45- Darker45

Please and thank you, willi9974!

45- Darker45

Please and thank you, willi9974!

36- Darker45

Please and thank you, aoluain!

Lot 1: 0- Darker45

Please and thank you!

I agree. Sometimes it is being underestimated how the factor of rain can actually hamper an economic cycle. In my country, there are crops that rely heavily on rain or the rainy season. However, rains could come in extremes. While rain could be anticipated, even prayed for, sometimes it simply comes too much.

Entire rice fields and other crops could all go to waste because of excessive rain. Not only that, even hectares and hectares of fish ponds could be damaged by too much rain. Not to mention that so many other economic activities could also be put to a halt because of rain.

Unfortunately, excessive rains are becoming a normal occurrence thanks to climate change.

My advice is the same with your advice. I don't like loans. I don't like borrowing money. I'm not comfortable knowing that I owe somebody a certain amount. But, who knows, if ever a time comes that I will have to borrow money, I might. However, it will never be for the sake of investment. It might be due to emergencies.  

But if somebody is to borrow money for the sake of investment, Bitcoin is a better choice especially in the middle of a bear season and if it is for long-term hodling.

I'm sticking to the side of "silence is golden." You don't have to respond to these people. In the first place, they're talking nonsense. They're actually doing nothing against Bitcoin. They're only showing their ignorance and bias. So why dignify their hatred or biased opinion?

I better stay silent and stack Sats. I may speak in favor of Bitcoin, but not in response to their criticisms. I may respond to objective and valid comments against Bitcoin in front of friends, loved ones, and others, but only if brought forward in a fair manner.

If it seems they're always against Bitcoin whatever happens; if it is clear they're deaf to reason and facts and data, silence is indeed golden.

No, Bitcoin cannot redeem a country's economy. The people could take refuge in Bitcoin if the country's fiat currency is fast losing value, but it doesn't mean it addresses the very reason why the currency is devalued. Investors leaving the country, bad business environment, corruption, terrible bureaucracy, poor infrastructure, bad economic policies, and so on and so forth are some of the reasons why a country's economy could fall. Bitcoin cannot remedy those.

The dots are now connecting. The domino is branching. Who would now believe Ben Zhou when he's only making the revelation after being caught with no choice? A full disclosure coming only after reports are out that Bybit is exposed to Genesis? That's shady at the very least! Who cares about your disclosure when everything's already known?

If that list of companies exposed to Genesis weren't released, Zhou would have remained mum about it, keeping everything a secret. But now that he's got no choice, he's coming out with this overdue disclosure, if only to justify it, reassure his clients, and try control the damage. Too late!

I don't care if Bybit is next to bite the dust. I actually used to admire the platform for being generous to its non-verified users, but they're actually all of the same feathers.

Same here, I'm not a fan of mobile apps. Not only are buttons and everything else small which makes everything prone to fat finger errors, and difficult for the eyes, it seems it is also less fun when games are played on mobile phones. I like the bigger screens, large and clear figures, stability, and others which desktops and laptops are offering. I also don't like gambling when I'm mobile. I can't focus and enjoy.

This is partly a regional issue but also partly lack of access. Lack of access could either mean they don't have laptops or desktop or they are at work or into their daily tasks. They could only squeeze in playing games during short breaks or when commuting.

Congratulations for your win!

You were lucky. But this doesn't happen all the time. Especially in a luck-based game like roulette, you are more likely to lose than win. So I don't share your gambling approach to chase losses and try to get back. I think it is already a well-established gambling truth that the more you attempt to recover your losses, the more you lose. So, rather than spend more money in trying to win, sometimes it is wise to just accept defeat.

There's a gambling advice here in my place that says just continue gambling. If you lose all your money, try selling your car, you might get back. If you still lose, try selling your motorcycle, you might finally be lucky. If you still lose, try your selling your refrigerator, you might finally recover your losses. If you're still losing, you might want to sell your house, you might finally win. This goes on and on. And this is a joke.

Same here, but I wasn't lackadaisical, I was suspicious. When I first heard about Bitcoin, I was full of doubt. I never really believed such private currency would work. I thought Bitcoin was a scam. But then I kept stumbling on it. The impression was that it was a way to make money. That was when I fell victim to a Bitcoin scam.

But I tried to get to know it little by little and I eventually found out it was a revolutionary currency, one that completely detaches the abusive powers controlling our current monetary system. The word was decentralization. I fell in love.

It's really funny how the fiat system works. Since the system is basically controlled by the government, they seem to be above everything else. If the revenue is much smaller than the spending, then there is always the option to resort to debts. From whom? Well, it could be from themselves. So they create more money so that they could lend it to themselves, because they're borrowing from themselves. And they will also pay themselves for the money they borrowed from themselves.

But they're also setting a debt ceiling or a limit. They couldn't borrow beyond that. But what if there's no more money and the ceiling is already hit and they badly need the money? Well, since they're also the ones creating the ceiling for themselves, they could also increase it for themselves so that they could borrow more money from themselves to themselves.

I tell you, you are extremely lucky! If this is the first time that you felt the rising prices of goods and services after buying all those good stuff including chicken drumsticks for your dog, you are living the life! Mate, you are blessed there!

That kind of life is something many people could only wish for. From where I am, that chicken drumstick is not for the dog. The human eats the meat, the bone goes to the dog. And one tiny piece of chicken drumstick fried in used cooking oil is already worth 1 AUD.

I've never experienced this, but I guess there was already a similar case before in my local. I cannot remember the specific details but it was also probably due to funds deposited from gambling sites which, as you've said, are normally considered suspicious by centralized exchanges. The same is the reason why I don't use custodial wallets when receiving signature payments from gambling companies.

But try to ask for the specific reason for the blocking of funds. And if they confirm that it's because they're coming from a gambling site, tell them you're not aware of it because it's suppose to be a weekly salary. You tell them that you have a work in this forum. That's the source of your funds. That's not money won from a casino; that's money paid to you for a job.

A couple of notes, though.

1. Bitcoin is indeed censorship-resistant. There's no authority that can ban, restrict, or censor an address or a transaction in the network. So whether you're a communist, a terrorist, a criminal, a weirdo, an anarchist, or whatever, you're allowed to make Bitcoin transactions. However, this is all betrayed by centralized exchanges and other centralized platforms. These platforms blacklist, restrict, and censor addresses and people because they have tainted Bitcoin, used gambling sites, a resident of Russia, and so on.

2. Indeed, no one can steal your Bitcoin. But only if you keep it safe. By keeping it safe, I mean you store it offline where you alone have the control and possession of your private keys. Keeping the private keys is another thing. You cannot keep them online or in whatever device that you connect online. And, again, your Bitcoin could be stolen once you keep it in centralized exchanges. Not only could your coins be stolen, they could also be frozen for whatever reason.

Low odds means low prize but higher chance of winning. High odds means high prize but lesser chance of winning. I mean, you can't have low odds like the one mentioned in the OP and get a big prize for it. That $1.4 million bet could have only won $11,200.

Anyway, I agree that besides the risk there's also little money you could get out of it. Not worth it. And, yeah, it's boring. But it's money bettors are after. So when the first half ended with a 24-0 score, the bettor must have thought this is sure win. He/she was wrong.

No, 1.70 is not low odds. That's just more than 50% chance of winning, but less than 60%. That's almost 50:50. That can't be considered one of those "sure win" type of low odds.

Anyway, to bet bigger amounts on very low odds is one strategy that is actually understandable. I did it. Majority of us certainly did it. After all, how are you going to make money with odds as low as 1.008 if you don't bet big? But I agree with you that the problem really is that he/she overdid it by risking $1.4 million. But it also depends on how rich he/she is. To his/her wealth, it might not really be "overdid."

Sounds nice, but not really. At this point in time, verifiability has become the basis. Trust is certainly not enough.

Will there be a way for everyone to verify that the stablecoins are actually backed by gold? Apart from that, will there also be a way to verify that all the gold are real gold and not fake? Even China's gold reserves have fake ones.

USDT is not owned by a powerful government and yet it has even managed to issue USD-pegged tokens without a 1:1 reserve. Who will audit Russia and Iran's gold-backed stablecoin? Or should I ask, which auditing firm has the iron balls to refuse a report saying the stablecoin is sufficiently backed by genuine gold even if it's not when KGB and GU and FSB agents are all over your office?

Is it enough to say "only stupid investors will invest this coming exchange" and "I just hope that people won't trust them anymore" or we need a clear-cut policy that prevents GTX and the like to even start.

Sometimes, I'm really confused which is better, to strictly regulate the space and, therefore, not allow these scumbags to develop another scam project or make the market free and, therefore, allow them to freely rise and fall. It is either to let the consumers learn their lessons the hard and costly way or let agencies intervene and nip these scams in the bud. It is either we rely on people's vigilance and sound discernment or we allow powerful authorities to deprive scammers to even launch a project. It is between letting the innocent and naïve realize their failures or let the government protect their gullibility.