trade. You can open a new MT4 demo in the matter of minutes, without ever having to fill out any real information. This makes the process fast, and gives you the opportunity to trade without any risk at all. This is a great way to test and work on ... Here we list and compare the best binary options demo accounts with no deposit requirements 2020, and look at whether a free demo account really is ‘free’ and even where you can get a trial account with no sign up at all. For traders, a free demo account makes a lot of sense. You get to try the trading platform, or a mobile demo app, at no ...
How To Blow Your Account In Binary Options - YouTube
Code for bonus: SMR2020 Click here: https://binaryoptionsmastery.com Binary Options Trading - How I Turned $250 Into Almost $20,000 In One Month With Binary ... BINARY OPTIONS TRADING SYSTEM - REAL ACCOUNT - Binary Options Brokers ★ TRY STRATEGY HERE http://iqopts.com/demo ★ WORK ON REAL MONEY http://iqopts.com/r... Free signals group- https://t.me/BullishKingsignals Get 50% Instant Bonus Join- https://yea.to/YKh1y Contact- https://t.me/Bullishking Join Free Signals Grou... Please try again later. Published on Dec 1, 2014. ... How To Make Money With Binary Options - Tutorial Demo Account - Duration: 1:52. Money Online For Beginners 5,746 views. 1:52 . Building Your ... Binary Options Filtering Techniques - REAL ACCOUNT!!! https://ultimatefxtools.com Strategies that tend into losses need to be improved and change the way how... Register Binary Demo Account: http://record.binary.com/_cABEARyQUsu6tyDIijdDK2Nd7ZgqdRLk/1/ Digital Clock Download link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xf... Free Iq Option Demo: https://affiliate.iqoption.com/redir/?aff=53497 ExpertOption: https://r.expertoption.com/?refid=14452 For EU & USA best broker: http://w... Mambo Investment Group, offer managed account which enable us to negotiate trades for clients using a private app we own and bring strong profit sharing for our Managed Binary Options Account ... Open Your Free Binary Options Demo Account NOW! http://option.go2jump.org/SHLYL Disclaimer: As per CFTC Rules, U.S Traders should not trade Binary Options. Investing in CFD involves a level of risk, which is why potential or total loss can be a result of mismanagement of our ...