If a person is addicted to something, it's often best to let go of the whole thing to fight addiction. It's like alcohol addicts often don't drink a single drop of alcohol because it triggers their addiction, so not betting on sports at all might be a good choice. As for watching the sports, it's best not to do it if it creates the urge to bet, but perhaps a person could remain engaged by watching games only on repeat, for instance, or trying to play sports instead of watching them. Addiction is also often a reaction to something else, such as loneliness, personal life problems, etc., so looking into the root of the problem and solving it might be helpful to fight addiction. Also, since addiction is a compulsive repetitive behavior, one can try tackling it in the same way other compulsive behaviors are tackled: a good and realistic solution can be switching to another repetitive behavior, but the one that is less harmful, and forming a new habit to replace the old one.

Game 1:  25'  4-0 Man City
Game 2:  25'  0-2 Southampton

Do you mean zero-confirmation transactions when you say 'instant' transactions? They are indeed unsafe and can be manipulated, but I think they're also the future of true global adoption (we just need to set a reasonable max limit for a transaction like this, and prosecute the cheaters when possible). That's because you don't need to wait, and you don't have to pay crazy fees, and these two are essential if we're dreaming of a future where you can pay with BTC at a supermarket. That being said, I've never seen anyone accept such transactions so far (at least one confirmation is a requirement for local exchanges I use, for instance).

I'm not surprised it was the biggest, as it's a company that's already known to crypto users, so there's a minimum risk of getting scammed, and they have 56 million users, so a huge community of people behind them. These two things sound promising enough to invest it because reputation + a huge user base almost guarantee the price will skyrocket. But that's a public offering, so it's about selling shares to people. That's what might have gathered attention not only of the crypto community, but of big stock traders as well, since getting into something crypto-related and yet familiar is getting more attractive to them.

Firstly, there's no way that even a few major world govs would collaborate on a common cryptocurrency because their countries are competitors, and nobody wants to share control over something as important as a currency. That's why nation-wide centralized digital currencies are likely, but an international one (unless it's a crypto of EU or something similar) is not. Secondly, such currencies compete more with fiat than with cryptos like Bitcoin or Ethereum, IMO, because the latter offer decentralization and lack of control over the price and supply by any authority. And if you mean the govs will unite to create a currency they cannot control (a truly decentralized crypto), why would they do that?

Walmart is very popular, and if it considered Bitcoin as payment, that would be huge news. Looking for one person to explore cryptos, however, is far from that. "Identifying crypto-related investment and partnerships" could be about making their own digital currency or about investing some revenue in cryptos. It's also not looking very good that the link to Walmart's website that some publications provide is dead, so they either moved or (more likely) deleted that job offer altogether. That being said, I did find one job offer by Walmart (but I really don't think it's the one from the news) that requires being:

Judging from the image, it seems that the data about growth is not so straightforward. There was a spike somewhere around spring in transaction value (which seems to be one of the key factors of the ranking), but then it dropped well below what it was in July 2020. If it was a temporary spike due to Bitcoin reaching ATH, this progress can be rolled back and doesn't really signify major improvement of the adoption rate. As for 200 million users, it should be noted that estimates of this can be strikingly different. For instance, I've encountered 106 million users as of February 2021, and 300 million users as of June 2021, but these were made by different companies, so it's hard to compare them against one another. If the amount of users doubled or tripled in half a year, it's a great achievement, but I'm not sure that's the case.

The first thing I wanted to google when I read the op were the charges against Spagni, and I'm glad that The Pharmacist already mentioned that the charges aren't Monero-related. That's a very important point because, indeed, the charges aren't even vaguely related to cryptos, as it's about some fake invoices for a company that makes cookies (the pastry). This ruins the anonymity argument because this guy would've been arrested even if nobody knew he worked on Monero. That being said, I think that Satoshi's anonymity was a good choice (if it was a choice) because it's possible that some authority would press charges over the creation of Bitcoin at some point.

It's useful that you have geo-blocking, so that one knows immediately if one isn't allowed to play, but a list of countries from which you do accept players would be useful info to add to the original post, so that one doesn't spend time trying to learn about the website and all that, and then learn that players from one's country aren't accepted. It's also interesting how you have a no-ID policy, basically, but you do have restricted areas. Luckmcfly mentioned usually being on the restricted list but not here, and I'm actually facing the opposite.

I don't support cheating in any area, so trying to learn of the result a few seconds earlier and use that knowledge for profit doesn't sound good to me. It also doesn't make much sense, based on my experience with live bets. For one, if the game's almost over, the odds will be incredibly low already, so not much risk (and profit) is involved even without the satellite thing. Moreover, as the odds change quickly, it's very likely that it'll take one longer to place the bet and confirm it than the difference might be between the live announcement online and a satellite (that's because you need to confirm that you agree with the new odds, and even if odds haven't changed, it still takes seconds to place and confirm the bet).

I wrote previously on this forum that crypto insurance is IMO a great business. It's a clearly underexplored niche, and I'm, unfortunately, too unenthusiastic about business opportunities to work on it myself (and I definitely don't possess the required resources), but if I ever see a not shady-looking company doing it, I will probably buy some shares. I don't want my BTC insured, but I'm sure that there are enough people who do, and would indeed be willing to pay some fees for it. I'm a little surprised that it's still not a popular idea, and that there don't seem to be people around who are eager to fill this niche, but I think the demand will grow more and more, as people who aren't Bitcoin enthusiasts start using Bitcoin because it's popular.

I'm surprised with this decision, to be honest, as it seems a little too much to me. I've processed deposits and withdrawals on Binance with no KYC before, and I have 1 Polkadot on Binance right now. What's interesting is that the mandatory KYC applies to new users, but withdrawals will be allowed without verification for them, if I understand correctly. And they still have a daily limit of 0.06 BTC (which is $3k now) of verification-free withdrawals. So for now, it sounds okay to me. But if I want to sell my one DOT for BTC, does it mean that now I'll need to go through KYC for something worth $30? I think it's a little ridiculous if that's the case, and I don't understand why they need to make KYC mandatory for all new users, regardless of the sums of money involved. Money is laundered in big chunks, so it's not justified to violate the privacy of those who trade small amounts.

If you're talking about the people of the country who are now left without the international aid which was 80% of the country's GDP and are facing an uncertain future, you might be right that Bitcoin is a good choice for them to keep the people they possess because the banking system isn't well-developed and is currency restricted there, and it's hard to get a hold of an ATM. That being said, I don't think there are options to spend Bitcoin in Afghanistan, so it's only a temporary solution for those who want to keep some wealth they already have, not for day-to-day life. It's only not an option in daily life because many Afghans don't have internet access on their smartphones.

a)  12  b)  1:27
a)  15  b)  1:42

I'm not sure it's that simple. Firstly, most people seem to be okay with fiat, even though there's inflation with it, and it almost always (Japan has a famous exception) loses value over time. The only trouble they see is when fiat surfers from hyperinflation, but that doesn't tend to happen to most fiat currencies. Secondly, Bitcoin might be in trouble in some countries that introduce CBDC because it's introduced precisely as a more controllable alternative to decentralized cryptos.

a)  14  b)  1:57
a)  16  b)  1:48

I had a bad start in the previous season but ended up in the top-10 by the end of it, so it's totally fine to have a bad start. I had a terrible start during the first round this year as well, and I'm currently at #42. But I'm sure it's just bad luck, especially with having 3 close predictions but zero exact ones. I also shouldn't have started the season with trying to predict draws and putting 3 of them in my picks. There's plenty of time for mistakes given how long the EPL season is, though, and good luck to us all with the upcoming rounds!

What could increase the credibility and popularity of cryptos a lot is a developed country adopting Bitcoin as legal tender. We've seen El Salvador and Venezuela putting a lot of hope into cryptos, but these countries have some of the worst economies in the world and are thus desperate to try risky decisions as long as there's some potential of improving their current situation. Developed countries, on the other hand, don't need Bitcoin because they're doing well already, so if one of those starts accepting Bitcoin as legal tender around the country, it would make cryptos look like credible and safe rather than risky and desperate.

It's good that you've acquired a license, but given how you've announced the casino at the end of May, and after almost 3 months it still hasn't launched, I agree with others that it was too early. People usually announce their casinos here when they at least have an operating beta-version. It also looks a bit unorganized that there's still no official launch day, but I can see that at least you're building up the community on Twitter with those giveaways. Then again, giveaways by a casino that technically isn't there yet might also be premature. Good luck!

Welcome to the forum. I support Bitinity's question about 5 stars given to everything because it's, frankly, really weird. What's the point of a website that gives 5 stars to  everything? And if they're all with 5 stars, how is the list comprised (what makes some casinos worthy of top-5, and others hanging below 20 if they're all rated the same)? Also, your website is crowded with casinos that aren't popular on this forum, and yet they're often higher on the list than highly reputable ones. It's a big mistake to mix good casinos with the bad ones, as it leads to concerns about the objectivity of your reviews.