i see this as a business opportunity if they do not to be honest. Just go into a casino, buy some chips and then offer your services as intermediary getting paid in crypto and selling the chips. i am not much of a physical casino fan, but I think this would make sense... you know... you charge 3% on top of market price and covert back to fiat to avoid running risks. Would that work? Would this make the casinos actually start that change service by themselves?  I think that it would be a very smart move and mostly risk free, as they do not have to hold bitcoin reserves.

I fully agree with you. Youtube and videos over the internet in general are fantastic, I have learned a lot with these in may practical stuff DIY, gardening, programming,... truly amazing. However there is a tendency to publish content that is super-biased and sometimes simply wrong. On top of that, there is the children issue. It is not only about gambling, it is also about drugs, hate, sex and in general, roadmaps to life that have all the chances of ending in drama. The only thing that can help is to have the parents understanding what is going on and make sure that they explain the children what is that they are seeing and how to interpret it and this has to start at an earlier age: the moment they pick up a phone.

A guide to gambling itself? I am not sure that exists as such, however, depending on the games you play, you may find abundant literature about many games. For example, there are innumerable books on poker strategies and other games that have a logic behind - many of them are simply wrong and propose "systems" that do not work and there are more technical books about statistics and game theory that could potentially serve someone looking for something sophisticated. You can also find books and guides to most casino games, but probably not a full "guide".

I think those sites will have serious compliance issues. In theory, allowing VPNs would defeat the purpose of complying with local laws and regulations and would expose the site to legal action or being banned... What I mean is that I would not be very happy about depositing funds on a site in which I have to play by VPN as I would be running the risk of getting my funds frozen if they decide not to allow it or get pressure from a legal action. I am sure some people in the forum can let me know if this makes sense - where I live, there is plenty of freedom to bet, but I am sure that is not the general case.

Olympics are here! Nowadays you have all the options to bet to almost all sports, but there are not that many occasions to use you knowledge about the international scene of some of the sports to make more interesting bets. For example, football is fine because you would normally get many chances, but what about new sports such as climbing? An also being able to do so almost all day around   Don´t get to crazy about it guys!

Jokes aside, will you be betting on the Olympics? Will that be on top of your usual betting or instead of your usual betting?

It should not be that difficult. At the end of the day, reputation, as defined by games theory, is an element that appears when the transactions are recurrent or when multiple transactions are expected along time between two parties. It would be very rare that you would only transact once with a gambling site, so each time you get a good experience and get paid as promised, or can withdraw you funds successfully the site is building its reputation. TBH, you just need to do things as they should to gain reputation.

At the end of the day the far west is eventually becoming the west coast. Crypto has a value and like anything else that is traded, is subject to taxation and it has been perhaps too long the times in which IRS and other national equivalents have ignored it. I come from a country where the institution that collects taxes is absolutely rapacious and is perfectly able to go back and collect taxes for the last 5 years. Perhaps, what I mean is that is much better to have it regulated.

The 10k threshold seems odd. Is that per year? Per transaction? What about 100 transactions of 9999 usd ?

A long standing discussion yes indeed. The original idea behind bitcoin was to use it as a means for transactions, peer to peer, not fully anonymous but not fully named, uncontrollable and unstoppable. After a few considerations, the community did not reach an agreement so some bitcoin forks occurred, namely bitcoin cash being the most notable and oriented to a lower fee, making it similar to a currency.

As for bitcoin, there are two main reasons to consider it a store of value. Firstly, it is a fact that the amount that is traded is low in comparison with the stores. Secondly, the blocksize is limited so in case too many transactions occur, it actuates as self-regulating brake.

Re local Cuban board, that would be funny. The whole Spanish section of the forum is used by a few people only, but it is really good because we can talk about the topics with people who actually care. A Cuban section would be there, however I am not sure that Cubans would really be able to speak freely or at least to do so without a certain risk.

Cash is not really anonymous. You actually either make a transfer, and has your name or you give it in hand to someone who sees your face and can potentially be recording you.

I take it that you mean volatility other than the one you already have when buying with USD? I think there is a mix of things in your post. Firstly, temporal volatility that happens when the order in not executed immediately. I do not see how that can be an issue if you have an account in coinbase or any other for that matter where an order is executed in seconds.

Then you may have currency volatility, which is high no matter which fiat you choose. Since a stablecoin is pegged to USD, I do not see how does its use improve this. I think I am missing your point.


Whales using banks and delayed orders? Is there any proof or verification of that? Whales will have one or many accounts or use a trading firm.

In friendly matches it may be more difficult to really ascertain the teams strength because in many sports, particularly in soccer, motivation sometimes weights more than raw quality of the players. In a friendly game, it is much more difficult to figure out who is going to put more effort into winning. Also, some teams tend to play harder than other, and during friendly matches that may be much less and would result in a completely different strategy and possibly a different performance. Overall, I think is more difficult to predict.

Simple to answer: you get frequent headaches and your chances of dying of an aneurisma popping in your brain are high.

No, when that happens I will show you my stock ownership certificates of copper mines. They fit better in my cabinet than physical copper.

I am aware that "compassionate use" is used for a range of medicines that somehow are know to provide a healing or mitigating effects yet have not undergone the full testing procedures. Obviously, people who suffer the illnesses that can be treated would recur to the black market or to other countries if denied their medicines at home and would be ripped off in the process.

That would be the perfect legal loophole to apply these high-cost not widely available medicines to specific people who can pay for them and have access to preferential treatment. I am thinking of two presidents now.

As usual, my take on anything that Fidelity, Morgan, Blackrock or any other of the large wealth managers is the same: If they say buy "x" means that they already have a position in "x". Bitcoin is not different, the institutions will have bitcoin as it will serve a purpose and will dump bitcoin like a bounty hunter if that is in their benefit. Bitcoin is what it is thanks to all the community and we should be wary of strangers as their recommendations are no better than those of a shark advising fish.

Why do we end talking about the price everytime that one of the CEOs of large companies talk about adoption? I believe that future growth by use embedded in these platforms is not a great strategy for bitcoin. Yes, I do agree that they would represent a great backing but they are serving the people and that is were adoption should be focused. All large platforms are unlikely to use anything that they do not control and if they do, eventually, they will try to effectively control it.

I am actually paid in both, but most of my income is fiat. It is not much of a problem to convert if I need to do so and, being honest, real world prices in fiat tend to be more stable and predictable, at least in the short term. You could argue that you could also convert from crypto to fiat, but it is a question of covering your expenses in the currency these are indexed to. It would make the same sense to get paid in Yens when you live in France. Inevitably, you would face variations in your budget.

Again, fully confused by New Age gurus you are. People are not "naturally healthy", the life expectancy before there was anything that could be called medicine was 35 years and it still is in countries that cannot afford modern medicine. And it has only increased thanks to science, not just because the humans have become stronger.

Look



Now focus on on 1928 and how the curve goes crazily up. You know what is that? Fleming discovering penicillin. That is what true science and "pharma" do when correctly used. An now, do you see an sensible increase for some regions around 1880? That is Pasteur creating the science of immunology thanks to which you are alive. Don´t bother to go along the line of "I have never taken antibiotics"... your parents and ancestors expectancy of life would have been nil without these.

I can only imagine what you would say if someone got so off-topic in one of your posts. My query remains, is there a therapy that is very expensive, quite effective and personalised for each individual and available for just some people?

I insist that you choose a community in a COVID plant and have a traditional cuppa with them. Better if all you actually use the same cuppa to test your theory.

Re the failed treatment, I sympathise with your partner´s situation, it seems similar to one in my near family. Precisely, no one that calls himself a rational scientific will ever argue that all the answers have been found and that science and pharma have the solution for everything.  However, when a scientific truth is found and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community it is because, as far as humans can reach "truths", that is one of them.

I perfectly understand that if there are no answers to an specific problem or those answers are insufficient, people try to look for alternatives and experiment with themselves. I would do exactly the same and I am not blind to the benefits of natural remedies and good nutrition (hint, is not a full English breakfast).

In the case of the vaccines, it is very clear that 1 year of testing is not enough to give full certainty of their efficacy nor of the long term effects. That is science. However, there is a long stretch from there to saying that is better to remain exposed to an illness that is perfectly known to be highly contagious and is know to cause enough ICU intakes as to block the sanitary system. Sometimes you have to choose the less of two evils, is as simple as that.

Now you are free to go into a denial "there is no problem in the ICUs, it is not really contagious, I am immune because I eat organic carrots, ....) and that is where you are going against truly established facts and your opinion becomes basically irrelevant.