I honestly found it interesting at first that a company operating all over the world doesn't have headquarters. They're like a digital nomad. When I first read about Binance's unique structure many years ago, around the time it started growing big, I was kind of amazed that even employees are like CIA operatives, working in the shadows, even anonymously.

But then I realized later on that there are implications that make it actually risky for clients. I don't even care about tax responsibilities. I'm thinking of the company's accountability to its customers.

I don't even agree that explaining Bitcoin's volatility comes first. It's not even the second priority. To somebody who doesn't even know Bitcoin, how could he/she possibly grasp its volatility? Bitcoin's volatility only comes when you speak of Bitcoin's price.

Imagine a conversation that goes like, "Could you please explain Bitcoin to me?" And you go like, "First, you need to know that Bitcoin is volatile." It simply doesn't sound right.

Apparently, however, the appreciation of Bitcoin's price value in US dollars since its creation remains much higher than the cumulative inflation rate from that point in time. 35% is a negligible number compared to Bitcoin's tens of thousands in percentage growth. But you are right that as Bitcoin's price value increases, the value of the US dollar and other fiat currencies are also fast decreasing. So it probably adds to the rising price of Bitcoin that fiat's purchasing power is continuously weakening.

I think there's a huge leap right there. I mean, you're trying to explain Bitcoin to a regular person and you are already talking about investment and 1 full Bitcoin and repeat purchase. I don't think that's how Bitcoin should be presented to somebody who is yet to learn about it. I guess it has to start with the very basic, that Bitcoin is an electronic cash, that it uses a decentralized blockchain, no owner, no president or CEO or whatever, that it could be fully owned, can't be censored, that transactions are transparent and could be verified by anybody, and so on.

I don't hate Jon Jones, at least not as a fighter inside the octagon. Sure, he's gotten into controversies. He even had his second victory over Cormier overturned for testing positive of illegal substance, but I appreciate Jones inside the octagon. He's got a lot to offer. He's an amazing fighter. He's a skillful warrior. He's actually undefeated if we don't include his disqualification against Matt Hamill. That's the reason why I like him.

I just hope he will turn up on fight night in the best of shape. If he is, I think he will defeat Gane. This is a challenge of course considering his long inactivity and Sonnen's observation that he's possibly recovering from an injury.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there people who get into Bitcoin because of the technology, because it is a way better alternative than fiat, but I don't think there's somebody who actually disregards the rising price of Bitcoin.

But I don't see any conflict with it. I don't see how it conflicts with the principle of Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, the increasing price of Bitcoin is expected precisely because of Bitcoin's principle. Bitcoin's fixed supply gives us an idea that its price will possibly be rising no end. In contrast to fiat's continuous devaluation, people who get into Bitcoin must have appreciated its continuously growing price.

Bitcoin will, of course, always form part of my retirement savings. As a matter of fact, it's probably better this way rather than get into the most popular insurance packages here in my country. We have a government insurance system in place here. However, it is in deficit. There's no guarantee that it will still be able to pay its clients decades from now as its financial viability is under question. Simply said, it is poorly managed. Well, that's how it is with government agencies.

Furthermore, you can only enjoy it as soon as you reach 60 years old. I want to enjoy my savings long before my knees get weak and my interest to travel decreases. That's why Bitcoin is a must to my retirement savings. I want to retire early.

I'm for Jon Jones here. But I'm curious how he will be in this come back fight. It's been years since he last fought. That was still way back UFC 247 against Reyes which he only won via UD. Even before that, Jones only had a split decision against Thiago. Those couple of last fights might suggest something.

And this come back fight of his will be in the heavyweight division. This is interesting. I agree with the odds, though. Jones will probably be the winner despite his inactivity. And Gane is not really a difficult opponent, although the weight will probably prove to be an issue.

No, CZ shouldn't compare Binance with Bitcoin. They're not only different, they could even be opposites. But this is familiar. I think CZ has also mentioned how Binance is decentralized like Bitcoin in explaining why it doesn't have a single base or a headquarter. I don't think he's correct.

How could he even compare a private company with an absolutely public currency? An completely independent currency is not answerable to anybody. It is different, however, to a centralized company. Having no registration and no address means zero accountability. You can easily trust the transparent and immutable codes of Bitcoin, but you cannot do the same with a clandestine company run by one man.

Well, when somebody says fiat is trash, I suppose it doesn't mean you throw your money away. I share the sentiment that fiat is trash, but not literally. What it means is that the monetary design is bad. It means the system that makes it thrive is bad. The operation and control systems of our fiat currency are bad. So while I'm saying fiat is trash, I certainly wouldn't burn my bills or give them all away or tear them apart or toss all my coins into a deep wishing well. 

Binance might one day finally bite the dust, but it's probably not the next. It had just survived billions in withdrawals in a matter of hours. Such huge and fast outflow of money could have brought other giant platforms to their knees.

In the interest of fairness, a scathing article like the one recently published by Forbes should have at least included the response of CZ. Otherwise, I would consider it ill-intentioned, more FUD than news. At least, that's how I know fair journalism works. I don't trust Forbes.

I have never been a fan of CZ and Binance-- let them fall any time, I don't care; I'm one with LoyceV-- but it is indeed noticeable how the guns and cannons are now all directed to them when the spotlight should be on SBF. Anybody could easily observe how utmost leniency and tolerance are readily afforded to SBF when in fact he's the one who made the most damage.

Overall, I'm happy that there is thing happening in my country. It may not be the idealistic way to buy and sell Bitcoin, but it at least gives access to many. It also creates the impression that Bitcoin is indeed something acceptable, that it isn't a Ponzi scheme or any kind of illegal investment scam. That's at least a significant improvement from the old public perception of Bitcoin. After all, this business is duly registered under the country's central bank.

I've read that OTC transactions do not charge fees. I just hope the spread is not that predatory. However, it should be noted that KYC is certainly required.

I suppose not much has changed after all these years. I remember years ago CZ was interviewed and he also said something like they're everywhere. In other words, they don't have a base or a headquarter. I suppose much of their employees are scattered across the world working on a remote basis. But I guess they have registered offices in different countries. Official and legal communications could use their addresses. Not to mention that other Binance entities have their own headquarters.

As gamblers, there's probably not much we can learn from it. We cannot even say we should only gamble what we can afford to lose because it seems Drake can very much afford to lose $400,000.

Or if Drake and Jake are friends and Drake is betting on Jake heavily because of it, then perhaps we could learn something, and that is to be objective in our bets. But if that's not the case, then it's perfectly understandable to bet big on Jake knowing that he's been winning one fight after another.

To those who are not gamblers, perhaps the lesson is that don't gamble if you're afraid of losing. Also, gamble big, lose big.

I'm afraid it's not a bug. I suppose the delay is intentional. I mean, it is there by design. I have used sports betting sites besides Stake and there is also that delay.

You will also notice that the feature that allows bettors to redeem their bets is not always available. It's normally available when the team or player you are betting on is much ahead in score, but if the score is a tie or your team is far behind, that feature might not be made available. Your team is probably losing; why would the platform allow you to get back a portion of your bet when they could get everything?

So if you really want to make a cash out, do it ahead, when your player has the upper hand and the game is far from over. But that would sound crazy knowing that you could win bigger. However, bookies would also not allow you to cash out when the probability of you losing is high. In other words, both of you are after the money. Don't think betting platforms would allow you to have the advantage.

04- Darker45

Please and thanks, krog!

I'm sure this isn't something scientific, but I sometimes notice that whenever I gamble and I'm too anxious, or I think too much of the money I wagered, or nervous that I would lose it, or that I need to win to make money, and so on, I would lose. I have to admit that I sometimes gamble with a little worry in mind because I could lose my money. Whenever I do this, I'm more likely to lose.

But whenever I don't think twice, betting without a slight doubt, or whenever I'm not bothered by the possibility of losing money, I normally win.

This is of course nothing logical. It may or may not be true at all. It's possible it's just a mere feeling or that I'm just overthinking. Reason would tell me that whatever the betting outcome is, it has nothing to do with how I feel. But it's always better to gamble with fun, though.

Times have changed. Gone are the days when a good number of bounties are really paying, and with tokens and coins that are worth something. Those were the days, when ICO was still a thing. I can still remember the time when many ICOs were selling their tokens like hotcakes, hitting hard caps very quickly. I even used to invest in a number of them. It's possible your friend is referring to those times. Today, I don't think joining bounties would really give you a good extra income. It's probably not worth your time and effort.

I'm saying it's partly poor implementation because there are already tax laws. There are straightforward tax laws that have become inutile because they are not properly implemented. They're just there idle. At best, they're selectively implemented, usually targeting small fishes. The big ones are left alone.

One example is the issuance of official receipts. That's a very simple and straightforward legal requirement which is not respected by many businesses here. This should have been one of the bases for the government tax agency to know whether taxes are properly paid.

This is also true in my country. But I'm sure this kind of poor implementation is not as worse in many developed countries, or perhaps even non-existent.

Where I'm from, tax laws are not that effective also. And for a number of reasons. For one, there are many ways to be dishonest with your income and you will pay only a small amount or none at all. Or you don't declare anything at all and shirk tax responsibilities altogether. Or somebody will do the trimming of taxes for you. Or you're a rich and powerful person that even government authorities won't bother you about taxes. I'm not even saying all these are illegal. After all, tax avoidance is legal.

Indeed, those who are formally employed are the ones who cannot evade because taxes are automatically deducted from their salaries.