To be fair, even the most popular gambling sites may experience glitches and have also their fair share of questionable decisions. They don't have spotless reputations. Trusted they may be, the likes of Cloudbet, Fortunejack, and others cannot actually guarantee us of 100% smooth experience. Although, of course, brands like them are still a lot more worth of our trust than those who don't have the track record yet like Coinplay.

But I understand those who are trying to explore options and new and better features. The competition among crypto gambling platforms is getting stronger and stronger. New platforms are born every now and then offering a new kind of experience. The risk, though, is high with these new players in the industry.

Gambling was one of the earliest use-cases of Bitcoin. The decent amount of privacy that Bitcoin provided to its users somehow addressed the hassles that characterized fiat deposits on gambling sites. Today, crypto gambling has grown thousands of fold. I suppose the daily aggregate amount processed by all kinds of crypto gambling sites, whether sports betting or casino or dice only, is already in the hundreds of millions, if not a billion.

So what may seem today as impossible may happen in the future. Who knows, Bitcoin might indeed become a reserve currency one day?

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge denotes verifiable information whereas belief denotes an opinion, whether widely accepted or not. That is why there is also a significant difference between "to know" and "to believe."

In the context of Bitcoin, there seems to be a growing behavior that somehow subjectively treats the technology beyond what it really is. We cannot deny that there are individuals who seem to exalt Bitcoin as if it is some sort of religion, a mana sent from heaven, a panacea, a silver bullet that addresses poverty, inequality, wars, corruption, and all socio-economic ills.

Do not just believe in Bitcoin. Verify whether it is worth believing or not. Be practical. Be realistic. If some kind of Bitcoin jesus preaches to abandon everything and follow Bitcoin, don't believe it. Bitcoin is never the be-all and end-all of human existence.

The simple adage in Bitcoin is buy low sell high. If you bought at $20,000 and was compelled by some reason to sell at $40,000, and you're planning for a buy back, at least choose the right entry point. If you think that $40,000 is still a right entry price because you foresee more increases in the near future, then go ahead. But if instead of an increase the price corrects and even went down below $20,000, do not sell. Sell only, if you must, when the price goes above $40,000. Instead, buy more. It's an opportunity for you to buy back at a much lower price.

On a side note, though. This is why DCA is the better approach. Also, you don't invest all your savings in Bitcoin. Always keep aside savings for emergency and other unexpected expenses. Finally, Bitcoin is best for long-term. Corrections and sell-offs are temporary. In the long run, you will make profit.

When you postulate something, at least provide a basis for it. It is absurd to just entertain a thought out of thin air and let everybody discuss about it. We'd be wasting too much time and energy that way.

If Satoshi Nakamoto were Chinese, the name would have been a lot different. It could have been Shing-cheong Neng. LOL!

Anyway, whoever created Bitcoin, he/she/they cannot anymore just take control of it. The decentralized design of Bitcoin means nobody is above the rules.

Teofimo is full of himself. It's probably the reason why he finds it hard to adjust in the middle of the fight. He's not a flexible fighter. Although he remains to be a dangerous fighter notwithstanding his split decision 10-rounder win against Sandor, it's just right that he is the underdog in this fight. Josh Taylor is probably the man in this match. Cracks are seen in the confidence of the sentimental Teofimo. He's even questioning himself now if he "still got it."

It's best to cite the source if you quote somebody.

Anyway, there's a reason why I am more inclined to fundamentals rather than the technicals. History doesn't just repeat itself. It's not as if Bitcoin's price exists in a vacuum. It is affected by news, regulations, even FUD and fake news, and other circumstances that may directly or indirectly affect it.

But I think that in the absence of a big factor affecting its price, Bitcoin would continue to rise because of the continuous adoption that has already started.

I will certainly feel down also if this happens to me. It's a normal reaction. Money is hard to earn and if it's easily burned like that, it will really be painful. It would also make me angry.

It is good that you share it here. Let it out. Talking to somebody about it will surely be of help. At the end of the day, however, we have no choice but to move on. But it doesn't mean you won't have to fight for your money. By all means, report it to the authorities. Collect all the evidences and file a case in court. Not only do you need to get your money back, the scammers should also be caught, prosecuted, and jailed for their crimes. And also so that they cannot victimize other people anymore.

Of course, you will learn your lessons as well. Next time, enough due diligence should be made especially because it involves risking your hard-earned money. It's all right to doubt. As a matter of fact, always doubt!

At this point, I think it is an exaggeration to say that the collapse of Binance would mean the collapse of "the entire crypto market." Binance is not even comparable to Mt. Gox when the latter collapsed. When Mt. Gox collapsed, it was the epitome of a too-big-to-fail crypto institution. It handled more than 70% of all Bitcoin transactions all over the world.^[1] Not to mention that Bitcoin was still in its early infancy at that time. Bitcoin survived!

As a matter of fact, should Binance collapse today, it is not even totally surprising. There's already a whole bunch of prelude to it.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox

It is all right with me when users are actively, even aggressively, hunting for merit. I cannot blame them. After all, merit is the way for them to rank up. There's no problem with that. Many of them must be trying hard so that they would one day land on a decent signature campaign and earn from it. That will help them economically. Although such motive is kind of questionable, it is not at all bad. It's even good.

My issue is that these people and their obvious schemes are insulting. They must have assumed this forum is made up of nincompoops that even if they publish outright lies, they can get away with it and even rank up.

There's no cracking of Bitcoin's anonymity because there's no Bitcoin anonymity in the first place. And it has been proven time and again that Bitcoin's pseudo-anonymity could be cracked.

Anyway, I can only read what's made available in the OP. It seems that Mr. Zhong is even lucky that the prosecutors are seeking a prison sentence of less than two years only. Or is it only for his case of wire fraud for which he pleaded guilty? Surely, he'll have another case of theft, for example, or of buying illegal drugs.

Zzzzzz. LOL! Don't be too naïve, guys. And please read beyond the OP. How can you easily fall for this kind of story?

Uche6215 is celebrating his/her 7th year as a Bitcoin investor when just a month ago he/she shared that he/she's been a Bitcoin investor for two years. I don't know which planet OP comes from or what kind of calendar he/she is using there, but here on earth and with our standard Gregorian calendar, two years cannot just turn into 7 years after just a month. LOL!

Speaking of a new non-KYC exchange, it seems BetterCallRaul.it isn't alone. There are a couple of others more. There is PeachBitcoin.com that had just posted its Announcement thread a couple of days ago. Perhaps OP might want to check it out. And then there's also AgoraDesk.com. Not only does Agoradesk never requires KYC, it is also emphasized, at least in their campaign thread, that it "never plans to do so." Perhaps this is also worth checking out.

These are interesting times. One leaves, another arrives.

Of course, OP is lying through his/her teeth. And he/she's been doing this for some time, perhaps to earn enough merits and rank up and be qualified to apply for a signature campaign. OP is trying hard to rise through the ranks to perhaps earn a few bucks when finally accepted in a signature campaign. It's sad that he/she's doing this through lies.

Yesterday, he/she said:


A couple of months ago, he/she shared:


So OP's first Bitcoin experience happened recently after dismissing it as a scam for more than a year? Or if it's true that he/she's been a Bitcoin investor for 7 years now, then he/she must have already known Bitcoin since 2015 or 2014. He/she must be an early adopter?

But he/she also said that:


This post gained him/her a bunch of merits, but it was just made last month. And if he/she's been "a Bitcoin investor for a couple of years now," why is he/she celebrating his/her 7th anniversary as a Bitcoin investor yesterday? And if he/she knew Bitcoin many years ago, why is he/she admitting that he/she actually doesn't know much about Bitcoin?

And then as to his/her first Bitcoin experience, it seems there's another one:

I also doubt there would be a significant change about how things have been here. That particular post does not really demand for a change. There is really no serious reason to implement something different.

But spreadsheets could indeed provide vital pieces of information as to how much Bitcoin one owns. One would know, for instance, whether a campaign participant is spending his/her salary or not, or if he/she is regularly moving his/her coins to a main wallet, and how much is already in there. Although it is highly recommended for security's sake to use an address only once, I doubt there is a signature campaign participant here who practices that. And if the account here has mentioned his/her email or social media accounts at one point, the risk grows higher.

I was also thinking that in the unlikely event that certain users here are investigated by whatever law enforcement agencies, for promoting a mixer seized by the government for example, spreadsheets are indeed a good source of incriminating information.

There is indeed a serious pressure on the US right now. Although the threat to ditch the USD has been there for a while, at this point it has become more serious than ever. China's economy, global influence, military capabilities are growing stronger and stronger and could now seriously challenge the US. And with Asia, the middle east, a part of Europe, a considerable part of Africa, the largest economy in South America all significantly drawn toward China, the US should begin to think of a new strategy. It has to develop leverage in order to attract these countries more.

Perhaps the most ridiculous bets that I made were those bets that I was clueless about. I actually placed bets based on unreliable tips from unknown users. If I'm not mistaken, I even placed a bet because the match was said to be fixed. And if I remember it right, the odds were even high. But these were minimal bets, of course. Sort of experimenting with those tips.

Other than those really ridiculous bets, the ones that really disappointed me were those lost bets with very low odds in a parlay. These are the bets that are almost certain to win but ended up lost and spoiling all other winning bets in the parlay.

I would understand if the banking procedures that cause too much hassle to their very own depositors are done solely for the sake of security, for the sake of protecting their clients' hard-earned money. The problem is that they aren't. You are even charged a fee for not keeping a certain amount of money in your account, and when you withdraw, you are also given a limit. That's ridiculous! And look at all the banking fiascoes happening in different parts of the world. You must have also heard of the current banking crisis and how those collapsed banks are giving their clients sleepless nights.

If they close your account simply because of this topic then Trustdice is only proving that it is indeed a scam.

But a high wagering requirement doesn't make a casino a scam. But it really discourages gamblers. A 5x wagering requirement is apparently a mechanism to make sure deposits are drained even before the player considers making a withdrawal.

Keep us updated here as to what happens after you make your deposit and complied with the wagering requirement. We'll see if you will be able to withdraw your bonus winnings, or more requirements are asked like KYC. Trustdice also includes KYC in their ToS.

The advice has to be qualified further. If Peter is saying everybody should be getting rid of their US dollars now and shift to Bitcoin, then perhaps it makes some sense. But if he is simply saying get rid of the US dollars, that's a bit misleading. As a matter of fact, if I kept my savings in USD rather than my own local currency, I would have made a decent profit. So which asset or currency shall we be converting our US dollars to? Gold? It barely even moved for the past 10 years.