I expect it isn't random, they should have their own stuff that they're trying to judge whether they should ask for KYC or not, judging probably from the amount they bet (or are trying to withdraw) plus any suspicious activities, like maybe sudden deposits of big amounts when the user used to do small amounts and stuff like that. Any small things could turn suspicious if the user rarely do it, so they can probably do it like that. Honestly, it's understandable really. I may hate KYC but I know why they need to do it, but that doesn't still let me like it.

It isn't that surprising really, some articles maybe just a form of misunderstandings (or really, not understanding the topic itself) but it still does give traction to the site by the people who read the said topic. As long as the article seems pretty good, and all details intended were as is and the other misinformation or misunderstanding is solely the opinion of the journalist, it'd probably be allowed. Quality checks don't deign on stuff like that after all.

Plus, negative articles sounds more enticing to read for most people anw, at least it is for me when I know completely nothing of the topic.

It'd probably be that I'd recommend books in the first place to people who actually like to read, and honestly, they're rather rare. Most people nowadays have quite short attention spans, especially on a completely new topic, and a rather complicated one (from the outside) like Bitcoin (or crypto in general). I had a few experiences with my friend first but that was because they were rather interested in it, they were asking stuff about what it is, how it works, and mainly how to earn money from it (which is their main motivation I think).

Simple, legality issues. It's mostly due to their provider, or the country they are licensed in, which requires them to do KYC on certain situations (or maybe, on all occasions really) so that they can comply with the laws and whatnot that the country has. Honestly, I think most casinos wouldn't even bother KYC requirements if it weren't for those, it is additional work and I highly doubt they'd lose money if they didn't implement it, they might even earn more.

Plus, if they didn't, they'd be well something of a "banned, illegal site", which would turn away most players. With the label of a "legal casino", they can invite new players.

Probably just in your head OP? I mean yes, some countries are banning it, but I don't think it's something necessarily other countries would also follow? That is unless crypto mining was seen as a universal evil or something. Additionally, you'd see people still doing it on their home computers or something, just like how it was initially. Hardly doubt countries banning them would actually do anything to people who still want to mine. Plus, mining groups could easily migrate to other countries if they needed to imo.

It's not liked NOT just in cryptocurrency casinos, but in all crypto-related stuff. See, it completely goes against the concept of pseudo-anonymity that crypto (or at least, Bitcoin), is actually defined for. It's solely for the user's sake, in this case, for example, my sake, or my privacy to be exact. There are advantages for KYC, but it's mostly for the other side, so that they can guarantee that you're under the law and under the T&C, so that when anything pops up that you are liable for, they can easily find you. But well, in general, we're using cryptocurrency exactly because we don't want KYC, so what do you think most people would feel if casinos introduced KYC?

Well, they do have the self-exclusion program, users just have to actually understand how it works you know? Most responsible programs and whatnot are prerequisites so most sites that have them have their own programs that let users have some method or way to stop themselves from gambling. It's not 100% on stake, it's 100% on the user instead.

Though tbf, I do agree with your statement. It's not that it's all (or it's stake specifically), but some gambling casinos only comply with the requirements but honestly don't give a damn about responsible gambling, after all, it does make them money.

Turns out I've been calling pool as billiards all this time (It's what my friends called it when we were playing it way back then lmao). The general rule seems to be similar across all three games? Most differences are in the way players can score points or the way the points are needed to be scored, but other than that, they're almost the same to each other.

Yep, I tried looking up the name on some casinos and I managed to find some tournaments about it you can bet on. I looked around sportsbet.io iirc? Not sure if it was the exact sport but what are the chances of sports having the exact same no?

Nope, not really? There have been complaints about the gradual price increase of some products here and there, but not to the point that people will not buy them. It's like complaining for 5 seconds before accepting that things would still happen nonetheless, so they just go with it. I haven't even experienced a point where groceries and the like limited the amount that they'd sell, at least in the past year (start of Covid it happened afaik). Might just be limited in your place?

Sounds pretty good imo. UFC has some pretty solid fan base (or the sports itself) afaik, so they wouldn't really lose out with them extending their partnership, not to mention that it has already shown results over the year. It'd probably also entice some users to go into bet365 with this, so it's a win-win for both of them really. The youtube live is also a really nice feature as well, together with their rewards, it's a pretty nice addition to the stuff they could give out to their users, not to mention how YT is pretty much a universal platform now for livestreams.

Idk man, sounds like you just avoided asking them directly and instead opted for the option of asking indirectly. Plus your guess is pretty much, well, THAT. A guess, nothing backed it up since you didn't want to share, so it's like most of us are just presenting general info which honestly can easily be found.

Tried looking up a bunch of info regarding the two, not really much was found, Bull Gaming was relatively new so there wasn't really anything, Raw Entertainment on the other hand had a few results BUT it was quite lacking (and confusing) so i won't share any. I did try to look up directly who are the owners and Roobet was under TEK5HOU instead of Raw Entertainment. Might be under it or a sister company idrk. Rollbit was under Bull gaming indeed though, but no official site from what I looked up.

Well, they'd only boot you if you did something wrong (or idk, someone from higherups hates you, which is the less likely occurrence most of the time imo). Honestly, it's they're right, it is the business they are running so they have to take some measures so that if ever there were some malicious activities, they can immediately cut it off without having the issue of legality since well, they already stated they could do so. Nothing really wrong imo.

Bitcoin being the better option isn't necessarily always true, it's always a subjective type kind of thing, or maybe situational idrk, see it depends.

Well, that's the thing with trading, it goes hand in hand with stress, and if you were to start saying everything gives stress, then the stress in trading is way more because of the fact that you directly handle money while doing it. It's nothing odd or new really, most traders experience it, it's just that the level you can handle is correlated to the amount of money you actually have or earn in a daily basis, not counting the ones that you get from trading. If you were plenty rich, then trading wouldn't be that stressful if you were handling levels that could be easily handled (though if it were BIG numbers, then yea, they'd also feel a sting tbf).

So it's kind of billiards but a different set of rules? Probably why it isn't that known, most people would probably know (and prefer) the well known billiards instead of that, not to mention that billiards isn't exactly a very famous sport (at least, on some countries). There should still be matches that are being betted on though, not that I know where exactly since I don't look for them. Others have said it though, so goodluck to you finding it. Might watch a few matches since it's honestly my first time finding the term.

As others have said, supply and demand. The investors and the traders are the main players, and it's really up to the demand that they show, (probably based on general market movement + some general trend/news out there). There isn't really any "who" on the famous coins such as Bitcoin since there's a LOT of traders that trade them, literally everyone on the market can be the "who" part of your question. Plus, it can change a lot in a few mere minutes or seconds due to the existence of bots and stuff like that.

I'm guessing they're still thinking that Bitcoin isn't needed for the inflation that's happening. Or, a lot of people just don't know about it. Not to mention that the general trend of Bitcoin right now has been downward, so it pretty much just added a reason for people to actually avoid investing in crypto. Most people wouldn't even start thinking of Bitcoin as a way to avoid inflation, after all, it didn't become famous (to most hype investors) because of that, it was because it could bring in money.

I'd say no. Honestly I was the same a few years back, I just had that period where I was into finance and stuff (mostly due to crypto) which made me look stuff up. I was in college by then already (Still am), and there's really nothing being taught about stuff like that. I don't think finance courses even teach it themselves, maybe touch upon the past inflation crisis issues but not the current one that is happening right now. Though it is quite obvious with what my parents told me about the purchasing power on their time and the current time.

So you were able to talk to them no? Then that means that you should show them the proof, and talk it out with them, that's it. Now if they refuse to acknowledge (if whatever you're saying is true), then just post an official scam accusation, preferably with better proof than an sc of the table, probably something like a bet history instead, or maybe a video proof if you were able to record it. Honestly stake isn't an issue here, it seems like they already said they have no responsibility for it. Talk with Evolution gaming instead of stake, stake is pretty much is out of this.

Idk, should I feel good about it being $1m? I mean I am investing in it, but I'd probably be putting my emotions on me profiting off of my investment rather than Bitcoin increasing in price itself (though I guess that counts the same?). Honestly considering the time it would also take, It'd probably just kill off the excitement, not to mention that it won't be that big of an increment anymore since if we do get to $1m, it'd be natural that we'd be seeing increases in price prior to that year.

So if I get this right, stake is providing their platform for games under evolution gaming, OP made a bet but the one that proceeded was a mistake, and now stake doesn't (or can't) do anything about it since the provider themselves said OP indeed made the bet and that they have no responsibility am I right? Idk about their TOS but you can probably check it out and see whether issues with the games of providers would fall under their jurisdiction? Cause if not, then they indeed have no responsibility for it. If so, then you can post that as additional proof for your accusation.

Maybe try to instead ask how you could ask for a refund via the provider? Idk much about these so I might be wrong.