Is there a need to rant? You could simply ask your question properly.

What pathetic sports are you talking about? They're there because there is a demand for them. So you're wrong in saying nobody knows they exist. And you seem to have crossed the line of your rant with your serious allegations of fixed simulated matches.

Anyway, try checking out Cloudbet, FortuneJack, and Playbetr. They have cycling odds there. I hope you'll find your cycling league there.

With this kind of situation, I don't think this applies:


While inflation basically supports the argument of Bitcoin, it cannot totally insulate itself from its effects. Depending on how bad the situation is, Bitcoin might find itself facing slow adoption and low or even falling demand.

Confronted with a slow economic growth, high unemployment rate, and rising prices, people will not only control their spending, they might also lose their savings, and even forced to sell assets which could include Bitcoin. So with a dire economic situation, Bitcoin supply may overwhelm its demand and cause the price to fall.

This kind of policy is long overdue. I hope this Act will be signed into law sooner rather than later. For quite a while already, the likes of Tether's USDT thrives in the market without much regulations. The stablecoin has reached tens of billions in value despite its shady and questionable reputation. Transparency is wanting. With this Stablecoin TRUST Act, stablecoin issuers will have to shape up or else they won't be issued with a license.

My country will have its presidential election a couple of days from now. It's gonna be on Monday, May 9. All the surveys are pointing at the son of the infamous dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and Imelda Marcos as the potential winner. The result is more or less expected to be a landslide victory for the only boy of probably the most hated couple in Philippine history. Second in the surveys is the current vice president, but she's trailing too far behind.

Things could have been easily acceptable since the voice of the people is the voice of god. However, it somehow causes anxiety and worry when the choice of the general populace is not the choice of investors, the sector that plays a very vital role in the country's economy. To make things worse, not only is the namesake of the old dictator not the choice of the sector that creates assets and employment, he is the least of the choices, together with the boxing legend, Manny Pacquiao.^[1][2]

So far, the country's currency has experienced a three-year low, partly due to election concerns.^[3] The stock market is also going down.^[4] And while there is the prospect of a nice ROI months after the elections, this one is a bit different. Not only are the investors wary of the next possible administration, there is also high inflation, a pandemic, and a war far away yet affecting the domestic economy.^[5]

N.B.: This isn't a political discussion.

---

[1] https://www.bworldonline.com/the-nation/2022/03/13/435503/investors-lukewarm-to-marcos-presidency/
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-13/marcos-nears-bottom-in-philippine-markets-poll-favoring-robredo
[3] https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2022/05/04/philippine-peso-falls-to-three-year-low-on-fed-election-worries
[4] https://tradingeconomics.com/philippines/stock-market
[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-06/presidential-elections-spell-fat-philippine-stock-returns

Personally, I prefer religion to stay spiritual and stick to charitable works and teaching universal values. I prefer that religion preaches respect and kindness and peace and love, and not cause unnecessary divide. This is hardly the case, of course, but I believe it is where religion should be focused. Having said this, I don't think religion should campaign for a particular coin or currency. It is none of their business.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

What defamation in particular?

Anyway, social media networks nowadays are playing a vital role in terms of shaping public perception and the day to day life of ordinary people, so it has now also become a ripe avenue to promote investment and all kinds of opportunities. It is probably where your investment offers reach the widest possible audience. So regardless of the possible opposing views, it is probably worth it. As a matter of fact, it is a good open space to disprove those defamation and false accusations and whatever.

Well, it's California, the home of Silicon Valley. It can't be laggard in terms of the latest technologies. It can't be the one to stall its growth. And whether the governor isn't familiar or isn't a fan of crypto, he simply can't go against the entire spirit of the state, although it is a bit ironic that the bill to accept crypto for state services failed to gain approval.

Anyway, more often than not, to encourage, and both adaption and adoption, are equated with regulation. Acceptance is almost always equated with putting up policies and frameworks and rules and guidelines.

I'm not sure if this will be perceived by the public as positive. The public, after all, is divided among pro, anti, and indifferent to Bitcoin. Apparently, to those who don't know about Bitcoin, they couldn't care less. They probably never heard of such news even. To those who are anti, this is definitely positive. And negative to those who wish to see Bitcoin being in use as an acceptable currency. But with how they describe Bitcoin in their justification, I'd rather that they take it down as a donation option.

Anyway, I have never really attached integrity with Wikipedia. While I appreciate them for giving everybody free access to information, I can remember back in the university that if a paper or an article mentions even once that Wikipedia is one of its sources, that paper or article is to be considered a trash. Wikipedia in its design can't be a reliable source of information or knowledge. Well, in all fairness, that seems to have changed now. I'm currently reading a book published by Oxford which has Wikipedia citations.

I'm a little flattered, but more embarrassed. Thank you, just the same!

However, I'm sure that line of mine couldn't even make to the top 500 best excerpts on this old forum. Definitely, it's not the best! The best should be coming from Satoshi himself/herself/themselves and the likes of Hal Finney and the rest of the pioneers who really made a contribution.

And because it was Hal Finney's birthday yesterday, I exerted a little effort to look for a much much better excerpt from the man. I got this one below.


N.B.: I love the prophecy no less.

I'm not so sure about people realizing the truth behind the US dollar. The currency has been subject to criticism for the past decades and yet it remains to be generally strong. Much about the weakening or even the demise of the US dollar has been discussed through the years and yet until today the US dollar remains globally influential. When Nixon removed the gold standard from the US dollar in 1971, there were much talks about its growing instability and yet we are already in 2022 and it's still here. There are still threats against the powerful currency but it remains to be the smacker everyone is after.

I think it is better we leave Warren alone. Let the old man be. Bitcoin is simply not his cup of tea. He is an old dog who is not bent on learning new tricks anymore. He has his standards which have been proven effective and sufficient. He has made a vast amount of wealth in his lifetime. Despite this, he is probably living a simple yet fun life. He has accomplished what others could only dream of.

I guess the only reason why Warren has to respond against Bitcoin over and over again are those selfish people who are still persistently bugging Warren to put some of his wealth into Bitcoin. And that's apparently for the sake of moving Bitcoin's price up. Why can't they stay still and trust Bitcoin's features?

I really doubt it. Elon Musk buying Twitter is more of the desire to earn more and control more. It must not be out of fear. Elon Musk ventured into the great unknown with his space program. Why should he even cower at a child's trick? The richest man on Earth is even trying to colonize Mars, and you think he is afraid of a young boy? For goodness' sake! Elon is not even taking this child seriously.

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia stops accepting Bitcoin donations, but it is a lot more unfortunate that the reasons provided are either fallacious or simply outright wrong.

But I think this is more of Wikipedia's loss than Bitcoin's. After all, it is Wikipedia and not Bitcoin that will benefit from keeping such donation option.

Well, it is their free decision. Wikipedia remains helpful to the public, but so is Bitcoin. And time will tell whether Wikipedia's false impression on Bitcoin will last longer than its need to put such option back.   

Are you sure about this figure? The amount I always encounter in the news is ₱640,000,000 (₱640 million). That's why it was very hard for the current administration to put a stop to it because the revenue is that huge. If it was only ₱60,000,000 (₱60 million) a month, it would have been a lot easier for the president himself to just order its closure.

Although I myself was also an online cockfighting player, I am fully in support of the ban. Not all things are to be measured in monetary terms.

Forget about your far-fetched theory, just focus on Bitcoin as it is. Whether Bitcoin was created by the Fed or the CIA, whether Satoshi Nakamoto was just a myth, Bitcoin could be independently appreciated for what it is. And it is what it is, a truly decentralized, trustless, immutable currency. So embracing Bitcoin should not be emanating from bizarre theories. Rather, it is through an objective scrutiny of its features.

Has this been signed into a law already? I have yet to read a news stating that this bill has already passed into a law. I think this remains to be a bill until today as President Cortizo has yet to affix his signature on it. So we will know in the coming days if this will be approved or vetoed or will be resubmitted to congress for specific amendments before being reconsidered.

So far what is clarified is that Bitcoin is not to be declared as a legal tender in the country, but a lawful currency which is to be accepted in private transactions as well as in government transactions such as paying taxes.

It remains interesting to know how the likes of XDC Network, Elrond, Stellar, IOTA, Algorand, and others have been included in the proposed law and whether they will pass the review of the president. 

While a lot are not really that excited about this development, this is still good news. While even Bitcoin supporters are showing skepticism about the declaration of Bitcoin as a legal tender by one of the poorest countries in the world, this is still adoption and growth.

This seems to be the kind of news which even Bitcoin detractors and critics would easily shrug or even laugh off in dismissal as worthless. Oh, well, Bitcoin and its growth have always been underestimated.


https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/1404622102473457668/photo/1

Is this still visible until now? And also the rest of the small round green icons next to the exchange's name?

Before it was like this, right? There were small icons next to the exchange's name and if you hover on each one of them, a message would be displayed indicating what it means.



But now it looks like this already. The small green icons are gone.



Or am I missing something here? Am I right that this is where one should know whether the exchange requires bank card verification or not?

More than giving a warning to newbies about the specific project, token, or platform they are investing in or using, they should generally be warned about the use of the word decentralized.

It has been so much hyped in the recent years and even until now. It has been labeled as the next best thing in finance. It has been called the future. They should be wary of it. They should be aware how it is now being used as a sort of a bait. Decentralization at the very least shouldn't have a single point of failure. These billions of stolen coins prove otherwise.

It won't be until around the year 2140 when Bitcoin miners would only be rewarded solely with transaction fees. Until that time, Bitcoin miners would be rewarded mostly with newly minted coins. At least 99% of their income is coming from new coins. So I guess it wouldn't be much of a problem in the next decade or so. Whatever happens in the year 2140 and beyond, we can only guess. For now, it has been shown that despite the starting 50BTC reward per block mined decreasing into 25BTC and then into 12.5BTC and then 6.25BTC right now, miners are still increasing in numbers and difficulty is still registering new ATHs.