Ah yes, trust the random dude who called up and said a random asset would go up infinitely high. Yeah, in hindsight it seems true, but banks don't look at things after it has happened, not that they can in the first place. If they could they would've probably been able to control the entire worlds money flow.

Regardless of whether your friend had knowledge or just assumptions, banks wouldn't work ever with him/her if they didn't have anything similar to collateral that could work. Even slapping them with a bunch of documentation and paper about how the market would go wouldn't work because in the end, those are all assumptions. This kind of imagination only works on hindsight op.

Did they mistake open-source for something else? Lol. At the end of the day THEY are the ones who are going to use it, distribute it, and set the laws. Being open-source has no relation to what they're planning to do lol. If I was able to say, make my own laws when receiving their CBDC in my store then yeah maybe it'd serve some purpose, but otherwise it's just policymakers being dumb a f and going to the route of how famous projects are lol.

Well at least they're open with how they control us, should I be glad about that? I don't think knowing the behind the scenes would update me on how the government works, I already know about it.

Where is this tweet exactly? I scoured his tweets for the past week and there was none related to resuming BTC payments. At least that, or I just suck but well give me proof of it at least.

But anyway, if it was true, considering his influence on DOGE holders who knows, there might just be a wave about it. As much as some people hate him, he has a big influence overall among a lot of people so its no surprise if it actually happens. Personally though I don't really give a damn, and neither should most people imo. In the first place he became famous in crypto in general because of how he was one of the first few big name supports for crypto no? That phase is pretty much over I'd say.

You talking about casino coins/chips? I don't think they have a difference. It's a mentality thing here imo since it's common sense that chips hold some value that casinos dictate so that players can use them inside the casino. In your example even, walking in with a $50 and walking out with $40, that's still what happens with chips, you don't exactly walk out with chips after all lol, you change them out to money.

Now if this was about crypto, and trading in general, well yea, I'd consider thinking it's similar to gambling as dumb. If it was about the value then to each their own, but with considering it different to gambling then cheers to that mate. Being spent as a currency though, they're pretty much the same, I see no difference. They're called a currency for a reason, and if both parties agree that they have value and are willing to accept it, why bother arguing? That's how all trades started after all. Rejecting that pretty much rejects history.

Would definitely do, I just hope I remember it lol. I've pretty much given up on trying to skip it and there's a LOT of problems that can come up whenever you try to KYC late in the game, as proved obviously by a lot of other people. Would rather do it now than then since no matter what, I'm still going to do it.

As for max win, not really. I'd much rather be afraid of being in a casino with an ass support. Getting a max win on a casino with good support can potentially be pretty comfortable since they'd be willing to help you but with a bad support? Goodluck even finishing KYC>

Idk about the third one, that's more legal ish in terms of answers imo. Wouldn't say it's money laundering though since it's under the casinos own legal terms if I was asked about it.

First, the halving isn't about the price, it's about the rate the miners can mine new coins. Price has no direct correlation to whatever the halvings does, it is in no way indicative of what the price of Bitcoin should be. As you've said, it's mostly speculation by us (and from what history did) and it's pretty easy to see how the expected effects aren't immediate. Honestly, this current period looks great for people to buy in imo. A lot were screaming that they were late when we pumped to 60k, well now that we're just waiting here you can now not be late.

And tbf, speculations are speculations because they're not true nor false, so to call it falseful sounds kind of wrong .

Why does it look like it'd take more time to handle the issue, there's even witnesses and even the staff themselves have said that they let Watanabe gamble under the influence of alcohol. I was about to question why it's not a law that they shouldn't gamble under its influence but it seems like it's already a thing. And jesus christ, being the sole source of 5.7% of a casino's total profit in a year is freaking insane. I'm just weirded out how it took that much for him to notice that something was going on.

I hope he wins the case
.

If it was pure addiction then yeah, the fault lies among the gambler. But it seems like this addiction was under the influence of alcohol, and trusting the article, it seems like the Casino law itself states that it's not allowed.

From the article:

I am a responsible person now but it wasn't till a couple of years of gambling lightly did I realized that I was turning heavily into it so I needed to manage how I do so properly. It was kind of a gradual process, the more I started to gamble and the more I started to increase the wagers I did, the more I realized that I had to set some rules that I need to follow 100%. It was hard at first, I often skipped or ignored it but it gradually improved over time and since then, I luckily haven't had any big issues with it.

The sports. Why in the hell would I give a damn about the betting market? Is it because you'd only look at the odds all the time so bias is nonexistent? That's just bs. Darkhorses wouldn't be a thing and people wouldn't have been able to hit it big sometimes if odds were always correct. Yes the odds usually have all the info that bookies gather to judge, but it doesn't mean that it's the end all be all of things. The people who make the odds are in the end people as well, they simply turn the statistics into a question of is it A or B, and anything in that process doesn't guarantee that whatever they decide as higher or lower as facts.

No. I mean I might get incited by the obvious ones that they provide but I rarely try to maximize whatever rewards that they give out. It's to the point where the rewards are rather diminishing in terms of efficiency by the middle or close to the end to the point that the time (and money) spent on it wouldn't actually be worth it.

Well in general most casinos provide almost the same bonuses and the like, with minor differences here and there so I highly doubt it would evolve into a big issue for someone. That doesn't mean that they're not important though since the fact that said features were normalized already signifies how important such stuff is for most casinos.

Wouldn't it be the team? I mean they're the ones responsible to the development to the marketing the release after all. Investors are just there to slap the money to the teams hands so that they can use it to either improve/reduce the time it takes for the project to develop or to market the coin itself. Investors rarely have a say, or at least full control of what the coin would actually do moving forward. They have some sway in it, but that's about it. In the end responsibility would 100% lie on the team that handles the coin 24/7.

In a sense you can say that investors are simply the money involved, the brain is the team behind it itself, and the brain is the one that makes decisions on how to spend the money, not the money itself.

What now? That scenario is so far away from the reality that it's even a question as to why it is connected to how will we cope when online gambling gets banned. Anw ignoring the initial story, I wouldn't particularly do much about it. I don't really see gambling as a must do activity, it's there and I enjoy it and it's available so I play it, if it's not then that's that. I might try to access it via VPN sometime but that's probably the limit of whatever I'll do to try and continue gambling. Anything above that like moving to a new country would probably be outside of what I'd ever think about in the first place.

Bitcoin is broad not because it's Bitcoin but because of the tech used in it, so why bother teaching Bitcoin? Teach the technology behind it instead of going around Bitcoin just to prioritize how important it is lol. And even then, I don't think it'd be a huge or a core subject. Probably a small part of a curriculum that tackles blockchain, most likely something network related subject. And even then I reckon it's on a more specialized topic since most students probably won't even touch blockchain when they graduate, or at least won't be part of their first work experience.

Does it even matter that they need to identify what the main points are? Heck, even just the act of gambling itself already presents the main points, I don't think it matters at all for people to be aware of what they actually are or not. In fact you don't even need to know it in the first place. It's nothing important and in most cases, if not all, as long as a gambling instance has a prize and a chance to win, that's more than enough for people to gamble.

Idk, I think you're overcomplicating how casinos see free spins as. They offer it as an incentive, so people would spend more to get them. Free spins isn't really a guarantee to win, and even if they did, with the amount of customers that play, they'd easily recoup whatever amount won there. It wouldn't have existed if it wasn't working in the first place. And I don't think it's greed really, it might just be that your bottomline is higher than others, so you're able to achieve that free spin, simple as that.

The only dumb part I see with free spins is wagering a specific amount before being able to withdraw whatever you win from them. That's just... really dumb imo.

The most dumb thing to give someone is to give them the idea that if they continue gambling they'd win it big at some point. That's how all gamblers fall into that endless loop of an idea that they'd be someday repaid with their continuous gambling. It does happen though, dw, just that it only happens to that 1% (or maybe even less) of gamblers. And it's not even a fair selection really, since rich people would be able to get into that 1% more than an average gambler could.

I'd honestly tell them to do something else, find a hobby or something. Maybe invite him to join me on what I enjoy.

Not really no? It's just a pretty easy way to tally your gambles, especially for people who want to have a clear idea about what the hell happened throughout their entire journey. Now if I wasn't a lazy ass I would've done the same, which I did one time, but at some point, I just forgot all about it lol.

In his case, I wouldn't consider it as addiction or anything, seriously? Maybe. But it's more so because he's turning it into a challenge of sorts. That's why he needs a journal. Now idk the logic exactly as to why you want to have a journal, but it's always better to have one when you're turning it into a challenge of sorts than not having one.

Phew was questioning your decision-making skills since you needed to pay for medical school and you'd still gamble. Afaik student debt, especially in fields of medicine, could go up pretty damn high that even working 2-3 years after wouldn't even be enough to pay it out. Considering that ig 0.05 can be pretty small.

Idk exactly how much your student loan would be but if 0.05 is about half or so, I'd honestly just save it as payment.  Anw good luck OP!

Well if having to hide my privacy is somehow anti-government then yea, I guess you can say Bitcoin promotes anti-government. But afaik it's not? Pretty sure that's part of the basic freedom that we're supposed to have.

As for trusting bitcoin holders, with what specifically? Kind of broad really. I mean would I trust a random bitcoin holder on the internet? Probably not. Do I trust myself, who is a bitcoin holder? Well who the hell will I trust if not myself lol.

Well, it's outside their control. Outside equals bad in their dictionary, so they're trying to do something about it but I don't think there's anything solid they can even do about it. Geoblocking can only do so much and they can't exactly force a service online to go down since they only control the rules in their country, not outside of it. Centralized they can control a bit more about it, but p2p, again, limited.

Now If I were to put what they're doing between right and wrong, if it was indeed for money laundering then yea, I mean they need to do it anyway, part of their job in protecting stuff. But most of the time it's not really limited to that, they just choose to use that as their frontal image so that they have a valid excuse.