I share this bank experience with you a number of times. Not only do I dislike it, I hate it very much. When they raise questions, it's as if you, their valued client, is a suspect. They're asking questions as if your money is earned through illegal means.

Anyway, we have more or less the same experience. I was also an expat. Aside from gambling, one of the earliest practical uses I had with Bitcoin is remittance. But it did not actually take away entirely all the hassles my family had to go through. There's no problem in depositing Bitcoin, sending it to my family, them converting it to fiat, and so on. The problem is that the local crypto wallet which is duly licensed by our country's central bank is requiring KYC. Not only that, upon withdrawal of the money, if through an over-the-counter transaction, the bank staff will still ask some questions.

Yeah, that's exactly what it is saying, specifically that Binance does not have a license to operate really. Binance, along with other companies, are operating because they are applying for a license and the government of Singapore is benevolent enough to allow them to operate while their license applications are still in the process. However, as the article says, dozens of license applications are already rejected or withdrawn possibly for failing to meet certain regulatory requirements.


Husires has a point. That's probably the reason why Binance is withdrawing its license application, because it cannot provide what the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is asking. That's precisely the same reason why Binance also withdrew its registration application with the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). They did not cooperate. They'd rather pull out their application than have themselves closely scrutinized by the authorities.

Bitcoin's price has always been appreciating in the larger picture despite the short term ups and downs. In addition to the depleting supply to be mined, if we take into consideration the fact that only a small percentage of the world's population is into Bitcoin, that only a handful of traditional institutions and investors are into Bitcoin, that El Salvador is the only country that have adopted it as a legal tender, and so on, it is logical to assume that the price will certainly balloon in the coming years and decades.

Afraid? Not necessarily. Well, maybe some, but I guess there a handful reasons why certain banks show strong disapproval of crypto. Perhaps many of these banks have yet to really explore the basics of crypto and its potential. Or perhaps the highly unregulated characteristic of crypto truly bothers them. Or since banks, being financial institutions, are rather stringent, they seem to have a distaste of the anarchist, irreversible, pseudo-anonymous nature of crypto. But, make no mistake, many of them are already joining the community.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Binance has a license in Singapore. They are only allowed to operate by the Singaporean government pending approval of their license application. So their operation in the country does not signify a license. What is being withdrawn, therefore, in this process of Binance shutting down its Singapore operations is their license application. By withdrawing their license application, Binance is in effect losing its legal reason to operate.

This is primarily due to Singapore's rigid crypto policies. And also, this is not the first time Binance withdrew a license application.

In my place, there are many networking companies. One way to earn from this setup is by recruiting new members. The new members will pay a registration fee and part of that money will be earned by the recruiter. The new member will now be recruiting as well so that he/she will also earn. Do you know why this setup is not considered a Ponzi scheme? It is because they have a product to sell.

In a way, that's how Bitcoin goes. Bitcoin is not shelling out money for nothing at all. It is not an investment on purely nothing that promises a high ROI, which is what Ponzi really is. Buying Bitcoin means buying a currency that is decentralized, scarce, permission-less, seizure-proof, immutable, pseudo-anonymous, and so on.  

If you are recommending that people borrow money or take loans so that they could invest in metaverse projects, I completely disagree and would even go as far as considering this as a very bad financial advice.

You don't borrow money to risk on investments, whatever investment it may be, not even on Bitcoin. And Metaverse investments are far far riskier than Bitcoin.

As a matter of fact, and you could take this as a financial advice, if possible, avoid borrowing at all.

As to whether this campaign will be one of the longest-running campaigns on this forum or not, we cannot tell. Surely, it will depend on how much improvement this campaign gave to their platform's statistics, probably in terms of number of new users, number and amount of bets, and so on.

But the point is that however well they promote their site, for as long as the accusations are rising and remain unsolved, they couldn't reach the success they want. User experience should be their priority.

Why is Luckywins presenting a fake Gibraltar License when their site is saying that the company "operates under Master License NV4457557 granted by the Curacao?"^[1] Or did I miss something here? I was confused. Does Gibraltar not allow any casino unless it could provide a local license to operate?

Anyway, as per correctcasinos review, LuckyWins Casino is not recommended due to unclear license situation, among others.^[2] So I guess there is indeed something wrong with the legality of their entire operation.

---

[1] https://www.luckywins.io/
[2] https://www.correctcasinos.com/luckywins-casino-review/

Oh, yes, they will reimburse the victims just as Mt. Gox, Cryptopia, Livecoin, and other hacked centralized exchanges will also reimburse their clients of lost funds. You know the story. Well, $200 million is probably not that huge and the company could very well refund all their victims down to the last Satoshi but I do hope it will not take forever. And, surely, every single client will have to prepare their personal information to be submitted to the very exchange that failed to protect their money.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but you seem to reduce poverty to the failure of individuals. The issue of poverty is rather complex so to speak. It is not even simply about a man having nothing to eat, much less about his failure to manage whatever he has-- time, wealth, and otherwise. 

From where I am writing, there are structural and systemic causes of poverty. An industrious farmer remains poor all his life despite giving his all.

I cannot tell because 2009 is too early. Was there anybody selling Bitcoin as early as 2009? After all, Bitcoin was so easy to mine back then. Are you sure you don't have even the faintest idea of where you probably bought your Bitcoin? As far as open history is concerned, the first Bitcoin transaction in the open world took place in 2010 when Laszlo bought pizzas. The first trading where Bitcoin was assigned a USD price was also in 2010. Silk Road, probably the most popular marketplace in Bitcoin's history, came out in 2011.

Just a little point of disagreement. Not even the small ones but especially the small ones. And I am not only referring to land area or population, I am referring to small economies especially. Those that are disadvantaged by the global fiat system. Those that are not attended to by the global financial institutions. These are the discriminated countries where most citizens are deprived of banking services, preyed upon by traditional money transmitters, and who are the receiving end of intolerable inflation rates.

If I were to answer your question, it wouldn't be on the basis of tax. I am living in a developing country where tax laws are archaic and are not implemented as they are. Tax policies here couldn't keep up with the times. So tax authorities fail not only to monitor the citizens' actual income but also to collect their due taxes. Having said that, you could have as many Bitcoin as you want without paying a single centavo for tax and would continue to live the rest of your life without worrying that the tax bureau would one day knock on your door.

So while I would want much of my BTC to be anonymous, it would be because of safety reasons.

I don't know whether you're only having a beef with Bitsler or you're simply promoting Stake in a poor manner. Either way, they are two different platforms offering different features in different ways. It's actually nice to compare and contrast two crypto casinos provided it is objective. Yours apparently is just branding one the bad casino and the other the good casino.

At the end of the day, both casinos have their own fair share of accusations and complaints. Neither one of them have fully satisfied all their clients.


Well, both are casinos. Both are gambling platforms. In other words, both of them are designed to take money from you. Neither of them are designed to give. They're both designed to receive. The more you lose, the more they're happy.

It's nice to hear from somebody who has really experienced things first hand.

So, indeed, there is crypto adoption in Venezuela although not as wide as crypto publications might seem to portray. In other words, fiat still rules the country, although not anymore the local Venezuelan Bolivar.

By the way, how do these shops accepting Bitcoin, like the candy and the department shops that you mentioned, manage the fluctuating Bitcoin fees? Is the Lightning Network being used there already?

I'm afraid you cannot actually eliminate FUD, negative comments, other criticisms against Bitcoin. There are just so many reasons why they are there in the first place. For one, some parties are interested to intentionally pull down Bitcoin's price so that they could stack more Bitcoin from cheap offers. Others are simply threatened by Bitcoin's existence that's why they are bad-mouthing Bitcoin. There are also others who are simply not informed about what Bitcoin really is and that they can only speak of Bitcoin as far as half-baked social media information is concerned.

Do you have any more reliable information that would somehow support this claim? Other than this Facebook page, is this information somehow corroborated by more credible sources?

Anyway, it is not illogical if the IMF perceives that cryptocurrencies, I mean Bitcoin, could indeed displace local currencies of developing countries in the future. For one, these local currencies are weak. But such displacement does not mean the country is consequently placed in a disadvantageous position. It could be otherwise. As a matter of fact, it is the developing country itself that would fully embrace the use of Bitcoin alongside fiat even if that could mean the demise of their fiat.

I cannot tell which one was the worst. I can remember I was advised to use Binance as my wallet because of their Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU). It is a sort of an insurance fund which could be used to refund users should there be any hack or something which would affect the users' funds. Of course, such feature was nice but it never was a wise advice.

The rest of the bad advice that I got was trading related. A call is given to sell or buy because the bear months are coming, correction is expected, the ghost month is approaching, and so on. Many of them wrong calls. As usual.

That's what whales do. Every time they smell fear in the Bitcoin market, they invest. Every time they detect that spaghetti hands are dumping, they are quick to release cash and purchase cheap Bitcoins in huge amounts. Whether they are institutions or individual investors, they are really taking advantage of the discounted Bitcoin. Most often, the retail investors are the ones who offer these whales Bitcoin at a bargain price.