Physical Bitcoin is actually a kind of a misnomer. Strictly speaking, there can't be a physical Bitcoin. Nobody can actually take that Bitcoin out of the blockchain and turn it into a physical coin or bill or penny. Bitcoin is digital, so physical and Bitcoin are actually antonyms.

Anyway, there are already a number of bills and coins that are loaded with Bitcoin. Actually, not really loaded, but they contain the private keys that give you access to the Bitcoin. There are even cards, chips, and other physical items and artworks that are also loaded with Bitcoin. If you head to the Collectibles section, you will see a number of them. You have the revered Casascius coins. You have the Lealana, BTCC, CryptoImperator, Alpencoin, and many others. You also have Bitcoin bills like Polymerbit.

But these are largely collectibles. In the future, though, it is possible that there will be bills and coins backed by Bitcoin. Just like the old days when fiat was backed by gold, there might come a time in the future when bills and coins can be redeemed for Bitcoin. As to how they would look like, I don't know.

Well, the campaign didn't actually require to post only on threads with 5 pages or less. After all, who can tell whether or not the thread would grow into a mega thread? What's preferred is that posts are made within those 5 pages. The discussion would continue and create 10, 20, 50, or even 100 pages more. As a matter of fact, you can still join in those kinds of discussions provided you don't focus your posts there. And for a campaign seeking visibility, that's understandable. Posts are quickly buried.

Certain threads in gambling discussion are rather unique. And it's completely understandable also if they grow into mega threads. It's because they're not discussing a specific game or event or tournament or a similar topic. They're basically covering leagues and sports. You mentioned Premier league. There's also the NBA, La Liga, MMA, ESports, and others. They're general topics. They don't have an end.

It's more of trolling but probably with a bit more serious or deeper motive, although it must be a combination. It also looks like Binance is posturing, trying to send a message that it matters, and that if only the state and federal regulators were friendly to them and make things a bit easier, they actually have something to offer.

Or is this just marketing, a subtle effort to create a good image to the public? They also appeared to help FTX but cited certain reasons in the end not to push through. They also made mention of $2 billion to help crypto companies who struggled during the crypto winter. I don't know where it went. Now, they're also trying to help Voyager.

Why not? Because Crusoe Energy is a partner of WEF. They're probably not ashamed of Bitcoin mining, of course-- there's money from it, after all-- but they have to walk on eggshells because "Crusoe is part of the World Economic Forum's innovator communities."^[1] It is telling why despite the WEF being largely composed of Bitcoin critics, they chose Crusoe to be featured. 

Is Bitcoin mining their main source of income? It doesn't seem so. Try dropping by their official website and it appears they didn't even mention Bitcoin mining, even in their Values and Mission, except perhaps in a number of the many articles featuring them which they linked.

---

[1] https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-catches-waste-methane-to-power-data-centres

There's a difference between the deal can't legally push through and the deal is unilaterally cancelled, by Binance in this case. They have the green light. They can make it happen. They can push through with the plan. So, it can't be a reason that the regulatory environment is hostile because there is no legal impediment anymore. At best, it can only be used as an excuse or alibi not to proceed with the agreement. That's what Binance is doing right now.

Also, when they made the offer, was the regulatory environment any different? No, it was the same. It was the same hostile, uncertain, and unfriendly environment.

Voyager is now even considering possible legal claims against Binance. It can't do that if it was the regulators who put a halt to the agreement.

It seems to me Binance is tripping, or at least acting to be helpful or a savior because they assume things wouldn't push through. And when everything has the green light, they would just back out.

If I'm not mistaken, there's a law which prohibits sitting elected government officials to get involved in gambling operations. As a matter of fact, there was probably an order even for ordinary government workers not to get involved in casino gambling. The point is that gambling is perceived, or is actually, dirty and it's better if government personnel avoid it altogether.

The case of Teves is clear, but not unique in the country. He is into legal and illegal gambling. In both cases, he is violating a law. But he can't just be apprehended because he is very rich and powerful and he obviously is more than willing to bribe, threaten, or even kill anybody who gets in the way.

When Voyager went bankrupt in July of 2022, FTX came to the rescue and offered a bail out. Months later, FTX itself filed for its own bankruptcy. The hopes of Voyager depositors were crushed.

Binance, then, offered to buy the sinking FTX only to back out of the deal in the end. The hopes of FTX users were crushed.

Binance, Binance US in particular, then, offered the purchase of Voyager at $1 billion, with a plan to give back to its users a significant portion of their funds. The SEC objected. The Texas State Securities Board objected. The US Federal Trade Commission objected. Binance fought for it.

But just when the government agencies finally decided not to pursue challenging the deal in courts, Binance suddenly terminated the purchase agreement citing no specific reason, once again crushing the revived hopes of its users. The only reason mentioned is the usual hostile regulatory climate. Although that has some truth, why bring it up just as the legal contestations are withdrawn? Just when the agreement could finally be sealed and implemented?

Considering that Binance won't really have to produce that $1 billion, is it just having fun messing around here, giving false hope to the beleaguered users?

---

1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-25/binance-us-terminates-deal-to-buy-bankrupt-crypto-firm-voyager
2. https://twitter.com/investvoyager/status/1650921887512272917

That's an amusing and novel idea on how to save a seed phrase, but I don't think that's an effective way.

The problem remains, that memory is not reliable in terms of keeping your seed phrase safe. If you have children memorize a song, how long would they remember that song? How long would they be singing that song? If we forget popular nursery rhymes, how much more a song that isn't popular, that you can't even hear on the radio or search on Spotify or YouTube? Perhaps it would be effective if you manage to make your song a classic, which I honestly doubt.

Just write them down clearly. Keep several copies. Hide them in different inconspicuous locations. And you might also want to consider metal seed phrase storage.

This looks like a content created for the sake of creating a content. Are these even secrets?

Price swings? Everybody who has observed Bitcoin's price movements even only for months must have already been aware that Bitcoin's price could experience extreme fluctuations every now and then. "Keep a constant check," "do your own research, "opt for the long term," "choose the right platform," are not actually secrets. They're already clichés, as a matter of fact. They are as common as buy low sell high, not your keys not your coins, and others.

Had Crusoe Energy's Lochmiller mentioned that they have been using waste methane to power their Bitcoin mining operations, would the WEF have allowed the video to come out? I doubt.

On Crusoe Energy's part, would they have even mentioned Bitcoin mining even if it wasn't a WEF video they are making? I also doubt.

There is actually nothing very special about this. This is neither a metanoia on the part of the WEF nor an effort of Crusoe Energy to somehow spread awareness about Bitcoin mining turning green.

This is far from recognizing the benefit of Bitcoin mining.

You are making sense, of course. Gambling in its strict sense can't be compared to investing in Bitcoin. Broadly speaking, though, investing, trading, and even almost everything life in general are a gamble.

However, let me point out certain things. Investing and trading are not entirely the same. Second, most gambling games in crypto casinos are provably fair, so you're not really trusting a company blindly. You can verify the fairness yourself.

This debate isn't actually new. I guess I have already encountered a handful of topics pertaining to this.

Try it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=53.0

I kind of agree with Eternad. I guess visibility shouldn't immediately be equated with the number of posts per week or the number of participants. There are other factors for a post, and therefore the signature, to be more visible than another.

BestChange, for example, implements a rule that only 2-3 posts made on threads beyond 5 pages are to be counted. This is because mega threads are usually full of spam and posts beyond the 5^th page are more easily missed than those made in the first 2 pages. Also, posts that are already buried deep in mega threads are normally less interesting because they are most probably just repetition of earlier posts, and posters probably didn't even read everything before joining the discussion.

Another factor perhaps is the level of influence of the user wearing it. If theymos, for example, wears a signature, it becomes very visible to everybody even if he only makes a single post per week.

Perhaps a more reliable measurement of visibility is the number of visits made to their websites through signatures, or perhaps the number of users referred by signature links.

Here they are again with their superior complex, trying to come up with an erroneous and absurd policy among themselves and impose the same on everybody else. They have to wake up. This isn't the age of colonialism anymore. Why shouldn't countries make their own independent and thorough study and craft policies based on it? Why are these conceited countries want everything they think of to be implemented globally?

This Nirmala and the entire G20 should realize that they don't have the monopoly of righteousness, wisdom, and capacity to come up with sound policies. Why shouldn't they study El Salvador? Instead of ganging up on a small sovereign country, why can't they start to understand where it is coming from?

There may be several reasons and factors. There's convenience. There's lack of Bitcoin education. There's also the fact that many purchased their Bitcoin from centralized exchanges and rather than move them right after, they just kept it there. There's also trading. But on top of this all, there's the fact that many Bitcoin supporters are not really supporters of the very essence of Bitcoin. They're with Bitcoin because of its fiat price equivalent. Had Bitcoin not been assigned with a USD price value, they wouldn't have cared about it.

But the more surprising thing really is not that majority, which are mostly ignorant Bitcoin laymen, fell victim to centralized platforms; it is that even those who came early, went all in, and were thoroughly convinced of Bitcoin's technology like CZ ended up creating the very problem Bitcoin tries to solve.

Actually, how many transactions per second is the Bitcoin blockchain capable of processing? It's just 7. On the other hand, how many transactions per second is, say, the Solana blockchain capable of carrying out? It's 50,000. But why do people transact on the Bitcoin blockchain and not on the Solana blockchain? It's because the Bitcoin blockchain provides the most security, among others.

My point is that you cannot just single out a certain feature in choosing which crypto to trust. You have to look at the parts as well as the whole. Is Solana, for example, even decentralized? So even if Solana is better than Bitcoin in terms of speed and scalability, it doesn't mean it is better than Bitcoin.

I think there's a considerably long list of direct and indirect benefits that governments can have from Bitcoin. For one, Bitcoin is actually censorship-resistant so governments can enter into all kinds of deals with other governments using Bitcoin and not worry about any sanctions that can hinder them.

Also, Bitcoin is a currency ruled by codes set in stone, not by human rulers who are prone to commit abuses, make weak and whimsical and wrong decisions, entertain biases and prejudices which could all cause the downfall of their own economy and fiat currency. Not to mention that other more powerful economies could actually gang up on a country and cause its currency's value to tank.

Governments using Bitcoin could also implement full transparency on their official financial undertakings so as to minimize, if not totally eradicate, corruption and other questionable spending.

This could actually go on. Citizens using Bitcoin could also actually be beneficial to the government.

If you can't easily control your time gambling and you have the option to play in a brick-and-mortar casino or in an online casino, it is probably best for you to choose the former. At least you cannot stay there for long. For one, it has a closing time. Also, your cash will be drained, you need to go home, you can go hungry, and so on. Whereas in an online casino, you could spend all day and night long in front of your computer or smart phone at home, even while you're eating.

As far as fairness is concerned, in a provably fair casino you can confirm it yourself. In a brick-and-mortar casino that has a license, it is regularly audited for fairness. So, I guess both could be equally fair.

Investments vary. There are investments designed for people like you who have low appetite for risk. There are also investments that are highly risky but could be attractive to investors who have high risk tolerance. But you need to take into consideration that the level of investment risk and ROI are almost always directly correlated. Meaning to say, the higher the risk is, the bigger the potential profit.

In cryptocurrency, if you don't want to take risks, you better choose Bitcoin and hodl. Altcoins and trading are much riskier.

Who would know? Your guess is as good as mine. It's possible that the owner has finally just gained access to it. Or he/she finally decided to move the funds to a much safer storage, or perhaps even sell them.

But this isn't new. Every once in a while there's a dormant wallet that suddenly becomes active after a decade or even more. I think it was last year when a wallet containing hundreds of Bitcoin suddenly woke up after 11 years. The last time the wallet was active was when Satoshi was still active.