You're not being serious. Logically, if that was true, we would have no sports betting at all, as they'd all go bankrupt.

If you have e.g. 2 boxers, or 2 football teams of similar skills, no amount of knowledge, experience, or historical analysis would allow you to know for sure which one would win.
At very best, you'd be able to accurately assess the mathematical odds, but not much more than that. It's the results of the events that build up the historical record, not the other way around. You can't drive a car looking at the rear-view mirror.

Because it pays! If you could exploit the majority demographic (whites), who, statistically is the most empathetic, most tolerant and has the weakest in-group preference, why wouldn't you?
Why accept the "colour blind" approach, if you could declare it racist (i.e. for being bling to black people's struggles) and introduce group identity politics instead - in which there's only one group that is not allowed to view themselves as a group and care for their own interest.

This is now spiraling down without control, the Californian "reparations task force" is a great example. There's a serious debate going on about how much people who have never owned any slaves should pay to people who have never been slaves in "reparations" for slavery. Apparently $5 million per head just for being black is not enough.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11918251/Five-million-little-California-reparations-taskforce-told-black-residents-7-6m.html

You can't make this stuff up.

Makes sense. Our Polish board has one of the lowest ratio, I suspect we only have one merit source who is not very active lately. I myself was a merit source back in the day but got removed due to inactivity (was away from the forum for >2 years). The discussion there is pretty clean and spam-free, but, as there are only a few active members there, I think people are hesitant to keep sending merits to the same members too often, as it could be seen as abuse.

Still, seeing boards with a ratio of over 1 seems a bit odd, as I can't imagine that (on average) every single post would be worth meriting.

I was always puzzled by how disproportionate this chart is. What would be the reason for the top boards to have this ratio over 1000% higher than the bottom ones?
Do they have more active merit sources, or is it more about cultural differences and stronger in-group preferences than the others? Or maybe both.

ps. Rikafip - massive thanks for your monthly updates!

As mentioned above, many casinos operate unlicensed and don't comply with the laws of the countries they offer their services. In the OP's scenario, if the casino was compliant, they would almost certainly do KYC checks upon registration, not only upon withdrawal of a larger amount. You are not obliged to provide any personal information to any 3rd party, and that situation forced you to do so against your will, holding your money as a hostage.


Absolutely not. Casinos are not, and should not be viewed, as some sort of authority. They're just one side of the deal, the player being the other.
Stupid or fraudulent decisions should be called out and fought against, not accepted.

Precisely. With every major fiat currency being heavily inflated, expectations of global recession, precious metals' prices being manipulated (via "paper" gold/silver) - Bitcoin is starting to look much less scary than it used to be. Especially when it looks like it might have hit the bottom and the new bull run is on the horizon.


Russia doesn't have to use Bitcoin as they have an alternative banking system that can function outside of Swift. But bitcoin can still serve as an emergency back-up plan. I think there have been rumours about Russia using Bitcoin in the early stage of the war, when the sanctions were introduced, but it has never come to that.

The bottom line is - if other countries don't want to trade with Russia- they won't, even if they operate on compatible banking systems. If they do want to trade - they will, and they will use Bitcoin if there's no other option. Similarily to how few European countries decided to open bank accounts with Russian banks, to bypass the Swift ban and be able to trade.

That's the power of linguistics, the way we use language and how we label things can affect our perception.
So, for example, we end up throwing various things like sports betting, classic casino games, or poker into one bag labeled as "gambling" and see them as one category, but the reality is all of them should be approached entirely differently.
Poker is a good example, despite some jurisdictions already classing it as a skill game rather than gambling, it's still pretty hard to shift public perception.

True, but this topic is not about criticising KYC requirements but whether or not casinos can use alleged failed KYC verifications to deny withdrawals.
Strangely enough, if casinos are implementing verification requirements because they are licensed and want to stay compliant - then it's actually a good sign from the safety of your funds perspective. Sadly, there are unlicensed sites that operate in exotic jurisdictions and are not really bound to perform KYC checks and would only use such to blatantly scam people out of their money in a way that OP described.

They both are, you white supremacists!
"Radical teachers claim that saying 2+2=4 is white supremacy"
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-radical-teachers-claim-that-saying-224-is-white-supremacy

It's hard to think of one single thing that has not been considered racist by some of the modern "intellectuals".
To name a few examples:

Coffee is racist: https://twitter.com/JournosPostLs/status/1646616370103173121
Criticising drug dealers is racist: https://twitter.com/hilaryagro/status/1645434719541010433
Eating meat is racist: https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1645689277001367558
Being extraordinarily stressed and vigilant is due to racism: https://twitter.com/LeoKearse/status/1643355168497446912
Locking up expensive drinks that are often shoplifted is racist: https://twitter.com/ahmuhdayus/status/1639965010142154752

The list never ends

They phrased that as "including many minority investors" so it's not all that bad. They're not accusing crypto of being inherently racist, not yet at least.
But it's pathetic how they try to lend some credibility to their actions by posing as "protectors" of minorities, women, climate or whatever.

And with USA being probably now less than 50% white, what does "minority" even mean?

Obecnie raczej duzego wplywu nie ma, ale gdyby cena zaczela mocniej spadac to perspektywa ze Microstrategy moze byc zmuszone sprzedac calosc, lub czesc swoich 140.000 bitcoinow moze spowodowac panike (i chyba sluszna).

Nie bardzo rozumiem dlaczego tzw "ulica" bierze kolejne zakupy Saylora jako sygnal pozytywny. Dla mnie jest odwrotnie, co dyskutowalem troche w tym watku
W skrocie - Microstrategy zanotowalo negatywna wartosc ksiegowa (wliczajac wartosc trzymanych bitcoinow) na koniec 2022, mieli deficyt $383 milionow. Ich poza-bitcoinowe operacje tez przyniosly straty. To nie stawia ich w dobrej sytuacji jezeli Bitcoin zacznie spadac.

A nawet jesli bedzie szedl w gore, to predzej czy pozniej udzialowcy beda chcieli zrealizowac zyski i nie spodziewam sie aby byli gotowi trzymac w nieskonczonosc, przegapic kolejna gorke i czekac na nastepny cykl. Nie sadze zeby finansowo bylo ich na to stac.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here a little bit?
You're saying that men and women are already equally involved in crypto (which is obviously false) but you're still waiting for women to be "introduced to crypto" to drive the price up.
How have men been "introduced" to crypto anymore than women have exactly? Wasn't the open-source crypto environment equally accessible to all?

Women are more than 50% of the population, so to say that "society" doesn't take them seriously sounds a bit odd. And why does it matter anyway? Crypto development is almost entirely done online and no one asks for your gender. You could stay anonymous if you choose to. If you have good ideas and are able to provide good solutions, they would defend themselves. You don't need social encouragement or anyone's approval.


OK, how do you reconcile the fact that blockchain development (when everyone is free to join without anyone's approval) is dominated by men, or that almost all high-profile investors are men.
I don't think I've ever heard about "women's financial intuition". Where did you get that from? Can you name some examples?

I would replace the "big and well known" with "trusted with good track record". There are some smaller sites out there with honest owners, who have been around for a while and have a clean record. And on the contrary, we've seen many cases when big brands were accused of shady practices. And the bigger you get, the less you can care about single, individual customers.

You mean winning or being won? Or both?

Obviously, the more valuable the prize, the harder it is to win it. I did manage to win a few golden tickets. And it's true that the chance of winning the main prize with a golden ticket is also low, but it's good to know that you have at least a theoretical chance of winning lambo (or equivalent) especially when it only cost you a few seconds to claim WoF fortune spin.

It's not about which of the two genders are superior/inferior and which are stronger/weaker, but about differences between genders and how they manifest in different fields. In a healthy environment, men would be masculine and women feminine, and both would complement each other, meaning that together (i.e. in marriage) they would have a wide variety, complete set of traits, rather than being a pair of luke-worm individuals without any strong traits in either way.

As for this thread, it's more of a tongue-in-cheek topic. The survey likely doesn't even really discuss any active trading and is self-reported, so I wouldn't put any real weight on the results.

With the price in the 30k range, Microstrategy is officially in the profit on their Bitcoin holdings, so I'm not sure if there are many memes from "haters" at the moment, as the timing is not the best for that.

But not every critique of Saylor's actions is "hate on crypto", there are some valid concerns coming from the bitcoin/crypto community.
Having one entity holding massive amount of bitcoins is never desired, especially when that entity is making losses on their core operations and is likely funding its bitcoin purchases with loans.


The purchase itself surely may have some positive effect on the price, but the news is not seen by many as particularly bullish, as mentioned above.

You did say "They jackpot is not their money because it's 100% funded by the players". I couldn't care less what tables you play (if any), but you implied that if you had played jackpot tables - you would be (co)owner of the jackpot pool. This is 100% false.
You want to end the discussion? Just admit that you were wrong, rather than waffling around the subject. The pool is owned by SwC, not the players. Period.


The only way they'd be stealing is if they didn't pay out to the jackpot winners. Got evidence of that? Bring it on and post it. Otherwise, they can't steal from themselves. You just can't comprehend reality and keep thinking that the rake paid by the players is somehow theirs. Having a special purpose rake doesn't mean the ownership is somehow shifted to players. SwC is still the owner and they can change the rules and requirements. Again, that's why you DID ask THEM (not the players) to change the requirements.


What's this then?:



Care to put your money when your mouth is? A little wager on that statement? You're not just a whiny faggot talking out of your ass, are you?

Don't try to fake being classy. Your "wish" is as dishonest as anything else you wrote. Stop talking shit, it's not going to work well for you.

That $161m loan was less than 6% of their total liabilities at 31/12/2022 and from the Balance Sheet perspective, this doesn't make much difference. They have $161m less liabilities now, but, if they repaid with cash, they also have $161m less assets.
And what did they buy the next batches of bitcoins with? I'm guessing they took another loan(s).


I'd be guessing that they keep borrowing. Repaying one loan and drawdown another.
But that's the point, it looks like they're ready to bet it all on Bitcoin and neglect the core of the business. The question is to what end? Even if things go their way, will they not dump at the next ath? Will they be holding forever only realising modest amounts? I doubt most shareholders would be happy with that.

Dzięki! Wolumen ogólnie nigdzie nie jest wysoki więc i na Binance nie jest inaczej. Ale na pewno ostatnie ataki ze strony US nie pozostały bez wpływu. Nie zdziwiłbym się gdyby stracili przez to sporo klientów, szczególnie z USA.


Dzięki wielkie, potwierdzam że środki dotarły wraz z bonusem.


Niski wolumen nigdy nie jest dobrym znakiem, ale patrząc na wykresy to nawet przy rozpoczęciu pompy 2021 zdarzały się krótkie okresy gdzie wolumen był nawet 2 razy niższy niż obecnie. Zobaczymy jak to się rozwinie w nieco dłuższym okresie.
Na razie wróciliśmy poniżej 30k.