Do you request a change in address from the casino each time you make a deposit and a subsequent wthdrawal? If not, then it would mean you are moving coins between same addresses but changing the final recipient.
Address A --> Address B --> Address C
Address A --> Address B --> Address D
A link can be established between the first two fixed addresses, which will have inputs in the final transaction, and with that other variable addresses can also be linked to you.

Most gambling sites use cookies and would also require you register using your email. While there may be no KYC needed, these details can be used to track down your IP address.

It actually is a quite popular concept (among gamblers at least) but most gambling platforms kick against it and consider it to be unethical, users are usually banned from a site when accused of arbing, so it's not much suggested as a betting strategy.
I would assume links are estalished between accounts when they deposit through bank transfer or use same wallet address when depositing using cryptocurrency.

• Arbitrage trading is legal, but not really worth it, using bots comes with lots of risks.
• Arbitrage gambling is not legal as per the ToS of majority of gambling platforms.

It was a honest mistake, which lead to a lot of avoidable drama. Mistakes are normal and the lessons invaluable, glad to have you back on the forum.
Hope any other platform which was compromised has been recovered?

Satoshi is estimated to own about 1 million bitcoins, with the current supply, that's just above 5% of overall percentage, if we consider lost bitcoins, that value of Satoshi's stash would go higher.
If you meant it is the largest personal stash of anyone, then that is almost certainly right.

There is absolutely no need to go after whoever is reporting posts, it's also not possible to find out as such information is only available to mods and staffs. The important thing is to maintain your post quality and only contribute naturally when you have something to add. Your posts would not be deleted simply cause they were reported, the mods need to agree with the comment in the report to take action.

I don't think Satoshi moving his/her coins would mean game over at all. It would have a temporary effect and almost certainly create panic forcing many weak and even some strong hands to sell off and cause a dump, but this would not be a permanent damage and I would expect the market to recover after a while. There would also be absolutely no motivation to do this.

I'm not very tech savvy, but is there a possibility Satoshi may have left a back route of some sort into the network which can only be accessed through him/her?

If anything, the pandemic has slowed the growth of Bitcoin. Large economies as well as EMDEs are in crisis, with a high unemployment rate in most countries; this means people have less money to spare and hence, less money to invest in assets like Bitcoin. The pandemic ending (through a vaccine or herd immunity) will restore normalcy and this would be positive news for Bitcoin.
Over the past few months we have seen major players like micro strategy and fidelity get into Bitcoin, so it's safe to say; the point has been made and many people are already seeing the value that it offers.

Good catch @OP.

I also haven't heard much about it for a while now, it's possible very much has not been happening on the promotion end as they have been facing regulation issues since 2019. Libra recently appointed a former General Counsel of the U.S department of Homeland security as their chief legal officer - link. This could indicate that they are still facing huge legal issues and need a prominent figure in their defense, this is the most recent of a number of prominent appointments.
It's possible the project is still being well developed, but most of the hype has certainly cooled down.

Another issue Libra might face is more Central Banks are looking to create their own CBDC, which would serve the purpose Libra was created for within those countries.

I don't think it is an unfortunate situation. Bitcoin has been around for just above 10 years and has made lots of progress within that time frame. Adoption rate has been actually very quick imo, and the fact that we are having discussions about global adoption shows the potential it has shown. Fiat has been around for a very long time (centuries) and has evolved over the years to what we have today, Bitcoin would need a lot more time to function effectively as an alternative.

One of the major barriers is its speculative value. The price is volatile and overtime has shown to mostly appreciate. This potential ROI limits a lot of people from spending their bitcoins and it is viewed as an investment.

There is a topic on this in the Bitcoin discussion board - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5271928.msg55080942#msg55080942
From the replies on the other thread (including mine) it seems a lot of people agree that $500k for Bitcoin is plausible, and is only a matter of time.
The article seems to have gained some traction, it was all over Bitcoin Twitter a couple of days ago and has reached a wider audience, with the fine details and information it had, it would pass as positive publicity for Bitcoin.

For adopters who have been into Bitcoin since when its USD value was in a  single digit, they have done a lot to increase awareness for Bitcoin

The bulk of the article contained arguments against the USD as a store of value, with little on oil and gold which were only criticised in hindsight; as an effect of what could possibly happen in the future. This suggests that they think fiat is the most flawed system as a store of value.

I was more interested in the piece about oil. I come from a nation who's primary source of revenue is crude oil. With the world moving fast towards more safe and renewable sources of power, it's a strong argument that oil would not be as valuable in the distant future, the more people realize this, the earlier a switch can happen, drawing the crash closer.
The supply spike argument for gold is a bit vague, it's possible as studies has shown, but efficient space exploration would still take some years.
Also, a crash in gold or oil doesn't translate to a switch to Bitcoin. While Bitcoin and gold are usually juxtaposed, investors are not limited to these options. If the USD fails, we would likely see the legal tender of another nation emerge as the widely used source of reserve.

To the prediction. Any price is possible for an asset such as Bitcoin with a limited supply. $500,000 is a realistic figure, the question is when that price would be reached?

Cashless transactions can be effected without a smartphone. Mpesa for example allows one to send and receive money by simply owning a SIM and a mobile phone (could be a 0G device). It runs at a rate of about 1200 tx/sec.
This service has been heavily adopted by a number of Africa countries especially kenya where it was launched and has expanded outside the continent.
Smart phone usage in Africa is growing rapidly but still limited. Lower grade or zero generation mobile devices are quite popular among the citizens and could be enough to support an economy.

How obsessively someone fusses over their security is likely dependent on how much they hold. The benefit of using a desktop wallet is that it doesn't get carried around easily, but if you regularly visit the internet with it, you're exposed to hack/phishing attacks. Regulating how you use such devices could give you a very high level of security, but one wrong click could do a whole lot of damage.

This cannot be overemphasized. Biometric security shortcuts like fingerprint and face recognition are really not secure. Some devices actually allow a face scan when the eyes are closed and some cannot notice differences when a face is similar.
It's weird that sensitive apps like bank apps and wallets allow biometric verification as a security option.

Constructive criticism is not negativity. If you're going to shill you blog posts on a forum, you need to expect reviews and feedbacks, which could be positive or negative and could also be harsh. The article was half baked and quoted incorrect information. It wouldn't help newbies as it gives them a false view of bitcoin.

My advise; If you're going to put your content out there, extra effort should be made to improve the quality and make it worth the read. Also grow a thicker skin, the way you reply to feedback affects how others view your service.

The price of gold is also influenced by market factors and it is subject to volatility. Gold's price movements is usually a reflection of the nation's economy which would be reflected in the value of their currency. A drop in fiat value would result in a rise in gold prices, a rise would result in a drop.
Consumer behavior can also influence the value of gold, an increase in customer demand could increase the value and vice versa, as the supply is relatively constant.

• Can you explain what exactly is practically traded? And how that does not apply to Bitcoin.
• Bitcoin is an immutable, irreversible, decentralized and piracy resistant digital currency. At a time when we have to depend on federal agencies which print more fiat at will, there is a need for trustless alternative currency.
• Every means of exchange can be used for illegal activities, gold included
• Bitcoin is not trying to be like gold

Socialism is not a 50% split between producers and consumers, it rather advocates for a social structure built on mutual benefits, everyone produces for the society collectively. Socialism is sort of a transition between capitalism; which leans towards a free market with minimal government intervention and communism; which eliminates social classes with resources distributed based on necessity and production based on ability.
Socialism has a bit of both, government regulates the market and social classes exists, both are to a certain extent.

Do you have any reason to say the world is moving towards socialism? Many countries are a blend of different theories, each existing in isolated sectors. There may be more government intervention now due to the current economic crisis, but this is typical of a recession, the market would likely balance out during the economic recovery.


I would definitely not want the government to have full control over the economic market of my country, corruption and nepotism are negative factors that would limit the citizens.

Agreed. I was actually replying to the bit about others removing their negative feedbacks on 1xbit profile. Whatever opinion theymos may have of 1xbit should not influence that of others. I personally doubt the admin would knowingly allow a scam to be advertised, but in the case that happens, it doesn't reflect the stance of the forum.
There's a thread in meta regarding this issue, let's see what action would be taken.
Edit: admin's reply - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5271782.msg55079759#msg55079759

The fact that they are running a paid ad on the forum does not mean flags should be removed. Advertised signatures comes with the message;  Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here

Forum ad is not a recommendation that a site is trustworthy, building a regulated scam system would be an irksome task and there is no guarantee that scam projects would not seep through the filter, this could give members a false sense of security, that every advertised site is trustworthy.

You could sum it up that way. Introducing a fund would mean exposing it to their investors and they would need to do a lot of research on it as well as work out the technical and legal procedures inorder to arrive at the finished product. During that time they and their investors could have personally been heavily invested in bitcoin.

@fillipone, this is another bullish news and when you put it together the way you have, it shows a pattern of interest from the institutional sector, a few years ago, institutional money coming into Bitcoin was only discussed as a possibility. Bull run imminent?

Trust list is your personal view of the trust system. Imo, trust feedbacks are suggestions from others on who is trustworthy or rational and who isn't. With your custom trust list, you choose whose opinion is shown to you and whose isn't, based on your assessment of the member's judgement
Overview:
Go to your trust settings
To add a member to your trust list, enter their name into the box shown. Their feedback would be visible to you.
To exclude a member, enter their name with the prefix ~. For example, ~qwerty. Their feedback would not be visible to you.

If you do not have a trust list, you would only see feedback from DT - default trust members.