First and foremost, it is not a crime not to know English. So whether you make a direct post or you have it corrected by your friend first before posting does not matter. I mean, there is no crime there. I suppose your friend is not tasked to change the gist of your post but only the grammar so that you could effectively express what you have in mind.

Plagiarism is not what you are referring to. Plagiarism is copying someone else's words and make them appear as if they are your own.

Let us set aside your insinuation on Binance and Tether or USDT for now. That's a different discussion altogether. You are raising a rather serious accusation to which I think you should provide proof.

Anyway, I guess that plan is very possible. If you have the capacity to create a stablecoin backed 1:1 with USD, then you can do that. I mean, you could inflate the price of BTC. You don't even have to create an exchange for it. You only have to have the money. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to create a stablecoin.

But you cannot do that with 100,000 USD. If you checked the market cap of Bitcoin lately, it's almost a trillion USD. Your 100,000 would mean very little to the market.

What is even more sad is that in many countries gambling taxes are imposed not on the winnings but on the bets themselves. The article mentions Kenya and Ireland as examples.

This is like double house edge. In a casino, the house itself has an advantage either in the game or in the payout if you prefer the odds to be 50:50. But even before winning, your bet is already reduced to the taxes. That sounds a little too much to me.

Isn't fair not to tax the loser and tax only the winner?

Set 4- 2
Set 5- 2

Darker45

Please and thank you! Merry Christmas!

LOL!

This is a classic funny story in the cryptocurrency setting involving newbies. And I surmise this kind of story will be told over and over again for many years to come.

This is the nth time something like this happened in crypto. The first must have happened several years ago. But this will not be the last. And you will not be the last victim either.

The problem seems very simple. It is that many of us seem to have lost all sense of basic logic. You know, the miracle of the loaves and fishes does not happen in crypto.

Actually, when it comes to plagiarism, it does not matter whether it is intentional or not. Intention is rather complicated. You couldn't easily prove or disprove it. So we should rather stick to the fact and fact is that is you are saying or writing something as if it is your own when in fact it is not.

It is actually very easy to just start a sentence with "according to" if you you've taken the idea from somebody else. Footnote or endnote is not even required, although a link could make everything more credible.

And also, there is really no such thing as valid reasons for plagiarism. In the world outside this forum, it could lose you your job, or your thesis, or your entire prospect of graduating, and so on.

Yes, the seller is obviously at a loss. I guess there's no point denying this. And this is probably the reason why adoption among businesses is a little slower than it should be. But it should be pointed out as well that the loss is merely paper loss. Meaning, it is temporary loss. It could only become a permanent loss if the seller decides to convert it to fiat or spend it even with a lower price.

Lucky for those businesses that could absorb the paper loss and continue with their business operations by shelling out more capital. But those small businesses that are dependent on their day-to-day income so that they could continue operating the following day might find it unbearable and would definitely prefer a more stable currency.

This is indeed a good development for crypto in general. Well, we should understand that Visa is a business company. They are built to earn. But it is worth noting how they are open-minded, how they could adapt with the trend of the time, and how they could bend, not just because they're chasing the money but because they are giving in to the demand of their clients and to what the future probably brings. In this case, cryptocurrency.

At least, instead of resistance, Visa is adapting. And they are making their moves according to data. And data shows that banking institutions whose services embrace cryptocurrencies are the preferred choices. After all, it's either they become obsolete or they adapt.

Perhaps we should differentiate a direct abuse of power and the mere use of what's legally provided for by the constitution. Executive order is there made available as a legal means to issue policies. At the end of the day, an executive order does not really give order to the country's population.

In the case of Tonga, an executive order doesn't really order each and every Tongan to accept Bitcoin. I think it will only order executive agencies of the government to allow transactions made in Bitcoin. I was just thinking this is a convenient way to provide the people the alternative, a cheaper and more convenient one at that, while the actual bill is yet to be filed, deliberated upon, reviewed and hopefully approved.

Surely, there are safer and more secured alternatives to centralized exchanges if we are talking about exchanging cryptos with fiat and vice versa. If we are talking about token or coin conversion, on the other hand, one doesn't have to create an account and submit KYC documents to centralized exchanges either. Actually, there are a number of non-custodial wallets that are offering swaps or coin conversion. So if one is not really an active trader, one doesn't have to park funds in centralized exchanges.

Pending the passing of the law that will hopefully make Bitcoin a legal tender of the beautiful yet isolated kingdom of Tonga, why doesn't the government just declare Bitcoin as an acceptable currency? I guess a mere executive order or something like that would be enough to make the ball rolling for this tiny country.

I think this Bitcoin-as-a-legal-tender experiment would be much easier to manage and probably faster to earn success in this very small Polynesian island nation than in El Salvador considering that Tonga is very small both in area and population.

The biggest challenge, however, would be technological and basic infrastructures that would provide the population reliable electricity and internet connection as well as the access to smart phones. This is particularly more challenging because the country is archipelagic and that a number of small inhabited islands are living off the grid.

The entire community is divided in terms of whether airdrop has some worth or not primarily because we have seen both of the extremes. There are a handful of airdrop tokens that really soared in price value but there are also countless of airdrop tokens that remain garbage from the beginning until their death.

So what would you rather do now? How would you react in the face of such data?

It would help to know that there are many airdrops happening literally every single day. If you care to participate in each one of them, I guess you'll have your day full. And that does not even include the time to take a more detailed look at the each of the project that conducts the airdrop. And that's necessary if you really want to sift all of them. After all, with airdrops you are looking for a needle in a haystack. You'd either spend all your day joining all of them or spend all your day taking time to scrutinize which one has potential and which one is pure trash. Either way, you could be completely wasting your time.

We are already seeing a lot. And, quite frankly, I must have also contributed a bunch of them.

Anyway, I think there is no way we could run out of more or less decent topics to be discussed, especially because we are not yet even hitting full throttle on Bitcoin adoption. We are constantly reading about how hyperbitcoinization is currently happening with banking and other institutions, traditional investors, wealth managers, and whatnots entering the market in numbers, but I guess we haven't yet started to see the full speed of Bitcoin adoption.

And also, there are of course new technical upgrades and developments to be talked about. Surely, Taproot must not be the last. Other than that, past topics could be opened once more for another round of discussion after fresh ideas, opinions, and viewpoints come about.

We could actually list unlimited possible topics to be talked about. As a matter of fact, one mention of Bitcoin of, say, Barack Obama, could spark a discussion. One price rally or a correction could be another. One faketoshi is definitely another. Not to mention that there is always a new crypto craze or fad, pump and dump shitcoin, hype innovation, and so on that emerge every now and then.

And China could ban Bitcoin once more sooner or later. 

It's very much expected that Russell will be the favorite here, a significant one most probably. Magsayo has been eyeing for a higher level fight but I guess he is not really that ripe for a top-caliber fighter. I'm not saying that's exactly Russell but he could very well be.

Magsayo's latest KO win over Ceja in the Manny-Ugas bout was more of seeing what he needed to improve than seeing what he has already got.

But let's see. For sure, Magsayo deserves a good opponent. Russell is the man. And considering that Russell will be facing Magsayo after a two-year period of inactivity, it would be to Magsayo's advantage.

Or, better yet, just focus on your job and put trading away from your mind. That's just taking a lot of attention, time, energy, and so on from you. Why don't you just buy Bitcoin, keep it somewhere safe, and give your 100% focus on whatever else that you do?

HODLing gives you minimal risk. Moreover, with HODLing, there's almost no possibility of a loss. And without having to analyze charts, constantly monitor the tiniest movements of the price, follow news, and so on, you could give your all in trying to squeeze out some income from a crippling economy.

Uh-uh, I'm afraid this is another story of hoping against hope. Just as a user has realized that and has withdrawn all his funds from a centralized exchange, another has just created an account, passed the KYC, and made a deposit.

The short history of crypto is replete with stories of hacked exchanges, and not just shady and unpopular ones but even top and most trusted ones. And yet, billions are still stored in them.

The risk does not just involve hacking. There's the possibility of an account locked, withdrawal frozen, inside job, exit scam, lose of access like the story of QuadrigaCX, and so on. There are numerous reasons why one should avoid centralized exchanges and yet...

What you are claiming is probably your personal guess only. Surely, you do not have anything to put on the table to prove it? But I suppose ever since signature and bounty campaigns are offered in this forum, there must have been a good number of users who are only earning and not buying Bitcoin. But they are not the only Bitcoiners who did not directly buy Bitcoin. There are probably miners who never ever bought a single Satoshi.

Anyway, I am not one of them.

I hope I don't sound weird on this but it is interesting how Jack Dorsey explained his resignation from the company he co-founded in 2006. He sounded so Bitcoinish. Apologies for the word. There's just no better way of putting it. Dorsey seems to be doing a Satoshi in saying that Twitter being headed and led by its founder is "severely limiting" and has "a single point of failure." He further said that he had "worked hard to ensure this company can break away from its founding and founders.”^[1] That's what Satoshi did, who also made a somewhat similar pronouncement before leaving for good. And to think that Dorsey is probably leaving Twitter to give more focus on his Bitcoin-related endeavors. The man looks so Bitcoin-inspired.

---

[1] https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/dec/06/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-steps-down/

They indeed denied and called it a lie at first. Earlier, people from BitMart itself declared the large withdrawals from their hot wallets as part of their exchange's normal operation. They even declared the hack as fake news. This was when PeckShield, a security firm, first raised the alarm. But then BitMart's CEO itself later on admitted that it was indeed a hack.

This is the same old story. A centralized exchange gets hacked, locks platform's functions and accounts, staff issues denial, reassures users of funds safety, and so on and so forth only to end up admitting it.

As to how the security breach became possible, your guess is as good as mine. As for the money, that was rather huge. Users should be hoping against hope.

I guess the answer is found right there in the question itself. It is probably because it is centralized. There is a single point of attack. That $100 million was stored in a single hot wallet, the other $96 million in another. We do not know what the specific security flaw is but the point is that the hacker knows the target. He/she is only left with the how.

Hack incidents involving centralized exchanges are more or less a common occurrence in crypto's history. And it still makes me wonder until today why the top exchanges are still the centralized ones.