Market manipulation, an idea but it isn't really going to happen. It could be effective for a short period of time but in the long run? Hardly doubt it. Plus, a lot of people can see what Bitcoin is, and its true worth, so I doubt that would happen, not to mention that some may just be fake join in on the manipulation, and use an anonymous account to actually profit off of it.

Forks, I mean, it's been done and has been tested, nothing really happened. It just became another shtcoin in the shtcoin universe that would probably never go past what it came from.  

Government bans, I'm pretty sure history could answer the effectiveness of that. Not to mention it not working on BTC's early days, much so today with it's influence being incomparable to what it was back then.

Hacks, I mean if it was possible, it would've already been done. The value of BTC is enormous now, and you'd have expected anyone that could attack it's network would've already done so. 51% is deemed worthless as others have said, quantum computing is still for the future, Mt Gox is just an exchange that got hacked, no where near close to actually touching what Bitcoin is. Looked up Cryptsy and it seemed like it's just an exchange as well?

Just kill the internet man, most effective way to do it imo.

It's a pretty normal strategy, not really bad, you just have to find some ways to mitigate the issues, which is in this case, the transaction fees. If you're going to do that strategy in the long term, then you can just let your funds sit in some coin there while you wait (BTC maybe?) then just trade after you see that it's time to enter again. The conversion you made might have that much of a fee due to it going somewhere else maybe? I've only ever had issues with how high withdrawal fees are, trading fees though? Not so much (though I do use Binance so idrk about Coinbase).

The pre requisite here is that if crypto completely replaces fiat. If it doesn't happen, I don't really see a reason as to why they would need to remove fiat-based casinos. Plus, casinos can just simply impose KYC even if we use crypto, so that's still an issue, it just depends on what country and the level of adoption imo. Still, as I see the future as crypto not replacing fiat but rather fiat living side by side by crypto (or crypto with a CBDC), the complete removal of a casino that is based on fiat/CBDC seems impossible, especially since governments would probably impose their own restrictions into said crypto casinos since they prioritize the legality issues instead of the user's anonymity/privacy.

Well malicious activites involve a broad number of activities, one of which is what you said though I think what OP mostly refers to is mostly fake online casinos and frauds. They are literally what you would call fake or whatnot, unlike what you indicated which can borderline be said to be legal casinos, just that they abuse their power.

I agree, scams and frauds happen because of the inattentiveness of users themselves. There's no need to blame anything else, there are only two parties that could possibly be faulted here, the scammer/fraudster themselves, and the other would be the user themselves. I don't think I have to emphasize why the former should be blamed, as for the latter though, our own money is our own responsibility after all, and that should speak volumes for itself.

I mean, shouldn't we fully accept rejections and then proceed to argue in that direction so that we can persuade whoever presented it? Honestly, I'd always want someone to actually argue with any ideas I'd present, especially in project presentations just so that we can actually proceed into discussions rather than them just nodding their heads on and on. This doesn't only apply to rejections from religions, but also anywhere so I suppose that's a plus. Though if it directly conflicts with their culture or way of living (which I doubt it would in BTC's scenario), then I think that's an entirely different scenario.

I'd have to agree with Darker here, you were born as a clean slate, and any preconception of good and evil that you would have all came from whoever taught you. Killing people? From an absolute freedom perspective, there's nothing wrong, nor nothing right there. This would be the result of what you said earlier, "more regulated = better for authorities but worse for the rest". Even the way the "conscience" is defined should be biased by something one way or another.

Regulation is needed to control that "absolute freedom" since it isn't necessarily something good. In the end, the freedom most people seek is just something that is advantageous to them, not the "freedom" of being free itself. It's like skewing the idea of winners in investments not sharing their strategies with others to they "should".

They're the same, both are involved in speculation, just that the time frame that the both of them look at is different.

Hmmm there's really nothing that's "out of control" for us, but if you were to attribute it to your sole being, then there'd be a LOT of stuff that's going to be out of control since humans weren't supposed to receive blessings or suffer disasters alone. As for relating it to gambling, ngl, that's your sole responsibility. Fate or whatnot doesn't even affect it at ALL. I mean, if you were to attribute losing to "fate", then I suppose so, but if you were to attribute losing money to "fate"? Then that's already wrong.

Gambling is a game people, whether they be stupid or mature, anyone can play it, and they can both win. Aggressive ones don't win? BS. Disciplined ones don't win? BS. They both win, that's why luck is always fair, it always looks out to everyone equally.

I'm pretty sure doing theater is overboard as practice when you just want to play? I mean, I'd sure as hell just spend my passion in theater all the time if I ever started it instead of staying in gambling. And you don't really need to master much when it comes to gambling, unlike in theater plays (Though it does help in body language, both in doing it yourself and reading it through the other actors). Still, the hardest to master would probably intentionally sending fake body signals and facial expressions to the other parties, since if they ever try to read you through that, you can just fake it out and turn that into your own advantage.

That would basically require the devs to somehow choose another option to profit. Yes, it's quite the devious way to earn through their games, but most games with loot boxes are games that are released freely in the first place, so it's actually understandable why such a thing exists. They could retain loot boxes but they have to somehow improve the rates or something, since fr, people are just going to spend thousands of dollars to get one item they really wanted, which realistically speaking, is just the companies milking the money out of their users.

Still, spending for loot boxes isn't really an option that's enforced for its users, and not like having that content from lootbox would differentiate you from other users, so I don't think it should be banned. Rather, it should be properly regulated so that users who spend on it are able to justify the cost for what they wanted to get.

Possibly a way to zoom in on the dots on the graph? Yes I know, the links for every dot is below but I'd rather just use my scroll wheel, zoom in, and press a dot rather than scrolling through quite a bit towards the links provided. Especially since I'm not particularly sure if I've actually hovered on a dot since stacked ones are quite difficult to differentiate from each other.

Still a good site though, I mean my only complaint was a qol change after all.

I've never seen (or maybe didn't notice) any odds that are quite what you gave out, mostly in eSports anw since that's where I've been hanging out quite frequently. I do look out for the odds of different sportsbooks I use to see which one offers the best though. It might actually even be better to tabulate the odds you bet the most upon and see any similar ones that give out the same result but have better odds. I might start snooping around the other odds to see if I can find any of the like OP posted though, it's easy money if it actually got through imo.

It'd be closer to fiction in that case, and honestly, I'd rather watch a well-written fiction about his life rather than a forced story made from the info publicly available on the net(whether its true or not idrk though).  Heck, the story could even progress with Satoshi just being a blank person that speaks in the background without being revealed. Though in that case, it'd be closer to a story of how Bitcoin was developed instead of a movie about him, which imo is the only movie possible since again, we don't really know much about the person themselves.

It is kinda true, but the idea of starting from pennies to going to millions could still come from other ideas, but it just takes more effort and the like probably. I'd have to agree that there'd probably be nothing else like Bitcoin, where you could've just held a few BTC back then and waited for a decade to earn millions, but presenting and developing something yourself could also provide such an opportunity. Still, being early doesn't really guarantee profit, heck a lot of people probably regret about selling their BTC's for pennies back then, but hey, those are in the end just what if's now.

I'd correct that with how investment and gambling is separated by skill and luck. The former is used in investments, and the latter is used in gambling. Though in the case of sports gambling, it's actually isn't that reliant on luck. If you were to consider how research on investments and research on sports gambling work, they'd be two peas of the same pod imo. Though they may be called different terms (TA for investments, idrk what its called in sports gambling), I suppose you could say both of them require you to actually analyze and study data (granted that you study two different types). The only time it is separated by luck is in terms of casino gambling games I suppose?

It's like the choice of being able to choose where you would place yourself in investing and sports gambling (by researching) when gambling is randomly being placed somewhere in a plot of winners/losers.

Hey, an investment isn't simply luck-based, there are decision-makings made behind it that actually contain reasonings and the like. Investments are pretty much 50/50, though you can skew the chances of you winning by determining which of the 100% of the w/l ratio you should take, unlike in slots where you bloody don't have any idea how to go in. The chances are the same, 50/50, but slots are something like no matter what info gathering, studying, and whatnot you actually take, the place you'd take in that 100% is completely random, one that you can never influence.

Afaik some people said their early investments in Bitcoin was a "gamble", and I'd never deny it. Just that, gambling in an investment and gambling in a casino game have different factors that separate them pretty much from that "luck" factor.

Yes, the bot is basically just replacing you in the aspect of trading, so you'd still need both an account and funds in that account to actually trade coins in the market. Well, if you were trading in the first place, there's nothing wrong with keeping your coins in the exchange, especially if you were day trading since that's pretty much a requirement for you to be able to trade. It is only recommended to not keep your coins in exchanges if you're using it as a wallet, meaning if you're just using it as storage. In that case, it'd be better to just like you said, store it in a hardware wallet.

Strictly speaking, I don't think it'd be possible. Crypto was possible since, in the first place, crypto is a type of currency. Stocks, on the other hand, is a part of the company, no matter how small. It'd be quite odd if they ever did something like that. Not to mention that Paypal's crypto payments is basically them holding the funds of literally everyone, meaning only numbers are shown on the user's accounts, and they hold the real assets, which makes it easier for them to do the conversion (so as to avoid fees probably?)

I'd reckon risk management and psyche would be the top 2, trading strategies are there in the end if you were to study the market intently and read every movement possible. Though even without it tbh, you can still easily trade as long as you follow the buy low sell high saying or you just hold, especially holding imo. It's really influenced by your psyche, since any little lows or ups could influence you to say "I've hold enough, time to gtfo" mentality.

Hey it may be called a strategy with no foundation, but past tweets have pretty much shown how much influence Elon's tweets have in the market (may be coincidental or not, but so far it has proved to be true).

Hey, I'm just waiting for 1 to happen now. As for 2, well I'm not really one to concern myself with the fight between these two companies so that's that.

As for banks though, it's a system that has helped us manage and organize stuff in the beginning, but it well killed itself over the past few decades, and slowly at that. The ones in control should have seen that, and it seemed like it was only noticed when it was too late. Add that to how people have taken for granted the system we have now, which is why some people have narrow vision in terms of what to do in the future.