If Binance is blocking US users and the terms mention that people from the US aren't allowed to use this exchange, I think the company is doing enough. At first, I thought Binance actually offered services to US citizens (I think they intended to do so by first complying with all the rules US has to offer, but maybe I remember it wrongly), but if they aren't, it's indeed ridiculous that CFTC is putting its nose in this business. In any case, 'investigation' is just a loud word that will probably not result in any serious action. After all, even the article mentions that Binance is not accused of misconduct. But such events do spread FUD and are thus unpleasant.

I think I've seen this hypocrisy from China before with the same argument about ecology. Obviously, China doesn't care about ecology because it keeps being the world's biggest polluter with the highest carbon dioxide emissions. They just want a pretense to attack Bitcoin and ecology is a really good one. That being said, I think the news might be a little overhyped because there were threats of banning mining before, and yet the businesses operate as usual. And even if it indeed bans mining, I think the market can experience a price explosion, but everything will recover eventually.

I think the influence largely depends on whether NFTs indeed become the next big thing. There's a lot of hype now, but it might be temporary. If, however, this is just the beginning, there can be various use cases. For instance, there could be bets on the price of a particular NFT at a particular point in time; there could be sports-related NFTs (potentially) that boost the popularity of some teams. But I think that gaming rather than gambling is likely to become more affected with NFTs because many games rely on digital items heavily already, so it could be a way to expand for them.

My country is not listed here, but I think that this question is also related to where and with what currency you're playing, no? For instance, if you're playing with Bitcoin and there are no taxes on cryptos in your country, then it would be difficult to pay taxes for such winnings (in case the winnings are taxed). So there's a difference between fiat and cryptos (potentially), and I also think there can be a difference between rules for physical casinos and for online gambling. So perhaps the topic is more subtle, but I might be wrong.

The way I understand it, the idea is to reduce the fees for gamblers, right? That's useful because if a person has some BTC on one website, but wants to transfer it to another website, it would mean paying a lot in fees (especially Bitcoin transaction fees which are quite costly now). But as some others, I don't understand how the op's service allows saving money during this process because somebody does have to pay the fees... It would be helpful if op explained how this is technically even possible, and also whether the casinos are okay with this practice.

I think the design is nice, and there aren't many poker places around, so this one might attract users. However, I am a little concerned with it clearly being totally illegal. You're not asking for KYC whatever the stakes are, and this makes the website perfect for money laundering. You also allow people from any jurisdictions to play, even though online gambling is not illegal in some of them. I'm sure that you don't have a license and will thus be getting profits from this casino also illegally. That being said, these features can be appealing to people from the crypto community, and your fee is indeed very low.

Since op has clarified it's not a betting broker, and it's indeed something for which one can be banned by casinos if caught, I wouldn't risk that. I agree with what some pointed out that there's a high chance of it just being a scam. You said you know a guy who got a win this way, but scammers could also offer something at their expense once, expecting a person to then lose a lot of money with them. In any case, I hope the practice isn't widespread because it's clearly based on focusing on casinos' mistakes, and I don't think that making profit this way is okay. Not to mention that at any odds one can simply lose the bet, so even with very favorable odds, I'm not sure one can actually win off this thing.

Mining is just a part of what's important for Bitcoin, so even though it's not only largely located in one country, but is largely under control of one company, I don't think it means that Bitcoin's future is under control. Miners can't really affect much when it comes to Bitcoin. The price doesn't depend on them, and the difficulty rate will adjust if a big chunk of miners suddenly decide to stop mining. The biggest threat is the 51% attack, but it requires enormous recourses to take control even for a little while, so it's safe to assume that won't happen. Bitcoin is not under anyone's control, that's the beauty of it.

Regulations don't necessarily mean that it's a good thing. When the market remains unregulated, it's probably as free as it will ever get. Nobody is prosecuted, there are no taxes or limitations. When regulations are reasonable, however, it might be worth it because by making Bitcoin fully legal, they're allowing serious businesses to operate comfortably in the area. But when the regulations are tough, I think it's worse than when there are no regulations at all. I don't know which legal force the negative statement on cryptos by the Central Bank of India has, but the intentions to regulate the market by the Minister of Finance sounded unclear (not necessarily as positive regulations).

It is technically completely impossible. However, they can heavily discourage people from using Bitcoin by, say, criminalizing the usage. So that would effectively make the majority avoid risking prison time, and Bitcoin wouldn't be used (or would be used by a very small number of people) in a particular country. If this country used to have lots of users, it can also affect the public image of Bitcoin in other places and bring the price down. In case of consolidated effort from major political players to forbid Bitcoin, the price can move down drastically. However, Bitcoin would still continue to exist and be used by some enthusiasts because as such it cannot be killed like that.

Is the current number of enrolled participants a secret?   I'm just wondering how things are going and whether we're getting anywhere near the goal. There are 5 more days to join, so I hope we'll see more interest. I think this competition is attractive in many ways: no minimum bankroll, free choice of a sportsbook, events as well as of the odds. I think it's a very flexible competition which can be engaging for a variety of people that usually don't meet in other competitions due to being fond of, say, different sports. I hope there will be enough people to start in 5 days.

In a way, they might be realizing their mistakes, but it can also a purely profit-oriented decision. They didn't like Bitcoin because banks like to deal with something they can control in some ways, and they cannot control Bitcoin. But then they realized they've missed out on a big opportunity of getting more money as Bitcoin grew from $10k to $50k in a few months, so they're getting greedy and don't want to make the same mistake again. And, of course, they want their clients to be happy because that's also essential for their profits, so they understand they must meet the demand or the clients will just go elsewhere.

It's good that the position is not to fully ban cryptos. They want to regulate them somehow, but I think they intend to make tough regulations (a very 'calibrated' approach, according to the Minister). India has been very unstable when it comes to cryptos, introducing and lifting bans multiple times if I remember correctly. But at least the Minister didn't say that cryptos are used for illegal stuff and should thus be banned or something. They have to come to some sort of agreement which would be okay to various interested parties, so I guess we just have to wait to see how this actually goes.

This sounds like a terrible story, even though he's her father and thus probably feels like he has the right to do what he feels like doing. The info about using Bitcoin to buy stuff was very brief, and there was no detailed information on how they came by this information. Overall, what matters in kidnapping, not the means used to achieve the result. So it shouldn't harm Bitcoin's reputation, as the negative elements of the story have little to do with it. I mean, he could've used cash for this, and so what, we should ban cash after that?

Many of these addresses remained silent for a while, and some belong to various companies. I think if Tesla got their BTC in one place, those looking for whale alerts would pick up on that. So chances are, it's none of those addresses. It would be wise to spread the money onto various addresses, so that nothing catches attention and people don't try to steal the money. I'm okay with not knowing where their money is, I think it's reasonable not to disclose such information. I don't think they'd dump everything at once, so it's not like Tesla having BTC is going to have negative impact on the market.

I haven't heard of this, but I wouldn't consider using such a service even if it existed. Firstly, it's against the rules of casinos to benefit from their mistakes. Secondly, it seems morally wrong to do so. Thirdly, casinos often reserve the right to void bets which involved some technical mistakes, so there's a big chance that the payout wouldn't come.
If you mean something else like betting brokers which might look for special deals for their clients, it can be totally legal and legit, but you'd have to pay them service fees for their work on finding the best odds and placing the bets. And betting brokers aren't looking to exploit some errors; they're just looking at lots of sportsbooks, looking for the best deal.

I have a technical question: is this the competition thread or just a thread for discussion? I'm asking because the details and many questions were already discussed in another thread, but you've mentioned there that you'd soon create the thread where we're going to post our screenshots. Is this the one?
It also seems to me that the starting date has shifted, is that true? I thought we were starting tomorrow, but I can now see you're saying it's 15th of March.

I've never used a Bitcoin mixer because while I support privacy, I'm okay with my transactions being visible on Blockchain and I don't feel threatened by it. It would be very interested to see anonymous research on users of Bitcoin mixers to see who are the people who mainly use them. It might be criminals, like you say, but it might also be people who're worried about being traceable even though they don't do anything illegal (they just don't want corporations to track their actions, push products to them and stuff like that). Do you have any research showing that it's actually only used for serious crimes?

Please fix the "DESPOSIT" is the Terms and Conditions to "DEPOSIT". And while on the screenshot you're saying the casino's anonymous, there's the following sentence from the Terms which is not consistent with it:
So do you ask for ID or not? And you're saying that you may ask for this additional info according you your KYC policy, but where can one actually read about your KYC policy?
What I did like about the website was how fast new pages loaded and changes got taken into account (when trying to place a bet, for instance), so it's nice that it seems to work smoothly.

Thanks for the reply and for the estimates! I think it's a good deal and a potential cool competition since a lot of stuff is left up to participants. I've registered for it today. 20 bets within less than a month is more than I usually do, but I'll try to make them and not forget about those screenshots 
I also have another short question: what's your stance on multi bets? Are they also allowed, or should these only be single pre-match bets? Thanks in advance!