I wonder why the gas price isn't displayed in stablecoin based in a popular fiat like USD. That should help reduce the confusion of the gwei unit.
Wish I could find the address to see exactly what happened, and to be sure this truely happened.


Well, such mistake shouldn't be possible on Ethereum network. It shouldn't be possible to send fees that are above 2% of users funds without strong warning . I still find it hard to understand why they allow fee to go above 20% of senders funds on the main network. Besides, transactions could be based in percentage and Network fee shouldn't go above 2% of senders funds without strong warning to the senders. The fee should also be shown in a popular stablecoin to make the price clearer to senders.

 To be honest, such over sized fees(probably fees that are above 10% of senders funds) shouldn't be touched by miners. They could even contact the senders and refund them once such fees are found. Such are likely to be mistakes, or probably gifts from people to some sort of centralized/small/known miners

Well, any bettor who is betting with what he/she can't afford to lose is a gambler. That is what I normally advise bettor to avoid —taking big risks in bets or gambling in bets.

 The big risk is above the limit a bettor can afford risk. The limit should be small part of all your fund/income/salary. Anything above that without the skills, talents or high chances of winning is gambling.

That alone will probably not help. I think if you add some real images and stories of tragic consequences of gambling in betting centers, (with informations on how to avoid/prevent/treat it) that can help greatly. The betting centers have to ensure that customers don't risk too much money (& time) they can't afford to lose

That is probably ponzi/pyramid scheme disguised as bet.
I guess the 100% interest comes from those under you who deposits after you deposited. When there is little to no depositors depositing it stops paying and people who are expecting to be paid don't get paid and their deposited fund taken by another person. I think it's not sustainable and is clearly scam.
It deserves to be called scam because people are promised(guaranteed?) unsustainable interest (100% per 24hrs), and they will likely lose their investments.
I wouldn't invest in such thing knowing it's unsustainable and scam.

I think Permissionless should be thesame as Permission-minimized... Or Trustless thesame as Trust-minimized.
I won't be surprised if the "Less" at the end of some Words normally meant the Words are Less, minimal, small etc. The real meaning of the words (words with "Less" attached normally at their ends) probably changed(for whatever reason) as time goes by.
The words probably changed from meaning they are minimal/less/small to they are zero/nothing/negative.  
It seems many people have accepted this confusion in English without question. Unfortunately, such confusion can make English really difficult/complicated/confusing.


Permissionless should also mean Permission-minimized... While Trustless should mean Trust-minimized


Related Post:
Understanding Permission-Less and Trust-Less
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5277053.msg55230270#msg55230270

Well, I will likely contact the exchange to be sure they made a mistake. Will probably ask them to confirm what they sent to me without me revealing the name of the coin & amount to them. And I will also verify from the address they sent me the coin from to be sure the amount actually came from there. If it was a mistake, I will be glad to send it back. It can be quite unsettling to spend huge strange money I did not earn/deserve. Just want to be guiltless and happy in this life

It's actually possible they factor in the increase in salary., but I wonder if that is a good way to calculate inflation of goods and services.
The increase in wages/salaries could even cause inflation of goods and services if things are not produced fast enough without lowering their standards. You are basically pumping in more money in the economy... so their will be higher spending and higher demand for goods and services in the economy. Your goods and services could even become expensive in international market, especially in places with cheap things & low salary

Will be great if the Blockchain for voting is decentralized, and remain decentralized... not built on so called Private Blockchain or any centralized tech based on blockchain.  If you accept the proposal without knowing the details of what they are proposing, you could end up with a centralized systems for national elections.


I think it can easily work on a well decentralized system with features to verify participants identities.
You'll need to make the system very transparent, immutable, secure... and keep the users anonymous for this to work really well. Protecting the anonymity/privacy of users will make vote buying difficult. Users Verified Private Identities should be well encrypted, controlled by the users and stored on the decentralized/shared system. Identity verification could be done physically on p2p basis by reputable members of the community who would be selected randomly by the system, or you could do the verification online by splitting the users private info and send them to multiple verifiers for verification.

I think the problem  boils down on storing users private info on centralized system. I remember private information of the company's customers were hacked months ago, the hacker probably still managed to find way to use the hacked information to steal coins from their owners.

I think people should just be careful how they allow companies to store their private information on their servers.

I think part of their plans is to pay the unemployed Universal Basic Income and probably get them to do anything they want. I do not think it's a good idea to pay able-bodied people lots of money while they do nothing. Everyone has to work and help the society in one way or another before getting paid enough. Though Basic needs to help people survive could be given & guaranteed even if they are not working, but you'll have to make sure that they eventually start working and contributing to society.

 Everyone has unique gifts/talents that robot or AI cannot replace. If you could identify the talents/gifts and get everyone to use them for the good of the society, then I don't see the robots/AI ever replacing humans in the area of employment. Humans could work hand in hand with the good ones though, and even monitor/control them.

I believe there are people who have actually used their big lottery wins well. I have one as relation(actually an uncle)...*it wasn't from the regular lottery we are used to though.
So, the Tv program producers could as well balance their programs by featuring those who use the lottery prizes well so others can learn from them.

The question is can a gambler be responsible? Gambling (or taking big risk) in betting world does not sound responsible to me. A bettor can however minimize risk or drastically reduce risk by betting with amount he/she can afford to lose/risk. You could be a big bettor if you are skilled and consistently profitable in bets, otherwise it's recommended to bet with small amount.
If you earn a thousand dollars monthly and risk/squander half of it in bets every month then you could be called a gambler, and that is clearly irresponsible thing to do.
 I wouldn't bet big amount (even occasionally) if am not sure of winning. I can't afford to risk that

It's also important for betting centers/sites to make this(bolded) clear. I believe people can have a change of heart when they see the  ⚠ Warning Sign: "Do not Gamble" or "Don't bet what you can't afford to lose/risk" 
Bet, but don't gamble. 
Gambling definitely has alot of consequences.

It's interesting the problem they sought to solve via the foundation, as written here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

I have always wondered what the crypto foundations are for and whether they are open foundations & share thesame principles of Bitcoin/crypto. The Wikipedia article shared by Op says it "was America non-profit corporation". I wonder why this is so?
I think you could solve the problem listed in the Bitcointalk link above on Open, transparent, public, permissionless, censorship resistant community/platform. Every Bitcoin network members should be free to participate and blacklist/redlist tainted coins.

 I'll only be excited if the companies are building/adopting the right platforms for their businesses. We already have too many custodial exchanges/platforms with lots of coins in their custody... this is not really good for cryptocurrency long-term. if coins supplies are held on centralized platforms that are not subjected to Decentralized crypto Network rules, it could seriously affect or be used against decentralized cryptocurrency in future.

I wonder if the post is about the DeFi Ecosystem in general Or the applications on Defi. As far as tell it has centralized projects that pretend to be decentralized. Besides, I do not trust that the decentralized ones will remain decentralized if there is no rules to prevent them from being centralized.
Another thing one should really be careful about is governance that require huge amounts of tokens to be part of. It's quite risky to be invest in project with such governance requirement long-term.

Well, we are in a time that people should care about using Bitcoin correctly. Majority of the users should be able to fully own/control their coins and benefits from other Bitcoin important features.
Bitcoin is unique and different from the national dital currency listed in the post.
 If governments decide to create their own digital currencies, I believe they will penalize people who don't follow the rules/principles governing the currencies & its system. So, why should Bitcoin not stick with its own rules too, esp to keep it unique, decentralized and safe for users. This is one of the ways to remain competitive and not trying to be like digital fiat currencies

Hope the "conflict of interest" (or probably resistance) is not connected to anonymity/privacy.

If you want such delays reduced in large decentralized community, just have principles/rules everyone must stick to during consensus or Bitcoin development.

The Principles in Bitcoin case are:
Decentralization
Transparency
Immutablity
Anonymity/privacy
Censorship resistant
Permissionless/trustlessness
Security/safety
Deflationary currency
Etc

Everyone can agree/disagree and build things on Bitcoin without violating the Principles.

The principles should be improved instead and not violated.
The Principles can be withdrawn or taken away from people who commit serious crimes while using Bitcoin. None should be taken away from innocent people... It's their rights.

You should stop gambling and only bet with little amount or what you can afford to lose/risk. 
You should learn how to bet profitably and responsibly. If you're betting based on luck then bet only with little/small amount once or occasionally. You should have the skills and be consistently profitable before you can start betting consistently and with higher amounts.

Bet but don't gamble

The Lottery businesses should also do their best to teach/suggest to such winners how best to use their money. If possible, suggest to them to lock up huge part of the prizes somewhere safe until they can figure out how to make good use of the money. Many could easily be overwhelmed by their wins that they would be able to figure out how to use them well.