If you mean by government in general, well, they've always been doing this kind of stuff afaik? It's closer to fearmongering among then I reckon? Though Idrk tbf, Im no economic expert. They can't really do anything even with all the negative press they do about it though, as I said, most of what they're saying is closer to fearmongering imo. Crypto would stay whether the governemnt of any country want it or not. Even if they did try something, it'd be something I'd consider as a soft ban, (heck it's not even a ban tbf), they're just making it take a bit more effort to use it.

And that's why it requires proper judgment and not just willy nilly betting. That's no different than gambling after all. Plus, it's as I said, similar to diversifying your portfolios meaning you know what's up with the game, who the parties involved are, and what are the possibilities that would happen. Your sports betting in the first place because you at least know the game, the teams playing, and the chances and possibilities of what could happen, even if your references were past matches only.

Yea no, let's not put crypto as a requirement for the metaverse bs. Pretty sure it could live as a stand-alone, maybe an integration as an addition of sorts if you were going for something fully anonymous (but fr, if it's developed by a company, expect a certain amount of KYC and data gathering so I think that's just useless).
Pretty sure that's rather subjective? I've always faced a screen in the past 3,4 years and I've never been unhappy (or depressed). Those studies were probably when we were transitioning into the current tech, it would've been rather expected.

I used to be entranced at the idea of NFT's, like when I understood what it meant. But when I entered the scene, oh boy was I immensely disappointed. It was full of hype instead of concrete, well, foundation imo. It's like the original purpose went poof all of a sudden at some point of it being used. Kinda liked it as well since I really wanted some support to happen for digital artists.

As for metaverse, I gave up on actually trying to understand it after a certain point and decided that nope, this ain't my thing and I'm out. I understand the idea, but eh idk, it just seems way too dumb. Like it was an idea that was overcomplicated with jargon so most people would think it's actually an innovation of sorts.

It's not like the Canadian government has gotten hold of the funds from the fundraising though. What the government did was something like block the most obvious path that the money could move, but it isn't necessarily the only path. There are a lot more methods the fundraisers could do to bring out the money and convert it to Canadian dollars, just that it's gonna take a bit more time and probably effort to do so. Plus, it was honestly expected that it'd receive some censorship if users were to actually use centralized exchanges to do their transactions, which is outside of what Bitcoin is. s

Diversifying your portfolio shouldn't exactly be put on the same idea as looking for the best investment. It's mainly because diversifying your portfolio is like choosing the top 10 coins you'd describe as coins that are currently the "best" to invest in. So it's basically a portfolio of Bitcoin and other alike coins. It's always how one should build up their portfolios, pick one coin that you think would be a best investment, then pick a few other coins that wouldn't necessarily be the same as that best investment, but if you can then do so.

I don't think an accurate formula could be given as to how odd providers actually provide their odds, since there's a lot of data involved and not to mention it also includes data on a players status, past medical statements, and whatnot which isn't really something you could punch in into a mathematical model and have it automatically return a number you could use to adjust the odds set.

Though I guess at some point or form, odd providers have a centralized value (or at least, very close to each other) for certain regular factors like as I said, medical statements/injuries of a player, which makes the odds they set almost the same as other odd providers. E.g., setting a value of 2 (random number, don't think much about it) to a team that plays on their home field then adjusting the odds based on that. But again, there are still a lot of factors involved.

The purpose of multi bets was either to net in as much profit as the user wants, or simply try to diversify the bet you want, just like how you diversify your portfolios. Though it still depends on the odds ofc, so it still requires a bit of judgment on that point. Honestly researching a team should automatically allow you to identify they're capabilities, letting you bet on multi-bets (or just deciding to go for single ones since you see no possible wins for multis).

Multi bets simply give you more opportunities to net money from bets (and also lose more).

They aren't really banning Bitcoin because of its price? They're banning it cause it's trying to damage their centralized system. A perfect example would be China and its very centralized-centric system.


Pretty sure it's too late? And he could've done so originally if he wanted to. He had a vision of what he wanted Bitcoin to be using blockchain tech, pretty sure he already had an idea of what it could've been. Even if it wasn't to the level of what we have right now, he should still somewhat have an idea. Besides, I think with how he made Bitcoin itself, pretty sure he had no plans to patent it originally. And even if he did, I don't think it could do anything to stop Bitcoin from being valued by users who see its value.

I think it's possible for the Oscars committee to communicate with the Twitter tech team to handle the data so that any malicious or suspected bot activity involved would get handled manually? Cause if not, then yea I'd have to agree, manipulation would be rather obvious at some point and would probably kill the purpose of the fan-favorite voting system. Might as well remove it again tbh. That, or gambling would never really be connected anymore with it. If manipulation was obvious, I don't think people would indulge on it anw.

Well if we do say that there are levels to how you can call something an "alternative", then pretty sure Bitcoin is at least past the beginning parts. It works as an alternative, there are merchants that now accept it as payments and you can also transact it with others who are willing to, I don't see a reason why it can't be taken as one.

As for being controlled, well, pretty sure the government has no access/control over the main workings of Bitcoin? Specifically, they're just banning it. Technically, what they're controlling is not Bitcoin, but rather their citizens. Doesn't seem like they were that successful though tbh.

I think it depends on how good you are at clearing your tracks and who exactly you're trying to run from? I mean, most caught cases of criminals are honestly just because of a slipup or an inside job, and not exactly because the government was able to trace them perfectly. It's basically a waiting game for them, trying to find a mistake they'd do and then capitalize on that mistake to trace everything back down from where it came from to where they are or who they are. That's how they do their jobs.

Not really a hassle if your friend knows what he's gonna do, if he doesn't well then now it turns into a hassle. Though I do agree that they could give you a simple "Nope, i don't believe you and I don't give a damn if I don't have proof, your account is disabled" message of the sorts. There have been instances like that afaik, if you're fine with letting that amount of money go then I'd really suggest just letting it go and setting up a new account.

Op himself decided against getting the funds from the account back mainly cause it was a hassle it seems.

It won't? It's kind of similar to a rebranding, but that's it, rebrand. Nothing of note actually changed at its core, it's still backed by a central organization, aka the government, and regulated. It's still fiat, regulated, controlled, and I highly doubt it being digitalized would actually change anything in the crypto ecosystem since well, it doesn't even influence or touch it. They also operate in different systems, crypto being in blockchain and fiat being on a government-controlled system.

No, that'd be pretty dumb. I mean, they can just let them do what they want to do, It's not like being anti Bitcoin requires you to destroy every remnant of it from existence, just don't use it, pretty sure it won't affect you. Plus, wars would probably be a last resort kind of thing in situations where it actually makes sense, a fight between pro and anti Bitcoin isn't one of them. If wars were started over stuff like that, we would've had a LOT of wars already just because of the fact that different countries use different fiats (or even different beliefs,religions, etc.)

Well, it's probably one of the most profitable projects investors could enter right now together with the NFT hype, just like how signature campaigns and ICO's were a thing here in the forum a few years back. As @sunsik have said, it's simply a trend, and investors would always ride with it to make profit.
Always has been. It's a great investment if you were to consider the long-term returns. The only difference probably is that the returns most investors could get now is reduced compared to when investing 7-8 years ago, which is understandable, the risks were more prominent way back then after all.

Try looking up famous crypto enthusiasts or project endorses, basically people who know their shit and recommend them to the public via their social media. Other than that, it's mostly trying to looking at each project's whitepaper yourself and determine whether they're good or not. It's hard, yes, but that's the way it goes. There's a bunch of shit projects that you'd actually have to filter through to even find one decent project, let alone a really good one. It's really going to take a lot of luck and effort imo.

But that removes the initial point of the private key concept? Where only the owner (or whoever has access to the private key) has access to the coins? If there was an alternative way, one that is similar in concept on how "forget passwords" work, then it's basically saying you're agreeing on letting someone hold your keys so that in case you forget about it, or lose it, you still have an alternative method of access.

It's not like there's no improvement possible at all. Bitcoin still has issues with transaction speeds (which is being fixed or has been, idrk, by lightning network) and fees, but fixing those doesn't really affect how the core works, but more like improving it instead. Your idea of improvement was trying to change the core of what made a private key, well, private.

Seems like a lot of others want their Bitcoin back, but considering that Bitfinex compensated them somehow, just that it seems like the compensation was valued at what it was when the exchange was hacked? So it's like the amount to be returned to the original owners were the value of their assets way back then in USD, instead of the exact assets themselves. It's kinda difficult ig, but as I said, considering how Bitfinex compensated the owners, it wouldn't be odd for them to say that they technically own the Bitcoin now, and not the users.

Well, I guess it depends on what live games I'm watching? I've never had much experience with it though, I've only joined like two or three, watched a few without joining, and that's about it. I've never really questioned most of what I experienced (probably cause I couldn't give a single damn about trying to find out whether it's rigged or not), but no, not really. It's also the main reason why I don't play them that much, it looks way too suspicious at times and you can't really do anything even if you complain about it.