Animal fight betting is not something new but is indeed cruel. But this time, the betting is related to shark migration and not having physical brutality which I think is something weird but also, something good. This could give an idea that people can still do betting in good things rather than on things that are in contrast with the norms of the society. The idea is also quite funny, because people can relate almost everything to gambling with or without other purposes except from making profit. Not quite sure if I would go with this one so I'd wait for further updates that could clarify some of my questions regarding this.

That's the main thing in cryptocurrencies. There is a misconception that profit will be earned in an instant by doing so.
No matter what investment, risk will always be present; risk of losing money. But ofcourse there is a chance of benefiting from doing so. It is like a gamble wherein winning is not that certain.
Diversifying the investment would somewhat lessen the risk because there will be options that will generate profit. But it is about efficiency of the "alternatives", if the options will not be effective then the loss will just be bigger.

This is quite correct but what if other big networks do the same thing? I am referring to other networks which also has popularity and are also in mainstream. There are also tendencies for them to do so, once they notice how beneficial this technology is, more likely they would also go with the adaptation in order to also generate profit from it. There are also chances that big companies are eyeing for crypto adoption because 'one' already did. But in our side, if there will be more companies to do so, more people would be able to use Bitcoin and other cryptos to daily services which I think is promising.

That is because Bitcoin is lacking support from governments of many countries which slows down the adaptation of this technology. Third parties are backed by governments due to regulation and centralization of it. Bitcoin is already a mode of payment but we in order for it to be accepted by more masses, something should help it acquire more popularity and reliability, third party networks would be a huge help to spread awareness of such technology. I believe doubt plays a huge role why many countries are still against this industry and if something will put trsut in it, it would be influencial and may trigger a motion called domino effect.

But in fiat, there's a lower risk of devaluation since the market value is less volatile compared to cryptos. So it is a two-way situation. If you are into profit, then go for cryptos because its volatility can be taken advantage but if you are into assurance, choose to hold fiat. Both are important, that's the bottomline. It primarily depends on the individual to whether which one will be more benecial to them. If cryptos are not widely accepted in his/her area, fiat will be a better option but if it is, crypto would be a good choice but for sure fiat will always have its existence to any country. Cryptos including Bitcoin are more often used in investment purposes btw, one is free to choose but both are important.

There's really nothing much of a problem except the crime they've committed. Criminals would more likely prefer cash simply because not all criminals are knowledgeable with this technology. What if it is a robbery? Will they ask the people inside the bank to send Bitcoin in their wallets? that would be silly. Also, it would be a hassle on their side, spending time to convert into fiat just to be able to make use of the money especially in areas wherein cryptos are not widely accepted. Indeed, but there are already many instances wherein cryptos are involved in crimes. So maybe, it depends on the ones who commited.

The replies you'd get would seem to be the same because that are more likely their experiences on their crypto journey. "Buying low and selling high" is quite of a protocol once you invested in cryptos, simply because that would be the way in order to generate profit in this industry  Investing won't be enough, you need to analyze the market to when is the right time to make a move. Go for cryptos which are popular, as a basic pattern to follow such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. There are more if you would explore this market more. Regarding the movement in the price of cryptos, that is just normal. Volatility is in nature in the market price of cryptos, meaning, uts market price will move from time to time and your goal is to determine when is the right time to sell.

But that's how it is. Investing prior to the release of the project to the market will give an investor an advantage from doing so. It is quite a matter of having educated guess whether a project would be successful in a long run. Investing upon the release would somehow be a mess, because after the release of projects' platform, majority are not continuing the development which would more yield to loss. Most of the projects are now short-termed.

This won't be possible no matter how we want it unless Bitcoin will be centralized in the future but that is quite sketchy still, at this moment. Fiat currencies are more supported accross the globe multiple time more than Bitcoin and other cryptos which could still be considered as something new. Thus, fiat currencies will forever exist and if there will be a bright future for cryptos, these two will more likely to co-exist with one another as alternatives. To put it simply, Bitcoin could be in mainstream but the support still to fiat will always exist, that's how powerful governments are.

No. This should not be the mindset of someone. Bitcoin will not lift you from poverty. The profit is not even assured in the firstplace so how come it would be a way to be rich? Profit is indeed big especially whenever the market value is in green marks but there is no certainty to its occurence, keep in mind that there is this volatility which is in nature of not only Bitcoin's market value but also other cryptos' price I oppose to this idea because I am enough with people selling their house just to invest and out of frustrations. Any form of investment involves risk and that is enough to not fully rely on it to a wealthy life.

That is more likely to happen. The benefit this industry would get from PayPal offering their network to crypto is the hype and influence they could bring to those who are still not knowledgeable to cryptos. Those who are exposed to this community will surely choose to go with the "traditional" way of selling and buying cryptos due to lower fees and that sense of  assurance in a way that transactions are all transparent than using this third party network. But if there will be further developments and if it would be more convenient afterwards, it might make a change.

Somewhat true but the fact that its market value is changing from time to time is what makes it not an asset. An asset is something believed to generate profit as time passes by which makes Bitcoin close to it. But given the lack of assurance, it is more suitable being an investment. Investment has risks but it does give a tendency to generate profit as well as years goes by. Expecting its value to be bigger in the future is not enough in order to call something an asset. How its market price behave could be a greater basis.

Regulation and taxation, right? To most of the activities, governments are looking for a way in order to get something from it. I do like the idea that the money that would be taxed from gambling would help the economy but corruption exist, I doubt each government will responsibly use the taxes from this industry to aid this pandemic perhaps, or to simply put the taxes in the right track. That's the only thing i'm concerned with. Taxation is not a problem but its essence does. Not all gamblers are winning bigtime and if the taxes on this activity will just be directed to their corrupted pockets, efforts will be in vain. But I doubt it would push away gamblers in online platforms to not engage, it is like on vices wherein no matter how high the price already is, consumers would still purchase some.

I am thinking that PayPal engaged into cryptos in order to generate profit. In this case, this network will be a third party wherein people will be able to buy Butcoin and other cryptos through PayPal without including trades and other transactions. They are more likely doing this because cryptos are having a hype in the eyes of the masses which they would want to take advantage from. But it is something good in this industry due to the influence this huge netwotk will give to other businesses.

The price is quite moving more volatile at this moment and that makes it hard to conclude that its price will either be able to break its ATH or its price will remain in the $11k mark at the end of this year. For now, following the right thing to do is advisable which is to hold-still.

They are more likely to be a third party of this technology just like with fiat currencies. Yes, they are aiming for centralization. Personally I don't have plans buying Bitcoin from PayPal I just like the idea that it may influence and contribute to mass adoption of cryptocurrencies in the future, centralization is another story.
We may call PayPal as a network in mainstream, with that being given, it is more likely to introduce cryptos or Bitcoin perhaps to the masses in this case. But for those who are exposed to this industry, they would probably stick with the old method of purchasing Bitcoin and other cryptos.

It won't, not a single chance.
First of all, Bitcoin is decentralized which is a downside for majority of the governments when it comes to a currency. Its market value is also volatile, in contrast with the idea that a currency shouls have a stable market value in order to promote equity regarding the world market. Fiat currencies and cryptos are more likely to co-exist in the future than a single currency will be in the center of transactions. Bitcoin and other cryptos are having advantages over fiat but the fact that fiat are more supported across different countries, it will be impossible for it to have a single spotlight in the future. Also, I don't think that is the purpose of cryptos in the first place.

USD value is not dependent to Bitcoin's market price. The market value of Bitcoin and USD are not proportional, it is just that the price of cryptos are determined using fiat but the determinant of the true value of Bitcoin is the demand while in USD is the supply alone, if i'm not mistaken. That's why it became an issue in U. S that trump is planning to print more money which could result to hyperinflation if things will be caught off hand., but that's another case. And I also doubt that the possible decline in the value of USD will be also a burden to the market prices of cryptos.

Actually, games of roulette, dice games, and slot machines, in my opinion is dependent in mere luck. I am into card games by the way at this moment. There articles circulating online which includes strategies not only in roulette but also other gambling games. Since I am not into roulettes, my impression still is the same despite of reading some informations in some articles. My reason to this is the word "gambling". It won't be a gamble if winning is certain. But if you are really determined, trying the methods in this thread from ither users, would be a help I think.
If you are gambling for years already, you might agree to their perspective. If there are really strategies, why are there more players losing than winning in casinos and even in online platforms?

Terrence Crawford being undefeated, has the weight on him. If we would base on physiques, Crawford has the advantages not to mention his counterpunching skills which makes him one of the top pound-for-pound fighters of this date. What I mean with "weights on him" is that many people in in favor of him in this fight. That is how huge the influence of being undefeated not only their career but to almost any competition. But it does not guarantee victory. Things could either go as expected or not. Also, Brook has more experience which could be his trump card in this battle, which makes this match up more exciting IMO.

But what happened recently may contribute to the mass adaptation of cryptocurrencies, right? So we can consider it as a milestone already. But I do get the point that it does not guarantee acceptance across the globe. I just choose to appreciate this because it is something to consider as "rainbow after the rain". How? This year has been through a lot both in this industry and world in general. In terms of this market, the prices gone up and down early this year not to mention issues of banning Bitcoin in some countries such as in U. S. This could be a great thing to happen in this industry. Take not of "could be", but atleast it has a chance.