I can't speak for others, but I'm a hodler and I'm not anti-government. I'm not even completely anti-bank.

However, there are so much to hate about how governments and banks work on the ground. And those are what I'm particularly against. That governments continuously devalue money to the detriment of ordinary people, for example, is something that everybody should be against. To protest against this doesn't necessarily mean to protest against the existence of a government.

That banks irresponsibly risk their clients' money in investments they alone choose and decide is something that every bank customer should be against. But to be against this doesn't necessarily mean going against the existence of banks.

Even if it's a good thing, it's often not good to force somebody into it. If it isn't life and death, I'd rather let others take action according to their willingness and freedom.

However, as regards Bitcoin, why should we even force it to others? I mean, there must be a smoother or organic way of doing it. It's probably enough that you introduce Bitcoin to somebody. If there are questions, you're willing to answer. If there's none, no problem. If there's no interest at all, it's their choice.

The role of the private sector can't be emphasized enough. In general, money is produced by the private sector. The private sector is where jobs are created. It is where goods and services are coming from. And it is where the government's revenue comes from. Although there are taxes paid by individuals to the government, the ultimate source is still the private sector. A healthy private sector means a healthy economy and, therefore, a healthy society.

Yeah, these strategies don't help you win. They, therefore, are not winning strategies. They may be strategies on financial or bankroll management or approaches on risk management, but they aren't strategies on winning. It is, therefore, misleading to speak about "winning crypto betting strategies" when these don't have anything to do with winning bets. I'm not saying these strategies aren't useful. They are, but only on managing your finances not on securing wins for your bets.

First of all, your title doesn't seem to represent your content.

Well, there's indeed an effective bankroll management. There's also an effective betting approach. But I don't think there will ever be a way to develop winning crypto betting strategies.

Whatever your strategy is, it doesn't have any influence on the results of your games or bets. Your bet could win or lose, but whatever strategy you're using, it cannot make you win. Your strategy could lengthen your gambling session. It could save you from losing more than you're prepared for, but it doesn't make you win.

There's good and bad that come from it, but if we are to be pedantic about Bitcoin, I should say it is generally bad. With spot Bitcoin ETFs, the emphasis on peer-to-peer is gone. The emphasis on a trustless system that eschews third parties is forgotten. The features which make Bitcoin revolutionary; decentralization, freedom, independence, ownership, control, and so on and so forth are set aside. Without all these, Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin anymore. The Bitcoin in spot Bitcoin ETF isn't money. Strictly speaking, Bitcoin in spot Bitcoin ETFs isn't Bitcoin at all.

And how would you exit the matrix? By taking the orang pill? Uh-uh, it's also taxed, Neo.

I'm not sure in other countries but the taxes here in mine are already overlapping. And it's impossible to avoid them. Taxes are already deducted from your salary even before it reaches your wallet. And every time you spend, there are also taxes you're paying. Whether you're buying a pack of salt or riding a cab, you're paying taxes. Not to mention that your money itself is subject to inflation.

I'm afraid one can only escape taxes if one lives like a hermit.

As far as my personal experience is concerned, this debate has long ended. Hodling has proven to be wiser than trading. Others may not agree, though. But my personal experience isn't uncommon. I have a number of Bitcoin friends who have long quit trading. The reason is that timing the market isn't easy.

A newbie who checks on the price every minute of the day may see a window of opportunity in the movements of the price. The same thing I saw years ago. He/she may see a pattern that seems easy to follow. I had the same impression myself when I was a newbie. Not until I tried trading myself that I realized it isn't as easy as it seems.

If a platform claims to be a non-KYC platform but its terms and conditions include KYC, then it isn't a non-KYC platform. It's as plain and simple as that. It's kind of absurd to recognize them as non-KYC platforms and then promote another as truly or really non-KYC platform because it doesn't have any KYC terms in its user agreement unlike the others.

ChangeNOW is a KYC platform, along with so many others with the same no-KYC claims. They should be lumped together with the rest of KYC platforms regardless of their marketing lies.

I'm sure the court proceedings, testimonies, and legal filings and reports have so many stories to tell, many of which might have yet to reach the public. These files are probably comprehensive enough. I don't know though if these are openly accessible by anybody. But considering that the court has already made its decision and that SBF has already been sentenced, notwithstanding the appeal, I guess they're probably available upon request.

It's not that I'm interested about SBF or FTX's story, but I guess the more interesting part of this are those that need investigative skills. Money and politics have been at play here.

Your service runs at the mercy of Telegram. Whatever you're claiming here, your bot is bound to comply with Telegram's terms. I suggest that you finish your website first and come back here with your big claims.

Marketing terms like "first", "truly", "real", and so on are not only overused, they're also misused and abused.

As regards KYC, it's more or less black and white. It's either there's KYC or none at all. I don't understand those phrases like truly no KYC and really no KYC.

Although Bitcoin could indeed mean differently to different people, that's secondary. How you personally treat Bitcoin is secondary to what Bitcoin strictly is. Especially to a newbie, I'd rather stick to the definition of Bitcoin as "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" than those various figurative and subjective interpretations of Bitcoin.

I mean, yeah, Bitcoin is "financial freedom", "digital gold", "the community", and so on and so forth, but it doesn't actually explain to somebody what Bitcoin truly is.

It would be best if Bitcoin's adoption is according to its feature as a digital currency. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. As far as my own observation is concerned, the rate of adoption of Bitcoin as a currency is slow, much slower compared to its adoption rate as a mere asset class. There are definitely a lot more Bitcoin speculators or Bitcoin investors than those who treat Bitcoin as a currency.

However, Bitcoin's price increase could be fueled by either. Right now, Bitcoin's price increase-- even the ATH-- was primarily fueled by the rise of Bitcoin's adoption as a rising digital asset rather than as money.

At least you're allowed to withdraw your funds. Binance could have locked those funds knowing that it went through Tornado Cash, a mixing platform sanctioned by the DOJ. It could have been a valid step on their part. Binance, after all, is highly compliant with government regulations. They've probably learned their lessons. They have a huge business to protect.

Perhaps it should be made part of our safety measures to inquire from anybody sending funds to us where the funds would be sent from. There are centralized exchanges that don't welcome funds sent from crypto casinos, mixing services, among others. Such funds could cost us our accounts.

I also experienced this myself. To me, this is a sneaky and unfair policy, and greedy, too. These casinos don't want to screen gamblers before they make deposits. They screen them only after they open accounts, make deposits, and play on their platforms. Only when they have to release money that they will implement their verification policies. Those who don't pass won't have a choice but leave their funds locked in the wallets of casinos.

Even so, I won't submit KYC in advance. I'm not a fan of KYC. But if I were to risk a huge amount in a casino that has KYC policies, I might consider making sure I pass their verification first before I make a deposit. It will be too late to fail a KYC when you're already about to withdraw huge winnings. But since I'm not a high-roller, I don't have this problem.

You are right. The effect of the halving on the price isn't instant. It takes several months before the price totally absorbs the impact of the halving. It takes more than a year before an ATH is reached after the halving. Today, we're just a couple of weeks from the halving. Those who are expecting the price to skyrocket this early are too excited. They need to get back to the charts to realize they're expecting a premature ATH.

If the correction today shakes them already and pushed them to sell, then they've failed to properly prepare themselves.

We have yet to know which direction will Bitcoin take after the halving. As of now, it seems there's a correction. But this doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin is taking the downward direction. This could merely be a quick correction brought about by individuals or institutions dumping. I still feel like the overall sentiment remains bullish. There might still be an ATH at least a year from now.

I don't think Bitcoin halving determines whether there will be more Bitcoin-related innovations or not. The rate of adoption determines that. However, the halving has indeed encouraged a different kind of innovation in Rodarmor's Runes.

The Bitcoin halving creates hype. It's a widely talked about event on social media and elsewhere, so I guess it could have also attracted certain people to get to know Bitcoin.

There's a misunderstanding that Bitcoin halving means the supply is cut into half. I surmise that only those who aren't familiar with Bitcoin have this very basic misunderstanding. What's actually cut into half is the block reward, the flow of new supply.

This seems to be the same kind of misunderstanding if you think that the halving means the price of Bitcoin is cut into half. That's not what Bitcoin halving is all about. It doesn't have anything to do with the price. The price isn't coded into Bitcoin.

If we do the math, it's common sense that the halving isn't beneficial to the miners. After all, the halving basically means the miners would be earning 50% less. But since it means the reduction of the flow of new supply, it could also imply a rise in the price since a decreasing supply versus an increasing demand could only mean a price increase.

As for me, I might cash it out. My $1,500 becoming almost $50,000 is good enough. That's one consideration. Another is that your remaining bet has low winning probability. If your remaining bet had lower odds, say, 1.40 or 1.50 or even 1.80, it could have been worth risking. But since your remaining bet has odds of as high as 3.75, the risk is too high. You've got only 26% possibility of winning. Finally, what's at stake at this point isn't anymore $1,500. It's already $50,000. Would you bet $50,000 for that particular game?

From a layman, who would choose B? But in reality it isn't just inflation that's a big problem. Tax itself is another. We could consider inflation as another tax, but there are also existing taxes that are already smothering the lives of ordinary people. On top of inflation, there's income tax imposed on our salaries. On top of that, we are also taxed on the goods and services that we buy.

But the situation given in option A might not be reasonable. If a business is getting lower and lower revenue because the prices of the goods and services they're selling are getting cheaper and cheaper, it might also affect the salaries of their workers. The revenue of a business is the source of its workers' salaries.