Somebody might, you know. I think some campaign managers don't only manage signature campaigns. There are many other campaigns offered here. If I'm not mistaken, in addition to signature campaigns, there are also various social media campaigns, even video making campaigns, article campaigns, translations, and some others. Not to mention that managers here don't only handle a single project. So there's a possibility that some of them need assistants.

But, again, an ad misericordiam approach doesn't work. OP has to present not only what he/she can do but what he/she has already done in this kind of work.

Uh-uh, even this is easier said than done. According to Coingecko, the ATH is $69,044.77. Does it mean to say that by the time Bitcoin's price reached $69,050.00, it's already selling time? I don't think so. So when is selling time? $70,000, $80,000, $100,000? We cannot tell. But if you're good enough that you've already made profit, then selling beyond the ATH is good. But don't fret if months after selling, the price continued to rise 20% or more.

You have to take note that the halving's full effect on Bitcoin's price happens at least a year from the halving itself. And the growth is considerable you wouldn't want to miss it. The peak of the growth every after halving is significantly higher than its halving price. So a new ATH is probably a low selling point.

Many bettors here in my neighborhood either don't check online odds or they don't know about it or they don't care at all. I guess they find it too much of a hassle for them. They're too used to betting on the streets. Even in basketball handicaps, for example, they make fun of that points with +/-0.5. They don't understand that. They find it ridiculous. Normally, the odds would be straight 2.0. You will bet $50, for example, to match another $50 bet. If there's a handicap, the + or - would always be whole numbers and the odds would remain 2.0.

Yes, he/she probably would have been ruined if he chose FTX alone. But that's not the point. OP asked for exchanges where he/she could make trading positions and distribute his/her coins. Which exchange would you have recommended him/her? Would it have been valid to recommend him/her YoBit because YoBit until now is still alive and kicking? Would have it been valid to recommend him/her Graviex, for example, which is unknown, has lower volume, less trusted, and so on?

Common sense would have it that you would recommend him/her the largest, most popular, most trusted, most solid, most established exchanges out there. Those who have the largest volumes.

But this is the problem with these kinds of exchanges. You cannot take away risks however large and popular they are.

This seems interesting. But if you will bring users from this forum to comment on your blog instead of here, then I guess it won't be that effective. Let's be frank, many of the comments here are paid. And while it is always interesting to join discussions about the sport you love and gamble on, I doubt most users here would be this active if they are not paid to make posts.

How about you make use of the current thread by tokeweed to keep track of the prediction rates of users here?

This has happened countless of times already. The short history of Bitcoin is full of critics proven wrong. What's surprising is that it seems they never learned their lessons. They don't mind looking funny and ridiculous like clueless clowns predicting the death of Bitcoin over and over again.

I remembered one prediction that Bitcoin is going extinct. That was made almost a decade ago.


https://twitter.com/pete_rizzo_/status/1609168866202062848/photo/1

But these same critics might once again predict Bitcoin's death, last stand, extinction, bursting, and all their synonyms when its price fell from $300,000 to $80,000.

If so, how does it actually break capitalism? On the contrary, it actually reinforces capitalism. It boosts capitalism. If huge companies in the future would no longer hire human beings for manual labor and other skilled jobs, it doesn't put capitalism in a disadvantageous position; it actually drives it forward.

Also, technology eliminating some jobs doesn't mean people are losing job opportunities. Technologies open a whole new set of possibilities that still need people.

This seems to me the typical approach used by shitcoin shills and pump and dump promoters. And they're doing it primarily because their tokens or coins or projects themselves have no value whatsoever. This approach is also close to the Ponzi scheme.

If you convince somebody to buy a coin for no reason other than buyers could increase in the future and therefore its price as well, it sounds more of a scam to me. That's too shallow a reason for anybody to buy. And that's too self-serving for the seller to sound legit.

I think it would be more convincing if you present Bitcoin to them as a revolutionary technology than provide them the prospect in terms of number of investors.

That's sad. As suggested by BitMaxz, you could post the services that you offer in the appropriate section. However, it should come with a convincing resumé. You probably won't get hired because you need a job; you will get hired because of what you can truly offer. And that's not based on what you can promise but on what you've already done in the past and your actual skills and capabilities. Good luck!

On another note, trust no one and max your security and privacy. You shouldn't leave your laptop open when somebody else is around. Also, that Doggycoin won't probably get you rich.

I haven't gotten myself into arbitrage betting because it seemed too much of a hassle for me. Odds could change quickly. You need to maintain accounts across different bookies. Your activities might appear suspicious. Things need to be fast-paced. And the difference might be too small that you need a huge amount to come up with a significant profit. And that's not without risks.

The only arbitrage betting I do is when I bet with cash in the neighborhood with odds that are usually far from the odds in online betting sites.

What do you mean limiting user accounts? Limiting their bets? I mean, maximum bets? I have read of a similar complaint or two but it is usually triggered by the user making a big win, probably one after another. Worse, the prize would not even be released because the bets made were already beyond the maximum. However, it's shady since the bet was allowed in the first place.

I doubt the tracking done by casinos would involve tracking their email address across multiple casinos. And I think it could indeed be circumvented by using a throw-away email. The problem is when they're also tracking IP information and share this with other casinos.

Anonymity and privacy are always a struggle. I cannot have the fullness of them. There are things in which I could stay private or even anonymous. There are things in which I don't have a choice but to reveal my identity and some other personal details which I otherwise would have preferred to keep private. But, again, there's always that struggle to be as private and anonymous as possible. I am my own bank, but at the same time I also have an account in a private bank.

I'm not sure if Bitcoin is that antagonistic that it was created to destroy the current economic system, the one which capitalists like Buffet have taken advantage of. Or it was simply created to be an alternative to fiat.

But be that as it may, you cannot expect these people who have benefited so much from the current system to show strong support for that which tries to disrupt such system itself. They have already made successful empires with this system.

The risk in trading is different from the risk in doing everything in a centralized platform. Trading could easily give you losses instead of profit. That is even if you carefully analyze all the charts and apply all the tools you could use. That's the risk in trading.

That your account could be frozen and your funds locked for reasons you are not even aware of are the risks in doing trading in a centralized platform.

So that's double risky for everybody doing trades in centralized exchanges.

1. I prefer weekly. I think I can more properly manage my finances if the salary comes every week. Also, it's quite funny but every time pay day is near, it excites me; so getting excited 4 times a month is apparently much better than just once a month.

2. If I have to be employed, more than anything, it might be driven by salary. So whichever the case that gives me a bigger salary, I'd prefer it. If it will be the contract mode, then I will go for it. If it will be the fixed mode, then I'll have it. But the one and only condition that is almost non-negotiable is toxicity. Whichever is toxic, I will avoid it.

Don't trust them, yeah, but if you were to somehow trust a centralized exchange at some point, you better give that trust to a more popular rather than to an unknown exchange.

It's always easy for these centralized exchanges to meddle with the users funds because the users themselves all agreed to the terms and conditions set by these platforms. If you could remember the terms and conditions of the bankrupt Celsius, it was like you give them your money as soon as you made the deposit. Users all agreed to that ridiculous term.

Well, I meant electronic cash system.



I don't think it is. Again, Bitcoin is kind of superfluous in a face to face transaction if you have the option to use cash. The cash system provides you instant, anonymous, and peer-to-peer payment system. But if you've got no option, then Bitcoin is the way to go. 


The very first sentence of the whitepaper goes: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution"


For as long as cash is still around, I guess cash is the better payment option in face to face transactions. When the time comes that cash system dies and is replaced with a CBDC or other digital ways, then indeed Bitcoin, as an electronic cash system, will replace it as the best option.

You're not evil for wanting decentralized exchanges over centralized exchanges. The former is generally better. But if you secretly wished for these centralized exchanges to suffer the same fate as FTX, you must be evil. The collapse of FTX also means people's money is gone. That's sad.

But with the details you shared here, it seems you are a bit evil. It seems you didn't simply want decentralization over centralization. You had ulterior motives. It seems you simply wanted to make money. You must have thought the fall of FTX and the FUD against the rest of the centralized exchanges are a cue to buy DEx tokens and make money. You must have thought it's the perfect time for DExes to shine. And when you saw the CExes continue to thrive, you were disappointed not because centralization prevailed over decentralization but because you didn't make the money you imagined. I hope my interpretation is wrong, though.

Lastly, if it's a DEx and it issues tradeable tokens, it's something I don't really like. DExes don't have to make their own tokens to function as such.

This is the first time I heard of Nebeus. So this is basically an app that offers users the opportunity to instantly convert crypto to fiat and vice versa? Did I get it right? If Nebeus is what I think it is, which fiat currencies does it offer? How about the spread in doing conversions, are they minimal or high? I have a few questions in mind. If you're from Nebeus, you might want to mention its features here.

Anyway, I gamble with crypto. So far everything's seems smooth and easy for me.

When we call mistakes very stupid and dumb, the presupposition is that the persons committing them are fully aware of what's right and wrong, proper and not, and the rest of the dos and don'ts in terms of Bitcoin security and the like. What is probably missed out is that not all who get into Bitcoin is mature enough in terms of knowledge to be able to fully protect themselves. Some may be stupid and dumb mistakes from the point of view of somebody who has already learned everything, but actually honest and innocent ones from somebody who had just started to learn it all.