Any time within the allowed period is the right time. When that is exactly depends on your personal preference. You may claim it right away. You may also claim it a couple of months later, half a year later, and so on. That's not a big deal.

There must be reasons why some claim it later. Perhaps they need to travel. Perhaps they learned of it a bit late. Or perhaps they are busy with their business, work, whatever. It is also possible they want the news and excitement about the jackpot winning to die down a bit. Or it's also possible they're not at all in a hurry. Again, it's not a big deal when you claim your prize for as long as it falls on the allowed duration.

CoinPoker Username: FingersCrossed
Forum Username: Darker45
Total Merits earned (Excluding Airdropped Merits): 1,367
BTC Segwit address: bc1qlh9terfauzl2a60p0rjh8eakxk5fmydres2klg

Didn't click on the link. But I see Bitcoin as the overall best money among the three. That's not to say that Bitcoin is the perfect money, though. Bitcoin is far from perfect. Circumstances on the ground differ. Bitcoin can't even function as money in many places all over the world. Bitcoin, gold, and fiat have their advantages and disadvantages. They're better than each other in certain respects. Overall, however, I think it's Bitcoin that's better than the other two.

Halvings don't make the circulating supply shrink.

Anyway, scarcity is not the main thing about Bitcoin. I guess it's secondary, along with other features. If it's scarcity that matters most, then anybody could make their own version or fork that's scarcer.

The main thing about Bitcoin is decentralization. That it has a fixed supply is a great addition, of course. Coins may be more coveted because they're scarce, but this only follows if there's demand. Scarcity alone doesn't create demand, however.

Bitcoin's security as a currency, being decentralized, precedes scarcity.

Didn't click on the links. It's a no-brainer to know that Bitcoin could proceed in any direction any second of the day. For me, however, it seems the general sentiment of the market remains to be one characterized with optimism. It remains more or less bullish. It's just that there are not-so-good days even amidst a good season. I guess this is it, a temporary break in a bullish season that would push the price to $100,000.

If it's education that's truly the goal, I don't think paying for expensive ads is the most effective way to do it. Especially if there's a specific understanding of Bitcoin that you wish to spread, something grand and expensive like Super Bowl ads might not even be helpful. Flashing the Bitcoin logo, printing it on jerseys, and so on aren't even Bitcoin education. I don't know how it would make "the masses" get informed particularly on the "original goals of BTC idealists".

I guess the money would be more optimized if it's used to sponsor Bitcoin seminars, pay for expert resource persons, and the like.

All's well that ends well. In the end, you've earned your well-deserved reputation!

I've been blessed to have been taken into the family since the third week. What can I say? All those 223 weeks was one hell of a ride!

My sincere gratitude to the Best Change family: the team, the manager, fellow promoters, everybody. It was fun! Alas, all good things must come to an end! I can only hope and pray that Best Change will continue to make success!

A million thanks, manager! You're the best! Many thanks to everybody here as well! You're all a good company.

Why should they put an end to it? It's their job as a government. Should they stop simply because they're hurting a private business based somewhere else? Which is more important for the Canadian government, their laws or the welfare of a foreign business which they even kicked out for not complying with their regulations?

If it's not good for Binance, then they should do better next time. If what they're doing is bad for their reputation, then they should make improvements. Who should adjust, a government or a private business? Binance is looking after nobody else but themselves.

Why are you troubled? Are there no other alternatives? Is Binance the only one of its kind?

While I understand or perhaps appreciate your intentions behind this tool, this could also be interpreted as tolerating or even condoning a very bad practice. I think we need to resist rather than give in to this folly of grading what are otherwise fungible coins. I admit this has practical uses, but this also doesn't help the fight against centralized companies ang governments assigning labels to Satoshis.

Bitcoin is electronic cash. It is as fungible as hard cash. However, there isn't a tool used by everybody which screens bills and coins for cocaine residue, for example, to declare them dirty or not. A $10-bill is a $10-bill whether it's coming from a banker or a garbage collector or a drug peddler or a pimp. The $10-bill of a whore can buy as much as the $10-bill of President Biden. Why can't we do the same with Bitcoin?

I'm afraid this tool doesn't actually make the Bitcoin world safer. It does the opposite. It makes the Bitcoin world submissive to the rotten world of governments and fiat.

One address of mine has a risk score of 39%. It's only used as a signature payment address. What if no centralized service accept it because it doesn't have a low risk? Should I just accept their verdict? Isn't it our responsibility as Bitcoin supporters to oppose such absurdity?

I'm afraid nobody can give you a solid advice here as far as the legality and tax implications of your idea is concerned. I think it should involve experts, or lawyers or accountants practicing in the UK at the very least.

Anyway, since you mentioned selling "actual physical" products, why don't you just sell them for fiat? Why is there a need to tokenize it? Is it to maximize your potential to make money?

The way it seems, you'll have control over everything. You have the possession of all the products. Also, people would be buying your tokens to be able to pay you for the product. Everything ends up on your end. I'm not sure how this setup is appealing or creates a fair market.

Anyway, don't you think you need to have partners in order to execute what you have in mind?

That's quite a long post. I didn't finish reading everything.

Your friend didn't know Bitcoin and gold's price would increase. He was merely making a prediction. Predictions may or may not turn out right in the end. In which case, you can't just present your predictions to the banks in order to get money from them. That would be ridiculous. Banks would quickly run out of money if they allow that. Banks know how to measure and take risks.

Forget about banks' cooperation. Their interests always come first. Also, they don't actually work for you. Let's not be naïve. The truth is that they're creating wealth out of you.

Losses aren't necessarily a trap. Well, gambling is already a trap itself, but what I'm saying is that losing doesn't necessarily push a gambler to bet more. It's all a matter of discipline and control on the part of the gambler. Other gamblers stop even if they're losing. They don't even try to get back at the casino or recover their losses.

Gambling is generally based on luck. Results are random. Changing seeds don't even mean a thing. Casinos always have the edge. However small it may be, it will prevail in the long run. Don't cite cases of highly profitable and lucky jackpot winners. They're the exception, not the rule. Casinos remain a money-making machine. And they're making money out of gamblers.

Apparently, I'm responding to you, not the OP.

I'm not a technical expert, but I'm pretty sure that "all exchanges found on chain are dexes" is a very poor oversimplification. That's a very wrong idea of a DEx, my friend.

In the first place, those swap platforms that you're talking about may even be built on a centralized blockchain. That alone is enough to question their decentralized label. Not to mention that these so-called decentralized services have single points of failure resulting to successful hacks. Bitcoin hasn't been hacked simply because there isn't a single point of failure, because it's truly decentralized.

Moreover, how much power does Uniswap Labs have, for example, or the Sushi team? How is it possible that a governing body of a so-called decentralized service ask hack victims to send tickets to a supposed decentralized exchange's official social media account?

In what way does the Chinese company help out there?

They aren't necessarily trespassing because they legally acquired that property, but the state can of course invoke national security as a valid reason to demand that they leave the place.

Whether this ends well with the Chinese or not isn't the point. The point is that this is a Chinese-owned private company in a highly strategic location as far as national security of the entire country is concerned. I'm not necessarily a fan of Biden but a sitting president can't compromise national security.

Swap is a function, a feature. A DEx is a service, a platform. A swap isn't a function or feature that is exclusively provided by decentralized services or exchanges. You can do swaps even on centralized exchanges. You can also do swaps on services falsely claiming or marketed to be decentralized.

I guess this is the more important point to consider. Just because it is a swap platform doesn't automatically mean it is already a decentralized exchange. And just because it promotes itself as a decentralized exchange doesn't necessarily mean it is truly decentralized. A mere label doesn't mean anything.

I don't think CZ is the kind of person who will get worse when jailed. I don't know much about the man but he impresses me as somebody who can easily survive locked in a room for 4 months. He seems a bit geeky. He can easily get by with books, a pen, and pieces of paper, things which a billionaire can easily obtain from inside the prison.

There's no point giving up, but it's probably not even a question. CZ seems to remain cool. I guess that's what being a Chinese businessman means. They don't quit.

Define integral. Define Bitcoin.

Even Bitcoin's USD or fiat equivalent isn't an integral part of Bitcoin. All these highs and lows aren't about Bitcoin itself. They are about Bitcoin's fiat value. Bitcoin's fiat value is merely incidental. It's nothing but external, subjective, attachments to Bitcoin. It isn't part of Bitcoin's fundamental design.

If you argue that dips are an integral part of Bitcoin, would you say that Bitcoin ceases to be what it is if there isn't any more dip? Because that's what integral means.

That would be the height of Bitcoin's desecration. If this happens, you can't anymore attach the word free or freedom or independence with Bitcoin. What's the point of using Bitcoin, then?

Even the private in private keys would be rendered useless. Yes, you didn't surrender it. Yes, only you and you alone know it. But by registering your wallet, the government already monitors what you're doing with your Bitcoin. The moment they notice something suspicious and orders you to submit your private keys, what else can you do?

I hope you've come up with this theory based on what's happening in reality. From where I am, this can only exist in a dream. Here, companies aren't having a hard time looking for workers. Despite extended working hours, too much work loads, no overtime pay, less than minimum wage, uncomfortable work places, toxic setup, cruel bosses, and other disadvantages, jobs remain coveted. One vacancy can have hundreds of applicants. Jobseekers are even submitting applications to companies that aren't hiring.

Crude remains highly relevant today. And I can't see crude oil becoming irrelevant in the foreseeable future. Hydro can't replace crude oil. Electricity can't fully replace crude oil either. Even in vehicles, I don't think electricity can fully replace petroleum fuels, which are products made from crude oil.

Every country has its own hardships. That includes oil producing countries. But this isn't because crude oil, on which their economies are highly dependent, is becoming irrelevant.