It seems there is a new investigation being launched by the SEC every two to three months. How much of their statement is based on them being concerned about the actual case regarding ETH or ETF and more about the SEC trying to exert some form of control over the second biggest crypto by market cap?

I have to report this thread because of the unbelievable level of low post quality in the past more than a few pages. Stake signature spammers have taken over far too many of the posts and brought the thread to new lower-than-before levels.

Even the question in the OP was asked in a way that was clearly merit hunting that is why he made a grand total of two posts. Locking the thread is the solution to signature spammers.

There is obviously no official statistic but I believe in many cases when casinos ask for KYC it is because their terms and conditions allow them the flexibility to do it regardless of whether legitimate reasons exist or not. I cannot state what is going on in your particular case but surely you have to accept you willingly signed up to their terms of service when you registered on their platform therefore they effectively hold all the power.

What that means is whether or not any rules were broken (or deemed to have been broken) they have the absolute authority to do what they want and that is not limited to Shuffle, virtually all casinos operate under similar terms and conditions.

I have made it very clear from years ago there is a risk when sending KYC to online casinos and gaming websites because most are anonymous and can sell your private data including documents on the black market. If you are giving up on them after sending your ID and now consider your funds lost, why did you do it in the first place when you always suspected their end game?

In the chat screenshots you made very bold claims about your account on Stake therefore if you had a bad experience at Shuffle I would advise you to get past the setback and forget abut Shuffle and instead focus on Stake.

Results from the FA Cup quarter-final games played on Sunday 17th March:

Chelsea 4-2 Leicester City
Manchester United 4-3 Liverpool





====================






Leicester City showed why they will probably be returning back to the Premier League next season because they played well against Chelsea. The Chelsea victory was tainted when their fans began to boo Sterling but they won the game 4-2 and will face Manchester City in the semi-final. In the other semi-final, Coventry City will play Manchester United. Both semi-finals will take place at Wembley Stadium.

The result from the previous Premier League game was: West Ham United 1-1 Aston Villa

There is a wait of 10 days and these are the next games taking place on Saturday 30th March. The positions for the Champions League could become clear because Aston Villa, Tottenham and Manchester United are playing.

Newcastle United vs West Ham United
Bournemouth vs Everton
Chelsea vs Burnley
Nottingham Forest vs Crystal Palace
Sheffield United vs Fulham
Tottenham Hotspur vs Luton Town
Aston Villa vs Wolverhampton Wanderers 
Brentford vs Manchester United

How will any agency protect stable coins with backing from the government?

When it comes to anything related to crypto, history has taught us anything is possible. Mixers getting seized, exchanges exit scamming, regulation, licences given/not given and many other things happening. Stable coins do not have the best reputation and the fact they can be seized (with or without legitimate concern) on the request of any agency means it is like money in the bank (which can be seized) but the opposite to cash in hand.

Why did you conclude governments will protect stable coins?

I am not sure how something like is even supposed to work. After a licence of any sort is purchased, surely the sale is complete and payment non-refundable after a cooling-off period (if there is one) unless there is serious flaw in the software and the purchaser does not want to patch with any updates.

In your case, simply by returning a licence for a refund simply by asking for the company/website to remove a domain URL from their website does not seem like an appropriate reason for asking to get the money returned, it seems more like an attempt to get highly valued BTC given in lieu of removing the URL.

If there is no legitimate reason or concern to return the licence why would you want to do it or even ask if it is possible to return it?

That tweet aside, there was nothing presented as proof in any of his evidence that support he is Satoshi. He does not even have the private keys from the addresses that are known to be associated with Satoshi. He did a lot of talking but he never provided anything that could prove he is Satoshi. It would be interesting to know what he wrote in that tweet you refer to.

First the title with the obvious (some might say deliberate) grammatical error caught my eye. Then, after reading the OP I tried hard to understand it but failed. Even when I single out just a couple of sentences from the wall of text, I was unable to decipher it. One thing I understood is what I will comment on and this is USDT is not the best money/crypto/stable coin out there.

What on earth does this statement from you mean: "[USDT is best money out there right now because they backing up with btc reserves"

And what do you mean by this: "That's what the btc should be all about backing up the currency value for currency issuer."

Without doubt it was an impossible task to convince all the people that he was Satoshi. He must have known that before he embarked on his journey to get involved with various litigation around the world yet he went on to do it. Whoever it is/was behind him providing financial support to bankroll his agenda cannot have endless pockets.

He will not receive any intellectual property with regards to Bitcoin therefore maybe the ruling is a wake up call for him and his supporters to realise now is a good time to stop this charade.

Good for you. I hope you keep hold of your Bitcoin for a very long time and do not sell even when you get tempted to do so.

So, your account was created in 2017 yet your posts start on 24th January 2024 and you have made 120 post since then. What happened to all your other posts. Furthermore, such as the effort you out in to creating the OP yet you returned to make just one post as a follow-up.

It does look suspiciously like many other accounts out there that are trying to increase their rank by creating threads inviting members to respond yet when they do not receive merits they give up on the thread. Any comments?

The OP has been busy creating threads after his last post here on 5th March 2024. If he wanted to engage in serious discussion it would have happened and he would have been at the forefront of the debate. Instead, he appears to be another account that has created threads in the hope of getting merits and then left them to create others as soon as he realised his efforts did not result in merits.

His claim to be Satoshi has been a time consuming endeavour that was completely unnecessary. Craig Wright will one day look back and question if it was wise for him to constantly claim he is Satoshi. What did he eventually gain from claiming to be Satoshi when he had zero chance of proving it in or out of a Court of law?

Yes, I would agree with that sentiment.

You created the thread 23 pages ago therefore have you read enough thoughts? It seems you probably would have by now and maybe noticed that the thread has outlived any purpose purely because when you have 20 posts per page and then have 23 pages of them, it really should have sufficed to answer your question.

Three Spanish, two English, two German and one French team make up the Champions League quarter finals.

Over two legs, I expect Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid and PSG to go through to the semi-finals. Here is the draw:

Tuesday 9th April
Arsenal vs Bayern Munich
Real Madrid vs Manchester City

Wednesday 10th April
Atletico Madrid vs Borussia Dortmund
Paris Saint-Germain vs Barcelona


---------------------------------

These were the results of the second leg games that took place:

Wednesday 13th March:
Atletico Madrid 2-1 Inter Milan
Agg: 2-2
Atletico Madrid win 3-2 on penalties.

Borussia Dortmund 2-0 PSV Eindhoven
Agg: 3-1

Tuesday 12th March:
Arsenal 1-0 FC Porto
Agg: 1-1
Arsenal win 4-2 on penalties.

Barcelona 3-1 Napoli
Agg: 4-2

Eva, none of us here in the forum are naive enough to not know how a validator link for a licence provided by Curacao or other licencing authority works. We all know the validator link is not the licence and we all know it adds trust as the operational licence is valid at the time of the checking.

What is important to remember is that Blackjack has failed to provide an acceptable plausible reason for not removing the Curacao logo between 1st January 2024 and 19th February 2024 yet it decided to remove the validator link. That was highly suspect conduct.

After it was picked up and mentioned in both associated threads about Blackjack, the Curacao logo was removed and replaced with one from Anjouan with a functional validator link. Though it was a welcomed move on your part, it also raised questions about timing.

As I mentioned earlier on multiple occasions, in my opinion not have a valid licence between 1st January 2024 and 18th February 2024 is not an issue but the fact you stated the Anjouan licence was valid from 1st January 2024 yet failed to provide any proof was counterproductive on your part even though cited confidential company documents as an excuse.

Keeping that one blemish on the reputation of Blackjack aside, you stated you have fixed the exploit mentioned by JackpotRacer and have removed the provably fair image therefore these are excellent steps to gaining the confidence of those considering playing on your website.

I had a look a short while ago and it showed 4 players online. Even with all the third party games and the two licences with validator URLs, the Rocketpot website is still not attracting customers nor visitors.

Keeping aside the one serious allegation against them when they ended up paying a $170k win in periodic payments rather than one withdrawal (and another not so serious incident when bankroll investors were having trouble withdrawing their funds), the Rocketpot website does look clean and tidy as well as very professional yet it cannot manage to hold on to a group of regular players just like it was unable to do when it launched as a one game website offering a crash alternative.

The owner/operator did not shut the website down but nearly 5 years their launch, what more is someone supposed to do to get a business they worked very hard on to be successful?

I have just seen this, thank you for the initiative. I have taken the opportunity to enter the free raffle and would like to thank those parties involved in making this happen.

40 - JollyGood
92 - JollyGood

Thank you

When you created this thread did you factor in the possibility the buying/selling/saving of crypto is based around the personal circumstances of the individual. There is no one  rule applies to all as we are all unequal in our financial circumstances.

With 11 pages in the thread, I will definitely not be reading through it to get a full understanding of what you really should have fully articulated when you created the OP. Your idea for saving and/or investment has been recycled in the forum many times therefore.