Oh, it makes everything look bad to me now! I'm no longer interested to try.

Anyway, OP, if you care to entertain a suggestion. If you are are implementing a mandatory KYC, please have it enforced right when a potential user is still creating an account. Don't let anybody create an account, deposit money, play games, win a jackpot, and so on only to end up required to pass KYC before a withdrawal could be made. That would be sneaky and unfair. If that is what you are implementing right now, you are borderline fraud to me.

This is not a good idea and rather risky. If somebody is interested to play a similar game, it is best if it is played among friends. If not, I'd rather gamble my money somewhere else more safe and secure.

Please correct my math but with the rules presented in the OP, one would rather play dice with a 1% house edge. The chance of winning here is 10% and 0.1 ETH will only make 0.81 ETH. If one is to play in a dice site with 1% house edge and 10% winning probability the payout will be 9.9 which means your 0.1 ETH will become 0.89 ETH.

Not only is this kind of game risky, it is also less profitable. So why would I join?

Oh, that would catapult Bitcoin's price to the heavens! Narrow money alone is already estimated to be around $40 trillion. If all of that is to be converted into Bitcoin, Bitcoin's price might reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. But if all the US dollars in the world, as in from M0 to M3, will all be converted into Bitcoin, the price might exceed a million.

But then, again, as tertius993 pointed out, Bitcoin's USD valuation will be worthless at that point in time and 1BTC will only be equal to 1BTC.

It speaks of how little knowledge they have about Bitcoin, or perhaps none at all. It is amusing how they seem to reduce Bitcoin into a simple fiat alternative devoid of anything special. They have a very shallow perception of what Bitcoin is. They underestimate Bitcoin so much so that they think a digital version of fiat is enough to compete, if not make Bitcoin entirely useless. These people are funny as they are clueless. The joke's on them. The joke is them.

71- Darker45

Please and thank you!

Advance merry Christmas!

There was also the issue of proper scrutiny and due diligence on Chinese loan deals on the part of country leaders before they affix their signatures. The insinuation is that debt deals are signed without carefully looking at the terms and conditions detail by detail, thereby resulting to the loss of sovereign assets.

Personally, however, I consider this as a side issue. If these Chinese loan agreements have questionable and unfair clauses sneaked into them, these Chinese banks are obviously entering into deals without good faith. In other words, all these Chinese loan offers boil down to a single motive, and that is domination.

Another one has fallen.

The Entebbe International Airport is now reportedly directly taken over by China due to loan default. The only International airport of Uganda, which serves at least 1.9 passengers every year, is the latest victim of China's loan trap.

In 2015, the Ugandan government took a $207 million-loan from the Export-Import Bank of China for the international airport's expansion. As expected, the loan agreement signed by both parties included sneaky and questionable clauses. Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, attempted to renegotiate the deal with the Chinese government but to no avail. And now that the country has failed to repay this commercial loan, a clause which basically means the airport will have to be surrendered to China is feared to have taken effect.

The Ugandan Entebbe International Airport is just one among many countries' national assets that had to be directly forfeited in favor of China due to loan default.

This post-modern way of conquest by China will have to stop! But how?

---

Sources:

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-reportedly-takes-over-ugandas-airport-on-account-of-loan-default/articleshow/87957646.cms
2. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-to-seize-entebbe-airport-over-loan-uganda-denies-debt-trap-reports-2628059

Why are people too focused on the mansion? LOL. I don't think OP is referring to a literal mansion here.

By mentioning mansion, he/she probably refers to 0.1BTC possibly becoming a considerable wealth in the future. And I say, it is very possible. Of course, it depends on how Bitcoin would fare in the next decades, how adoption would pan out in the midst of government regulations, how commerce would treat Bitcoin, and so on.

If things turn out well, 0.1BTC might indeed become a significant fortune in the future. But it might take a few decades. Your children and grandchildren might be the ones who will enjoy it more. But it's worth it.

Are you willing to pass KYC? If you are, then you won't find Gate.io's requirement unacceptable. But be reminded that this is a centralized exchange. Meaning, this exchange has control over your funds. They could lock it anytime.

By saying that you are only a small time investor, I assume that you will only be depositing small amounts. And rightly so. Avoid having large funds lying around in centralized exchanges.

Well, in the first place, if the tokens you'd like to buy are accessible through Gate.io only, then you don't have much option.

What's hurting the economic flow is this vaccine mandate. Everything would be smoothly transitioning into the new normal amidst the pandemic if only the governments not force people to take the vaccine. There's an uprising against this vaccine mandate or vaccine passport almost all over the world.

If mothers are allowed to kill their own child inside their womb because they have the freedom over their own body, why are the governments now taking over the body of every single citizen and force to vaccinate it against a virus that does not really kill?

There are a host of factors involved. And Bitoin's overall price movement, which is the primary reason why Bitcoin is now being treated more as an investment rather than a currency, has a very significant role. Not to mention it's volatility, course, which will certainly affect the operations of the business.

Other than that, it would be very interesting and ideal to approach this dilemma without going outside the Bitcoin story. Unfortunately, it might not be possible at all. Having said this, we cannot avoid but bring up the issue of our current financial and economic milieu. I imagine the kinds of trouble I would be facing if I open a business, which issues government-issued receipts and legally complies with everything, which accepts Bitcoin. The tax bureau, business bureau, licensing department, down to the local village office might be confused and dumbfounded when you indicate that your business will be accepting this thing called Bitcoin. Unless, of course, if you simply use Bitcoin as representative of fiat, which is not really the kind of adoption you meant here.

In the end, I guess the cycle will probably be broken by Bitcoin education. Once Bitcoin awareness becomes widespread enough and authorities begin to acknowledge it as an alternate currency, the commercial use of Bitcoin as Bitcoin itself and not just a form of payment which will reflect in fiat terms in the books will probably start.

In the first case, I guess CMC wasn't really at fault. And the support was able to provide a more or less sufficient response.

The second case was about a minor bug, probably never caused any harm to anybody.

In the third case, it is most likely that there was a really tight competition in the access of the reward and that even if you were there attempting to have one right from the start, it wasn't a guarantee that you would be successful. There were probably hundreds of thousands of users competing over merely 3,500 NFTs. So you would understand that you could end up with nothing.


You're now being delusional.


As opposed to the Midas touch which turns everything into gold, CZ touch turns everything into trash. LOL!

Kidding aside, coinmarketcap had already shown some shadiness even before it shifted hands. Before CZ bought CMC, there were already issues. They were indiscriminate in accepting ads. They wouldn't mind displaying scam projects, HYIP, and the likes even on their banner.

But I guess it didn't really improve even after it changed ownership.

First, we have this one:


https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1462071760766001152

This is the reality that amidst its volatility, Bitcoin's price is actually going up higher and higher if you look at it from a couple of steps back. If you zoom in, there's really a wild price fluctuation. If you zoom out, you will feel really comfortable about HODLing, because there is an obvious price appreciation.

Second, you mentioned about the possibility of getting rekt when the analysis goes wrong or if you got trapped in a whale's decision. In your own words, crypto is just too risky. But what does that really mean? It means Bitcoin's price could rise and fall big time any minute of the day and that it is unpredictable. It is, therefore, very risky to play with its short-term price. But such risk is virtually non-existent if you widen your time frame, say, 5 years or a decade. Which leads me to ask, why should you court risk when there is a much safer and even sure way of making money without really doing anything.

So far, generally, I consider KuCoin as less a scam than not. As with all exchanges, glitches are unavoidable. I don't think there is a single centralized exchange where there is not a single user fund that is stuck.

User u/BCHcain has all the reason to make noise because of the amount involved as well as the period of time the funds are stuck. He/she deserves a better explanation for it. But I don't think KuCoin is going to scam him/her of that amount.

However, I guess responses to troubled users should perhaps show a little commiseration and urgency in their tune. KuCoin, especially the CEO, may find user complaints and the amounts involved insignificant but they could mean everything to them.

The problem, on the other hand, is that almost every single user who is not attended to immediately by the support could easily exclaim scam. Every single day their funds are not yet released is a day of branding the exchange scam.

You know what, I don't agree. The rule is actually simple; you buy Bitcoin and keep it safe. That's all there is to it. What's not easy with that?

The thing is that people are complicated. We want to trade. We want to analyze charts, develop patterns, make strategies on the best entry and exit points, and so on. We want to invest in altcoins for better opportunities. We get into ICOs, IDOs, DeFi, staking, and so forth. And we are emotional, too.

But what is there in the entire history of Bitcoin that says mere HODLing is not the best thing to do?

It may not be as complicated as you think. You don't even have to be that intelligent. As a matter of fact, those who believe they are intelligent and endeavored to do beyond simply the HODLing boring thing are more prone to failure and loss.

I guess it has been proven time and again that the most profitable people in the history of Bitcoin are the HODLers. They're probably not the traders, crypto investors, and those who are too focused on the tiny details, created strategies, analyzed the perfect timing, and so on.

The keywords are Bitcoin, now, and HODL. Those are enough.

If we talk of the general civilization, I don't think it will ever go back to the barter system. That would be several steps backward in terms of progress as a society. But if we consider the wildest of possibilities, if ever an apocalyptic age indeed arrives, the barter system must be the most effective. It could naturally become the only means of trade.

But I'd like to point out that the barter system is still existing until now. Especially in rural areas and other geographically isolated villages, the barter system is still very much alive.


I agree.

During the height of the pandemic, the barter system somehow became a thing here in my city. Jobs were lost, businesses closed, movements were severely limited resulting to the lack of livelihood opportunities. In other words, cash became more precious, if not unavailable to many.

This was how the barter system became an option. In exchange of something that you need, you will offer something you don't need or need much which others are looking for. But this is not limited to goods. Services are also allowed.

The platform used was simply the popular free social media like Facebook. Although it might be better if there is really a platform solely intended for it, the advantage of the common social media platforms is that almost everybody is there.

It is easy to follow that if your country or city is one of the most innovative countries or cities in the world that it is also a Bitcoin hotspot. If a country or city is very open to innovation, it is most likely that it has also embraced Bitcoin, one of the most popular rising innovations in finance for the past years.  

As to why these countries are top in terms of innovation, I cannot speak as if they all share similar characteristics. There must be a mixture of factors. Hydrogen mentions some of them.


Partly, it is about the government. After all, whether a country embraces a certain innovation or not largely depends on policies and regulations and whether or not they are tolerant and open. But there must be far deeper reasons why a certain country, people, culture, and so on are leaning toward adoption and not resistance to innovation.

And where would this online court be operating from? Who are the judges answerable to? Who will pay them? Who will select them? From which particular law does its existence spring forth?

This is a complicated matter because legal jurisdictions are limited. You cannot just create an all encompassing court which has the power to try all cases of gambling all over the world. Furthermore, gambling laws differ from one country to another. And if you set this kind of court, it will definitely need a huge manpower given that hundreds and hundreds of millions of gamblers are scattered all over the world.

Unfortunately, nowadays, it is hard to choose cryptocurrencies on these bases alone. I cannot name a specific coin, but the crypto market must have been a witness of how a very promising project with a great team and an equally great vision slowly dying into oblivion while a shabby project quickly copied from existing ones solely for the sake of making the most of a certain hype is hitting one success milestone after another.

I hope I'm wrong but with the market exploding, gone are the days when investors and supporters would first check at the whitepaper for what a specific project could offer and its feasibility. It seems a pragmatic team of developers would rather want to create hype around their project rather than disseminate their whitepaper to as wide audience as possible.