If one badly wants to gamble and his/her money is not enough, then it is indeed possible that he/she will make a bigger deposit, although it matters, of course, whether he/she can afford the minimum. If he/she cannot, then he/she will be forced to borrow, dip into his/her savings, or at best put off gambling some other time.

If the minimum is so low, then it is very easy to gamble. And it is also very easy to make another deposit once the wallet is drained.

I guess I'm in favor of having a higher minimum at least for deposits.

Not all crypto influencers probably. I don't know who these crypto influencers you are referring to, but I assume not all of them are paid shills. I suppose there are influencers that are promoting certain coins or projects only because they are heavily invested in them, or perhaps certain influencers who made their own independent and objective assessments. In other words, they're not hired to promote coins or projects. They're different from influencers who are plainly shilling for coins and projects because they're paid to do so.

I understand why a lot here are choosing sports betting. It's certainly because you can choose which team will probably win. You have a more or less reliable basis. In other words, you are not betting blindly. You can actually make an informed bet.

However, since we are talking here of odds, I don't agree that sports betting has the best. I think casino games like dice and the like are better. Most often, the house edge will only be around 1%.

In a sports match that is considered 50:50, you can have odds like 1.85 or at most 1.90. Or let's just say there is 1.95. Again, that's for a match that is 50:50. In other words, you can pick either team with those equal odds. In a dice game, on the other hand, if you choose a 50% winning chance, you can actually have a payout of as high as 1.98 or even 1.99.

That, to me, is a proof that online games are the best, at least in terms of odds.

Make no mistake, Warren Buffet and that other guy do not actually refer to the likes of us. They're not talking about the ordinary man who lost his job, drained his savings, reduced his consumption, and so on and so forth. They're talking about those who have the money in the middle of a recession. And they're not the ordinary working class who are wage dependent or daily wage earners. In the end, in whatever bad situation, it is the poor and vulnerable who are always at the receiving end.

Yes, indeed why not? But who would know why Satoshi didn't include this particular feature? We could only guess.

Is it because having a limited, in fact fixed, amount is generally more preferable and beneficial to the overall design and vision? After all, incorporating this certain feature would only mean the supply of Bitcoin is infinite. Bitcoin, then, isn't unlike fiat at all.

Anyway, this is something currently offered in centralized platforms. Although highly discouraged, this is indeed something that could be taken advantage of right now. But not in the protocol itself, of course.

Also, isn't it enough that by HODLing whatever amount, you are already sufficiently, albeit indirectly, rewarded for it through the price increase? In a way, HODLing is rewarded. And that's due precisely to the fact that Bitcoin's supply is predictable and fixed.

Basically, that's just how it works. It sounds so simple. But it's actually not in reality because you have to do research more often than not. Well, if you're already knowledgeable, it is a lot easier to make a reply. You don't have to exert any further effort. But if you're not, then you really need to double check on your facts or information. That's the hard part.

Furthermore, even if you're only asking a question, sometimes you have to make sure you're question hasn't been asked and thoroughly discussed yet.

Also, ranks and merits, although they automatically follow knowledgeable and constructive posts, are oftentimes pursued for their own sake, or perhaps the money that could come with them. So some are in a hurry to gain them resulting to stilted posts or threads that are obviously made for their sake.

I got curious with your case. I'm not really sure what's the particular issue. You've opened an account with them, passed KYC, made a deposit.

What does the withdrawal failure or rejection message say? Did you check your email for more explanation why your transaction was rejected?

This might have nothing to do with the withdrawal address belonging to a gambling site as others have hinted because you did the same withdrawal attempt with a Coinbase address and it was also rejected. If it is about the hold time that DaveF mentioned, then they should've just pointed that out instead of asking for proofs that the address you're withdrawing funds to is the right one and indeed yours. This is the one that made me really curious. Normally, exchanges don't care whether the withdrawal address you're putting is the right or wrong one or whether that belongs to your or not. For as long as it's a valid address, the transaction would proceed.

Anyway, PM CEX and I hope they will reply. Although it last posted in April, it was active until yesterday. And in its last post it says:

All the while I was thinking Cloudbet has just adopted a more aggressive approach in promoting their old brand. I was even excited to see them having a signature promotion on this forum after quite some time. They had a good one for several months. It had just ended a couple of months ago. It is pointless, however, to explore marketing strategies while staying unresponsive to their own players.

Anyway, have you explored all possible ways to reach out to them? You might want to message Cloudbet here. It's not active for several months now but they might notice it through their email. And supply all the evidences that you've got.

Should we need more proof? Sometimes it is funny ironic how the burden of proof is seemingly taken by those who don't need to prove anything.

While everybody is calling Mr. Wright a faketoshi, they are also the ones who are looking for evidence to convince each other that he is indeed faketoshi. And while Mr. Wright has offered no proof whatsoever that he's indeed Satoshi, he's basking in the glory of having people try to prove that he is fake. I guess he loves this.

To sum it all up, I learned what's beyond the price of Bitcoin. In a way, I'm proud to say that the reason why I bought my first Bitcoin is not anymore the same reason why I HODL them until today. That, for me, is good growth enough as far as understanding Bitcoin is concerned. That somehow signifies that my way of looking at Bitcoin has somehow matured so to speak.

I guess the way to thank Bitcoin is to spread its awareness. But I have to admit that I'm not anymore as aggressive in talking about it as before. This is basically for security reasons and to avoid being wrongly judged. But I'm always more than willing to converse about it with somebody who is truly curious about it. I have very limited knowledge, though, so an exchange is certainly better than a lecture of some sort.

A house is indeed a wise investment and a great saving. I mean, a house and lot. But it also depends on where you are. Apparently, there are countries where the prices of houses are fluctuating. In my country, however, it seems it is continuously growing. Everything might have something to do with a ballooning population. High-rise residential buildings are now sprouting from everywhere. Subdivisions are now extending beyond the suburbs toward what used to be unimaginable for a house location. It is also noticeable that aside from the rising prices, lot sizes and houses are also getting a lot smaller.

I cannot remember downloading a casino app on my phone. It's because I don't want to be easily tempted to gamble. If there's one on my phone, I'm more than sure I'd be drawn to it every time I have a vacant time. I'd rather avoid it than be sorry.

Just recently, a local gambling platform has partnered with an online fiat wallet. It was so accessible and convenient that I'm always enticed to make a bet whenever I'm doing nothing. I had a problem with it so much so that I'd be happy if my wallet has zero balance. The sad part, however, is that its balance is usually drained precisely because of that betting platform.

Let them fall if they must. That's what they get for exposing themselves to unsustainable investments. It is not indicated how much exposure they have with Celsius but I guess it is significant enough to have contributed so much to their downfall. Electricity is one of the reasons, of course, but they're not the only miners operating in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas. Also, the price of Bitcoin is uniform to all of them, but not all of them are in critical condition.

But what has it got to do with the world economy?

For sure, there must be some truth in Bukele's words. But the other side would also have some relevant answers to this had they cared to directly respond. I haven't heard of any.

But the point is that they are against El Salvador accommodating Bitcoin as a legal tender to their country. They are, therefore, against El Salvador becoming successful in this decision, or perhaps experiment. They simply wouldn't want El Salvador proving itself right and themselves wrong in the end. That would deal a heavy blow against their fiat, their system of control, and an affirmation of Bitcoin. That would have serious implications against the very system upon which their survival is founded.

I doubt Bitcoin would go down to $10,000 within the year. It may happen, of course, but I really doubt that. Bitcoin's price fluctuations for the past weeks and months have actually died down a lot. The price has more or less stabilized or maintained its sideward movement for the past months already. I don't think this year would end with Bitcoin falling half of its price today. But I also don't think it would rise back to $60,000. That's wishful thinking.

It will be up the court. But the decision will depend on the facts. The article didn't provide the facts of the case. Aside from alleging that the winner has used the same "terminals" where he also won before, it didn't specify what irregularities he is involved in which invalidated his games and, therefore, his winnings.

I'm particularly curious of the statement by the management of Green Lotto which claimed that they have earlier actually suspected the winner of certain irregularities in his play but paid him his winnings, nevertheless. That was in 2019. I wonder what were those suspicions and how they were addressed.

Replace is one thing; alternative is another. I can hardly imagine that there will ever come a time when a country's currency is issued by somebody else private, completely replacing the one issued by the central bank. That's too much power and control being let go by the government. Of course, there is El Salvador and the Central African Republic that are using Bitcoin as a legal tender, but even in their case Bitcoin isn't replacing fiat.

Congratulations for finally buying your first Bitcoin! And it is also worth noting and perhaps worthy of another congratulations that you intend to HODL it. When I made my first Bitcoin purchase, it's a shame that it was done for the sake of having its price grow a little, for selling afterward.

Buy and sell was a bit more popular than HODLing back then, at least among my little group of Bitcoin friends. It was only later on that many of us stayed away from trading and mainly focused on HODLing.

Anyway, I'm curious. What are you particularly referring to when you mentioned "making a living out of Bitcoin?"

They're half truths, so they're also half lies. But they're not total lies and so they're apparently allowed to do it.

Yeah, common sense, please. Are we born yesterday? Are we not familiar with half lies in ads and other marketing strategies? Have we not encountered the use of superlative adjectives in promoting brands of goods and services? Words like best, most, highest, biggest, fastest, largest, and so on are very common among ads.

Why should we even be surprised? Bybit, Bitgert, Crypto.com are not charity organizations. They're businesses.

Bitcoin's role as a hedge against inflation has actually been in question. This is primarily because for the past recent months or even years, its correlation with the traditional market like the S&P500 and Nasdaq has not only risen but even hit an all-time high. Below are a couple of charts I recycled from one of my older posts. Apparently, while there is fluctuation in terms of Bitcoin's correlation with these markets, it is high during the time when the inflation rate has gone through the roof.

Bitcoin-S&P 500 Correlation

https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/bitcoin-correlation-stock-market-new-all-time-high/

Bitcoin-Nasdaq Correlation

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-11/bitcoin-s-correlation-with-big-tech-increases-to-record-chart

Anyway, I don't agree with Business Insider that "digital assets will replace govt issued currencies." That's next to impossible.