This isn't about gambling in general. This is apparently about crypto gambling. There is actually no ban against gambling streaming on Twitch. What is there is a ban on certain gambling platforms and there must be a reason why crypto platforms are specifically targeted.

Just recently, there was a backlash on Twitch against its gambling policies. This is the result. The response of Twitch isn't a ban on gambling but a ban on sites that aren't registered in the US "or other jurisdictions that provide sufficient consumer protection." The latter part makes everything subjective from their end.

But as most crypto platforms including those specifically mentioned in its post are Curacao-licensed, it is clear that Twitch doesn't give much value to such licenses at least in terms of consumer protection.

There was already a nomination submitted by Chowdhry himself. Unfortunately, it was to no avail. One of the primary reasons probably why that was rejected was the fact that there's no one who is Satoshi Nakamoto. If the Nobel Prize won't even accept a posthumous nomination, I guess it wouldn't also accept a nomination of an anonymous person or group. However, I think there are probably a number of much deeper reasons why Satoshi isn't awarded with this prestigious prize.

To me, these lines are somehow irresponsible. These are misleading at the very least. At most, this actually creates an impression or reinforces the current impression especially among newbies that crypto is a get-rich-quick scheme. Of course, it could happen that somebody could hit it big in crypto just as anybody could actually become a millionaire by doing whatever he/she is passionate about, but to make it appear as if anybody could freely become a millionaire in crypto is wrong.

I'm also from the Philippines and while I have heard of a number of crypto wallets being popularly used locally, this one I just encountered now. But I understand because, as per the articles, this was just founded in 2021 and the wallet itself is still in Beta. So the efforts here are clearly for the brand to at least gain recognition. But, again, creating an El Zonte on Boracay might not be easy.

Anyway, this is definitely not about a libertarian group attempting to create an independent island. For one, the island is very popular and is already home to many 5-star resorts. It is really difficult to transform it into something else.

How about we simply take the case as it is? It's simply a case of a financial company operating within the UK that is not registered or authorized with the country's top financial regulator. That's just it.

Whether or not the government has ulterior motives in pointing this out against the said company, that would be another story. The established fact is that FTX is operating even if it is not authorized to operate in the UK. So FTX will have to deal with this.

This has always been the rule of the game. Those who could manipulate the market would do it to their advantage. And especially among low-volume coins or pairs, these pump and dump operators could easily manipulate the price, perhaps with the help also of their social media groups, channels, and accounts.

So to the newbies, first, avoid signal channels. They're mostly just using you. Second, if you want to trade, choose coins or pairs that have large volume. Manipulation is a hard thing to do when there's high volume.

Overall, there's really no reason to go to war. In simple terms, war is bad and has to be avoided. If all the energy and money and other resources spent on wars would instead be focused on something else, the world condition would be a lot better.

Especially in the age of globalization, wars would really cause a lot of damage. Russia's invasion attempt of Ukraine gives us an idea of how limited violence could produce global effects.

I've had opportunities to visit someone in prison in the past and I saw that many inmates were gambling. I'm a hundred percent sure that gambling is very much rampant inside jails, at least in my country. For one, it's a very good way to counter boredom. Inmates usually lack activities inside. But since playing cards, coins, chess or checker boards, and others aren't prohibited inside, they could easily be used for gambling.

But for a jail to operate a casino, I don't think it's a wise idea. It would only create violence.

If the news is true, then it is indeed a good thing that there are already around 120 businesses on the island that signed up to accept Bitcoin payment. So in terms of Bitcoin acceptance, that wouldn't be a problem at all. But in terms of whether there will be a significant Bitcoin payment turnout or an increase in revenue or tourists following this, it's something that's beyond their control.

However, I don't think it is easy or even possible to establish "a micro-economy running entirely on bitcoin." Boracay has been catering international and domestic travelers all year round. It isn't an isolated island where activities are very low. So, quite frankly, I doubt this would be feasible.

On another note, it feels good that Pouch is a lightning wallet. At least it could easily support small transactions on the island.

Since this is supposed to be an economic discussion, I'd say the country economically benefits from her people who are freelancing, involved in e-commerce, and those who have IT skills. Other than the fact that these people would be earning and wouldn't be a burden to the country, they would also be paying taxes which is the lifeblood of the government. Moreover, freelancing, e-commerce, and IT skills are what the modern world and its future is all about. So a country having them means she's more or less on the right track.

As regards the subject of this thread, I think it's the other way around. Rather than "the impact of Bitcoin on world population," this is more like the impact of population on Bitcoin.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin's price value increase could be never-ending. If the population growth is going to rise and rise, then the demand for Bitcoin will also rise and rise provided, of course, it remains relevant. The demand for money is never-ending; it instead rises no end especially with a ballooning population.

For this, Coinbase got my respect. Although they are not really the ones who brought the treasury department to the court, at least they are putting their money where their mouth is by funding the case. And they're really brave to stand and spend for what they believe in.

There are not a few personalities and other entities who have openly voiced out their disapproval of the blanket ban. And yet rather than opposing or resisting a powerful government agency for what is obviously an unfair decision, many have acquiesced. As a matter of fact, a number of them have voluntarily taken steps in support of the OFAC's decision.

Coinbase's decision is worth appreciating! I hope this encourages others, especially huge and influential crypto-related institutions, to also stand up for what is fair and right.

I guess it is hard to look into the psychology of gamblers with too direct a question as this one. It's hard to expect people to provide honest-to-goodness answers if that could mean they would put themselves in an awkward or embarrassing position.

Anyway, in my country it isn't once in a blue moon that you could come across a person or family that urgently needs money. Everybody is probably aware that a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a workmate, or whoever has urgent need every now and then. But that doesn't mean people would easily set aside their luxury or vice for their sake. Sometimes they probably do, but most often they definitely don't. That includes myself.

Whether this is realistic to you or not, this is already happening. And it doesn't need for a leak to happen so that we could get the idea that this is how they would do it. After all, our privacy only matters to us. It's sacred to us. But to those who are in power, it is more of a challenge or an obstacle.

Forget about centralized exchanges. They would easily bow down. But don't think the price would react that much. Neither will this kill Bitcoin. There's nothing to kill with Bitcoin, after all. So whatever form this EU landmark regulation takes, it won't decide Bitcoin's fate.

This one here can also mislead newbies and build a wrong mindset. Bitcoin is indeed decentralized, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether you can depend your life on it or not. Furthermore, Bitcoin's independence from third parties doesn't in any way guarantee anybody that he/she can depend on it.

Bitcoin is referred to as decentralized because it doesn't have a central authority that decides or operates or has control over the network. It's not decentralized because "you can depend your life on" it. That statement doesn't seem to make any sense.

If all the 21 million Bitcoin are already mined, it means there's no more new Bitcoin to release. Which means that miners won't anymore receive block rewards. Bitcoin mining could continue but since there's no more Bitcoin left to mine, what they will receive in return will only be transaction fees. Today, miners receive block rewards and transaction fees. The moment the maximum supply is reached, only transaction fees remain.

The rest, whether it would still be profitable to mine, whether Bitcoin's security would remain intact, whether Bitcoin would finally face its end, and so on we could only speculate. After all, the last Satoshi wouldn't be mined until around the year 2140, long after we're all gone.

To be honest, if I were a merchant, why should I go through all the hassles with Binance pay just to be able to accept Bitcoin payments?

If there is really such a big potential coming from Bitcoin users, rather than complying all kinds of KYC requirements and wait for the approval from Binance, and possibly go through further rounds of KYC verification once maximum limits are reached, why shouldn't I just display a lightning address or QR code for them? Or why shouldn't I just opt for a self-hosted and open-source payment processor?

You are confusing.

If in the future we can easily pay using Bitcoin, there is no need to convert them into fiat. Why would we when Bitcoin is already an acceptable currency? People would rather pay in Bitcoin directly.

Bitcoin makes us our own bank, why would we need to open bank accounts? And for all we know, even cash in ATMs could be frozen. It's not just over-the-counter transactions that could be halted.

Another step of Bitcoin toward global adoption. Time will come we won't anymore be amazed that a resort, coffee shop, grocery store, hotel, and so on is already accepting Bitcoin. On the contrary, it would be confusing if a business is not accepting Bitcoin.

And this is the kind of adoption that acknowledges Bitcoin's role as a currency or a payment alternative. To a certain extent, this is better than a private company adding Bitcoin to its balance sheet.

Working from home has actually become a double-edged sword to a lot of workers. It would have been better if working from home remains to have fixed time setup. The problem is that there isn't to many workers. I have heard of complaints from teachers here in my place that working from home has actually made them a lot busier than it was when they worked at school. They're now heavily loaded that the time they're spending working has actually increased. So while you're working from the comforts of your home, it isn't a big deal since you're still too absorbed in your work.