People go to exotic destinations to enjoy and relax, not necessarily to use Bitcoin, even when it is completely legal and possible. Therefore, I think that such decisions do not affect tourism too much, because Thailand also banned payments with Bitcoin before, as did Turkey.

For those who go on vacation to pay with Bitcoin, there is always El Salvador or Boracay, and probably some other places where Bitcoin is not prohibited. However, if I were to choose my tourist destination, I would also take into account how each government treats its citizens, and whether there are any crazy laws that could land you in jail. Bali with its attitudes and strict laws is definitely not on my list of priorities.

Any technology that will enable online casinos to offer a more attractive service and that will enable them to fight against fraudsters will certainly be implemented. It is a business in which huge money is made and they are always ready to invest in something new, and it is no secret that those who enable something new have the chance to attract the most new players and retain those who are already their users.

In addition, during the pandemic, online casinos received a large number of new players who discovered some of their advantages compared to physical casinos, and I think that some new technologies will attract even more players of the new digital generation.

This is not a rumor, but a fact confirmed by one of the staff members. We have already discussed this so many times that any further discussion is completely pointless, just as this discussion is pointless considering that logic leads us to a single conclusion, which is that all mixers are targets of those who want to stop them. Which one will be next is just a mere guess and nothing more.

Can the value of something you deposit in a bank safe be insured at all? As far as I know, banks don't want to know what you keep there, and neither do clients want to declare the value of something that is there. In addition, in the event that thieves break into the bank and take all the contents of the safes, you have lost everything there, and you cannot prove that there was a seed there that gives you access to x BTC.

I would still believe more in my own insurance of such sensitive information, and if you do everything right and keep your mouth shut, then the risk is minimal even when and if thieves come into your living space. If someone already chooses a safe in a bank, then it makes sense to keep part of the seed in a private location, and part in the bank, so the risk is lower.

It is not a new idea, it has been talked about for years and some banks have already received permission to do exactly what you are writing about now. Of course, such a method of access is very easy for the bank's clients, but completely pointless if it is a custodial service, similar to any CEX that many use as a "crypto bank".

People who do not buy Bitcoin to use it as a currency and only want profit without too much worry will certainly choose this option, only that first of all they should be warned about all the risks arising from the custodial service. Banks will certainly (at least some) accept to enable this kind of service, but storage and fees in that case will certainly not be negligible.

The only benefit I see in this way of purchase is that the client does not have to do a new KYC, given that the bank already knows all the information, and if they also gave clients the option of withdrawing to non-custodial wallets, it would be a solid option for many who are looking for easy way to enter the crypto market.

It seems to me that in the past there were some kind of custom bets where the player asked to bet on something, and the bookmaker then made it possible for him or not - if I'm not mistaken, that was possible on the UK market. And I just remembered one example that was talked about a lot about ten years ago.


Source

I don't see why it would be crazy to include a type of bet on coaches in the offer, because clubs change them very often, and realistically, many of these people should not be coaches because they are not for that job, regardless of whether some of them are were good players.

For those who have a real problem with addiction of any kind, including gambling, the only real help is to seek professional help. This usually refers to help in the form of professional psychologists, who of course are not cheap, but I have noticed that there are more and more free phone supports for those who feel that they are becoming addicted.

However, I think that people should be influenced at a young age so that they know how to face such problems if they find themselves in them, but also everyone should be able to recognize when someone has such a problem and try to help them. Society tends to marginalize such people, but this is completely wrong, because the problem is not only in someone's addiction, but also in the influence of these people on our everyday life.

It's not just that they will forget, but they will do exactly the opposite of what they promised. It is fascinating that in most countries there are elections for the parliament or the president every 4 or 5 years, and that at that time the average person mostly forgets about all the promises made by politicians, and even less evaluates how many of these promises have been implemented.

What everyone seems to forget is that the presidents in the US change, but the politics are always the same. No US president can publicly be pro-Bitcoin, because it would mean that he is actually against what the majority of Americans support, which is the US dollar. DeSantis is therefore completely irrelevant in the context of Bitcoin, like all his predecessors.

Maybe it's all new and strange to you, but the whole shitcoins industry works by first ensuring adequate advertising, and then listing on as many exchanges as possible. All this is actually one big lie and deception in which the owner of the project, the so-called influencer, and of course the platforms that serve for advertising, make money.

I won't say that even some ordinary mortal earns something in all this, but they pick up only crumbs, although the majority lose everything they invest - because their loss actually generates a big profit for all those I have already mentioned. If people were just a little less naive and spent less time on various social platforms, I am sure that they would be much better off in life, and that they would have much more money left in their pockets.

If you have ever shared some ref links of FEY faucets or any multicoins faucets where the ref link is the same for all available coins, that is the most likely reason why your FEY balance is increasing. I'm not sure if there is another way to get FEY from FP in the form of direct ref rewards for those who click PTC and similar on that page with your FP link.

Realistically, at the time when HW started to become a serious competitor to desktop wallets, there were not too many choices, and Ledger mainly imposed itself as the main player on the market due to its design. To me, that design was always more attractive than Trezor, and that's why I bought those devices, and I assume that many others did it for similar reasons.

What you call "crap" today, we couldn't define it like that in the past because there was no reason for it. However, when I get a new HW, maybe I'll start a new topic called "Show your destroyed Ledgers", because really trash belongs in trash, right?

---

This means that everyone who has ever upgraded firmware and installed coin apps in some way shared the content of their HW, together with the IP address, and it is not unrealistic that each HW can be identified by a unique digital fingerprint, which is then very nicely connected to the KYC database. I am surprised that until now not a single authority in France or the EU has dealt with the problem of Ledger as a company that has been behaving completely amateurishly for years when it comes to the protection of its clients' data.

A few days ago, a bookmaker in my country was fined EUR 380 000 for storing bank card data in an unauthorized manner, without causing harm to its clients.

So isn't this year (2023) marked as the year in which recovery will begin? After the pandemic that finally ended, and the war in Ukraine that shook the world, now all eyes are on the US and what will happen there considering that their politicians behave like little children and cannot agree on whether they will save the country or not. Of course, the latter will not happen, because all they are doing is ordinary political trading, as is always the case when such things are agreed upon.

Nothing will happen to Bitcoin, except in the minds of those who think they should listen to their political leaders and direct their lives the way they want. What most people are interested in is of course the price, and for such speculations, everyone should use their imagination - there are people who once again announce $100k by the end of the year, and there are also those who suggest a new crash.

Shouldn't gambling be fun for the players, and on the other hand, profit for the owners? The majority who approach gambling (and by that I mean casino games) in such a way that they want to beat the house will not succeed regardless of the strategy.

The best strategy that anyone can practice is to think of gambling as fun and to set a limit that he can lose daily, weekly or monthly. In that case, the whole thing makes sense and will not negatively affect our life, and in case of a bigger gain, we can attend some things in life that we have wanted for a long time, but we didn't have the opportunity considering our income.

Considering the way Mr. Pascal performed in the video that was linked in one of my previous posts, he obviously considers his clients ignorant and incapable of making an adequate backup, in other words, he positions himself in the same position as the famous CZ who claims that 99% of users in the crypto world are not intelligent enough to be their own bank.


Ledger (Pascal) also claims in the video that given the situation, they did not notice any drop in sales of their devices, and that this did not even happen after the famous Ledger leak of hundreds of thousands of user data, which he personally considers a trivial event.

---

Either it's a simple fabrication, or Ledger knows exactly how much someone has on their devices, which means that they log all the data from the device every time such a device is online. I would say that it is the latter, and considering the company's reputation, I would not be surprised if they share (sell) this data to anyone who is interested in it.

Some people bet for fun, others for profit, and I think that's the biggest difference when it comes to the club we support. I don't see how anyone will support their club by betting on it, and at the same time knowing that they will most likely not win that bet - and on the other hand, we know that the biggest support comes from buying tickets, jerseys/souvenirs and cheering in the stands.

Therefore, I don't see why someone should be called disloyal if they don't bet on their club, because sport is much more than betting, or at least it used to be.

That's what I would professionally call "parasitizing on Bitcoin", and regardless of the idea that Satoshi had when he created Bitcoin, I'm sorry that he didn't protect that name because it would have really spared us from fake creators and those who use Bitcoin to achieve some completely different goals. We can have such a tower in every city in the world, but steel, concrete and plastic will change almost nothing if people continue to think in the wrong way.

---

That same country recently rejected Bitcoin, so it would be good if we finally adopt that fact on the forum and not repeat some things like broken records. Legal tender in the context of Bitcoin is an overrated thing, and if the example of El Salvador didn't show it, why do people expect another country to do it?

I don't want to comment on that user at all, all I have to say is what I wrote in the feedback, and I completely agree with what @BitcoinGirl.Club wrote on that topic. It's not about the goal itself, but how you got to that goal, although some will never understand that.

It just shows that all those who go in that direction are not aware of what they are actually buying or for some reason known only to them they ignore some known facts. That HW has an irreparable vulnerability that allows an attacker who comes into possession of such a device to extract the seed in 5-10 minutes, not to mention their cooperation with those who will analyze all transactions and determine which ones are good and which ones are not. In addition, who says that the Trezor will not come up with something similar to Ledger in the future?

As I already wrote in the previous post, everything is nicely explained on the faucet page and I am sure that it has nothing to do with the registration time or the number of referrals. I have been a member since 2014 and have several hundreds of referrals, but still my minimum reward is only 7 satoshis at the moment.

Every time you buy a lottery ticket or make a bet, you will see how much you still need (in percentage) until the next prize increase. However, I have to admit that I have a friend who is my referral and also has the same minimum reward as me, but the only thing he did was exchange rewards points for free BTC bonus.

I reported it as a zero-effort low-value post + if it is about one and the same link, then also by advertising in the post, which is not allowed on the forum. In 99% of cases, such a report would be marked as good, so everyone who sees such posts should first of all not participate in such discussions, and if they report the post correctly, it will most likely be deleted.