Bitcoin is almost legal in most of the countries. Even the people living in the countries where bitcoin usage is illegal have got the best usage accessibility. For this reason the governments stand on bitcoin won't cause any big change around. Everyone have the same feeling as now. In my view the people who were in fear of using bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will find it good and make their participation.
Once the legal announcement comes, more number of people will have bitcoin acceptance into their businesses which is one of the best thing and the same helps with the better usage of bitcoin all around.
Yeah, it's mostly legal in the world as you can see here:  And the thing is that, similar to the Internet, even if you try to stop it, you can't really. It's like trying to stop people from drinking alcohol. It just won't happen. |
|
|
|
~snip~ @Sithara007 this was actually a very interesting question and I asked it myself, but a quick google search gave this: "World Cup: USA, Canada & Mexico will auto-qualify for 2026"It seems that there have been some discussion about it, but when you give it some deeper consideration any other solution would have been unfair. It has been the rule for so long that the hosting nation is auto-qualified. Now even if it is three countries hosting this World Cup, I 100% agree with the decision to allow all of them to auto-qualify. It is an event that no hosting nation wants to miss and all hosting nations are so eagerly looking forward to. Imagine what would happen if one of the countries failed in the qualification? I would say that that would be a very sad event and it would also suppress the overall mood among the fans in that country. You want the home fans and the whole hosting nation to be as deeply involved in the tournament as possible. All of that is in support of the enthusiasm and empathy among the guests and the people from the hosting nation. So yes, all of them are auto-qualified. Absolutely. There's no way a country that is hosting the world cup won't participate in it. They are putting a lot of money into the tournament so of course they're going to be there. That was the only way Qatar was able to play at the World Cup actually. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Artificial intelligence is usually only used for comparative data in making prediction decisions and that is usually what we do in football betting, artificial intelligence will follow the statistics of previous matches in providing predictive answers, but the level of accuracy is not always right. Gamblers can take samples for consideration from ChatGPT but research others have to be made for comparison and trusting it completely is not necessarily optimal.
The closest example is the result of the match between Liverpool vs Manchester United, predictions made by artificial intelligence are far from the final result of the match, so to answer the accuracy of predictions sometimes it is not always right.
It would be interesting to read any kind of paper comparing the predictive power of these new types of AI systems with traditional predictions. I'm guessing the AI would potentially be better, but I'm not really sure. It's usually great a simpler things, but then it kinda degrades its performance. At the end of the day it's all just math, and models. |
|
|
|
A joint South American world cup would be amazing to celebrate the centenary of the world cup.
I hope they actually end up winning, that would be very fitting.
If 4 countries are co-hosting the tournament, does all of them get automatic qualification? For the 2026 FIFA World Cup, all the three hosts (United States, Canada and Mexico) have been granted automatic entry, which has been criticized by a lot of people. But this will be even more tricky. If they grant automatic entry for a total of 4 teams, then it will reduce the importance of qualifying tournament. IMO, only one host should be given this right, and others should earn their place through participating in the qualifying tournament. Yeah, well, if 2026 happens and we have 3 countries qualifying plus a load of new countries qualifying, then I don't see why not having 4 countries hosting the next world cup. I think it's a bit weird, but that's the reality we're facing at the moment. |
|
|
|
~snip~
I would very much like the 2030 World Cup to be held again in South America, where it all began.
So far most competitions have taken place in Europe.
The last two that took place in South America were Brazil in 2014 and Argentina in 1978.
As far as I know... Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay already launched their joint bid to host the 2030 World Cup last year. This candidacy was made official at the Centenario Stadium in Montevideo, where Uruguay defeated Argentina 4-2 in the 1930 World Cup final and became the first world champion.
It would be very impressive if the centenary were held there and the final match in that same stadium.
A joint South American world cup would be amazing to celebrate the centenary of the world cup. I hope they actually end up winning, that would be very fitting. |
|
|
|
Japan has demographic reasons why its challenged in any improvements, they have one of the oldest average age populations. Somewhere like India with a majority of the population 30 or below should be able to improve far quicker with the mass of available people in the right age group. That factor is probably a large part of what drives the eternal economy in footbal; that throws forward stars into world cup level football. Clubs can buy stars, nations must produce quality at every level down to beginners to advance at their best.
Yeah, but they were not in that situation about a hundred years ago. The World Cup started in 1930, that's 93 years ago. At that time Japan didn't have the current issue of aging population. They were not interested really, while countries like Uruguay were hosting it:  As you can see, there was no interest at all from Japan at this stage: Thirteen teams (seven from South America, four from Europe, and two from North America) entered the tournament. Only a few European teams chose to participate because of the difficulty of traveling to South America due to an economic crisis.  This made me remember that in 2 world cups, 2030, we will be celebrating 100 years from the original world cup. |
|
|
|
Honestly, if I knew what I know now when I started I wouldn't own more than two different wallets. Owning more wallets isn't a status symbol in anyway and I like to keep it simple. Freewallet was one of the first wallets I had before I moved to Blockchain wallet, and then to more others. I later learnt that Freewallet went rogue. There was a day I tried logging in to assess the few cryptos I had on that wallet but couldn't. At that time there were many people who also complained of being locked out of their wallets. It was a common complaint then.
I can see why you would need at least 3 wallets. One wallet would have most of your savings, in cold storage. Another wallet would be a hot wallet, able to move coins around easily on your laptop. And a third, mobile wallet, for lightning stuff. I think that's the optimum minimum amount of wallets today. |
|
|
|
I watched a documentary on Kamala Harris and I truly think that she would make a better president than Biden, but I do not think the US are ready for a female president.  I would like to see a clash between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence for the next presidential election.... and Trump should go back to celebrity TV shows, where he is better equip to blow his own horn. The rush on the US Capital and Trump's contribution to that, should never be forgotten, even if he were acquitted from that. People said the same thing when Obama was elected. You never know what can happen at election time, some people don't say what they're thinking, and they just talk by voting. Hard to predict those people, but with deep learning tools and social media, it's getting easier to estimate those things, and even push people to whatever side the person paying money to the tech wants. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Definitely. Bitcoin will eventually lost its value and will be forgotten in time if the ban will be forever. That’s why while the iron is still hot today, invest in bitcoin and take every opportunity to become profitable in bitcoin. Because when time comes when bitcoin will no longer exist anymore, we can never do what we have been doing today, and we will never be profitable anymore like what we had experienced today.
Alcohol was banned in the US about a hundred years ago: In the United States from 1920 to 1933, a nationwide constitutional law prohibited the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. In 2020 alone, alcoholic beverages sales in the US were worth 247.3 billion USD(about half of the current entire market cap of Bitcoin): https://www.statista.com/topics/8803/alcoholic-beverages-industry-in-the-united-states/ |
|
|
|
Nobody believe this post. OP tried getting me to place a bet for him on Djokovic so he could keep 15% of my winnings. He most certainly did not win that parlay, likely edited. His goal is unknown but everyone should take what he says with a grain of salt.
Edit: He also seems to prey on gambling addicts, tries to say all the right things in order to make you trust him, I almost fell for it (out of desperation).
Hmm There's no need to trust anyone. If someone wants to prove something, they can always sign a message with their key before an event happens, and not edit it. If it actually happens, the signed message is proof. If there's no signed message, then nothing can be trusted. |
|
|
|
~snip~
You can store all your private keys in one paper and on one location in order to less complicate things but this won't make sense at all once someone finds it because no matter how many wallets you have all of them are still going to be emptied. Two wallets must be ideal for all of us because I am also doing this.
One is strictly for storing Bitcoins and the other is an Ethereum wallet which supports Erc20 tokens and other kinds of altcoins and tokens. I do this because I found ETH wallets less secure, that's why I only keep less money on them. I also trust Bitcoin more in terms of profitability and stability, I mean it's unlikely to turn into a scam due to its old age.
You can always add a passphrase to the normal set of words, and you simply don't print the passphrase there. That means that anyone can see the seed words but it won't work because they're lacking your passphrase. You could have multiple copies of it stored anywhere, relatively safely. |
|
|
|
~snip~ We weren't talking about gaming, though.  We discuss here gambling, right? Global video game market is actually larger than gambling market, but let's drop it, because it's out of topic entirely. Let's at least stick with gambling here, ok? Speaking of which, no, it's not a valid argument that "gambler can lose so much more money in the same amount of time than a gamer". Gambler can win a lot too, right? Casinos get their revenue from the house edge, not from what this or that gambler loses. Casinos absolutely get their money from gambler loses. Last time I checked some real world numbers, a casino was making about 3% of their net gains from alcohol (note that most bars and restaurants survive on alcohol sales alone basically), and the rest was money received from gambling losses. If you look around the world, the gambling Market size is 262 billion USD. Almost the same as the current market cap of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Wait, wait, wait. Is Bitcoin illegal to your country that's why you're asking this?
I mean aside from the countries where they banned accessing Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn't illegal to most of the countries, so it's legal.
~snip~
The specifics are a bit different in each country. Some countries have Bitcoin as legal tender, others have it as an asset, others ban it, and others don't have an opinion about it. In some cases it's seen as bartering. It really depends on the jurisdiction that you're looking at. The thing is that Bitcoin is way more advanced than the current state of laws about money around the world. |
|
|
|
SEC is greedy no matter what, they keep tailing everything in crypto as security. They never stop until they are in control of this crypto space that's why everyone are siding with XRP because they are the only one can pair up with SEC. XRP is the last stand to protect everyone in the crypto space and breakdown SEC greediness once in for all.
If you have some altcoin controlled by some group of people, then that's clearly a security, unless I'm missing something. It's basically a company without all the regulations to protect the people that put their money into it. Bitcoin is not a security though, it would be more comparable to gold in this scenario. |
|
|
|
~snip~ The weakest zone without a doubt it South Asia. We have a bunch of countries that are all ranked below 100 as per FIFA. And the fun fact is that this zone has a population of 2 billion, and has one of the most rapid population growth rates for any part of the globe. In Asia, the football strongholds are the middle-eastern countries (including Iran) and East Asia (Japan and South Korea). Australia is more like an outlier which has shown enormous growth over the years. And then we have Central Asia (especially Uzbekistan) which has also shown significant improvement. I would argue that the weakest zone is Oceania. Australia was winning all the time there, and that's why they went to Asia, as a step up. So, by that logic, Asia would be better than Oceania. All those small islands don't really have amazing squads. New Zealand is probably the best one now by far, and it's still sub-par. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Having a cold wallet is something we can't classify as unusual, because the hacking methods are improving every day, and crypto holders should guarantee they have the highest level of security to avoid being victims to these methods. Personally, I still haven't bought a hard wallet since it's rare in my country, but I have it in my plans as I want to call someone outside my country to buy it for me. However, I'm very curious when it comes to dealing with unknown crypto services or unknown links, so luckily I haven't suffered any hacks till now.
The first Bitcoin wallet was a hot wallet, and a miner wallet, all in one. It was from the software now called Bitcoin Core. So, in a way, cold wallets are historically unusual as they evolved from the normal, hot wallets. But having said that, it's the modern way to make sure your coins are as safe as possible. And in that way, they shouldn't be treated as unusual, as they should be the norm today for any substantial amount (i.e. not pocket change). |
|
|
|
I tried to force ChatGPT to make a prediction about the past, or, a retrodiction, if you speak scientifically. Here's the result:
~snip~
I think it kinda gives us an impression on how ChatGPT would be predicting the future events if it were connected to the internet today and its database was updating on a daily basis.
Interesting experiment. It makes sense though, chatgpt is not trained to make prediction, instead it just basically mimics what would be searching the web for facts and replying to a question. In a more dedicated AI, the output could have been different, because it might be trained with different types of data. That's the thing, there's no single AI, every AI is different, just like every person is different. We will soon have AI racism  |
|
|
|
The moment you make a bet, you are convinced that it is the right bet for you. You don't want to think about the possible consequences that you might lose the bet. But when do you have 100% confidence in your stake? Actually, you should always do that, but that also depends on the type of bet. You cannot possibly have 100% confidence in longshots, you should only have confidence in your system as a whole, not per individual investment you bet on a game.
I reckon you should also consider the probability of not winning the bet. That's also a possibility, and in many cases it can be the most common scenario, depending on the odds. At the end of the day you need to look at this from an analytical point of view, if you want to have any kind of percentage metrics. If you just go with your gut, then there's no need to quantify anything, so percentages are irrelevant in that situation. |
|
|
|
If SEC define it as security, would that be correct? What is true is that Bitcoin is a decentralized currency and thus definitions otherwise are not important or accurate. Therefore, they are defined correctly as not security.
The question remains, will it be accepted as legal tender or not? This is something that will not happen in the medium and short term.
For altcoins, it is only a matter of time before most of them die.
Accepted as legal tender where? It's already legal tender in El Salvador and in the Central African Republic. I reckon the US will probably be one of the last places where it would be legal tender, as the US is the strongest fiat at the moment. But let's remember that before the USD there was the British Pound, and the Spanish Real. Things change, and they change faster and faster. I can see that there won't be any next new fiat, but instead there would be a Bitcoin standard to replace USD dominance. Of course the USA won't want that to happen so it won't make it a legal tender there. |
|
|
|
|
Small island countries might probably be the next ones.
Fiji for example just elected Sitiveni Rabuka as their prime minister, and he seems Bitcoin as a positive thing.
And in Tonga, Lord Fusitu'a, a former MP there, is convinced his country will adopt Bitcoin as legal tender at some point. They had some natural disasters that probably slowed down progress, but it's there.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
