It's pretty different, the 2 you are comparing right now. Overseas phone calls were expensive because the companies were essentially being dicks and charging dollars for something that basically cost close to nothing for them to make. Then came along the internet, and there was no way that they could keep charging ridiculous prices so it ended up become cheaper and cheaper, and is now free.

Now we live in a day and age where the uber to the airport possibly costs more then the plane trip itself. Well, at least in my city. It's due to that there are no cheaper options, even with minimum wage and the shit pay that uber gives to drivers, the current cost of ubers and everything is the lowest price, considering uber also needs to make money.

You'll not be able to find any ride-share services that utilise bitcoin at a cheaper price. Because, it simply doesn't exist. Also, AirBNB seems to be decent pricing (at least compared to hotels around my area), and I know you can buy gift cards for that service for bitcoin.

To be honest, I doubt a lot of people get interested in Bitcoin from seminars and actual meetings. People aren't going to have the time or want to attend a bitcoin/blockchain/crypto seminar if they aren't already interested. It's more an enthusiast's thing.

I don't know about other people, but the 10-15 friends I have that are interested in Bitcoin all got it from word of mouth. It started with a single person watching videos, learning the content, and eventually buying some BTC.

So I do believe the most influence comes from friends, and maybe media. I doubt events actually promote adoption, it's mostly just teaching the people who are already interested, even more about BTC.

But why not?

Are they concerned about people using it as a wallet service? If yes, why not just add transaction fees instead of forcing people to bet?

Just because something may be industry standard doesn't mean that it's not designed to harm. The cigarette industry, for example.

And who's to decide that 1x rollover is a fair amount to say that you have completed "significant action"? Obviously, nothing we can do, but perhaps punters can use a bit more of their judgment avoiding these sites.

Absolutely, and the degree of centrality that these exchanges introduce to the cryptospace is absolutely mind boggling in terms of the effects that they will potentially have.

It goes without saying that these centralized exchanges are prone to attacks the way that decentralized cryptos are simply designed to circumvent. The risk of the middleman within a transaction essentially gets reintroduced as soon as people start using third parties.

I'm not say that it's possible to eliminate all of them, but the pushes towards DEXs is definitely warranted and needed.

What is even meant by "officially enter bull market"? Is there some sort of official figure that is calling the shots or am I missing out

Jokes aside, most traders imo have been preparing for this upcoming bull market. People understand that prices are going to rally as we get closer and closer to the halving, and there is very little room for BTC to maneuver downwards because of the fact that $7k has been tested several times now as a support level and each time prices came close to breaching it, it rebounded right back up.

So it's not like it's unexpected or anything of that sort. It's totally expected, it's just that there hasn't been a lot of activity in the market right now. I expect things to change though as we get closer to May.

This is honestly quite ridiculous.

Major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase probably audit themselves on the regular without any disruptions to their provision of services, so it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it takes een a few weeks let alone months for this audit to be completed.

Unfortunately for those who are involved, it's most likely a case of a gang of fraudsters pulling a classic exit scam.

And this is the ultimate risk of using these small scale exchanges. There is always the presence of the risk that they will simply go rogue. Even if they are regulated, rules are blurred and enforcement is spotty.

First of all, good luck.

Secondly, leveraged trading is extremely risky, but to be completely honest it is really the only way that you are able to turn a profit when it comes to a "bankroll" of such a low amount - you are unlikely to see any significant gains even in the best case scenario if you were simply trading on the spot market.

I'd ensure that all my positions are kept in check and are not highly leveraged to more than 5x each time, because beyond which, it can just be as risky gambling.

I like the name.

Also, the non-custodial deposits/withdrawals are really nice given the fact that a lot of people recently are having issues with sportsbooks holding withdrawals without any reason. This gives the peace of mind back to the punters who can know for sure that they're going to get fairly paid out.

My main concern is that how you're going to guarantee liquidity in markets for all events, and how the selection of what markets are open will be made. Liquidity is the main concern of most decentralized exchanges, sportsbook or otherwise.

I doubt that this has anything to do with the trade war. In fact, this has nothing to do with global trade.

I do think that it's simply a coincidence. Countrfeit currency is not something that is new to the US (when you consider that the secret service was initially designed to combat this issue anyway). $900k worth of counterfeit currency is barely enough to make a drop in the ocean, so it's much more likely that rogue actors are individuals/organised crime than from the perspective of a state.

But yeah, this is one of the weaknesses of physical fiat that I think governments will look at and use as a reason to move towards cashlessness further and further.

This is not just limited to ledger. It's also quite a big issue when it comes to fake crypto exchange giveaways and things of that sort.

These are quite easy to spot though, because usually what they all entail is asking the victim to send them a sum of money and/or provide their private keys to enter the giveaway.

Anyone who is using their common sense will be able to avoid these with ease. It's inexperienced newbies with too much greed that fall for these, generally speaking.

The Chinese stock markets are obviously taking a hit.

Other than that, though, I really don't see any real affects on cryptocoins. It's completely ridiculous to try to attribute the recent corrections that BTC has seen onto an event that is widely overhyped, and will likely not transmit into financial markets as much as some people do expect.

BTC markets are quite idiosyncratic to begin with and does not tightly correlate with real world news, despite the fact that a lot of people make it seem like the truth.

This probably has more to do in terms of trying to preserve the legal tender status of fiat that underlies its value more than anything else.

We're seeing similar things in China as society edges closer and closer towards a completely cashless one. The government and central banks are reluctant to give up control in terms of the operation of monetary policy, which can be severely hindered by many private providers of remittance services.

So it's certainly not surprising news by any measure. In fact, it's quite expected.

You can calculate the odds quite easily. Simply raise the odds of each red happening to the power of the amount of times that you want to account for.

However, one of the more common fallacies in this area is the fact that rolls are not dependent on each other. A lot of people do prerolls and all that in the hopes that they can somehow increase their odds of winning, but what they don't realize is that prerolls don't matter at all because each roll is independent of the other.

That's why I think it's a bit redundant to ask this question to somehow come up with a strategy. Prerolling 19 times doesn't increase the chances of your 20th roll hitting.

I wouldn't doubt that a lot of crypto casinos would be prepared to delete your account for you and/or exclude you from their services if you do request to them manually.

So what is needed is a systematic way of doing this that does not require manual intervention.

Without regulatory oversight this is going to be extremely difficult, since casinos have no incentive to do this. Perhaps some sort of crypto gambling organisation (pretty sure that there is already one) can provide the necessary regulations for self-exclusion in the future.

But what it ultimately comes down to is your own attitude, and no amount of self exclusion will help you if you take gambling the wrong way.

You really shouldn't have withdrew directly to a sportsbook - they are notorious for doing this kind of stuff to their users. If I were you I would have just waited for your exchange's cooldown to end.

However, this kind of behavior from Nitro is definitely not acceptable in my opinion. What it looks like is that they are trying to bully you into cooperation more than anything else.

It makes no sense for them and other sportsbooks to be talking about and having "responsible gaming" as a part of their site when they're coercing users into playing...

I doubt that it'll be possible.

There is a ton of hidden demand given the fact that a) there are a lot of hidden orders in the form of both hidden orderbook entries on exchanges and OTC bids and b) People's expectations can adjust according to price movements.

Unless a model that takes both these facets into account can be invented, I don't see any way of accurately measuring what you call "market cap".

To me, market cap is a simple metric that is rigidly defined by a formula, price times quantity. Whether or not it's relevant to traders is one thing, but that's the way to calculate market cap as it is defined.

If this was not removed from bestchange immediately after your very plausible allegations of them being a scam, then I don't think that bestchange should be referred to as a credible source of information for exchanges at all. It is unprofessional at best for them to do this and not consider the position of clients.

Anyhow, KYC/AML is something that is cited by a ton of exchangers, especially on big transactions that it has become a routine honestly.

The takeaway here, if nothing else, is that if you're dealing with these types of sums of money, just don't risk it and use a normal exchange, like Binance, which give you around the same in daily withdrawal limits anyway for unverified accounts.

I honestly don't see a sizable dump coming any time soon.

There's very little FOMO in the market right now anyway. The previous dump down from 9.1k to 8.2k was already extremely sizable and wiped out a lot of the weak hands that were within the market.

The overall uptrend is clear - we are going for the $10k resistance now, and once that is breached, expect a ton of FOMO and rallies.

Only after that occurs do I expect big corrections. Certainly not right now, when the $7k price floor is already well established, and there is very little downward pressure on price.

Thanks for the recommendation.

However, the reviews on cloudbet has not been that positive historically so I'm trying to avoid them to the best of my ability.


Thanks.

I think that sportsbet is one of the ones that a lot of people suggested, so I'll probably have a look there.

Does fairlay generally have more selections/better odds compared to sportsbet, or is it the other way around?

Even coins that have no intrinsic value have value solely for existing on the market of a small exchange.

I would say that BTC will always carry some sort of value to someone, whether it's investors, people who need to transfer money overseas, so on and so forth. The demand for BTC is not only as a speculative token, it has a range of practical uses that I simply cannot see going away any time soon.

As long as BTC has a hard limit and continues to have some sort of demand, there will be value. For it to truly go to zero, the hard cap has to be broken, which is extremely unlikely given that the community simply won't allow it to occur.