There are a few reasons why, from money laundering to age verification to prevention of multiple accounts to other probable reasons. The most important one though as to why they need to implement KYC is the country in which they're registered since each country has a specific law or rule about casinos, KYC being one of them. It's also the reason why some countries can't access some casinos, it's simply part of their law. Afaik it also considers the law about gambling that the user is under in.

Some casinos don't require KYC, but some do. Here's a thread with a big list of casinos that indicate whether they have KYC or not

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5381143.0

Idk, crypto sounds like it could fit in a few subjects, if it was as a method of payment then I don't think it's needed, pretty sure my school did not teach me how to use money. If it's integrated in the system people would naturally learn of it imo. I also doubt it could be taught as an investment since there are a LOT of investments out there, never seen a school teach about those. The development side might be interesting though it's rather specific ig? It's more like a project kind instead.

I usually give BTCGOSU's review thread whenever I get asked for some recommended sites. If you have some specific requirements you may need to scour more (or maybe even find a new thread for casinos) if needed but I believe it should have a general list of trusted casinos.

I'd recommend after finding a casino to skim through their ANN thread here (if there was one) and to look them up in review sites just to crosscheck whether they really are trustworthy or not, as well as to look at some of their possible problematic cases that they were able to resolve so you have an idea whether they're doing something or not when an issue pops out.

Probably got scammed. OP did say it themselves.

Edit: Fixed the link

I wouldn't consider something "difficult" in Trading to be gambling immediately. It may be difficult yes, but that just means that the factors involved are rather elusive (for you at least), hence the difficulty (but that's another matter imo). Trading is fundamentally different from Gambling since Trading needs you to identify what an asset is and whether it is worth investing on it(hence waiting for it to grow) or not. I wouldn't say that there's no gamble in it, no, but at the very least it's a calculated gamble (unlike gambling in say dice, slots, etc, which is 100% reliant on luck).

There's the idea that every action we make can be considered a gamble, but it turns to be a purposeful action ONLY if there's thinking behind it. If there's none, then that's what I would call as a "gamble".

Wagering contests would probably be the easiest and most usual contest to implement. Other than that I guess you can create some custom rules about the results of wagers, say if someone gets a combination of x number at their nth wager or something like that. You can even set it randomly for each user so that if they luckily get it at that specific roll, they'd automatically get some kind of reward sent to their account. There are probably a bunch of ways for users to compete by relying on the number of bets/wagers done, but having one contest that's dependent on luck as well may be good to include.

I have to be a fan of someone who gambles first though. I have not seen anyone whom I avidly follow that are a gambler, or at least publicize that they gamble. Even then though, if they actually did gamble I still wouldn't blindly follow them. I did not follow their activities for gambling tips, if I did I'm pretty sure there'd be a LOT of other better tipsters (though hard to differentiate from scams) out there, I followed them for their artistic creativity, content, whatever you call it. I also hardly doubt we'd be on to the same kind of sports tbf.

Is Op relating the Bitcoin market to the tulipmania event like centuries ago? The people were rather undeveloped back then about a lot of technical stuff and you're comparing a flower to a currency, not to mention Tulips can be grown, hence an ever-growing supply, unlike Bitcoin with its limited supply. The people then lacked a lot of information but now? The internet is a sea of information.

Technology is improving at a rapid rate, it wouldn't be odd for it to be replaced a few decades later on imo. It's the king now, but who can say the same a decade later? I guess most just ignore the possibility since we're like 2 decades in and none has gotten near its place, but I still wouldn't consider it an impossibility.

Idk, isn't it simply coincidence? Or the person in talk is just a rather skilled person. If you prophesized a skilled person to win a tournament, does that automatically mean that the person won due to the "prophecy"? That's undermining everything else that actually happened. I wouldn't put past it that luck of sorts was included, but a person's prediction about him is in definitely no way involved. Sports bettors would be called Gods in the sports industry if so.

Religion is really outside of whatever decides the market movement, there's actually no point in relying on it or believing anything about it that indicates anything about crypto.

They sound more like casino tokens (or fan tokens if in sports) in this scenario imo. I wouldn't bet on these coins actually following the BTC market, they're centralized coins after all and their functionality serves as more of a reward for people who use the service, in this case, casinos (or clubs) which makes them gamblers, or fans, unlike in the case of BTC, where most people involved are investors and the like. Not to mention that it's centralized, just that is enough to put it out of the competition and for any relation to happen with Bitcoin tbh.

I'd expect a lot of screaming people about losing their investments in 2025. I highly doubt they'd also buy big, though if a big number was obtained from different countries then even if it was small, it'd still make a pretty noticeable wave at a point. Though I don't think the article specified a Bitcoin buy? I reckon they'd only ever buy Bitcoin once the bull run is happening (or has already happened) as we've all seen with newbie investors, it wouldn't be odd for them to invest in some random shitcoin and lose their money in the process imo. Most (new traders/investors) would never really buy at this point of the market.

Yes. The first option is pretty limited, it's like social media influencers, vloggers, or whatever you may call them. Limited because well, crypto is still pretty new and people interested in it are only people who are in it for the money, so I don't expect much. If it was a company based then you'd be somehow like a social media manager of sorts imo, similar to any other non-crypto company. Devs would be much more solid and they're paid pretty well and can bring their skills and knowledge to other forms of development as well, so more opportunities.

Trading can be pretty dependent on how it's going to work out, if you're good it can support you for a good amount of time but well if you're bad, you might not even last a week.

I swear they'd have more productivity if they were left alone to their own devices instead of this kind of surveillance. This should maybe only be done to people who have a record of failing to do their tasks properly, instead of doing it to every worker out there, but even then, tracking their movement, calls, etc is way overboard. If need be afaik there should be methods of surveillance where they watch the pc instead of the webcam of the user themselves.

Specially if we consider how companies are hiring employees for the quality of their work, and not on the amount of time they spend on their work, so really, it doesn't make sense to monitor an employee for the entire duration of their work hours.

#1 actually works tbh, you just have to know what's in and what's not, which is really really difficult imo, especially if you consider the number of altcoins to pick from in the market, which in most cases would inevitably end up like what happened to you OP, but it isn't impossible. It also gives bigger returns since the coin basically turns from shit to premium to shit, so if you manage to get that time frame of when it's premium then you're good to go.

#3 is a natural reaction whenever the bull market comes, I'd honestly avoid any form of investment during that time period (or just DCA if you really want to invest). Always look at the long term instead of just a few years ahead.

You're investing in Bitcoin for stability anyway, not for the increased gains. Compared to people who invested early on in Bitcoin and had to shoulder bigger risks, people like us right now who know Bitcoin is pretty stable as a long-term investment have higher confidence levels imo and has consistently brought good results which leads to pretty small (but still good) gains in the long term.

Altcoins today are like the Bitcoins of the early age in terms of risk, they do indeed bring bigger returns but they also bring about bigger risks. I wouldn't really look for altcoins in the long term, some good coins can probably get 10x, 20x or more, but they only last pretty short and never really happen after that point.

I mean if the organizer allowed to split the prize since you guys both lost the number (but are one digit pretty close to it), then yea I'd split it. It's still money and I wouldn't really risk losing half of the pool for a small chance of winning. Logically though, why would the split even happen? Especially if you consider how there wasn't any rule of if no one got the number, the winner would be the closest to the winning number. Now if OP said that was in the rules then the conclusion would be sound, but it doesn't seem to be like it.

I don't think they do. I think it'd be a lot better to expand their influence in places they already have a stable player base instead of spreading their influence in countries being tightly guarded, especially since it might cause some issues. I also don't think VPN is an option, afaik some casinos don't allow it and even if they do, you'd still be hit by KYC so if you state a fake country at registration then well, you've basically ruined your account. And if there ever was a trick to be used, it's probably called money.


I think that would work for physical casinos but rarely online? Most stuff online leaves a track after all that can't exactly be erased permanently and can easily lead to them being caught if investigated. Not that I really know much about it though, just giving what I think.

I don't usually set a winning limit, what I limit is the amount of money I put into my gambling plays. Now whatever money won from my sessions usually ends up being subtracted from the original amount I'm supposed to deposit for the next session, so it simply gets reduced if I ever have leftovers from my past sessions, which is nice since I can add a bit more to my savings. I don't usually withdraw my winnings, unless it was a pretty sizeable amount. Heck I even sometimes experience the same thing as OP, winning big then losing it later on in the same session. I don't particularly mind it though.

Nope. I've had pretty negative experiences with casino, both local and foreign so I tend to just drop the experience of going to them personally (won't deny I've been to some though). I much prefer playing online now, can do it in the comfort of my home (or anywhere tbf), and I don't have to interact with people! I know it's good, but I can choose other places specifically to interact, especially considering how it wouldn't be odd to get human engineered (scammed) in a casino. Though I don't think brick and mortar casinos would go out of popularity, sure it'd get reduced but not to the point where it'd have to disappear.

Not really no. They are a part of the factors, yes, but they're not the entire cause. Just because you've seen one side doesn't mean that you've seen the entire scene, I'd reckon there are a lot of investors/traders out there that are pretty private with what they do. Elon was there yes, but his popularity basically brought him to the spotlight, this by no means meant that he was the one driving the wheels for the market, he's just a gear of many other gears, albeit bigger (maybe).

Sides, if Billionaires were all it took, I highly doubt Bitcoin would've grown to what it is today.

It wouldn't be impossible, he is an avid fan of it, and adopting it to the platform would only bring benefits to hodlers, which I assume he is a big part of. It may even be possible that he's going to run an advertisement of sorts for it when he gets the platform early on though I don't think it's going to last long though or heck I don't think a lot of people are even going to use it, a lot of people still don't even know what crypto is (not to mention most buyers of Doge are probably just hodling it for him and not to use it). There are probably a few better options tbh, but it is Elon we are talking about.   

On another note wasn't there a lawsuit about Elon and Doge? Wondering how he's going to handle that (or maybe it was handled already?)  if Doge was going to be introduced to the platform.