I also pursue financial freedom. But I will never sacrifice my life for it. After all, the very reason why we dream of financial freedom is to have a happy life. However, the irony is that in our pursuit of financial freedom, we often sacrifice small moments that truly make us happy. In the process, the means become the end itself.

I used to work with the government, and I was compensated well. It's a job worth sticking to. But I proudly left it when it grew so toxic that going to work means suffering. Some are willing to stick to it, choose to be patient, and sacrifice for the money. Me, no thanks!

Life is here and now. It's pointless to sacrifice your well-being for the sake of the money that is supposed to assure your well-being.

I am not really an advanced gambler, although I have long been gambling. But always moderately, of course.

I know that many here wouldn't agree with me, but I am with those folks in your locality who think that physical gambling is more fun. Until now, I am more into physical gambling than online gambling. As a matter of fact, I just won the other day when my neighbor's mobile game team clashed against another team from a nearby village. Although I feel some guilt about it, I would also bet on live cockfighting. During NBA playoffs also, I mostly bet outside, especially if the odds are better than the ones offered by crypto bookies.

However, there are people whose risk tolerance is so low that Bitcoin might not really be for them. There are those who criticize Bitcoin as an investment. For me, the real reason isn't what they're telling the public like Bitcoin doesn't have intrinsic value, it is not properly regulated, it lacks consumer protection, it's too volatile, and so on and so forth.

The truth may be that Bitcoin simply isn't for them. They simply can't take that investment in Bitcoin could mean that their portfolio could lose 80% of its value. They cannot bear that possibility.

Actually, when a bank as large as the ones mentioned fail, victims do not just include the masses. It may also include billionaires and billion-dollar companies.

Circle, for example, has billions of dollars in SVB when the latter collapsed. There are many others that had millions and billions stuck in the bank. Of course, there are also small depositors who are affected.

The difference, however, is that when these small individual account holders become the victims, they lose their life savings. When billionaires become victims, their lives are unchanged. When large companies lose billion, the CEOs and presidents and owners remain rich.

All I'm saying is that small fishes like us should be extra careful. Our choice between Bitcoin in cold storage and money in a bank account could mean everything to us.

Well, views differ. Apparently, your view isn't shared by the government. It is unfortunate, however, that the government is the one that is more powerful than you. If you think that they don't have the right to do this and that, but they don't agree, they will prevail.

So whether you think the government does not have the right to arrest somebody who is just writing an open source code, Alexey Pertsev is in fact still in jail right now. Whether we believe that starting a marketplace is not a crime, Ross Ulbricht is actually rotting in jail until today. So while we all agree that providing the people the means to protect their privacy isn't a crime, this Nguyen could indeed end up in jail as well.

To be fair to these banks and whoever running them, I don't think they "portray the banks as the only remedy to the financial problems of the world." Are they saying that?

Even if they say so, don't think that they actually know everything. They may appear as if they know it all, but no, they cannot foresee everything. They even failed to assure and pacify their depositors and prevent a bank run. They even failed to keep themselves solvent.

As a matter of fact, the collapse of centralized crypto companies like FTX is almost similar to the collapse of these traditional banking institutions. They may heavily criticize crypto companies and yet they also failed due to irresponsibility resulting to insolvency, lack of foresight, wrong predictions, false assumptions, greed, overconfidence, and others.

Value is relative. And it also doesn't remain the same. I'm not talking of the price, of course.

To somebody living in Beirut where money in the banks could not even be withdrawn, Bitcoin is more valuable. In the same manner that Bitcoin is certainly more valuable to somebody who's from Ukraine trying to evacuate and cross borders than one who is living peacefully in a place where businesses are freely operating and bombs are not dropped anytime of the day. Bitcoin is also more valuable to a father who's from El Salvador working in the US who has to send money to his family every pay day.

I don't see how John Ryder would possibly upset Canelo. I'm interested at how the Ryder team would set a game plan that would deal Canelo an unexpected loss. Although this is a huge opportunity for their fighter, they will surely be challenged at the odds in front of them. They've got nothing to lose, yeah, but winning is just too big to simply disregard.

So far, the odds I've seen has Canelo at -1450 and John at +770. That's practically saying John doesn't stand a chance. To be honest, I'm seeing a KO victory for Canelo, but I'd be happy if John would give everybody a shock.

Who can tell? But since the price at this point is almost $27,000, I would say $30,000 is more probable than $20,000. Of course, $30,000 is nearer, and it seems Bitcoin has gained a nice momentum ever since it recovered from that unexpected fall below $20,000. Although we may see $20,000 anytime within the month, if I will make a bet, I would happily place it on $30,000. I'm particularly amazed that even with what happened to certain banks that are crypto friendly and with USDC depegging, Bitcoin remains strong.

Well, aside from P2P platforms, Bitcoin ATMs, vouchers, and other ways that have already been mentioned here, are there not local crypto wallets or digital banks offering crypto in your area?

I don't know which country you are from but from where I am, the harder part when banks are completely cut from crypto is not the buying but the withdrawal. Buying Bitcoin here is easy. You can do it by loading a local crypto-supporting wallet, even via 7-eleven, and convert it to Bitcoin. Upon withdrawal in fiat, KYC is almost unavoidable.  

As far as I can remember, I changed withdrawal addresses a number of times in the past. And I used to maintain different centralized exchanges. I never had a problem. So I guess this isn't just about changing withdrawal addresses alone. It may have something to do with a change of IP address, for example, or a change of location, or perhaps the withdrawal to a new address is made after a long period of inactivity in the account, or other possible triggers.

This is one of the disadvantages of keeping your money in a centralized exchange, especially when there is an emergency or an urgent need for that money. Lucky for you, you got it after almost two weeks. Some are asked for KYC and each time they submit they got rejected.

You can do that, of course. You can create a Bitcoin wallet, hide the private keys, take the address and send Bitcoin to it every time you have some money to spare. You can forget about the wallet, even delete it, and continue to send Bitcoin savings to that address. Just make sure you keep the private keys with you.

This isn't exactly the same with a savings account in a bank, though. The differences, among others:

• Your money in the bank is not kept intact and untouched. The bank uses or invests it somewhere else. However, the Bitcoin in your wallet remains untouched.
• Your money in the bank earns interest, although very small, even lower than inflation rate. Your Bitcoin savings do not earn interest.
• You don't own your money in the bank. Meaning to say, there is a possibility it is taken away and you can't get it back. If you make a withdrawal, they can decide not to approve it or limit what you can get. As to your Bitcoin savings, you fully own it.
• You don't fully control your money in the bank. For example, the bank may freeze it if your account is dormant. Moreover, the bank may regularly deduct a portion from it as fees. With your Bitcoin, it's only you that can do anything with it.
• Your money in the bank is insured up to a certain amount. Your Bitcoin in your own wallet isn't.

And yet, in the case of Tornado Cash, hundreds of millions worth of different coins linked to the mixer in one way or another were frozen. This was generally a blanket move. This wasn't just done selectively to suspicious wallets and addresses. This included funds of innocent and unsuspecting Tornado Cash users.


Of course, most likely. They've probably long been here. They're probably not just reading; they might also have accounts. After all, this forum was also the place where Silk Road's Ross Ulbricht, altoid here, left a trace that cost him his freedom.

This forum has probably long been an interesting place for them.

It seems this website isn't really a helpful site but just one who is made solely for traffic and ads and therefore money. In the first place, the list does not really comprise of new casinos. Some have been in operation for years already. Secondly, some of these casinos aren't really launched in Canada. BC.Game, for example, the one that is a bit more popular than the rest, is, just like many other online casinos, based in Curacao.

This article is obviously written by an outsourced content writer from whichever part of the world.

It's funny how gamble responsibly could mean differently from one gambler to another. That is like saying gamble what you can afford to lose, and you, OP, is betting as high as $20,000. Of course, you can afford to lose that. To somebody else, or perhaps to most of us here, that is already a life-changing amount we wouldn't just risk on a wager.

Anyway, I'm just saying that what gamblers can afford to lose widely differs. It could be $1. It could be $10 or $100 or $1,000. Or it could be $20,000. The point is that the money that a gambler should bet is an extra.

How I wish I could gamble like you, OP!

I can only speak of the setup where I'm from.

Do I need a bank to pay my mortgage or to even get a loan to buy a house or a car? No.
Do I pay my house rent through a bank? No.
Do I pay my bills through a bank? No.
Do I pay my medical bills through a bank? No.

On the other hand, can I pay my mortgage with Bitcoin? Why not? Can I pay my house rent and bills with Bitcoin? Why not? As a matter of fact, I've already paid bills with Bitcoin. And if only my landlady would accept Bitcoin, I might also pay my rent in Bitcoin. If hospitals and clinics would accept Bitcoin, I can also pay medical bills with Bitcoin.

I wonder how much market New York provides KuCoin, but if it isn't that big, if I were KuCoin, I'd rather not go through all the legal hassles and block New York residents from the platform. Surely, KuCoin's market is not solely dependent on New York.

On the other hand, is there an official pronouncement or directive from the SEC that Ethereum, among others, is to be classified as securities? For now, it seems everything is but mere interpretations and yet lawsuits are already filed against Kraken, KuCoin, and others on this claim or assumption. Why don't they first let SEC decide on this once and for all and file a case on that basis?

The sad part is that, first, this kind of old scam modus is happening until today. Lessons are probably never learned. Second, a very simple step to verify is all that you need to avoid this, and yet some are still falling for it. Trust shouldn't be placed above verification. If you trust, at least verify first. Third, even in centralized platforms where there's users screening and KYC is compulsory to be able to trade P2P, this kind of scam is still present. I wonder how that's possible.

During the intense lockdown where nobody was allowed to leave their houses if they didn't have the necessary pass, it was surreal. It felt like it was only happening in the movies. But it happened.

Food packs were distributed in our village. Since it does not suffice, either my mom or I would go out to buy something. But hunger was never an issue. The issue was the long numbing hours you have to spend inside your home. We don't have television so that made it a bit harder. We also live in a small apartment. I thrived on books and the internet. I even finished those old books that were left unread for years.

I guess the worst affected here are those whose livelihood is completely dependent on the normal movements of people. Those who have jobs in the tourism sector, for example, are suffering so much.

If you are looking for different statistics relating to Bitcoin, you might want to check this thread: List of interesting Bitcoin statistics. This was created by 1miau less than a year ago, so I guess the sites are still pretty much active until today.


This is interesting. I guess it will be the very fundamentals aspects of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin's block size is significantly increased, would it still be Bitcoin? I guess so. But what if Bitcoin shifts to PoS, would it still be Bitcoin? I don't think so. What if transactions carrying Ordinal inscriptions are rejected or censored, would it still be Bitcoin? That would be debatable. What if the 21 million supply is increased? That's certainly a deviation from Bitcoin's fundamental design.

So I guess there isn't only a single element that makes Bitcoin what it is.