If it's just a draft bill, let's not get too excited. Many bills are killed early on, and this one offers something quite innovative and untested, so this might end up to be one of those proposals that never get implemented. If it does gain enough support, this could be awesome news and gain way more attention than a similar decision in El Salvador. The reason for this is that El Salvador is in a terrible economic and political situation, so it's not surprising that they might try adopting Bitcoin out of desperation. Uruguay, on the other hand, seems to have a very decent economy, so its example can get more countries interested in treating Bitcoin as money and potential benefits of this decision to an already good economy.

Bitcoin has a higher potential, and that also matters. If we consider Bitcoin merely as an asset that one holds and then sells for profit, it's different from a valuable rock because it's way easier to buy/sell and hodl due to it being digital, but these differences can be called non-essential. But Bitcoin is something you can send to others, no matter where they are, and you can do it without intermediaries. What's a pretty cool feature that rocks lack. Also, one can buy things with Bitcoin, and there are more and more places all over the world that allow to do that. Finally, unlike a rock, Bitcoin cannot be faked, so it's safer.

Welcome to the forum. I've seen a few similar services lately that offer to make customizable casinos for those who want to start their businesses, some even dealing with things like licensing. What I haven't seen is a lot of enthusiasm over such services. After all, most data is usually not available online (for example, there's no table with price tags per service), and the vast majority of new casinos fair to attract gamblers, so it's an investment that is likely to be lost. Does your website have advantages over competitors and offer anything unique? Do you have examples of casinos that were made using your services and are currency operating successfully?

Welcome to the forum. The website looks better than most new projects and feels like it's done professionally. It's good that you have tons of payment methods, and you are a licensed casino already. I also think it's great that you have a very clear KYC policy that mentions the condition under which one has to provide ID:
However, I see that to provide the documents, one simply has to send them to your email. While easy to do, it's not a standard practice as KYC checks are usually outsourced to companies that specialize in it, and people might be less willing to give their documents straight to a casino which is owned by anonymous strangers.

Before anyone follows El Salvador, it's wise to sit tight and observe how things go there. I'm sure that this experience is interesting to many countries that are also looking for ways of improving their economies, but why rush if it can go terribly wrong or at least prove to be useless? It's better to learn from someone else's mistakes than from one's own, right? For now, El Salvador spent a lot of taxpayers' money on these $30 'welcome bonuses' in BTC, and the World Bank refused to help El Salvador on their adoption way. So it's too early to assess whether it's worth it and how it can affect the economy. I think that at least a year must pass before such analysis is applicable. And if the experiment is successful, I'm sure that other countries will try it as well.

If the airdrop is also a type of bonus (and I think it can be interpreted this way), then there's a rollover requirement. Unfortunately, I cannot read the terms to determine what's the requirement (how many times one has to wager the bonus) because I'm being geoblocked by the website, but you should look into this. If you didn't wager it, no wonder you cannot withdraw it. It's sad that they didn't explain it right away when the op contacted support, and their official representative has been offline for 5 days. Hopefully, the representative will return and clarify things. Always remember to make sure you get the rules, and keep in mind that almost every casino has a wagering requirement for bonuses like this.

The 5% tax sounds very good, to be honest. I hope they go forward with it. It would be great if income in cryptos could be okay for the simplified taxation system. Also, while you say cryptos won't be a legal tender, this is also probably temporary because it's not consistent with the roadmap, according to which people will be able to eventually pay for groceries and other things with Bitcoin.
The ministry surely hopes it'll help, and I think it really might. There are already some places that accept Bitcoin as payment in Ukraine, and there are lots of crypto users here as well. Introducing mild regulations would mean money from taxes flowing in, and, possibly, new businesses operating in Ukraine, creating jobs and profits. I hope they make everything clear and favorable, and in that case, I'll probably start paying taxes for my crypto-related activities.

The price is currently at May levels, which might be a sense of the recovery, but I think it's too early to say because we've had a slow positive dynamic only for a couple of weeks. It looks good for now, and I'd say it's more bullish than not bullish, but things can easily go in a different direction at the first sight of some FUD. People in the thread seem to be largely positive about this movement, and this is also something that can affect the price in a good way because of triggering FOMO. Not the thread alone, of course, but the general positive sentiment (if the thread is representative of the views of Bitcoin users).

I remember they already issued a crypto back in 2018 (petro coin). I couldn't even find it listed on coinmarketcap or coingecko, so I guess it went that badly. It didn't seem to help the country's economy in the slightest. After all, the GDP per capita is still dropping year after year, and it's hard to imagine a country that's in a worse state than Venezuela. Another crypto launch is definitely not going to cut it. What they need is a totally different government, a lot of help from other countries and readiness to fight corruption strongly.

If the image is of annual energy consumption of the total banking system of the world, then it doesn't look good for Bitcoin because it's used by 1-2% of the population, whereas bank accounts are used by at least 50% of the population. That being said, I'm not sure this number for the banking system actually accounts for everything. For example, there are TONS of bank branches in every big city, and does this number take into account all the electricity bills for keeping these buildings heated and full of light? If not, it's not a very fair comparison.
We have to be conscious of energy waste, but it's also important to focus or moving to alternative energy sources rather than on reducing energy consumption.

If you aren't rich, you probably don't have 1 BTC and can't have it if we consider the current value. I've personally never had that much money in my life, and where I come from, you can buy a flat in the capital with this sort of money. Also, BTC has grown in price significantly already, and nobody knows its limits and potential, so a person might also lose money this way. It's a high-performing asset for now, but it can easily change. I'm really glad to see that most people in the thread aren't supportive of the whole 'at least 1 BTC' thing.

Why only in Portugal? I read it's 'cause of the tax policy, but that's only compared with other EU countries, and Xiaomi is available worldwide. My smartphone's actually Xiaomi, and I find it very convenient and well-performing (but I don't trust a smartphone with cryptos and never access my crypto funds from my phone). But in my country, they're usually sold in shops that specialize on devices from various brands. So does this decision apply only to the official Xiaomi stores in Portugal? Or will other retailers have to agree to accept Bitcoin for their Xiaomi products?

The games start in a week, but only 11 people joined the pool so far. Come on, guys, let's do this! We had almost 50 people for the previous season, and it was a great competition and a nice atmosphere with so many people taking part. Why isn't it the case this time? Is it just about the fee, or am I missing something? If it's the fee, I want to remind you that a year ago we paid 0.0045 BTC easily. And it's 9 months worth of rounds, so it's only $9 per month on gambling at the current BTC price. I really hope a lot more people will join in the remaining time.

If the ban was introduced to comply with some regulations, I wonder on which grounds it's now being lifted. And, to be honest, I have mixed feelings about this announcement. At first glance, it might seem like great because because cryptos can become more visible to people via ads. But if you think about it longer, you realize that Bitcoin isn't exactly a company, so we can barely expect anyone to pay for ads that'll just encourage people to use Bitcoin. Instead, these will be ads of crypto-related companies, and it's good if we're talking about top exchanges, but there will also probably be many scammy projects, and this will annoy people and strengthen the association of Bitcoin with scam. It's good that ICOs aren't allowed, but it doesn't mean that no scam will make it there to the ads.

Op, are you sure you weren't communicating with some scammer who is trying to pose as a representative of this reputable casino? I'm pretty cautious when it comes to chatting with strangers in messengers. If you want to contact the support, you must make sure you're talking to official representatives by contacting them either on Bitcointalk or via the official website. Also check if the website isn't a fishing version but is actually genuine. If it's the real Stake.com, and you contact their real support, I'm sure the issue will be resolved because casinos like this care about their reputation, as they can lose customers if they don't pay something out.

Is it a personal initiative of one driver, or is it on a level of a company/business? I just want to understand the scale of this, especially given what's been pointed out about India's hostile stance toward cryptos. I also wonder how they accept cryptos, and which cryptos. Is it via some payment processor, or is it via direct blockchain transactions from one wallet to another? And what about the fees and the time it takes for a transaction to get at least one confirmation? There are many questions that arise here, and it would be lovely if op could comment on them.

13)  Ciryl Gane   
12)  Jose Aldo   
11)  Michael Chiesa
10)  Angela Hill 
9)  Casey Kenney 
8 )  Bobby Green
7)  Vince Morales
6)  Ed Herman
5)  Karolina Kowalkiewicz
4)  Ode Osbourne
3)  Miles Johns
2)  Victoria Leonardo
1)  Jamey Simmons
 
70 total strikes

There can be many reasons why people hate Bitcoin. The most general one is that it's something relatively new and risky, and it's a part of human nature to be cautious and a little hostile to new things because if we don't know it, it might be dangerous. Another reason is shilling for something else: Bitcoin is a scam, but _____coin is revolutionary / stock market is awesome / investing in property is great. And, of course, there are reasons mentioned here before, such as people with negative experience who invested and then sold at a low price point or got scammed or people who're jealous and greedy.

I believe there is at least one BTC ATM in my city, but I've never used it, even though I've been using Bitcoin for 6 years or so. I feel much safer making buy/sell orders online using local crypto exchanges than going somewhere to use an ATM. Maybe at some point I will, but I've never needed it before, and I've heard of crazy fees and sometimes of KYC requirements for BTC ATMs, so I don't think it's convenient or useful for me. But I guess the fact that they're out there makes Bitcoin more visible, and perhaps there are some people who prefer a good old ATM to websites. So my attitude to them is neutral: I don't think we need them for the crypto market to thrive, but they don't hurt either.

Damn US with their militarized cops. If these people are libertarians, they wouldn't have violently resisted their arrest, so why deploy the forces this way, strengthening the whole point of libertarians by demonstrating excessive use of power?
I understand that tax evasion is a crime, and the state has the right to prosecute Freeman on these and perhaps other grounds.
It's good that the trial is in more than a year; I hope the defense team will use this time wisely to prepare compelling arguments. After all, they had a legal opinion on the matter, and the banking department knew about his business and didn't say anything.