This technically combats methods to crack passwords such as Bruteforcing, Rainbowattacks, and methods similar to it, but I don't think it prevents phishing/malware. From what I read said passkeys would store the biometric data in the devices themselves and not a server, so hackers can technically get said data right? I guess the idea is worth it if it prevents part of the methods that are used to steal the passwords of others but I think new issues are created like others have said which is you can't exactly change your biometrics.

For the first question, it's possibly because they don't want any innocent users to get hit by their fraud detection system. That would cause possibly a LOT more issues in the long run compared to letting some users take advantage of their bonuses. Though afaik bonuses have a set limit e.g., a set amount of withdrawal before being able to withdraw (not including the ones from the bonuses) so I don't think they lose out that much?or rather they just aren't able to maximize their profits.

Ofc the ones to blame are the fraudsters. No way in hell is there a world where the act of scamming/taking advantage of a loophole is the right thing to do.

The issue of multiple gambling sites could be fixed if there was a central organization that could take hold of all the gambling industries licensed out there and if the said organization was to properly enforce proper rules and laws so that unlicensed casinos wouldn't be able to work. I honestly think it isn't impossible for a said organization to be developed, just that it could take a LOT of time since there are a few conflicts that may come to play such as religion.

A different part of the problem would be an addiction, now this really all boils down to the player themselves. It's like how developed systems or websites always have loopholes or bugs, you can't indefinitely remove a problem imo, unless you completely remove the activity that causes the problem, in this case, gambling.

To be fair, even if crypto payments were to be banned nothing would exactly change since payments done in crypto is very minimal, only a small percent of crypto owners have probably tried it. Not to mention that said scenarios are probably online payments where time isn't really an issue since, well, it's online. Compare that to scenarios such as paying in restaurants, grocery stores, or small stores. I won't even deny them of doing this, crypto as a payment seems impossible due to volatility and the time issue right now. But hey, time will tell if it would be able to become one later on (and by later I mean really later).

Hmm, legally I don't actually think he did anything wrong cause afaik there isn't any kind of law that, well, tells you to return back something you got accidentally or not. If I'm wrong then feel free to correct me though. Morally, what he did was really wrong. I mean if it was a few bucks then maybe, yeah I guess I'd take it (don't call me on that), but if it was THAT big of an amount? Heck, I'd think something was wrong and try to contact the bank to ask who sent it or what the actual hell happened.

I have to say whoever sent the funds should also be accountable though.

There'd only really be a small number of people who could get into it imo. In the first place reputation is the first and foremost thing you have to build up here and that's something really difficult imo without any type of big connections. After than, you're only customer base would probably come from bigshots, and seeing as they'd probably be pretty low on number compared to the number of consultants, well, it'd probably be a tight competition. I myself haven't really wanted to do it nor have I ever thought of it, but just thinking about it already gives me a headache on how to even start off with it.

Cause, well, it went down? If you're asking for specifics well all we can give you would really be nothing specific since there are too many players that influence the market right now. The general trend is simply a bear market if you want a really simple answer, it doesn't matter if your group of friends doesn't want it to be, you're like a drop in a big ocean that affects the market. I guess it went really deep down since after it went past a certain point, people panicked and sold their coins.

It depends on what you do with your assets. Do you hold them in Bitcoin or do you hold them as fiat then just deposit and spend the entirety of whatever you deposited for that certain session? If it's the former then naturally you're assets would move depending on the market movement, if you did the latter then naturally the market movement will do nothing to your assets. In general, though it doesn't really affect anything related to the activity of gambling whatsoever, it's solely just your assets.

I honestly don't think dumps nor pumps would detriment gamblers from playing tbh. They (or we) are not traders but rather gamblers.

This is something I've always wanted to see integrated, beyond the point of games such as poker and blackjack type of games. Just that, I also know that the idea itself is REALLY hard to initiate since really, if it wasn't, then someone would've certainly done it already. It's going to be a completely new genre imo in comparison to MMO's, FPS, RPGs, etc., and would need a completely new system to integrate the luck factor properly so that "skill" wouldn't have a bigger influence than it.


Pretty sure it isn't technically ESports, there's always been a professional scene for gambling in general afaik. Wouldn't really let it fall gambling into the category of ESports, maybe this new multiplayer aspect could.

Is this a trick question or something? House edge exists so in the long term, gamblers would always always lose money to the casino. Now on the probability side, the chances are always 50/50 and probably gets reduced depending on the settings of the bet you set e.g. in dice, and each chance is independent of the games before it so yes, the minimum chance is always 50% (to win and lose).

It's because they're doing a great job in running the casino. You may argue that house edge is a scam and it steals money from its users, but let's not be dumb, casinos exist to do exactly that. Otherwise, casinos probably wouldn't exist as a business. Casinos would only close down if the owners left it alone and didn't manage it properly or if they did some stupid sht that got them in trouble.

A desire to win isn't exactly wrong, we all inherently have that and want to achieve it in every possible thing or situation that we can, just that we include other factors in said winning. In this case, winning is like a symbol for winning money, so it makes winning only a medium instead of the goal, which is wrong imo. Winning should be the end goal of every gambler out there, and the money should just be a kind of side goal of sorts. As I'd like to say, Never expect anything when gambling, just like how it goes in trading.

I'd be quite happy since that means adoption has simply come that far, whether the intent of said adoption was to mock Bitcoin or not. It may take some time to adjust but it's simply like switching countries and seeing stuff being sold in a different currency. There's the issue with volatility but I think that time would solve that issue and would slowly flatten to the point that its effects would be negligible. Maybe except when extreme situations happen. I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime though tbh.

Yea well the "good feedback" will turn into something non-existent now. We all know how reputations and trust work, it's not just in casinos, it's literally how it works on everything. Trust is something REALLY hard to build up but if it's properly done, then you can rest assured it'd be steady, but if a crack forms, then that crack will stay and get worse over time, slowly destroying everything. No need for any discussion, if they fail to resolve it or just straight up ignored it, then that's a red mark for their reputation.

I think most casinos would only limit/restrict you when you withdraw? That's the general experience I've had so far with casinos. . Most casinos have lines like "X casino reserves the right to ask for identification" something something, so it's really up to them when they ask. It may not be because you're continuously winning but there could be an instance where it was a coincidence that you were winning at the time and yet they asked you for KYC for a completely different reason.

But well in general, they don't ask it win or lose, BUT it doesn't mean the possibility of your account being limited (due to being required to do KYC for some reason) would not happen.

"Buy low, sell high" are words that are rather easy to say but really hard to predict. The peak and bottom of a season would always remain unknown to us until it passes by, and by then, the golden time for entering to invest is already gone. BUT we can presume the general sentiment and create a broad assumption from there, we don't necessarily need to specify an exact price for the peak and bottom.

In addition to this is that if you were to buy say somewhere near the peak, there's no need to sell it at a loss if you have no need to and you're planning to invest in the long term. It's one of the biggest mistakes that new investors do and honestly, sell it or not, you'd already end up at a loss. Might as well take the risk and wait for it to go up to restore your losses and possibly profit more. Only do this on assets you trust to go up in the long term though.

Seems dumb to me tbh. This isn't about crypto vs fiat gambling, you can remove the gambling part and you can still get the same argument or discussion imo. The two mediums differ from each other which brings about the advantages, so really, it isn't a matter of gambling but rather the usual comparison of fiat vs Bitcoin/crypto. But anyway to answer OP's question.

It's convenient to use crypto in my case.
Like any other gambling out there, but crypto is used instead of fiat.
No.
What now? Being addicted to gambling whether you use fiat or crypto is nothing similar or can come close to being called a "good result".

Idk the topic of Bitcoin only seems kind of, small-ish? If you consider the amount of information behind it. It may not even fill a one-year course for it, except maybe if you added lessons not only about Bitcoin but also about the basics of economics, finance, and stuff like that. Though in that case, it'd be more of a finance-centered course and Bitcoin would be like a subcourse included in it. It feels more like a series of seminars and talks rather than a class though. Might just be me.

I'm hopeful they add about the coding and development of the backend part though.

That's not a whole new world, it's a worse and deeper hell than sports betting lmao. Sports betting is a waaaay more better (subjective, don't judge me), than casino games, and I've tried both. Sports betting has that sense where you don't rely on luck but rather on analysis and studying. And imo, you can even determine the winner without having the need to study it that intensively, with the knowledge of the basics of the game and the teams that are playing you can already assume who can win.

Though I guess if your friend wants to turn off his brain, then yea simple games like dice and slots would work. Probably the thrill of finding something new imo, I reckon he'd come back to sports after a few months.

It's not only slots really, crash, dice, and other simple but visually appealing games are the types of games gamblers are most likely to play in greater quantity, compared to say games like poker with complicated a f rules (in comparison to slots anw). It's addictive in a sense, but in the end, I wouldn't blame slots in general for it, but rather gambling in general (and the user ofc, for falling for it), cause see, even if poker was complicated people can still easily fall addicted to it, so blaming the game for all the fault is kinda wrong imo.

I still prefer poker though, or sports betting even. I just enjoy watching or seeing well, MORE than something spinning in my face for the next hour or two.

Uhm no. I'd rather just say give me a flat amount of money instead of asking him to give me an "accurate prediction" for the price of Bitcoin, cause let's be real, no matter how "accurate" your prediction is, it wouldn't be as accurate as you (if you agreed) on giving me the money straight up.

And honestly, the idea is pretty dumb since as others have said, the person themselves can do it instead of sharing it, which is much safer and well, easier. If money is the problem then go take a loan, I don't think that'd be a problem since it's an "accurate prediction" anw. And let's be real. The reputation of a random anon from the internet doesn't mean jack compared to the money I'd use to invest.