If only. The ones with serious gambling addiction won't stop even at that. When they run out of money they'd often choose to go into debt, pawn their car or other items, borrow from family, or even steal from the close ones.
It's a serious condition and I find it hard to have any sort of respect for a business that would try to capitalise on that.


That's a different category, those who only visit casino during a night-out with friends are probably safe from any life-changing losses, but there are also a lot of people, often elderly pensioners, who visit casinos as they have no real alternatives for having "fun". That's pretty sad really.

Hopefully that $20k is not your entire retirement pool, if it is, crypto won't save you. But if it's just an amount you're hoping to put into something more risky (high risk - high reward), I'd probably still go with Bitcoin. Historically speaking it is outperforming the rest of the crypto long-term, of course you won't be able to make x1,000 as in the past, but picking up other crypto that could yield you that much is close to impossible.
I wouldn't view Bitcoin as a safe haven protecting you from inflation. It still should be considered as a high risk asset, as its price is largely driven by news and actions of regulatory bodies, which is not something that can be easily predicted.

I don't get it. If you sell goods, it would be the buyer who would get hit by high tx fees, not necessarily you. So why would you drop selling any low value items? If customers are happy to buy them regardless of the extra costs, let them. On your end, you should make it easier for them to accept payments via lightning network.
Even if you're acting as an intermediary, and have to make purchases with BTC and pay fees, you could still ask/pressure sellers to start accepting LN payments, it's in their best interest so shouldn't be that hard.

I wish that was true, but it's simply not. The difference between fiats and Bitcoin is that you have to use the former to pay taxes, bills, or make large purchases (i.e. house). If Bitcoin is declared illegal by entire developed world, it will be practically unusable. Sure you could participate in an alternative economy, risk penalties to make some small purchases, but you won't be able to use it for any significant transactions.
Even the the use of the Euro in the form of cash gets crippled constantly with more and more restrictions i.e. on the maximum cash transactions and limited cash withdrawals options.

Bitcointalk Username: pawel7777
Utopia Public Key: 7949B3BCB5687CA4E8861C193409B9109C24F422517B5980D5C9270F96ED301A
BTC Address: bc1q79vqvnghljgu926g7gtuhnncq560kc24cur43t
Message Deep Link (Chat link): https://utopia.im/d53b4431fd604e2f0261792444797aa4?tid=26525563951034118
Slot No: 34

That's very nice of them, but that's not what I asked. I asked if they obliged themselves to notify you of any changes. If not, you can't rely on notifications alone, and, to be consistent with your approach, you'd have to read the ToS (or at least check for changes) each time you log in.


Define 'real gambler'. I feel we have a different idea of what this means.
Can you post a single example of anyone being locked out of hundreds of thousands, which could've been prevented if they had read the ToS? Have you ever seen a ToS saying "we can lock you out of your funds permanently"? Usually the wording is pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways.


How is losing money I can afford to lose protecting me from losing money? It just makes losing less painful.


People don't read them not only because their long, but also because every single service will give themselves a right to change them at any time, so it's kind of pointless. And if the casino operates in your jurisdiction, in a way you could take legal action against them if they misbehave, then the law would usually provide you a decent protection.

Nothing is risk-free and neither is gold. Even know I'm rather bullish on gold, I could imagine various scenarios where it falls from investors' favour.
And when you consider the profitability of investment, you cannot ignore inflation. After all, you invest to retain or increase the real value of your portfolio.

Looking at the inflation-adjusted gold price, you can see that it took almost 3 decades for it to return to the previous (real) value.

There's no such thing as a good gambler Mabe with the exception of those who engage in gambling activities only when they spot an opportunity when the advantage is on their side (but those are rare).
Gambling by definition is a way of losing money, not a way of accumulation, so the OP's question is pretty daft.

By that logic, isn't holding top 5 a better option than holding top 10. And top 3 better than top 5? And top 1 better than top 3?

Again, holding BTC only was so far more profitable than top 10 and that's not even including losses on rebalancing of the portfolio, which are greater when there is a lot of action/changes in the top 10.

Może i masz rację. Pisząc o luce podatkowej zasugerowałem się postem adama, kory napisał że "podatek jest tylko od wymiany na fiat" i zapomniałem że wymiana na dobra i usługi też jest zdarzeniem podatkowym.
W takim przypadku, system wydaje się być bardziej szczelny, choś i tu znajdzie się okazja do zakombinowania i zapłacenia niższego podatku niż przy akceptacji jedynie PLNów, np sprzedawznie tak żeby nie przekroczyć progu podatkowego i przenoszenie zysków na przyszła lata.

I też nie jest do końca prawdą że podatek od krypto płaci się tylko przy wymianie na fiat/dora/usługi, bo darowizny w krypto też są opodatkowane, czyli jednak dla fiskusa to niekoniecznie nic nie warte paciorki.

https://www.ifirma.pl/blog/darowizna-kryptowaluty-czy-trzeba-placic-podatek.html

Jak pisalem wczesniej, nie wydaje mi sie to prawda. Ciezko mi uwiezyc ze prowadzac np dzialanosc gospodarcza i akceptujac tylko BTC, bylbys zwolniony z obowiazku rozlicznia i placenia podatku. To by powodowalo olbrzymia luke podatkowa i akceptacja BTC pewnie przewyzszylaby PLN.

ps. czemu nie aplikujesz do zadnej kampanii (wg sygnatury takowej szukasz)? Pojawilo sie ostatnio kilka ciekawych.

Someone on our local board posted a question on whether or not Binance will be in position to counter-sue SEC i.e. for defamation and reputational losses given SEC allegedly made a serious of accusations without any real evidence.
Anyone heard of any case where SEC got sued for something like that and lost?

I'd imagine, if that's a possibility at all, Binance would have to have all the charges officially dropped by the court first, but I'm just guessing.

It 100% works. You "only" need an infinite amount of money, time and a game with no bet limits 


Not quite true. You could be hunting for opportunities when the advantage shifts to your side, e.g. large jack-pot cumulation, arbitrage betting or looking for bets with miscalculated odds. Those opportunities are not easy to come by, but they happen.

Nie znam sie ale chyba to ze nie bylo dowodow na "dissipation of assets" (co rozumiem jako nielegalny odplyw funduszy) nie oznacza ze nie ma dowodow na inne nieprawidlowosci.

Mysle ze ewentualne szanse na kontr-pozew beda dopiero kiedy Binance wygra w sadzie, choc nie wiem czy maja ku temu przeslanki (znieslawienie), no chyba ze SEC wprost nazwal Binance przestepcami albo cos w tym stylu.
SEC pewnie chetnie zaplaci odszkodowanie bo to i tak z kieszeni podatnika 


Czekalismy az ty napiszesz

No dobra, wrzuce chociaz linka
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-rally-30000-blackrock-etf-filing-101640858.html

Dobrze rozumiem ze, jezeli dostana zgode, to bedzie to pierwszy ETF oparty na czystym Bitcoinie, a nie spolkach crypto itp?

I don't think there's a single person here who doesn't know that buying cheap and selling at the top will make you profit. The real question of this thread is to predict where will the price go in the short to mid-term future. Will we see another cycle, similar to those we've seen in the past? Is it going to drop even further, or have we already seen the bottom? etc.
What makes you think now is a good time to buy, and do you buy with a lump sum, dca or have other strategy?

I find it hard to believe that you have actually read a full ToS of any gambling site, it doesn't make sense especially when you don't gamble too much. Why would you spend a chunk of your free time to read them if you only wanted to play a little bit? It does not add up.

Sure, sending notifications of any changes is a good practice, but did Stake.com actually obliged themselves (in the ToS) to send notifications of any changes? If not, you'd still have to read them everytime you log in, if you want to practice what you preach.


If you're a real gambler, you'll take a gamble of not reading them 
But seriously, as mentioned before, unless you're looking for a specific, nuanced information, reading ToS doesn't help much and does not guarantee you won't get in trouble, as those would almost always be worded in favour of the house, not the player. So what really protects you is either the law, or a hope that casino is genuine and will not engage in any shady practice out of a fear of losing reputation.

Do you actually do that yourself, or just decided it's a smart thing to preach to others? Do you actually dedicate a big chunk of your life to sit down and study all the ToSs of all the services that you use just to see if there have been any changes (do you run version compare in Word lol)?

Yes, reading entire ToSs is usually pointless, unless you want to learn about some specific rule that interests you, but for an average, regular user, that's not necessary and nobody does that in practice (yourself included).

You can't blame them really. If certain content generates more views, and therefore more money, there will always be someone who would try to capitalise on that. So if we want content creators to stop producing garbage content - we need to stop consuming garbage content, and either start watching something valuable, or just switch off the tv (or other device). Simple as.

Lets not re-invent words. Strategy is a broad term and could be roughly described as plan of action. As such martingale is a gambling strategy, because you'd be betting in a specific pattern (the plan). It's also widely described as a betting strategy, so I have no clue what are trying to achieve by attempting to change well established definitions.

Also, a strategy doesn't mean something good. There are a lot of bad strategies out there, martingale being one of them, and I think everyone in this thread knows that it is unlikely to help you win more money.

Well, in the world of trading, good news for one trader can be bad for another (zero sum game), depends on what positions do they hold.
In case of the article in question, it doesn't really explain why increasing BTC dominance is bad for Bitcoin, they're making a case for altcoins if anything, or for the crypto market viewed as a whole.