OP, here is a thread by user Mahdirakib: Information of Crypto Casinos License and KYC requirements.

This might somehow guide you in your next choice of crypto casino. Most of them actually don't demand KYC when you register or open an account, but there might come a time in the future when they will require it from you. This will probably happen when there's a significant amount of money that's to be withdrawn. This may sound sneaky but this is the prevailing practice, unfortunately.

There is indeed some truth in your observation. I'm referring to the seemingly regionalization in terms of Bitcoin adoption. This is particularly observed in the Latin American countries where various bills supporting Bitcoin are either planned or submitted to congress for deliberation.

Bitcoin is also widely adopted in Europe, where countries are more technologically advanced. In contrast, many countries in Africa are more or less indifferent to its growth.

But I guess this isn't a conspiracy. Neither is it about a massive increase in GDP from Bitcoin adoption. I guess this is simply about how countries appreciate Bitcoin and their level of awareness.

I guess I'm with these users. Let the color remain to somehow remind other users of the track record of the exchange. If they wish to check further, they would know whether such issues are already resolved or not, and how quick.

By removing the red color altogether it would appear as if the exchange has a stellar track record. It could be misleading. An exchange that never had a red and an exchange with a hundred 'resolved' reds may look the same. That would be unfair. That would somehow defeat the idea of a transparent and honest review or feedback system.

91- Darker45

Please and thank you!

There is no such feature here, although a request could be sent to the administrators. But since the account in question is a newly-created account, as RikandMorty1 suggested, your friend would rather create another one. So rather than make posts using the account with the wrong username, it would be better to have another one with his preferred username. That would be the easiest route. While some requests for name change are granted, I think it takes more time.

I guess this is not a case of either-or. Neither is this a case of which comes first. Bitcoin was born as a digital currency in the form of a computer program. I think it's not hard to imagine this because something could be both at the same time. It's like a person who is both a father and a son at the same time. This is not some kind of a mind-boggling invention that is both a circle and a square at the same time. Bitcoin was meant to be a digital currency and for it to happen a program has to be made. And then Bitcoin was born.

I guess this is more or less like explaining Bitcoin to a five-year old kid. It's probably even easier because these friends of yours must have already an understanding or idea of how money, the internet, a smart phone or computer, or the law of supply and demand works. Of course, you don't have to delve into very technical terms and jargons. Perhaps money could be used as a foundation or a starting point. You would probably need to use a lot of simple comparisons and analogies.

The answer could either be yes or no. It doesn't mean that because they are online gambling streamers they wouldn't get addicted to gambling. But it also doesn't follow that since they are online gambling streamers, they will get addicted to gambling. Many of these streamers are primarily streamers rather than gamblers. They are promoters or marketers rather than serious gamblers. And they're paid as streamers. They're not simply wasting money. They're sponsored.

My answer would depend on the particular coins that you have in your portfolio. If what you've got is Bitcoin, I wouldn't mind keeping it for more years. If those are made up of altcoins, I think I'd be happy with the 55% profit and convert them into Bitcoin. If you what you have is Bitcoin invested in lending, staking, or whatever centralized platform, I'd also be satisfied with that profit and withdraw.

By the way, I'm now primarily a HODLer.

There's so much we can hate about capitalism, yes; but I wonder, which alternative, which truly works in reality, is better? The system which precedes capitalism like mercantilism was definitely not as free. Or should we opt for socialism? Or, is the idea of free market realistic, and could actually be translated into real day-to-day commerce?

Anyway, I agree with you that this special tax is not going to address anything. If at all, it will only further burden the consuming public. After all, as I've said, everything will only be passed on to them. You impose more tax responsibilities on them, they will simply increase prices and things will continue running smoothly from their end.

I don't think the US alone could do that. The US can't probably make up for what Russia supplies to the entire EU should EU decide to completely cut oil dependence from Russia. But the US has some allies that will probably come together to support EU's demand if asked to. After all, it's not only Russia that is rich in oil. But, in truth, I doubt if EU will totally cut off Russia's oil supply in the region. Not only is its effect more or less impossible to bear, some EU countries will probably not agree.

Personally, I don't agree in categorizing poker under sports. Of course, the game is not purely luck-based. There's an element of skill and mental prowess that is involved. But in a competition where the level of skill is the ultimate measure, poker is simply different. In a game of poker, luck is the ultimate measure. However excellent your bluffing skill may be, if the opponent has the best hand possible, he/she will call every raise that you'll make and you will lose. That's how a poker game goes.

This is good, of course! But my hunch is that the primary motive why the parents are sending their children to you to learn about whatever it is you're doing is that they also want them to earn even if they're unemployed.

This is basically all about making money. And this is something every Bitcoin teacher needs to dispel from those who stumbled upon Bitcoin at some point and developed the impression that it is a way to earn quickly and easily. Because that isn't Bitcoin.

So I take exception to your 5^th point. I guess that's incorrect.

Are you sure this is actually what's being said in the news? The news is not about exchanging Bitcoin in the banks. It's not what this is all about. This is about banks closing the accounts of crypto exchanges on the ground that crypto could be used for money laundering.

But I see incoherence here. First, these exchanges are legally operating and approved by no less than the central bank and the regulating authorities, which means that they are all AML-compliant. So why are these banks making decisions that are in effect a contestation against the approval and the issuance of license from the central bank and the country's regulating bodies themselves?

Second, the decision is basically grounded on fear, potential, or possibility. But does fiat money not have the same potential? Is fiat money not being laundered every minute of the day? Have they not checked the figures which says up to trillions in USD are actually laundered every year? That's larger than the entire Bitcoin or even crypto market cap. So why are they not imposing the same decision on fiat if it's this fear that they're taking into consideration?

If and when Bitcoin is regulated, it does not necessarily mean that it is becoming centralized. Regulations, fair and proper ones at least, don't have to take away a cryptocurrency's best feature.

The reason why I am supporting regulations on the cryptocurrency market is that majority of crypto projects are simply created to prey on innocent people and take away their money. They are totally free to start a project anytime, even with unsustainable and simply ridiculous tokenomics, start an ICO or IEO or whatever, and make money. The project fails; they create another one and, again, make money.

There is no office or agency whatsoever which scrutinizes or approves any of these projects.

A part of me somehow agrees that self-custody is not really for everyone. There seems to be people who simply can't handle as important as information as the seed phrase of the wallet where all their life savings are stored. But I guess it's more of we're not yet prepared or we're not yet built to be our own banks. In a way, it's not in our DNA yet. And it is because we're not used to this kind of responsibility. We're so used to rely on banks and other custodial services. We're so used to have a third party secure our wealth.

But I guess we're already starting to transition, with Bitcoin giving us the opportunity to really function as our own banks. But it implies a lot of awareness and education especially in terms of security. But it's happening.

97- Darker45

Please and thank you!

Actually, this is also true in other industries, not just the oil industry. I've been seeing local news headlines of how the businesses in the retail industry, banking industry, energy, and others are registering higher net profits every quarter and every year.

It makes me wonder; there's the pandemic, there's the invasion in Ukraine, there's the rising national debt, there's the rising unemployment rate, rising of the prices of goods and services, rising inflation rate, and so on and so forth and yet the business sector are making more and more money.

The ordinary people are tightening their belts, now more than ever, because everything comes with a higher price now. And yet businesses are unaffected, declaring double digit growth in profit. Why? Because all else are passed on to the consumers. Business people don't compromise their profit.

Safer than centralized exchanges at least, but not the safest. Not the best of choice, of course. But, at the very least, if Coinbase goes down, your funds are safe because you have the private keys of your funds, which also means you can import your account into another wallet, a better one at that, open-source at least. And if I were you, I would do that. There's actually a wide array of free and open-source wallet options out there. You might want to check out Electrum, BlueWallet, Green Wallet, Samourai, BRD, Wasabi, to name a few.

Of course, you don't save your wealth in a currency or an asset which depreciates. That would be stupid. It defeats the very purpose of saving. So Bitcoin is the better choice.

But then we cannot deny that the world revolves around fiat. It is next to impossible to live with Bitcoin alone. Stores, shops, schools, hospitals, hotels, transportation, and so on accept fiat rather than Bitcoin. Therefore, you need fiat. So keep your savings in Bitcoin but it doesn't mean that you'll convert all your fiat into Bitcoin. You still should keep a good amount of fiat with you.