Wish you could tell me how much you won in the games 9years ago,  how you found/recoverd the bitcoins, and when last you moved the bitcoins before finally deciding to sell.

I think you should let them know that Bitcoin wasn't worth much back then when you won the coins, the kyc requirement wasn't much in existence when you won/own the coins,  you didn't bother to note the site names back then and that the games that won you the money are good/safe.
I think this should make them treate yours as a special case and help get them release the coins more quickly, when they are satisfied. Would also be helpful if you could provide them with some proofs that you are the real owner of the coins and have been owning them unmoved for that long.

I guess you mean DeFi? Or does that mean something else?


Anyway, it's better to see them simply as "tokenized bitcoins" than bitcoins. In my opinion, for a tokenized bitcoin that is on the DeFi Ecosystem(or similar systems) to qualify as bitcoin, it has to be exactly as bitcoin and controlled by the main Bitcoin Network. Whatever happens to the main Bitcoin happens to its copy on DeFi.
It's more like replicated Bitcoin controlled by thesame brain.

Taxing a decentralized network/system by governments that exist outside of the network/system isn't really a good idea. The best the "foreign governments" could do is to tax their own companies within the decentralized network.
If taxing most companies and transactions within the network becomes necessary, it should be done by the native Blockchain/decentralized-network Government.

I agree that things should be transparent.

I think it's good to paste this here, on a new thread:


I first posted the quoted post ^ here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5281086.msg55370132#msg55370132

I think It really depends on whether people are withdrawing to "hold"...and really hold, or they are using bitcoin within a Bitcoin economy/ecosystem without selling too much for fiats or other currencies.

I think it would also depend on how experienced/skilled the coach that is coaching the team with so called weaker players. A good coach should be able to use the "weaker players" to win the competition. I wonder if there are lots of such coaches around.

The outcome of this game would've changed if the key players of the team that is expected to win were affected more by the illness(and assuming the coach is not that good), while all the players of the other team in the match are healthy.

As long as the bettor can afford to lose the "bigger amount of bets". By "can afford to lose" I mean a bettor has lot more money for his basic needs than he is spending on bets. (Basic needs also include things that are profitable, or things that earn more income for a bettor.)

I think It's better for a bettor to research and learn a game (and be sure to be consistently profitable) before betting with "bigger" amount...That should be by, increasing the bets abit higher as the bettor becomes confident, successful and better in his/her skills.

I think I would bet abit higher on bets I am more sure about after doing my thorough analysis/research on matches I want to bet on. This should increase my chances of winning the bets with higher amount, and compassate for losing the bets with lower amounts and lower chances of winning.

I guess you mean bitcoin(the currency)... or do you mean both the currency and the Decentralized Network/tech?
If they didn't approve Bitcoin, they wouldn't be copying the technology (like Blockchain) or allow Bitcoin exchanges/platforms to trade in countries.
I think part of the problems is that regulators either don't understand Bitcoin in order to make it part of the law and officially approve it... Or it's probably too transparent/decentralized/immutable for the liking of some regulators, and won't let them operate opaquely, lawlessly, without accountability, etc
. So for such people, the technology has to be centralized and controlled by them for them to approve it.

Well, as long as it's decentralized and crypto-based, to avoid potential problems in the future.
I think it's better for projects like that to adopt Bitcoin early standards/principles or even be improve and stick to them if they wish to thrive honestly in Crypto space without much problem.
By the way, I think  the *Student Token Offering* should be under *Initial "Cryptocurrency" Offering* to avoid confusion.

Interesting.
Who is doing the blocking (if they were really blocked)? Did the owner/owners commit any crime? And was the crime clearly stated for the public to see? Are the stablecoins with such block feature decentralized or centralized? If decentralized, is the blocking done via network consensus?  No true decentralized stablecoin/crypto should be blockable without proper, transparent and community consensus. So, I would avoid any so called decentralized stablecoin that can be blocked without proper consensus.  Decentralized coins should be censorship resistant and transparent. The only coins that could be frozen/blocked are those that have been used for serious crimes or owned by serious proven criminals.

Watch each other so they don't abuse things shared in Crypto space for the good of humanity(esp those who believe). Everyone using the ideas need to be transparent. I am sorry for those who intentionally use what is from GOD for evil. If they don't repent (change & surrender to JESUS CHRIST), they will be judged (this is what the Word of GOD says)

Interesting. There are interesting patterns.
 I wonder what happened between October  (I assume all the prices for each year are for month of October alone?) 2014/2015.

The percentage increases between two years is even higher at 2012/2013  than 2016/2017.

I regards to posting hashes on a seperate page of a *betting* site. I guess the "hash page" should be immutable to prevent the admin of the betting site from changing the hashes, or is it immutable?




I think they should bet with little bitcoins (what they can afford to lose) and not gamble(take big risk).



Anyway, I think you may be trying to do this to see bettors chances of winning games with high/low chances of winning.
I think the games with high chance of winning "big" should cost more or be more valueable while those with low chances should cost less. That is how I assume the betting sites owner do it.
This^ makes things not pure luck

Telegram is ok. Wish I could share the ideas on some sort of decentralized/peer-to-peer Telegram-like messenger. The messages on the messenger should be peer-to-peer/decentralized, immutable, secure, activities fairly transparent, should be privacy-friendly/anonymity-friendly, application open-source/transparent, etc. I should be able to have our messages in a node I fully control. Our message should be throughly encrypted and immutable. The peer would own/have their decryption keys to decrypt their messages.

Note: not investing....just advising/sharing ideas(for free)

Seen a post with similar idea (probably built already) and the project claims to be decentralized. It sounds attractive but could be very risky considering it's new.
 Devs should build things like that more, so people don't handover their funds to businesses... And this can help keep a cryptocurrency decentralized if everyone controls his/her coin & only need to plug-in to use crypto services

Interesting.
How safe is it?
Do they have Terms of service... and have you gone through them to know if this is very safe or not? How about the smart contract, safe?  



No possible losses for traders in this^ case?
I wonder what they used for the collateral, their token?

Anyway, I would advice members not to put what they can't afford to lose until they are sure this is very safe.

Edited the subject from "Can we blame decentralization for how members approached interested investors?" to this^ (Understanding Decentralization).
The posts remain thesame.

Ofcourse, it can!
If Satoshi really owned a million bitcoins, he could become the richest man on earth in the future if Bitcoin keeps going up. Besides, there is nothing wrong in founders owning large amount of coin if it's for the good of the network and not not for selfish reasons.

You can even build a decentralized company in Crypto space and make lots of money from it without users/members getting disadvantaged as a result of your wealth. Just try as much as you can to keep large part of your wealth within your decentralized company/business and make sure the wealth is used to benefit the network while still earning you more wealth.

 Who says you can't be very wealthy if you do this, and other important things not stated, right? He/she probably don't understand decentralization.





* By the way, I don't own huge amount of coins and I'm not planning to. Just writing this in response to post I found somewhere. I'm abit concerned that people will think it's true.

Do people use Bitcoin/crypto on Centralized Platforms, without censorship resistant and expect this not to happen? . This is not really the direction the inventors of Bitcoin want the users/participatants to go. It should be used p2p and decentrally. People are basically using it wrongly, so you should expect those problems  experienced by your country's exchange to happen.

It's best to keep things well decentralized and implement your good national laws on the decentralized platform/exchange... then invite your national regulators to see that you aren't doing anything bad that is against the law.

Before you consider putting anything serious on a Bitcoin/crypto platform or application, make sure it's Well Decentralized, immutable, transparent, privacy-friendly, censorship resistant, secure, consensus-driven, has the right rules, etc.  If you use it this way, a government won't bother you if its law is followed and you are doing things right.
The suppression or censorship of things by governments could be due to immorality/lawlessness. If you can solve the problem on your decentralized platform, they will have no reason to suppress/censors you unless it's a lawless/dictatorial government.