Huh, is the vaccination a guaranteed stamp of safety from the virus? Really weird that the government even allowed this, since some places (like mine) still require even vaccinated people to wear masks. Cause honestly, if the vaccine had a 100% guarantee to poof the virus, then everyone would be going for it, especially those in the workforce.

Going first to a casino after being vaccinated isn't certainly a first on my list of things to do if I do get one. Plus, I don't really mind wearing masks all the time, it only inhibits me from eating on the walk but other than that, no issues really. Looks like the casino is also back at 100% working capacity, good luck to them all then.

You can probably find some samples here
https://github.com/topics/betting

Though I think this one works based on what you're looking for
https://github.com/remorses/auto-bet

Note, I didn't really check the code/program itself, I only read what was written on their repository about the description of the program itself. Test at your own risk. I'm assuming you know a tad bit about coding if you were asking about the bot and how it works, though if not I suggest asking for help from someone that actually knows what the bot does base on the code given.

Good luck.

Nothing surprising. It was always a known fact that when pandemic started, everyone had that hype of a feeling where they're pretty much free to do anything since they had a LOT of free time. Considering that, gambling isn't really a surprising option for some, nor should it be. Died down probably on the period where the fact that you had no job temporarily hit hard, and you had to manage your finance for the time being while taking into consideration the situation back then.
This. Idrk why it wasn't already popular way back then, the qol changes I got when I started doing most transactions online was enormous, unlike when I went to stores and meetups personally to pay.

Definitely close to the bottom from the last 3 months though. I'd reckon we wouldn't go up much from now, only sideways of around $40 to maybe $55k or so. That, or we're going down to below $40 before doing more sideway, though it's unlikely since there are still a lot more other investors waiting to enter the market and I highly doubt they wouldn't enter the market at the sight of an opportunity. Ofc, if the price keeps going down to below even $30k, a dump may be quite apparent.

Might be because the amount you're betting is still small. Most casinos would actively ask for KYC when you go past a certain amount at times, plus, afaik there are also casinos where you can directly buy funds from their site using your card, so that's still technically you giving out your own details to their site. Easily avoidable if you only play small-time, kind of a pain to avoid if you're a big player. There are also instances where you get connected via your names though, but that's mostly just the work of someone stalking you really hard.

Asking a crypto casino kinda defeats the purpose of users actually wanting to use crypto anonymously. It's like putting the cart before the horse kind of thing? But then again, casinos are sometimes required by the government themselves to put out KYC restrictions for the sake of security and legality and whatnot, so I can't really blame them. I'd put the government first before users since they are the ones that allow them to actually continue their business. Still, it might have been better to as you said, use fiat instead of crypto if that was the case. Let other companies that have the capability to get a license give us a crypto KYC-free casino instead of filling up the scene with casinos that have KYC.

Thing is, they looked for those who match fixed cricket matches only to find something way bigger imo. Nothing new about match-fixing, but I think this is rather big for it to have been ignored at that point? I mean, if the broker claims to be able to influence that much amount of tournaments, then the legal team behind the tournament should have done something already, that is unless they're all in it together. Not really that updated on crickets, but was this even investigated properly? After all the article is pretty old.

Seems like a way for private and public institutions to improve their image. Though honestly, giving a number, and a solid one at that, in terms of reputation based on the amount of environmental activity a company/group/organization did seems like a bad thing. Awards are good, they're quite general imo and is a bulk of a number that isn't really set, so it doesn't really give that description that a group is better than the other. Not to mention that it isn't possible to sell it to another group (assuming the carbon coins could).

Probably cause of Elon and Tesla. AS much as most people hate it, Elon has quite an influence in the market (at least, some newbie investors do base their stuff on his opinions), and Tesla is a big corporation. Seeing that they dropped Bitcoin as payment may send negative signals to investors, hence why the sudden drop (although fr, it's not like we forced them or anything). It's also quite stupid how Elon's reasoning for the drop was about the economic reasonings and stuff like that.

Ok, I knew about Tesla announcing the news but didn't know why, kinda disappointed that I know now. Of all the reasons he needed to say, he just had to say about the non-existent issue of Bitcoin miners using up a lot of energy. It'd probably be better if they just said that they wanted to exit the market since they've had enough, I'll take that.

Still, the drop should only be temporary, we all know how Elon affects the market after all, but his hands mostly touch upon DOGE and not Bitcoin. Wait for a few days maybe, and it'd go back up.

Facts right here lmao

Man the reasoning of "with the help of Tesla" already killed my hopes of it actually being a coin that has a future removed from actual influence. You know somethings wrong when a supposed meme coin started turning into something that has substance, when in reality it doesn't, due to the influence of one person. Definitely a coin that people could take advantage of in the short term due to Musks influence, but that itself is already an indicator that its market wouldn't last. Unless, of course, Musk and Tesla keep it going.

Err as long as the store you're going to accepts Bitcoin, I think you can still transfer funds to it even without electricity in your home (granted you have your phone with you and it's charged). If it wasn't though, then generally it isn't possible since a transaction's prerequisite is that you have a medium to use for transfer in the first place. Fiat uses hands, while crypto uses mobiles (at the minimum) I suppose. There may be other mediums, but in the end, those mediums require electricity so really without it, it isn't possible.

Well even if there weren't any official consensus, it's still known to be a centralized digital currency. Just that, and it's more than enough to identify that they'd pretty much be just the same as fiat, one that'd be pretty damn advantageous to them more compared to the current fiat system. It's pretty much like how China wants to control literally everything that happens in their country, just that this one is concentrated on the financial sector of basically the entire world.

I'd reckon that they already took Bitcoin, they'd rather not take Doge for now. Well as a payment maybe, but as an asset? Nope. I'm pretty sure Elon himself knows that the reason Doge popped off so high is because of he himself and that it's currently standing at pretty much fame right now, and not in its intrinsic value. Well if he accepts it then, well, I can only assume that the man himself is quite serious in making it go higher than it is right now. He's probably trying to be the value that people see in Dogecoin in the long term as well.

Isn't it ALWAYS a foolish decision to try and take a loan to invest? Don't invest what you can't afford, that kind of thing is always said here and there. No it most likely wouldn't pay off, the market is cruel to everyone. Dunno much about crypto loans, but wouldn't it also increase in price depending on its market value? That might hit you harder. Plus if you did it once, you can do it again. Crypto is volatile enough ,meaning it's risky already, putting the odds against yours doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Well afaik they aren't exactly planning to apply tax to BTC, but rather the transactions you do with it. It may be converted immediately or stored as whatever, they may let it work so that buyers still remain anonymous or whatnot. Not to mention that I doubt that we would even be able to completely remove the financial system we have right now, or at least, the control that the higher-ups have anyway (even if the system changes). So even if BTC wasn't taxable, they'd still have methods to do so since they'd still have a system implemented for transactions.

Well taking advantage of rigged games requires one to actually know that the game is rigged in the first place. Identifying the underlying details of a match beforehand could prove to be quite useful, heck just identifying if the match has a chance of being rigged or not is already good enough info for one to take advantage of. Seems like its an open understanding within the community at times since it's happened quite often?

Buy low sell high. As for how? Read the market, check the trends, predict based on those, and personal judgment. Though just remember that doing all of those doesn't really guarantee that what you would get would be the right info. For starters, try out binance. Centralized as it may be, it's rather helpful for newbie traders that want to enter trading, just be careful of losing much yea? Time limit may be pertaining to something like spot trading? Binance also has it afaik.

Pretty sure the only ones worried would be day traders and probably people who take a peek at BTC price every minute or so, panicking that the money they invested would be lost if they didn't check it every now and then, which I'm pretty sure has no effect whatsoever to the market moving and is basically just them wasting their time by investing in a market that they have no bloody idea what it is about.

Seems kinda interesting. So players would have a value attached to them based on their performances I assume? Why "Virtual" though? Price goes up and down depending on player performace and so, it's pretty much just like investing on them or something. As for gambling it, I'm assuming it's like a scenario where team vs team in a real match while players could gamble with their stocks as something like a pvp for the two of them (or more)? Basically, the money is replaced by the value of the stocks they hold?

Might keep myself updated, I want to know how this is going to be integrated in the long term.