There are viable workarounds and practical alternatives

For example, you can order a Bitcoin payment card, and then you will be able to do everything you habitually do with your regular fiat payments without dancing around all that presumably arcane stuff like setting up a "personal portal" and what not. For fuck’s sake (pun intended), this is what Pornhub may already have it in their package for its "models". And as I said before, PayPal does everything right, so more power to them. It will only spur up the development of easier ways to deal with crypto. Porn industry is way bigger and penetrating (another pun intended) than online gambling, and it could be a real game-changer for crypto

But here's the catch (another one, as there are many)

If they were just a little bit more patient, and had simply waited out the bad times they wouldn't be crying out loud. I mean Bitcoin went exponential to 20k in a matter of a few months, then crashed to 3k (here comes the "bitcoin is a biggest scam" part), in a short while resurrected and surged back to almost 14k

The point is, it was first greed that forced people to enter the fray at the wrong time, and then it was fear that made them leave the game at wrong time again. And what do we get from this? Correct, that there is no right time for the wrong people. So it is greed and fear as the two sides of the same coin that always come and go together

How is that?

Are you deeply invested in this coin or something? I'm seriously asking as Ripple (the legal entity behind XRP) is essentially not much different from PayPal (they are in bed with bankers and don't hide it). Switching to using XRP could eventually turn out as disastrous as it now happened with PayPal. There's no knowing if their top-brass don't quite like porn in general or Pornhub specifically. They must go with truly decentralized, censorship-resistant coins, and that is Bitcoin, end of story

The comment below is from another topic, but since it seems highly appropriate here, I'm posting it:


Now to the one-million-dollar question

That is, what should one smoke to go all postal like this? As far as I know, weed in general makes people more friendly and outgoing overall (that's why it is considered a recreational drug by some), so it should be something really heavy to produce a similar effect. What could that be?

I don't quite agree with this part

Actually, Bitcoin may well turn out to be the currency of choice in the porn industry, just like Dogecoin is for gambling (if PayPal and its likes such as Visa etc do everything right). How come? The cam girls are typically from Eastern Europe and third world countries (apart from porn stars like already mentioned Shyla Jennings who quite literally don't give a fuck anymore), while their viewers mostly come from America and the rest of Europe (maybe, Japan too). This basically means that the girls are paid in dollars and euros, and they still have to convert the payment received into their local currencies. So how much is Bitcoin different in this department?

There were different forms of gold standard in the past

And you didn't necessarily have to move physical gold around, which seems to be your point. Countries on gold standard typically used paper money anyway which was redeemable for physical gold. So you could redeem a piece of paper which had been circulating as money for real gold if you chose so and when you felt it necessary

If we were on gold standard in this day and age, transactions would still be mostly electronic (digital), while gold would only be used for accounting and final settlements, without physically leaving its underground vaults and storage facilities. In essence, everything would remain as it is now for the most part

I doubt that unless we count as "rich" someone who's become rich due to sheer luck (like lottery) or unexpected inheritance, i.e. people who didn't earn their wealth


As they say, it is lonely at the top

Maybe, he doesn't have friends, partners, or acquaintances in sufficient "amounts" whom he could trust with a few thousand dollars. If you are betting on multipliers like 1.01x or 1.02x, giving so much money to a lot of people seems to me an extremely risky venture. Someone will undoubtedly let you down sooner or later (and rather sooner than later), so it is not worth it for so small a reward. Apart from that, you would have to pay your "team" something, and that again is meaningless on these multipliers. Maybe, there's something else at play here, I dunno

Here's a Cointelegraph's article on the same topic. It is mostly a rehash of what has already been said and written, but this part seems particularly interesting:


So it all comes down to people (sex-workers are also people) getting proper knowledge and understanding of how to use crypto. On the other hand, necessity is the mother of invention, so PayPal does everything right even though "mother" sounds a bit ambiguous here (we should probably use "milf" instead)

These people are essentially producing noise

They may have their own agendas (and they most certainly do) but you should be aware that even if you strongly disagree with what they say or claim, their words are still affecting you and probably not in the way you would really want. They are spreading FUD, and it is not like we are immune to it even if we think we are and know better. Remember, the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed

The whole idea looks stillborn to me

If they have to borrow money for something, though not necessarily for gambling or investing (these are the extreme cases), most certainly they don't understand it at all. Apart from a few rare exceptions (which are said to prove the general rule), this is going to end in disaster and likely personal default. Even in business, if your idea is worth it, you will be able to find investors to support your project with their own money (so-called venture financing)

In trading parlance whales are the ones who move the price

So the big holders who are just sitting on their coins don't cut it as whales (unless they choose to enter the heat), though I certainly see what you are getting at, But ultimately, it is only a matter of convention, and probably not worth discussing here further


I'm not saying there's no manipulation. I'm only saying there exists such an idea or theory that what we think as deliberate manipulation is really just regular market behavior. If someone buys a load of coins and that expectedly moves the price up, would you call that manipulation? And when someone else instantly unloads into this upward push, and with a vengeance at that, would it count as yet another instance of deliberate market manipulation? If these are the examples of market manipulation, then this approach destroys the very idea of manipulation as every significant price change becomes an act of downright manipulation

Note, these are the premises of that theory, I don't necessarily agree with them nor the theory itself

Well, I doubt that you can't get drunk if you drink enough

But I agree that some people can drink regularly and sometimes quite heavily (e.g. when external circumstances require it) but without developing an addiction at all. As I have written earlier, it is all in our mental or psychological makeup and character. Some people are more prone to become an addict of something, some less, and that definitely has everything to do with our brains, whether it is familial and hereditary (i.e. occurring in the members of a family) or entirely individual and thus not tied to one's ancestry


The interesting part is what should be done to prevent people from developing an addiction for something when they are already internally predisposed to it, i.e. how to make them immune to it

There is even a theory that there are no whales (only big holders who are not trading)

And thus there are no market manipulations either, so all price movements are only caused by changes in aggregate demand as well as supply. Personally, I'm not very much sold on this theory, but that's not my point here. The main problem with the current market is that even relatively small investors and traders can move the market on their own (i.e. not collectively). In this way, they are the new whales, with truly big whales hiding deep under the surface

People will always be expecting that

The same thing (or shit if you like) will happen time and again. It is just in human nature to "hope for something out of nothing". There is a special word in Russian to describe just that - "халява", which can't be properly translated into English without losing the whole meaning it conveys, especially the strong negative connotation it has (the English rendering "freebie" doesn't cut it at all since it lacks this extremely contemptuous undertone). So most, if not all, people have it in them, and unless they are aware of it and can control it consciously, the process is bound to repeat itself over and over again. But that's an opportunity for us if we are able to ride it and profit from it

Personally, I don't think it works on this level

And as I'm inclined to think, it has more to do with brain chemistry rather than some enzymes in the liver. Why? The logic is pretty simple. It is not consumption of alcohol itself just like not gambling per se which turns people into alcohol and gambling addicts. It is the urge that they feel after they have not drunk or played for some time that drives them insane and makes they come back for more. Obviously, all this happens in the brain, not in the liver

Sorry, didn't see your comment coming my way in time

But it definitely needs to be addressed (and probably merited), what I'm doing now. Technically, I don't deny a certain correlation between these two cryptocurrencies (or dependence of the Dogecoin price on the price of Bitcoin if you please). What I want to say, or rather further expand on what you already said, is that there is a limit on how low the price of Dogecoin can go (in the mid and long term). What does it tell us?

It basically tells us that when Bitcoin crashes, the price of Dogecoin will hit a price floor, i.e. reach a definite support level which is for the most part determined by the coin's real use and application. Why is it so important? The importance is that we can see how the real-life application (even if in the gambling domain only) starts to override speculation, something we don't see with other coins (even with Bitcoin itself)


The idea of marginal utility is not applicable to money because money is an abstract concept whose value comes only through (the possibility of) spending it (now or in the future). In other words, it doesn't have value of its own (other than transactional utility), so the tenets of marginal utility cannot be applied to it. Money is only an intermediary, and it is goods and services which can be bought with it that are subject to the effects of marginal utility, not money itself

Simply put, money is beyond the scope of the law of marginal utility

No one minds winning free money

And still more so for winning big money (like hitting a jackpot or whatever). But it is one thing to be aware of this possibility and a completely different one to actually go for it. In the latter case, you are no longer playing for fun, i.e. getting pleasure from the process of playing itself. Instead, you are now trying to achieve something, to reach a certain goal (like a big win or a jackpot). This is the beginning of your fall, which may well end in developing a strong gambling addiction when you eventually start losing

In fact, I was primarily thinking about trading when I wrote that post

As this is where this approach makes perfect sense as the outcomes of your "bets" both depend on luck, to a certain degree (let's be honest here), and on your trading skills as well as understanding of the market, to the remaining degree. So you should be able to cope with losses or do something else if you can't. However, if we are talking about purely random games involving the house edge (think dice here), we can talk about "professional gamblers" only with an ironic undertone (or as a handy euphemism for gambling addicts)

It can be confusing though

I don't deny that this system has its own benefits and advantages, like seeing the same currency (read, the American dollar) throughout the site no matter what your real balance is made of. Actually, it makes sense (despite the fact that it is somewhat confusing)

However, a still better solution would be to allow players to choose whether to use only the universal currency for all bets on the site or the one they want to gamble with (have in their wallet). I think this solution would give Roobet a certain advantage over other online casinos out there

All things considered, that wouldn't be a house edge

If the casino was secretly playing as a human player, it could and would know the hands (cards) of each and every player in the room. And if you ask me, that would be an example of downright cheating, i.e. not the house edge as it is understood by everyone in the gambling industry (an official and presumably legit advantage of the house)

With that said, my earlier question still stands, i.e. if it is possible to make poker truly fair in the way bets in dice can be checked and verified. I mean if every hand gets written on the blockchain and can be known in advance by no party other than the one having it, wouldn't that make online poker authentic and fair?