This sums it all up. The OP should not expect to get rich with free spins. In freebitco.in it can take years to get the maximum prize, which is $200, and the other free spins are given to you for having bet a certain amount, as a reward, as you said.

All this reminds me of "there's no such thing as a free lunch". If you want to make serious money, you better get off your ass to get it, and don't expect it to come to you somehow "for free".

I do care. After all, I do not want them to use the funds I deposit for a fractional reserve system.


Yeah, well, SBF had an excellent reputation, and so did Madoff in his day, so I prefer proof that my money is safe.


Wrong. The Madoff scam lasted more than two decades, so a scam can last a long time.

Really? How?

I changed my laptop and I thought about using the old one for a full node but I was looking at some information, and as I saw that it wasn't just two clicks, I left it for later and the old laptop is still waiting for me.

But I don't see the unbanked setting up a node. I doubt they can afford a laptop to begin with. If they had one, I doubt they would use it as a node, as there are much more productive things they can do. The node also has a cost in terms of electricity and we have to think that not all over the world there is broadband internet or flat plans, if they have to pay for GB used there's no way they are going to set up a node.

Maybe there is an easy and cheap way to set it up and that is what you are thinking of.

I agree 100% with this.

We have examples of people on the forum who are in my opinion overexposed to Bitcoin, although it depends on each individual case. If your net worth is $100M, you can have 95% of it in Bitcoin. For laughable net worths, I would start by accumulating cash, 3-6 months reserve of expenses readily available, either in cash at home or in a bank account that you can spend or withdraw from an ATM. That's what people call an emergency fund. From there I would go on to build investments. Actually that's what I did in the past and nowadays I keep adding to my investments having financial peace.


Having only $100 risks you having to sell at a loss if you have an unforeseen event that costs you money, and, besides, I do not know if you expect to have everything in Bitcoin to give you future returns like those of the first cycles. I doubt it, and what is happening in this cycle should make us think along those lines.

Although everyone does what he wants with his money, so I end up giving you good luck.

Is anyone else seeing an alt account here with a post designed to try to earn merit?


Yeah I don't know why the OP first talks about Bitcoin and then shoehorns Tether in. I agree that Bitcoin is essentially different from the others, but precisely Tether which is a stablecoin that raises many flags is not understood. In my case I only have Bitcoin and I do not see bad to have a small percentage of some alt, as I believe that in the future the Bitcoin will coexist with them, but the question is which ones will survive.

But in that case it was different. There was a crisis and a downturn in the markets but people stayed at home. And what did they do? In most cases, they ate more and had a lot more online leisure, including gambling. I noticed it in poker because it was like going back 10 years, the rooms were full of fish. Now it is not the same, and gambling is not immune to crises, as shown in the article linked by Davidvictorson

You left out one part of the story, the one involving Zelenski and Ukraine in all this.


Read more on: FTX partnership with Ukraine is latest chapter in shady Western aid saga

To all this, the left-wing, progressive biased Associated Press has been quick to deny it:

Posts spin baseless theory about FTX, Ukraine and Democrats

I think it's a good idea. Anything that helps to curb people who get out of control with gambling and end up losing much more than they can afford, even if they are in debt, is a good thing. Although it seems to me that with the ease of credit today the effect will be small. Nowadays many people have a pre-conceded personal that with two clicks on their cell phone they get the money in their account. Or instead of spending the credit card you can spend all the money you have in the casino and then pay the month's expenses with the credit card.

I have already said that I think it is positive but it will not be a panacea.

Why would they do that? To me they would be more likely to ban cryptocurrencies than to ban institutions from investing in them.

And anyway, this cycle that was known as the one of institutional adoption, I would rather call it the one of "institutional disappointment", because in the cycle in which more institutions have invested than ever before, we are having the worst return of all cycles by far.

Leverage, championed by the greatest institutional investor and the most media-acclaimed: Michael Saylor, is largely to blame for this.

So I'm not so much concerned about institutions investing as I am about what regulations the public authorities are going to come up with now that CBDCs are in the pipeline.

I question what you say that I have put in bold, also as other colleagues have commented to you. It is impossible that you always win in a casino.

To say something similar to what you say, it did happen to me in the past, when I had a bad streak, I changed rooms and had a fresh start in the new room and started winning. But over time I realized that it was more a psychological aspect than anything else. If I endure a bad streak in the same room, there comes a time when the results turn around and you start winning.

About this and as far as I am concerned, I have commented several times that one of the reasons why I do not play poker in cryptocurrency rooms without KYC is because it is much easier to cheat. Implementing KYC does not make cheating impossible, but it reduces it a lot. Besides, nowadays I play in Pokerstars which has a great anti-fraud department, so the possibility of finding someone in the room who is cheating is reduced to a minimum.

So your solution for a heroin addict is to give him large doses of fentanyl, right? What a genius, I don't know how I hadn't thought of that before.


Just like that. We have been in a forward flight for many years based on more and more debt, more and more printers, and now because the balance sheet of central banks is reduced a little, just a little, and rates are raised, the OP starts to cry. If they really raise rates to more than 10% I don't know what he is going to do.

It is that these problems arise when you intend to learn poker in a self-taught way. It is better that you get into one of the many schools that are online where they give you a structured content, step by step, which will help you to climb from basic levels to mid and high stakes if you are able to get there, because today the tables are hard and even if you put a lot of time and effort, maybe you stay in mid-stakes. But if you like it, at the end of the road you will be making some extra money which is pretty good, or even if you live in a poor country maybe you can live from it, but for that you have to have a very good bankroll management and control the psychological aspects, which are topics that are also touched in the poker schools syllabus.

To my understanding no, the company had a problem with their database, supposedly and they are hiding behind that to not pay the prize. To me that does not seem to me a defense that justifies not paying and unless they provide other elements of proof in the trial I understand that the most reasonable thing is that they pay him the lottery prize in full. Although it is also necessary to think that in matters of law what seems to be clear in favor of a part ends up with a reasoned sentence of many pages in favor of the other, that is to say that the plaintiff cannot claim victory.

If you notice, he is saying to write the seeds on two pieces of paper and store them in two different locations. The probability of getting the two papers burned or wet is practically 0, and the steel plates are also not 100% safe because they attract the attention of potential thieves and kidnappers, while the papers are easily camouflaged.

There is no system that is 100% secure, although some are more secure than others, but in this case having the papers in two locations is quite secure and used by many people.

It seems like a bad joke that you have chosen for your nickname: "Not your key not your BTC"

No, it has already been explained to you. Move those funds from the cloud to cold storage ASAP if you don't want to lose them. I hope we are talking about low amounts, I can't imagine you have millions and are asking that question.

According to the article, in 5 days will be the next hearing, and I hope we will have news of what happens, although trials can drag on for a long time and maybe nothing relevant will happen.

I also believe like most who have commented that the lottery winner has everything to win the trial before the Lagos lottery company, although in matters of law you can never take anything for granted. In any case, if the company had a problem with its system, the user does not have to pay for it.

Lol, a great plan, buying a lot of lottery tickets, as if it was a good way to earn money, good thing he supposedly earns a lot of money passively because throwing money away like that is a sure way to bankruptcy.


Oh, I just realized he was autobanned. Better for the forum. He entertained us with his stories, but a bit of a troll and reactive. Plus in this case I don't think he's going to be unbanned in any way. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he creates another account to continue trolling.

For Bitcoin to work as an electronic payment system, no, they are not necessary and move away from the idea of the payment system being person-to-person.

However, CEXs have provided an ease and liquidity of exchange that has driven the price of Bitcoin from pennies to tens of thousands of dollars. As we have seen this year, however, in many cases these platforms, in addition to artificially pumping shitcoins and shittokens, have relied on leverage and fractional reserve, which is what Satoshi intended to avoid when he created Bitcoin.

To think about what would happen if they did not exist I think it is not worth spending much time because they will continue to exist, but I think that from now on it will be with much stricter regulations, and we will see what implications this has for the Bitcoin that I fear will be in line with what the EU has in mind: more KYC everywhere, even trying to force hardware wallets to implement it,

Of course, I think that those who have serious problems with gambling, if gambling did not exist, would have them with something else, drugs, sex or whatever. After all, all activities that have a potential risk are not dangerous if they are carried out in moderation. Those who gamble more than they can afford, spending their entire paycheck on payday or getting into debt, have deeper problems than gambling, and we cannot take the exception as the rule.

The measures to solve it must be based on the will of the subject. Trying to impose measures while the subject does not have a clear will to solve the problem is useless.