I won't go as far as saying everything's planned and that Usyk will have to be the winner whatever it takes, but it was certainly a robbery. This does not necessarily represent the entire sport of boxing or of the promoters involved, but I am a little bit shocked at the referee's incompetence despite him being on the job for a long time. He's been a referee for around 30 years and yet he couldn't tell whether that was a low blow or not. It was clearly not a low blow. Usyk mentioned about not hitting balls in boxing. That was very far from the balls; that was right on the belly.

It is unfair to just call for a rematch. This should rather be declared a no contest.

You seem to have gotten everything wrong. Take a closer look at Bitcoin and fiat once again and you will realize they're extreme opposites. You've mentioned about a transparent ledger. That itself is enough for you to consider Bitcoin as a different currency. Does fiat have one?

Comparing network fee and enforced tax is also wrong. From the word itself, a network fee is a fee for those who process your transactions in the network. You can't have it for free; it's a task that takes a lot of energy and computation.

Whether a nation legalizes it or not, a network fee is always required. Whether a tax is required on top of it or not, it's not anymore on Bitcoin. It's on the government that legalizes it.

I don't know how a game of monopoly fits your journey to accumulate 1 BTC. What I know for sure is that it's supposed to be just a simple process. First, if you want to accumulate 1 BTC, you need to have a work. You will have to earn before anything else and then acquire small amounts every now and then, self-custody your Satoshis in a safe wallet, and hodl until it reaches 1 BTC. That's probably it.

Avoid any games in the process. Many have gotten into staking, trading, investing in altcoins to increase their worth in BTC, and so forth only to end up delaying their journey toward 1BTC. Worse, others are even moving backward as a result.

Then you probably shouldn't have said that "it's not a big issue to do it." It's a big issue. And the extent of this selling and/or sharing of information is something we really don't know. We actually have no idea where our personal information are shared. It would probably be less worrisome if they're shared with government agencies upon order, because they have no choice but to comply, but what if they're sold to different companies, legal and illegal?

Have you ever been surprised that certain offers suddenly arrive at your email without your knowing how they got hold of your email address? And this happens not just when certain projects go down. They're probably happening even if these projects are still up and running.

This might be too much of an oversimplification. Or perhaps you either read too much conspiracy theories or entertain too much movie-like plots in your head.

While it is most probably true that in every political, geopolitical, economic, and other decision of the government there are powerful companies and their business interests at play, it's plain ignorance to just say that the war will be over soon because BlackRock invests in Ukraine.

So what if BlackRock invests in Ukraine? BlackRock is all over the world. It has business interests in Russia as well. Chinese companies are also investing in Ukraine. Russian businessmen are also doing business in Ukraine. Ukraine's Russian import takes a significant portion of its GDP. Ukrainian companies are also doing business in Russia.

We're probably just entertaining too much creative interpretations in understanding current events.

Do we have data that confirms that there are more exchanges hacked than casinos? Or do we have data that say there are more hack attempts on exchanges than on casinos?

I agree with many opinions here that exchanges are probably targeted more because there's so much more money there than on casinos.

However, we really cannot make a general claim. The largest crypto exchange must be bigger than the largest crypto casino, but there must also be a number of crypto casinos that process more money than many exchanges.

And it's not as if casinos have uniform security measures and exchanges have also their own uniform measures. Security systems vary from one casino to another just as they also vary from one exchange to another.

If you could please provide us the link of the news or article which claims that BlockRock is accumulating Bitcoin directly from miners.

We actually don't know the motives behind purchasing Bitcoin via OTC. Unless BlackRock states its reasons for buying Bitcoin directly from miners, all we can do is speculate.

One reason could be that they don't want the price to spike especially if they purchase huge amounts through exchanges. That would mean they'll pay a higher price. Another would be that buying through exchanges in bulk could be complicated. Buying through a mining company is an easy and quick transaction. Or perhaps they don't want to identify themselves so they rather buy it via OTC.

Finally, it's always profit-driven.

Forget about how Bitcoin is being treated by many people right now. We can't blame them. Bitcoin has somehow developed into something else.

However, has Bitcoin itself changed? No, not at all. It still is the decentralized, peer-to-peer, censorship-resistant, immutable, permission-less system that it always has been.

Is there something better now? No.

Have the problems that Bitcoin is supposed to provide solution to been completely addressed? No.

Therefore, I don't see any reason why Bitcoin would stay out of relevance and become outdated.

Since this is an announcement of a new service platform, I suppose this should be moved to Service Announcements section.

Anyway, it seems your platform is not yet fully ready. It has yet to be polished. For one, you're saying one thing and requires another. Echoing logfiles, you claim you believe in anonymity and yet you adhere to KYC/AML policies. Those two are mutually exclusive.

You claim you "honor the initial concept of cryptocurrency" and yet your ToS makes it clear that you bar individuals and entities that are sanctioned by political bodies. You impose a blanket ban based on geopolitics. That's censorship. That's one problem which crypto tries to solve.

There are three items under your Announcements: 1. "Unlimited", 2. "Anonymity", 3. "NO LIMIT." I don't how numbers 1 and 3 are different from each other. Also, your history tab doesn't have any data.

Or perhaps we're the fools. The joke's probably on us for choosing sides and defending them as if they're not part of the same fiat circus. Fiat is backed by nothing. That's the truth. Whether that's the Russian ruble or the Chinese yuan or the American dollar, they're all nothing but debts. The monetary standard we have today is nothing but foolery. Is there a currency right now that is fully backed by gold? Nothing.

Wherever you got it, forget about that rumor that BRICS would come up with a currency backed by gold. That's not going to happen.

My friend, I'm afraid we're not talking here of the revolutionary features of Bitcoin. We're just doing some mathematics. We're just trying to compute certain numbers. We all know that Bitcoin is this and that, freedom, emancipation from the abuses of central banks, independence from banks, and so on and so forth, but we're simply looking at inflation as a number here. It means more than that, of course. It's stealing; it's taxation; whatever, but perhaps it's another discussion altogether.

While I agree that Canelo was defeated fairly and squarely and Floyd embarrassed him and everyone else, I would never agree that he's one of the best boxers of all time. Props to him for winning all of his professional fights and for ending many of his fights as if he hadn't been touched, but that's not enough for me to put him on the pedestal of the best boxers of all time. He's not even close to the likes of Julio Cesar Chavez.

My personal opinion of the sport of boxing is that it isn't just about winning. I put weight on it being a combat sport. I know that defense is part of any fighting sport, but hurting the opponent is probably the main goal in boxing. For me, winning and winning in an explosive fashion is what makes a boxer a great boxer. Respect to him, of course, for being undefeated, but the way he fights doesn't make him one of the greatest of all time.

I can hardly grasp your point, but I think this is where the argument that "since inflation is never-ending, the increase of Bitcoin's price is also never-ending" comes in.

Bitcoin will always beat inflation. It might not strictly be year after year, but in the long run Bitcoin will always be the victor. You will only be defeated if you sell your Bitcoin for fiat.

Perhaps one way of making sure your value overcomes the continuous inflation is to store your wealth in assets or properties that grow in value over time. A piece of land, for example, especially in a strategic location, is one thing of this kind. Investing your money in a business is another.

But, for me, Bitcoin is more or less sufficient as far as the overall numbers are concerned.

Mixers aren't creating scammers. Mixers aren't producing hackers. Mixers aren't law enforcers. While they have responsibilities, they aren't built and designed to catch criminals and seize dirty money. Privacy-loving individuals love them. Criminals may love them as well. Mixers aren't created for them, however.

Gambling lords, drug lords, corrupt local politicians, and other criminals love cash. They often avoid bank accounts. They have their own vaults at home. Should we hold cash and vault makers responsible? These two are perfect tools for their kind of life, but they aren't created for them. If Boko Haram loves Toyota Land Cruiser more than any other vehicle because it's perfect for their kind of operations, should we hold liable the car designer? If a mixer fits the needs of a money launderer, container vans are also tailor fit for the needs of human traffickers. Should we make container vans illegal?

My point is that this is obviously selective. In other words, this is repression against crypto innovations. They're obviously suppressing the technologies that promote privacy and independence.

We might want to note that Canelo is younger than Crawford. Canelo is almost 3 years his junior. If this dream fight happens two years from now, Canelo is indeed approaching the twilight of his career. Crawford, on the other hand, is already approaching 40. Age is probably one of the reasons why Spence was running away and delaying his fight against Crawford. That's an off-topic opinion, though.

It would be an amazing moment in boxing's history if this fight takes place, especially if the two remain on a winning streak when the match happens. Crawford will, however, prove his worth in 154 first. If he proves to be effective and natural in this weight, and wins fights, then he could allow his body to continue gaining weight and reach 168. But he shouldn't be confronting Canelo right away. It would be the same process. If he proves that he can handle the weight naturally, without compromising his movements, quick responses, and so on, then he could face Canelo.

As to their physical stats, they're pretty much the same. Crawford has, of course, a longer reach though.

It seems to me that Argentina's Javier's attraction toward Bitcoin is borne out of exasperation. Argentina has been in all kinds of debt crises, banking crises, and other financial crises in many many decades already. Even before I was born, the country has already been through all of this. Milei must have already been fed up with this problem that characterizes the country's economy all his life.

It's not surprising, therefore, that an Argentinian leader would just want to eradicate the highly incompetent, corrupt, and inutile central bank once and for all. It probably explains why, while he is pro-Bitcoin and anti-central bank, he is also compelled to embrace a foreign yet more stable and dependable currency. That to me isn't controversial. That is realistic and practical. That's probably better than just declaring Bitcoin to be the one and only official currency when he becomes president.

While this isn't the solution, this may be a good place to start. This may indeed just be a band-aid solution but it'll at least somehow stabilize the economy. Having a stable currency is a good start.

I don't agree. Why can't we blame the DOJ? This is unfair. If there's money laundering, they should pursue the launderers. If there's money involved in a crime, they should seize the money and arrest the criminals. Why arrest those who simply wrote open-source software? We don't arrest central bankers for creating money which is used in all kinds of crimes. We don't arrest the Toyota CEO or president for having their cars used by ISIS and other terrorists.

If "knowingly" is the key word, do they know it? How about the fact that the ledger involved is public? Transactions are open for anybody to know. How about the fact that Tornado Cash was decentralized? The code was publicly available, free for anybody to use in whichever manner they see fit.

When security hackers transferred almost $1 billion from Bangladesh Bank's Federal Reserve Bank of New York account and laundered almost $100 million in a Philippine bank, the bank wasn't penalized. The bank's particular branch itself which facilitated the laundry wasn't penalized. The one who was arrested was the very person who did the laundry herself.

There's nobody who can follow the market with significant accuracy.

I learned to be careful with this "realizing gains" thing. Most often, it's a trap. If you want to make some conversions because you need to build a house, buy a car, pay your or your brother/sister's tuition, start a business, pay for your old grandma's hospital bills, and so on and so forth, it's perfectly all right. But if you convert just for the sake of "realizing gains," you're entering the realm of trading and you might be trapped.

Of course, it does. These star players are considered star players for a reason. Their presence is a big deal, not just because of what they can do to their teammates' morale, confidence, and performance but mainly because of what they can do to the game. So, betting odds would definitely be affected.

You take Lionel Messi from Inter Miami and the betting odds would definitely increase. You take Jokic from the Nuggets and you're taking away a much more solid play which will certainly reflect on the odds.

I guess it's better if you provide the platform here so that everybody has a fair chance to try check it themselves.

My concern, however, is that this is illegal gambling. The platform you're referring to is not registered. Law enforcements authorities could conduct a raid anytime. Moreover, the platform could just do a rug pull and all money is gone. The operators could just vanish all of a sudden. They could lock accounts and freeze funds. There can't be accountability with an illegal gambling operation.

There is no house edge in cockfighting, but the platform always takes a good deal of share. For example, if the bets on the two fighting cocks are $10,000 each, it doesn't mean that your $100 will become $200. It might just be $185.