I'm a bit bored of Cancelo dominating the division. I'd prefer to see him going against bigger opponents than this, even if he has previously beat them. I had high hopes for Billy Joe, but we all know how that ended. Has it been determined whether Billy Joe will be returning to boxing after his injury? I don't really keep up with boxing as much as I used to since martial arts entered my life.

I feel like Jon Jones is going to price himself out of any potential fights. I know there's been hints of his return for a while now, without anything substantial happening. The thing is Jon Jones was a super star when he left, but I think he's expecting a title fight for big money right off the bat on his return, which I'm not sure if that's something that Dana will agree too, and something I would even support happening.

Stipe is the fight to make, however not sure Jon Jones would be willing to do it without having a unfair share of the funds.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your opinion here. theymos isn't very public about his work put toward the forum, unless it needs to be public. I think he's done a rather good job over the years. A lot of users would have become overzealous with their perceived power, and I don't think that's the case here. Lack of changes doesn't necessarily mean inactivity. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes than just changes. If anyone has ever ran a website with moderate success, they'll understand that there's general maintenance that needs to be done. Also, I suspect that theymos has a fairly active life outside the forum, which is also understandable.

I do agree with your view of signature campaigns, no doubt they are attracting a rather large part of the community. Fortunately, theymos' has decided up until this point to allow them, since they have caused quite some trouble in the past with spamming, and I believe theymos' has likely considered altering it before, but acknowledged the importance of them, and the eco system that it brings to the forum.

I think if signature campaigns were disallowed then there would likely only be those that are truly interested about discussing Bitcoin, and a few veterans users here.

This is down to Google. If they don't want scammers advertising on their platform, which was the original intention for removing the advertisements in the first place, then they need to moderate what can or can't be advertised. However, that opens a can of worms in itself. Unfortunately, its a pretty difficult issue to tackle, although I would expect a company like Google with their finances to be able to put together something at least acceptable, even if it was biased. It is their platform, so they define the rules.

The key word here is; "claimed". That isn't accurate data, and the only accurate data that would be available would be from the gambling companies themselves, which they'll never release unless they are required to do so, because it would be bad for business. Imagine, advertising to your potential customers that only 1, 5, 10% of their customers make a profit. If you take a look at their advertisements, they usually advertise the fact that you could win big.

Unfortunately, there's no real accurate way of predicting the success rate of a average gambler, and there is no way of accessing any evidence based results. 

He's definitely good, and has manged to shine in a Aston Villa side which I would describe as overwhelmingly average, however they did over perform last season, which is probably because of the impact that Grealish had, but I don't think hes a huge improvement over Manchester City's existing players.

If Manchester City get Kane or actually any prolific striker, we'll be one step closer to having a one team league, similar to that of the French league. I don't want that, and that's exactly the reason financial fair play was introduced, to prevent this from happening.

Remember, that Manchester City did very well, and sort of run away with the league on multiple occasions with Aguero being out for half the season multiple times. If they have a player that is as good, and doesn't have as many injury problems, that's a massive problem for the balance of the league.

It was originally allowed, however it was removed a little while ago. I believe the justification of this was; the amount of scams that were being advertised, and they deemed Cryptocurrency high risk. I don't know exactly what has changed for them to change their mind on this, but I would assume its because of the reduction of ICOs which were notoriously known for being scams. 

Yeah its exaggerated, but that's not the issue here. The issue is what the public perceive to be true. Although, I do think we should probably be focusing on becoming eco friendly somewhat, although I don't think its as big of an issue as its perceived to be. Climate change can be debated from multiple different view points, including natural variation, and while we do know that humans are contributing to the atmosphere by what we are pumping out into the atmosphere, I also believe that's greatly exaggerated on the impact. For example, before humans or at least before the industrial era Bitcoin had a much higher mean temperature.

Anyway, we are going down a rabbit hole there that I would rather avoid, but getting back to the issue that Bitcoin has; what we need to do is change the public perception, as that will help adoption, and more companies like Tesla will be more willing to change their mind. Remember that Tesla will be on the extreme side, since they are a company that is promoting greener cars, and therefore having a technology such as Bitcoin being associated with pollution, isn't a great look on them, and I think it was likely pressure from the stakeholders that they reverted their decision on accepting Bitcoin.

Its currently the best solution we have, despite it being rather resource heavy. Although, I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. The difficulty of Bitcoin won't always be increasing, and as block rewards are reduced, and eventually removed albeit a very long time, its likely that the amount of users contributing towards the hash rate will significantly drop.

This isn't exactly accurate. This is goal specific. If you want to add 100k to your net worth, then holding just 0.1 Bitcoin might be enough in the future, if Bitcoin was to reach 1 million per coin. Obviously, that's quite a specific example, but my point is you don't need to own 1 full Bitcoin to be able to profit, and in fact accumulating as much as you can is probably the best bet, whether that's 0.1, 0.005 or 0.0006. At the end of the day, that's more than you would have had if you passed up the idea of investing.

I've always had more success doing specific bets with longer odds, than going for favourites. For example, predicting x to win, while keeping a clean sheet or x to win, but under 2.5 goals. That way you can quite easily get odds up to 5.00 for the favorite, and up to 20.00 for underdogs. In the Premier League teams like Burnely who are notoriously good at defending against bigger teams by sitting behind the ball are a great bet for the odds.

If your using gambling as a way to profit; you should probably reconsider getting into gambling in the first place as that just sounds the perfect breeding grounds for a gambling addiction. I'd suggest using gambling as a bit of fun, as opposed to a earning opportunity, unless your doing matched betting.

Its why gambling exists as a business model; they know that its pretty much guaranteed money for them. The odd few users will find a profit, but the vast majority will have lost a lot, and keep spending despite losing a lot. 

I'm not really that concerned about Man City getting Grealish. I don't think he justifies that 100 million price tag. I mean, Sancho who I would say is arguably better than Grealish by quite some margin went for less. The issue is if they get Harry Kane, I know that Kane is trying to force a move at the moment, and I think everyone, but Man City fans are hoping it doesn't happen. It would be the biggest example of buying the league that I've seen, and it begs the question what's happened to financial fair play? I know that Manchester City has previously battled the financial fair play, and actually won in court, but surely they couldn't get away with it if they were to acquire Kane for 150-200 million?

I prefer to try, and hook people into the idea that Bitcoin could potentially change their life rather than explaining Bitcoin on the spot. Bitcoin, isn't something that you could explain to a person new to the concept within a few sentences. Just look at the responses here, and see for yourself; If you are new, and want to learn about Bitcoin, you have to avoid jargon. However, that's not an easy task. Unfortunately, Bitcoin is quite technical, and there is no other words for certain concepts. For example, when you try to explain mining to someone, and they ask, but how does difficulty work, your probably going to mention the fact that Bitcoin uses Proof Of Work, and then you have to explain that. Its impossible to explain within a sentence.

Instead, tell them something along the lines of this; Bitcoin will not only change your life, but change the entire worlds. Are you willing to put in the time to learn about it to get ahead of the curve?

I've said this in the past, at its current state Bitcoin isn't exactly beginner friendly, and while there has been leaps, and bounds of progress on making it easier for users to use it as a currency, its no where near the level it is required to be at if we want mainstream adoption to occur.

Even wallet software probably needs to be improved, its too complex for the average user that isn't computer literate, and doesn't know too much about Bitcoin. I actually think making Bitcoin more intuitive, and therefore easier to use will over come most of our issues when it comes to adoption. 

The way the world is going, it'll likely be a legal requirement for a ATM to require Know Your Customer (KYC). I know that the UK, and the USA are particularly trying to introduce KYC so everything they can. I've said previously I partly understand why, although I don't agree on the implementation of it.

From what I can gather, and have seen the fees are extremely high almost to the point that any regular Bitcoin user who has access to an exchange or Peer To Peer (P2P) will probably opt to use them instead. At least for regular transactions.

Unfortunately, Bitcoin isn't likely to be adopted by everyone, and by the time that people start taking notice of it globally, it'll likely be distributed to the wealthy, rather than those that are currently poor. If you take a look at some high profile people, they are likely invested in Bitcoin. I believe Elon claimed that himself, and Tesla have invested millions into Bitcoin, so its likely that the wealth divide will be just as big. However, the early adopters that hold onto their Bitcoin, will likely become wealthy, but I don't think its going to eradicate the debt issue, and the fact that most people of today are poor. 

if he's guilty, he's committed fraud intentionally, and ran from the authorities. If the recent claim is accurate too, then he was stealing from his former employer, which is not something I'd advocate for or feel sorry for if its his own doing. I don't think it was stealing out of desperation either, i.e trying to put food on the table, instead it sounds like it could of potentially been through greed. However, that's assuming he is indeed guilty of course.

That's not entirely true. There will be legitimate companies welcoming this news, since any exposure to their company will benefit them. Plus, as much as I dislike Google there's no denying that the vast majority of people use their search engine, and its probably the best in terms of searching up things on the internet. My dislike is because of the privacy issues that arise from using it.

I'm obviously not trying to discredit Bitcoin, I'm saying that the EULA will likely cater to the fact that Bitcoin isn't legal tender in most countries, including the one that which the company exists. So, while Bitcoin most definitely is a real currency, its not registered globally as that by, at least technically. Hence the suggestion of creating a virtual based currency for the server, rather than integrating via Lightening directly.

They probably bring more advantages than disadvantages, and I think a lot of users here are neglecting the fact that the Bitcoin ATMs bring exposure to Bitcoin. If your a member of the public, and you're just strolling through town, and see the ATM your likely to be quite intrigued, and that alone creates positive exposure to Bitcoin. The thing with ATMs, people are so used to using them, they have come inclined to trust them, which by having a Bitcoin ATM we are effectively creating that trust by making Bitcoin appear more legit, because don't forget the average person likely thinks Bitcoin is still "play" money or used by criminals.

Unfortunately, their high fees do quite a lot of damage to the use of them, and the exposure they bring, as soon as people see the fees they aren't as interested.