Things are obviously more complex than that

As they say (well, actually that is what I say), not all fiats are born equal, and if the US dollar inflation is in fact quite negligible (while we shouldn't compare it on its own apart from the changes in wage rates within the same period as the latter are rising too), this is not the case with almost any other fiat currency out there (except for a few top currencies like Euro and Swiss frank). So the government, or rather governments, are not going to do anything about it for the simple reason they are the cause of price inflation and, most importantly, they are the ones profiting from it

But that explanation undermines your previous point

If you are looking into the market once or twice a week, you may see where the ship sails, and thus choose your entry and exit points (mostly, the latter).  Indeed, if you make a couple trades a week, this won't make you into a day trader (though opinions may vary), but that still makes you a trader, not a 100% holder

Technically, it is exactly the idea behind "hodling", i.e. to forget about your cryptocurrency investments for a few years (the longer the better). You can see such advices springing up here and here of the forum, especially when someone was unlucky to buy at or near the top. To sum it up, a hodler is essentially a failed trader

What's in it for you really?

I honestly want to know. If they reveal players' real names, what is that going to change for you personally? Will your curiosity be satisfied since if it is not idle interest, I can't come up with any plausible reason why the casino couldn't feed you fake accounts each race (as well as faked stats, for that matter)? Note that I'm not saying that they do, but if this is your true interest, angle or objective, or whatever, that won't help to expose them

If you can quit gambling on your own, you are definitely not addicted

It can be thought as one of the definitions of addiction that you can't get rid of your addiction of your own volition. And I don't agree that gamblers who are addicted are in denial. Some of them may be for some time, but most addicts (and not necessarily gamblers) become fully aware of the ruinous potential of their activity after some time

It can be thought of as a divide of sorts. When you come to understand how dangerous to your wellbeing your habit is, you drop it. If you can't drop it of your own free will, then you are addicted and need to seek professional help. For example, junkies are typically very well aware that they are addicted, but they can't help themselves

Actually, that's what I am repeatedly telling folks here

If we are talking about honest casinos, i.e. those provably fair (minus the house edge, obviously), they are as susceptible to the effects of bad luck as their players. That's why the proper bankroll management is of the utmost importance to any casino which considers itself fair, especially in crypto, where one holder can easily buy a dozen such casinos and not break a sweat at that (let alone ruin them)

But if the max profit per bet or max bet amount is reasonable, and you can bet doges, it becomes pretty irrelevant as long as the minimum bet amount is at its the lowest possible value. In other words, if you have enough dough, you can run pretty safe martingale strategies. Well, until the casino all of a sudden stop being fair, raises the minimum bet amount, or simply makes bets so agonizingly slow that you lose all interest using these strategies

Are you sure these people made the right investment choice?

I mean the right choice of investing in Bitcoin and crypto in general? If you, generally speaking, don't have time to check the prices once a week or so, maybe cryptocurrencies aren't for you after all. Maybe you should start looking into something else, for example, deposit accounts which you don't have to check months on end or even long-term treasuries like 30-year bonds which you can safely forget about for literally decades? Just my 2 sats

Well, that actually remains to be seen

In fact, you are making sweeping generalizations here. First, investing in neither business nor real estate is a guarantee of stable income of any kind (as far as volatility is concerned). Further, these investments are not guaranteed to succeed at all. Your property can lose all its value due to a multitude of external factors up to a point where it will start to generate negative money flow as you will still have to pay property taxes on it, regardless of its market price. And then most businesses fail in their fresh year

The point is, investment reality is very distant from how you see or rather imagine it. To sum it up, investments in Bitcoin are overall less risky unless you are a genuine expert in the field where your are going to invest in (real estate or whatever). Bitcoin is already firmly established, and it is not going to kick the bucket any time soon, no matter how high its volatility can be. And volatility works both ways anyway, so you can ride it and earn a couple of bucks here and there which would amount to a handsome percentage annually

Autobet solves this issue

So you set the variables, then kick it off with a series of automatic bets (probably infinite), and
voilà, the problem of losing focus solved! You can then go on your business doing something else while technically you will be gambling all that time. When you feel it is time to check how things are going in there, you just take a break from not gambling and proceed to "gamble" for a while. Thus, no need to stay focused 24/7, a couple minutes a day will suffice and actually do wonders for your overall gambling experience

And what should we do?

Should we levy a protective, or rather prohibitive, tariff on imports to protect the domestic economy rather than to make it competitive so that people could only buy domestic things instead of foreign brands for the simple reason they can't buy anything else? But that would mean that the quality of domestically produced goods will only decline further since we are effectively removing the competition from the market

And who owes whom, and what exactly?

All right, money is debt, and it is a piece of paper that says you owe me £10 of money. Where can I get that real money then? Okay, you don't owe me anything personally, I get it. But really, if money in the form of banknotes (or whatever other than hard currencies backed up by something tangible) is essentially a piece of IOU, what is actually owed by this IOU? As far as I understand it, modern money is simply a unit of account which is conveniently and conventionally used as a medium of exchange, and that's pretty much all there's to it

If you ask me (since you replied to my post anyway), that's not gonna work out

And the problem is not with the "character education" itself (as you call it) as I'm totally fine with the idea as such (with less emphasis on "education", though). But this idea is a blatant utopia because who is to teach that "character" to a student? But what's even more important here, who is to determine what that character should look like ("moral, noble, virtuous, resilient, and behaves well")? And while we are at it, how come that I feel like we had already seen something like that before, and it failed miserably? I mean character shaping and designing "a better man" who "behaves well" from scratch? To my skin, it feels a bit Orwellian, doesn't it?

I think that rarely works out in real life

Why does it not? Before we proceed with this question, let's first discuss another matter required for better understanding of that question. The matter is, we often make assumptions that are virtually impossible in real life. They are possible in theory, but not in practice (like a gambling addict genuinely quitting on his own)

It is the same story here. If a person was smart enough to stop gambling after hitting big win or jackpot, he would likely never started gambling at all for being wiser than that, for knowing better. To cut a long story short, if you win, you are going to come back because you already came before and will come for more later

Okay, let's agree that's an interesting experiment

Then it is worth studying from every possible angle, right? Let's assume the mother is kind of doomed. That's actually a plausible assumption, at least on my own personal level. I know a couple of women who have 3 children, and I'm sure that the government support for them played an important role in their decision to have more children (though it is not for life where I live). Long story short, they are lazy by nature

So they are essentially producers of human resources. But I can't agree that their kids will be like their mothers. First, if they are boys, there is no way they will be supported as their mothers were. But even if they are girls, their future is still uncertain as it is mostly defined by their environment and how they are raised up. And the daughters are likely to despise deep inside such way of living ("parasitism")

That may not be enough

Even if you are not a big time gambler (heavy drinker, chain smoker, occasional wife beater, or whatever), it is how you, and more importantly, your competition, present all this, i.e. how people (read, voters) see you. As a matter of fact, any important election is based on massive brainwashing, dishonesty and outright lies, so if you are running for office, being sincere about your habits, inclinations, obsessions, good or bad, may not suffice even if you are well above your competition in personal traits like you love kids, don't beat your wife (too often), go to church of Sundays, etc

I mostly agree with your opinion

Especially, the part about responsible and productive members of society being punished fiscally in favor of the lazy and reckless ones. With that said, though, we must consider the problem from all sides and from all angles. The point of government supporting "the parasites" (as you put it) is in fact to keep them contained

I don't mean just their sheer numbers (this is a separate topic) but also the negative impact they could and would have on that society in more direct ways. I mean it may be cheaper to pay them off rather than cope later with the negative consequences they will otherwise produce (like crime, drugs, diseases, and so on)

People have obviously burned their fingers

Many had probably tried the "trading routine" in the past, and if the price went their way, they quickly sold out without letting profits grow. On the other hand, if the price went against them, they were not so quick to sell and cut their losses short, so they unwillingly and reluctantly turned into "mindless holders". So either way, these wretched traders had essentially only one option ahead of them (well, a single option is not an option at all), and which was to hold

That's not the only issue or aspect

"Good" politicians, i.e. scheming, domineering, manipulative (think House of Cards here), cannot be gambling addicts or frequent visitors to Las Vegas, and not because they care for their reputation - they certainly do as reputation is everything here and elsewhere - but for the simple reason that what they are involved in (i.e. politics) is already a sort of gambling in its own right. I could go so far as to say that any hardened politician as in hardened criminal (actually, there is not much of a difference between the two) is a gambler deep inside but his "addiction" has nothing to do with casinos. His stakes are way higher and oftentimes affect whole nations or even the entire world (think Trump here)

This is nothing more than just a wrong view or point of view

The truth is, gold is rock-solid on its own. I'm damn sure you are looking at the dynamic of gold prices in dollars. But it is not gold that changes its value against the dollar as it is the value of the dollar (as well as that of other fiat currencies), present and expected, that fluctuates wildly (at times) against gold. It is a pretty common mistake. Just keep in mind that every equation has two sides to it, and if you change one side, the other should be adjusted accordingly

If anything, it can be a good start

I mean you may barely make ends meet with your real-life job, and that might not be going to change in the foreseeable future (say, you live in a really backward place or in a third-world country). Then, with a signature campaign's earnings, you can build some starting capital which you can use to bootstrap yourself and embark on a journey of your own choosing. Or you can just become a trader with that money (but your mileage may vary)

It is somewhat paradoxical at first sight, so I can definitely relate to your confusion

But if we thoroughly think it through, it actually makes perfect sense. To resolve this seeming paradox you should take into account people's preferences. For example, which money would you prefer to keep and stash, bad or good? If you choose to keep good money (which is an obvious choice), then, in turn, you will certainly decide on getting rid of bad money. But you can only get rid of it by spending it, and this is how bad money drives good money out of circulation as people are encouraged to spend the former and hoard the latter