Wouldn't it still depend on how much "convenience" Bitcoin could actually provide and whether said convenience is, well, actually convenience to the party using it? Like take, for example, Bitcoin's ability to transact worldwide without borders and problems and whatnot compared to actually using fiat from one country to another, who says that said problem wouldn't be addressed in the future right? The only real way imo for Bitcoin to actually be the main currency to be used is if Fiat was complete. I hardly think that people would suddenly turn to Bitcoin just because others said its good, when in their current situation, Bitcoin and fiat pretty much does the same thing that they always need it to do.

It's usually better to buy the coin before the burning since burning is done in the first place to reduce the supply so that the price of the token/coin itself would rise up, that or the supply has blown over too much that they needed to reduce it so that they can regain control of the economy of the token. I say usually since it doesn't always apply, it's still an optional kind of thing and you would still need to judge yourself whether it would actually rise up or not. Checking out their white paper and judging whether the project would actually work is still the best decision.

Well, it was quite a natural reaction since most people seem to have that idea where they should buy when it's pumping, and not before the pump. This leads to them basically losing a lot of money due to entering the market late, letting those who bought early on profit from their mistakes. I'm not sure if it's full on FOMO, but there is certainly a part of those who bought late that are thinking of it like that. I'd actually wait a few more weeks since it might drop off before the ber months, then go slowly back up from there. We might just exceed the past ATH then.

Well, that's with the current situation where the value of Bitcoin is still fluctuating by huge margins. In the near future though, I expect it would naturally die down since its supply wouldn't exactly increase anymore and you can't exactly expect it to continue rising even at that point. It would be used no matter what since its use is as a currency, it wouldn't really work as a store of value if there's no issue with the fiat value after all, that would be quite senseless imo. There are also fixes being done to the inefficiencies that Bitcoin has in terms of performing as a currency, so in the long term it would really act as one.

They could be good, but it's not like one relies on the other. Poker pretty much is a player vs player game, while sports betting is based on analysis of the teams and whatnot. At its core, they're both analysis types of games, but the area they analyze is different. Though in general imo, gamblers would have one way or another experienced both sides so they'd have quite the familiarity with both types of gambling. Not to mention that if they're actual hard core gamblers, experiencing other types of gambling once or twice wouldn't really be rare.

But bettors sometimes don't really look at the eSport team only, but rather the sport itself. They love the sport itself, and hence know a lot about it and can easily identify the good teams from the bad teams, and in case of black horses, can easily identify if the match is going wrong or not. Casual people who watch sports can afford to do that, but I don't think in the first place they should even bet. Also you're betting since you're expecting them to win, (or to lose), it's literally the goal imo.

Not really a time limit, a budget should be more efficient imo. Too much isn't that bad, it doesn't necessarily give you a losing streak, could give you a winning one and honestly if you did, feel free to continue. It's money won anyway. Just like in trading, as long as you don't go into negative, I'd reckon that you can still keep going (though if your goal was to earn, then really, stop lmao). YOu said it yourself, it should be fun, so why should they stop when they could still gamble with no loss right? And even if they did use up their entire funds, that was a set budget for you to use to play anyway, no hurt done imo.

I mean it shouldn't, it's a coin that is not really backed by any physical company and is only affected by supply and demand and is located on the internet, unless covid has a digital variant virus, then it shouldn't be possible.

Nothing. Honestly, even without the pandemic, the current progress would still have continued (maybe except for that sharp drop when covid went and spread into a lot of countries.

Bitcoin isn't some magic place where people can earn money man. People may have earned a lot in Bitcoin, but the same could be said to be those who lost a lot. When someone earns in trading, someone loses, so really, it's not and shouldn't be a "source of income" for those non-traders, well at least, not the main source.

The process is generally the same, as well as the type of games and whatnot. The difference is actually like how fiat transactions and Bitcoin transactions are, it's quite comparable to it. As you said, transactions and wins are transparent, and not only that, it also takes into account the advantages that Crypto brings as a currency compared to fiat. Still I don't think there's a full crypto casino that fully uses the blockchain to use it in everything? There's still a mix of traditional casinos in the mix from what I know.

Don't take it word for word I must say. The meaning of the "house always wins" here is that in the long term, users would only lose money, and not really win if they were to keep gambling, while the house, would always earn money even if you win, since you're just going to gamble it back. It's a simple but vicious cycle. Heck, even if you win, just consider the amount of money you actually lost before winning that amount. Sure, you may be one of those rare people who won after a few games, but that case is rare a f and can't really be considered as a normal situation when taking into account other gamblers.

Bots are in the end, an automated process that YOU yourself start or state. It basically follows on whatever algorithm or sort that you set, so really, without any knowledge of what or how to trade, bots aren't worth the effort. They're stuff that is used to make the tedious processes more automated, but those "tedious" processes are repetitive ones most of the time with close to zero deviation. Trading on the other hand, almost always has that random deviation that is sometimes pretty huge, so if hit, you'd pretty much lose a lot.

Well, it's like an investment but with rng elements, basically close to how investments get returned to you depending on how the stock or coin actually develops (former is based on rng luck coded AND how well the game does, latter is based on how well it does). I wouldn't really call them a gamble tbh. It's closer to an investment imho, and besides, it'd actually earn more in the short term since most nft games are play to earn. They basically return a set amount of profit every month, unlike investment which is pretty stagnant most of the time.

I'd reckon they'd want to watch what happens and then make a move based on that plus other considerations depending on the state of their country. Plus, it's still a questionable decision especially for developing countries since they need to take into account a lot of factors since adding crypto into their system may bring more damage than benefits. They may just be too assed to actually regulate or create laws that surround crypto, or is putting their attention into more important details that must be addressed. There's a lot of possibilities tbh, just that it's quite difficult to identify since each country has their own situation.

It's the current state yes, but it doesn't mean it would last forever. As others have said, the price of Bitcoin is based on the simple logic of supply and demand, the price was never expected to always go up since the supply is limited. Most people who expect that Bitcoin would go up are thinking of the time frame where its supply would still be increased by a sizeable bit. By then, the only reason Bitcoin would actually increase in price would be if coins were lost permanently, companies hodl a huge amount (and at the same time, would probably incur a huge amount of loss), or there's a financial crisis where they used Bitcoin as a safe asset.

Well if we consider only the year 2021, heck even if you consider it from its start to today, it'd still be bullish. We may be seeing a downtrend right now, but that's considering the fact that we came from the peak of the price of Bitcoin. And heck this isn't even a downtrend anymore imo, when we went to $29k then maybe, but now? Big nope. Bitcoin was always on a bullish trend. Also, aren't most of the well-known altcoins on a bullish trend right now? Was well known that they follow the trend of Bitcoin most of the time.

Because institutional investors are people who would actually bring big news to the crypto space. They're pretty similar to any other whale imo, but it does bring that huge advertisement effect since they are a big company that has its name well known to a lot of people, compared to a single-person whale. Though I do think that companies actually trying to hodl crypto is bad news since they're financial capability is a lot higher than some other whales. If they were to disseminate it as a currency then it could help a lot in trying to spread the coin to a lot more entities, but if not, then it's just a negative imo.

It's not like the casino isn't already using electricity and internet though... Setting up the systems that they need to accept Crypto would take some costs to be fulfilled, but it's a one-time fee at most, and casinos could surely afford that. Maybe a scanner code of sorts that would automatically deduct the funds they used once leaving the table or something. Again, a one-time cost that they'd have to shoulder, but it does improve customer experience if they're going to accept crypto.

You can't actually? Well, loans or financial custodians could be a thing, but really, you asking that question is like asking how can I let the money sitting on my piggy bank profit, without actually pulling it out. Additionally, giving it to financial custodians defeats its purpose ngl, why bother buying Bitcoin when you're just gonna ask others to keep it for you, profit or not. I'd honestly expect more security with fiat than Bitcoin in that case ngl. I'd up for the DCA investment style, it's what I use right now and it doesn't hit my wallet that much with all the finances and stuff.

And that's why the current system of taking care of addicts is at an impasse, since the government nor the addicts themselves are actually able to do anything, since well, because of personal freedom. Ngl, the government DOES care (well, at least some of them I suppose), it's just that their care is way too old, ineffective, and useless, that it seems like they actually don't give a single damn about the current state of gambling addiction. It's a sad state yes, but it has been like that for a long time imo.

It's all about the lack of knowledge the majority of people have about Bitcoin, which just proves how lazy and low people are with understanding stuff. The internet is literally there, to be used as a free resource that they can use to understand it but no, people are irrational at stuff, so the first impression they have about something would probably be the lasting impression they'd always have, unless they themselves actively study it. Not to mention if their first impression was them being fooled, not really the best first experience one could get.