It might not be his exact intention to defraud people but that's what he's actually doing. He might not really be thinking of taking people's money away, but that's basically what it means when he made huge withdrawals of his users' money and moved them to Alameda, donated to politicians, squandered on expensive properties in the Bahamas, gave away to his parents for them to splurge, lend to some companies, and so on.

Sam Bankman-Fried probably didn't think of running away with his users' money, but his irresponsibility, his childish financial management, is equally damaging. 

It's indeed probably better to discuss bets with other people. Different people may have different analyses on a sports match. So, the more the better. Different factors will be explored easily. Information shared. Various aspects of a match will be carefully weighed. So, it's generally better this way.

What's probably the challenging part here are the disagreements. One may be strongly convinced, for example, that it is Tunisia that will win, but the majority think that it is France. So the money goes to France. And France lost. The one who earlier insisted that the money should have been wagered on Tunisia will regret and probably feel a little resentment and could even blame his/her friends. He/she could even doubt his/her friends way analyzing matches.

Believe me, this happens even among friends, especially if money is involved. The blame game could arise anytime. That's why I prefer to gamble solo.

There have indeed been a considerable number of long-term signature campaigns here promoting betting platforms, so I guess you're right that these campaigns must have helped them gain users, and, therefore, money. That these users are losing their money, though, that's a non-issue. In gambling, it is expected that losing happens more often than winning. Gamblers must have known that pretty well.

If some people don't understand gambling at all, then it's not for them. If they don't understand gambling and they gamble and lost their money, there's no one else to blame but themselves.

I don't think Duelbits is the "most profitable casino in the industry." Even so, it doesn't mean they cannot afford to spend $7,230 for their marketing here. It's a casino, after all. It's a money-making machine. But even if its profit is smaller than that, which is highly unlikely, it's still an amount worth spending. It's marketing. They need to invest in it if they want their brand to be known.

But really, $7,230 is a small amount. Compared with Stake, for example, that has a partnership with the UFC, a football club, Drake, and others. They're worth millions.

A hardware wallet doesn't even cost you a hundred dollars. Ledger would provide you a better storage at around $60 only.

I also don't understand why beginners are taught the wrong way of keeping coins. Isn't it better to recommend them what's secure and safe? Whether you're a beginner or not, it is advisable to keep funds out of online wallets. Whether you wish to diversify or not, it is always encouraged to choose cold wallets instead of hot wallets.

This isn't a fight that everybody is very excited about. The Gypsy King fighting against what seems to be a mere jester will expectedly not earn much anticipation. If I were to exaggerate a bit, it is even a possibility that Chisora won't be winning a single round, although it might also be possible Fury won't be giving his 100% focus, determination, and grit knowing that he's only up against a small old man whose boxing career is doubtless at its end.

Anyway, Pacquiao and Morales fought 3 times. Pacquiao also fought Marquez 4 times. The second is not a trilogy, but then there was a Pacquiao-Marquez III. So technically, Pacquiao has had 2 trilogies.

I'm not sure about the ATH, but I guess the price of Bitcoin wouldn't be this low if only people didn't buy fake Bitcoin. And when I speak of fake Bitcoin, I am generalizing. I am referring to all kinds of Bitcoin that is not in the Bitcoin network. That includes all the Bitcoin that is within centralized exchanges and all other centralized platforms. They're mere numbers, IOU. We have to remember that FTX has more than a billion of Bitcoin liabilities but don't have a single Bitcoin in its asset. This also includes Bitcoin-pegged tokens. They're all fake Bitcoin.

Why shouldn't we not be judgmental about CZ? Should we protect CZ and attack SBF? Should we spare CZ from our criticisms?

SBF and CZ are competitors. But it doesn't mean they're not of the same feathers. SBF is a douchebag. But it doesn't mean that CZ is not a douchebag. This is not a black and white, devil and angel, comparison. They're both douchebags. They're both hypocrites. SBF was a big failure. He deserved what happened to his empire, if not more. But this doesn't make CZ a hero. Again, they're both villains. They're both liabilities of crypto.

You missed the play-to-earn blockchain games. It became a strong crypto craze for a while. You must have heard of Axie Infinity. And then there were also the blockchain bridges and the layer 2s. There was also a time when DeFi and swap platforms became a big hit. We are probably familiar with the likes of Uniswap, Sushiswap, Pancakeswap, and others. Just recently, there was also the Ethereum Name Service, ENS for short. We must have noticed a lot of .eth around.

I cannot predict what's next, but I think this Web3 thing has not yet gained full acceleration.

Those who used to support and even promote Bitcoin but then took a U-turn after the collapse of FTX are probably losing money because of it. They're probably victims of the bankruptcy. Meaning, they have big amounts stuck in there. This is the only reason I can see why this FTX thing could actually turn a Bitcoin supporter into a critic. They are probably bitter because they lost so much. But then it reflects how they have actually misunderstood the essence of Bitcoin all along. So their channels should be a trash right from the start.

Well, that didn't happen, though. The price of Bitcoin went up, but then people started selling instead of HODLing. So instead of the price continuously going up, it went into a correction.

But it could still happen in the future. We only have to take cognizance of the fact that there are at least 8 billion people in the world and there are only more than 19 million Bitcoin in existence right now. You could even deduct a million or two from it because of those lost or forgotten coins. The point is that there's actually not enough Bitcoin for everybody.

If only people realize how precious it actually is and keep their coins, or even acquire more, instead of selling them, it could actually shoot to a million.

I'm not sure with other nations, but my country is surely hurt by the rising US dollar. The bullish USD means rising import costs for us. And since my country highly relies on imports, we're strongly hit. This is one of the main reasons why the prices of goods here are rising no end. We're an import-reliant country; even the most basic of food here we import from other countries. We import rice. We import fish. Hell, we even import sugar and salt. And we also import oil. If the cost of oil rises, everything follows.

Now this is a tune up fight. I think it's just right for Davis to prepare against Ryan with an undefeated fighter, although I don't think this Hector Luis has the same boxing pedigree with the two. I haven't seen this man fight. But it seems he's a decent fighter, defeating a couple of other fighters with win streaks within this year alone. But, of course, he's not on Gervonta's level. He doesn't have the power either. This is still Gervonta's fight, although it should be an honor for Hector Luis to be finally facing someone like Gervonta.

I guess it is too limited to categorize everybody in cryptocurrency as either traders or investors. It's as if cryptocurrency is not a currency at all. It's like treating cryptocurrency as stocks. I guess this is a wrong perception of cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin, for example, is a currency that gives us freedom from banks and other third parties, a currency that requires no trust. Bitcoin is a transparent, immutable, and censor-proof currency. And it is very possible that many are drawn into Bitcoin not because they want to trade or invest in it but because the features somehow empower them.

Anyway, in terms of investment strategy, HODL is the best for me. And if you have the extra money every now and then, you can also buy the dips.

If anybody wishes to avoid stressors, it is always best to avoid the media. That's always generally true. That also applies to people who are trying to monitor the Bitcoin market. But there are two sides now because there are already a number of crypto-centered media. If you read Bitcoin-related news in traditional publications, you'd expect that they're biased against Bitcoin. On the other hand, however, if you read news in crypto publications, you'd also notice how they're biased toward Bitcoin. So there's really no objectivity at all. You better stick to your own way of assessing the market.

It's funny how it seems YoBit is the last man standing. Even the huge FTX has bowed down already. The brands that are known to be shady like YoBit, HitBTC, and probably some others are still alive and kicking. Despite YoBit, for example, being almost synonymous to scam and doesn't even seem to hide it, the platform hasn't really crumbled. It's amusing to wonder now, are they better managed? Are they earning better? These are the platforms that do not seem to care about image, review, reputation, even regulations and yet they're still here until now.

Anyway, OP, don't expect anything from them. While you can continue sending emails or tickets to them, don't hope too much. And stop risking money in these liquidity pools.

I don't think there is an urgent call to increase rates even considering the high inflation everywhere. Although there were already perhaps a couple of campaigns that increased rates months ago, I don't think the primary consideration was inflation. There were perhaps a number of considerations like attracting better posters, or making sure they're not moving to other better-paying campaigns especially if there are many openings, or the campaign turns out well for the business, and so on.

So far, openings are flooded with applications. So this might somehow be taken as a proof that the usual payments are good enough despite the inflation. Also, even if $60 or $70 or $100 per week is low in some countries, the forum has a lot of users coming from other countries where these amounts are already decent. This is probably one of the reasons why campaigns don't really feel they need to increase rates. Many are comfortable with them. Also, the tasks are menial. 

It's for certain that most users do not really ensure that they are 100% private and their transactions untraceable. For one, many of us have actually undergone KYC at one point. We also reuse addresses, even post them publicly, linking them with accounts in social media, forums, emails, and so on.

Also, how many of us are actually making sure our computer's IP address is hidden? How many of us are actually using different wallets for different transactions and delete them right after? How many of us are actually running our own nodes to improve our privacy? How many of us are mixing our Bitcoin before we send them to somebody else?

I'm sure only very few.

I hope your friend does not show to the young child that he/she is just an additional burden and that he/she is never planned or wanted at all, though. It is never the child's problem at all. It is never the child's choice that he/she be born in this topsy-turvy world of ours.

An increase in the prices of goods and services also means we need to work more. It means we need to find other sources of income, to find ways to augment our limited earnings, to reduce unnecessary consumption, and so on.

There is really no point complaining about a newborn child. If your friend didn't want him/her, it is your friend that is to blame, not the kid!

If there is a crypto gambling company that kept their funds in whatever platform that filed bankruptcy recently or those that froze withdrawals and went insolvent or bankrupt because of it, then the crypto gambling industry is part of the domino effect. Otherwise, I don't think they are; business runs as usual.


A good amount of trust must be lost. But I'm sure crypto casinos would come up with a way to assure their players that their funds are kept safe. They might also show proof of reserves.


Yeah, but only small amounts, those that are for betting only. I don't store coins for long-term saving outside non-custodial wallets.