I think you're confusing investing with gambling. For every newly created "project" that makes it to the top 10 or the top 20, you have dozens, if not hundreds, of projects that fail miserably. Everyone is a master of retrospective trading and can point out a coin that made it and say "you should've invested in it and you could make x1000" etc, but actually predicting that before the pump is a whole different game. Sure, you could play around with a couple of hundred $, but no one sane would put any significant portion of their wealth on Shiba Inu, Niggercoin, or another Doge Bonk. Even if it plays out the way you want, it's almost always a stupid move.

What you're describing here is a pure scam. There's no way any laws would require casinos to play the role of financial investigators and to decide whether players' funds have been earned in a legit way or not. They might be required to report any suspicious activity to relevant authorities, or ask you for the source of income when registering, but asking for proof of funds is way above their competence.


Remember all: ToS do not supersede the law. Any entity can put whatever they want into their ToS, but that does not mean they can do whatever they want with your funds. Usually the worst that can happen for violating ToS is to get banned from using the site.

It's pretty annoying how they equate energy usage with carbon emissions, without considering the source of the energy for BTC mining and whether it's "green" or not.


I think you mean mining farms not pools. In open pools, we don't really know the source of energy that each individual miner uses.

On the positive side, WEF released some video praising some BTC mining company for using energy from recycled gas. Of course they've done it without a single mention of Bitcoin, but still.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5450069.0

I made a quick comparison of "BCI 10" - a top 10 crypto index Vs. Bitcoin.
BCI 10 is offered by Bitpanda (a regulated Austrian crypto exchange). It gets rebalanced every month to reflect any changes in the top 10.
As in the OP, it doesn't take into account any staking rewards, forks etc.

BCI 10:
1 year:


5 years:


Bitcoin:
1 year:


5 years:


In the shorter run of 1 year, Bitcoin has recorded a slightly lower loss, but in the span of 5 years - it massively outperformed the BCI 10 index.

Genuinely curious on how so-called "progressives" like yourself view the world. Do you deny that there are notable differences between genders other than physical appearance? Are you not aware of differences in IQ distribution for men and women? Is it sexist to you to point out that both genders, on average (key word here) have different interests and naturally gravitate towards different fields? How do you reconcile that some fields are vastly dominated by women while others by men - is it all due to patriarchal/matriarchal oppression or lack of "encouragement"?

Sorry to hear, but yes, hitting such streak is just a matter of time. It's not a question of "if" but "when". It was especially evident in the dice sites that had automated betting and super-fast rolls, when you'd go bust in a matter of seconds.


I think we've all been there  
A losing streak of 12 is nothing uncommon. At least you haven't lost much, so you've learnt your lesson at a reasonable price.

That's a good point but different jurisdictions can have different requirements or thresholds for when the KYC is required. On top of that, there might be different levels of verification. So it's possible that for smallish deposits only basic verification was required, but after winning big, the player might have fallen into a different threshold and was asked to complete a full verification.
But even if that was the case, every player should've been properly informed of the procedures when signing up.

Dopóki kampanie sygnatur nie bedą płacić za posty na forach lokalnych to aktywności nie będzie 

Dopiero zauważyłem ten wątek, ale chętnie dołącze do kanału na TG/discord jeśli taki powstanie, choć bardzo aktywny raczej nie będę bo sporadycznie używam tych aplikacji. Ale pomysł dobry.

Using martingale is just betting on that there will be no long losing streak. But many fail to realise how much money would be needed to finance this strategy if an unusually long losing streak occurs.

With a base bet of just one satoshi and 1btc=$30k, the cost of a losing streak of 10 would be just $0.31, but that's almost guaranteed to happen. A losing streak of 20 would cost us over $314. A losing streak of 30, that's $322,123 - just to win 1 satoshi.

If I remember correctly, the longest-recorded losing streak on JustDice (which used to be the most popular bitcoin dice site) was over 30.

In theory, the size of the casino shouldn't have much effect on the KYC processing time. Small ones have fewer customers, but the big one can afford more staff. So what we're really looking at is not the size, but the number of active players per one customer support worker ratio.
But I'd be guessing that nowadays almost all sites that genuinely require KYC (and not just use it as an excuse to not process withdrawals) are using 3rd party verification services rather than handling the process themselves. It's simply cheaper and faster that way and they don't have to deal with all the data protection/storage requirements.

Here we go again. We haven't heard "Bitcoin is bad for environment !!1!" fud for a while. But it's back. This time from The Guardian (British left-leaning news portal).

Bitcoin is terrible for the environment – can it ever go green?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/26/bitcoin-mining-climate-crisis-environmental-impact

The replacement of USD as a reserve currency will likely happen eventually unless China gets defeated badly in the geopolitical games. But there's close to zero chance that it'll get replaced by Bitcoin.
The world's reserve currency will be the currency of the country that dominates economically (and militarily).

I wonder if US is actually capable and willing to do anything to prevent that from happening.

I think the general trend (in developed countries) is women would put their education and careers first (not necessarily just to get rich). That's a trap on multiple levels. First of all, women are generally much less attracted to men who are less educated and earn less than them, so the better they do in their careers, the harder it will get to find a suitable partner. On top of that, starting to look for the right partner in their 30s, means that they'll likely be looking to give birth to the first child in their mid or late-30s, so way past their prime fertility (early 20s).

It's truly sad how the system managed to convince women that the only way to a fulfilling life is to dedicate their time to work for the benefit of some shareholders rather than dedicate it to their own families.

I'm guessing the list of credit-reducing offenses is not exhaustive and probably only mentions things that are not already criminalised under normal laws. I can't imagine that common criminals would not have their ratings reduced.
Or maybe the wording was just a choice of whoever designed that graphic.

Yeah, but the average person would not have a clue of what they actually see in that video. So it's still pretty far-fetched to say that WEF "finally recognized the positive effects of bitcoin mining" as per OP. All the video does is praise harvesting the waste gas to produce green energy, without a single mention of Bitcoin or crypto.


That's true, there doesn't seem to be many mentions of Bitcoin, but they have a couple of articles on their blog where they're pretty open about it.
And for what it's worth, they have this on the main page:


https://www.crusoeenergy.com/

Thanks for sharing. I didn't realise they actually had benefits for having high scores. I thought it was just a stick with no carrot.
You have to admit, that's a pretty effective way of controlling the population. Some silver-lining is that it's probably less harsh on the disobedient people than the "traditional" methods of jail, labour camps and torture, although they probably still use those too.

I wonder how much time we have left before similar systems are implemented in the West. The messed up part is, that after a while everyone would get used to it and consider it as the new normal.

The volume seems to be picking up as well, which is always a good sign.


Arkham denies it saying the alert was sent when the market was already 6% down. I'm sure this could be verified if we know the exact time it was sent.
They also say that there was no error in that alert and that it was accurate.
https://cryptoslate.com/intelligence-platform-arkham-sent-incorrect-bitcoin-alert-coinciding-with-6-crash/
https://twitter.com/ArkhamIntel/status/1651366459547713537

Lol, not yet, but with women becoming more masculine and men more feminine - physical beatings are just a matter of time 



I think you're giving them too much credit. Generally speaking, men are usually better at technical things as well as math, so, in terms of actual calculated risk, men should have an advantage. The problem is, casual investors/traders don't tend to do much of calculations and would rather act on impulse. With women being more risk-averse and cautious, it makes sense they're doing a bit better.

Disagree. They SHOULD be taken seriously. WEF, like it or not, is a powerful organisation. It's not just a bunch of bored guys who meet up once a year for no particular reason just to talk about nothing. They're pretty overt with their agenda and most countries seem to be following it.

Here's an incomplete list of politicians that graduated the "Global Leaders of Tomorrow" WEF's program, compiled by Malone's Institute: https://maloneinstitute.org/wef that gives some idea of the scale of their influance.
To quote K. Schwab, WEF's Chairman: "What we are very proud of, is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries with our WEF Young Global Leaders"

Well, Microstrategy made their biggest purchases in the 2nd half of 2020 (a series of buys totaling over 70k bitcoins) which was in line with the beginning of the biggest bull run, so it's hard to dismiss they might have had some effect on the price.
They were buying OTC so the timing of the impact on the market could've been delayed and it's way harder to measure it.

A full record of their purchases, if anyone's interested, can be found here: https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/microstrategy-statistics/

But yeah, a single buy/sell of a few thousand is not something to get excited about.