I wonder how representative this research is because even though 61,000 people participated, it doesn't automatically make it unbiased. I was surprised to see that 38% use cryptos due to distrust in the current financial system because I thought there were way fewer people who cared about things like that.
But then again, the research says 60% of people store coins on crypto exchanges, and that's a very sad number if this is true since it seems that it was already stressed a lot of times that it's important to own your keys...
It was also surprising for me that 78% favor fiat over stablecoins. I think it's a good thing if there's such low trust to coins like Tether, but is that truly the case?

Op, in a sense, Bitcoin already created many careers and jobs. Because of Bitcoin, there exist various crypto companies like exchanges and other projects, and these projects create jobs. As this article mentions, we're talking about thousands of jobs already, and probably way more if you consider less formal things like people engaging in trading and earning money this way. Bitcoin also gives a possibility to hodl money and to send money to people without turning to an intermediary like a bank, and it allows having money which isn't affiliated with any particular country. It also allows having money which won't inevitable devalue over time because, unlike fiat, it has limited supply.

What's with the US-China-Bitcoin discussions lately? China using Bitcoin as a weapon against the US was discussed just yesterday, and today we have basically the opposite case in which the US should use Bitcoin as a weapon? Bitcoin is quite popular and powerful, but the US and China are two of the world's biggest economies with no other country getting even close to their power. I don't think they need Bitcoin to stay powerful, and neither of their fiat currencies is in immediate danger right now. Moreover, neither is particularly pro-Bitcoin and willing to fully embrace it, so I don't think they'll try to use it as a weapon against each other or that such an attempt would be successful because Bitcoin is quite decentralized for that.

If something is going on online and the payments are also processed online, it doesn't necessarily call for cryptos and doesn't automatically encourage people and institutions to use cryptos. After all, there are enough payment methods which are centralized and rely on fiat but work perfectly fine in an online environment. As long as this is the case, there isn't a huge incentive to adopt cryptos, especially since this might not go okay with the authorities. Given that the event is very soon and there were no announcements of even considerations about Bitcoin or cryptos in general, I think that's not going to happen.

Op, you should be aware that multi-accounting is usually forbidden by casinos, so what you're asking about is actually how to go against the rules in the most efficient way. If you were banned on a website, there was probably a good reason for that, right? Perhaps you've already tried to manipulate the system or maybe you've accessed the website from a restricted jurisdiction. Just find a good sportsbook which accepts players from your country and try to play by the rules. I've seen many scam accusations by people who had multiple accounts in one online casino and were banned for that but somehow didn't see it was their own fault. Don't become one of these people.

It sounded like great news because it's very progressive to allow salaries and BTC and providing some documents to make it possible, but since the op didn't provide any link, and like others I couldn't find anything new on this topic, it's too early to talk about this stuff. The only stuff I see is info from February 2021 about the Mayor of Miami offering to explore an option of paying workers in Bitcoin. Firstly, that's old news now. Secondly, it's not about the Treasury Department, and it's not about using Bitcoin, but only about considering using it. So I think that given how there's a lack of new info about this, it probably didn't go any further.

I don't think it's a real possibility. It's actually close to something that happened in a TV show I've mentioned before (Mr. Robot) with China switching to BTC when the US relied on a centralized currency (not USD, but still). I don't think China is currently controlling Bitcoin, and to use Bitcoin is a weapon, China must be in control of it. Moreover, China isn't even pro-Bitcoin, so it's more of an enemy than an ally for this country. China cares about their own fiat just like the US cares about its fiat, so there's no reason for China to suddenly support a decentralized cryptocurrency even to fight the US economy.

There are lots of negative attitude towards lobbying, but research suggests that lobbying is actually a good thing because it can be put under control and regulations and because it can provide valuable insight into various questions as well as take into account the interest of certain groups of people. It's a better practice than corruption because where there's no lobbying culture, there's simple bribery of the officials to get things done your way. As the crypto industry is growing, it needs advocates of milder regulations and favorable policies, so I think it's good that a crypto lobbying group is being organized. I do hope they'll advocate for something that is beneficial to all crypto users, not just to the big rich companies which united to do the lobbying, though.

For countries with very unstable economic situations cryptos can be a chance for people not to lose their money and for their funds to retain value. Given the economic impact of the pandemic, I think this will become even more relevant than before. Apart from that, cryptos can be an investment opportunity for corporations and even for some state funds (if they're willing to risk) which could improve the situation a little if Bitcoin keeps rising. Finally, if something devastating like dollar's hyperinflation happens after all this overprinting of money, cryptos will become something that can save the world because they can ensure it doesn't happen again. But I don't think this final case is likely to happen.

It seems to me that there are indeed many people owning cryptos in Ukraine, so it's a little bit of both. Surely, some of them probably followed the advice of their lawyers and declared their money as cryptos because you can always say that you bought early on and that's why now you have tons of money. A few years ago, there were already Ukrainian officials making such statements, I think. But there are probably also some people who have cryptos and don't declare them because they don't feel like it, especially since it's not obligatory. I mean, I was once just travelling in a local marshrutka, and a guy was casually trading coins on Binance there. We have more crypto users than catches the eye.
Since declarations became a thing only years ago, and nobody's asking people to declare their cryptos, an official can always say (without providing any proof) that the cryptos were bought back in 2010 or something like that and that given that there's no crypto legislation in Ukraine, this person simply didn't declare them before.

You're saying it's not easy to lose, but I think it's not hard to lose either. "Buy low, sell high" is a great rule, but in reality it's often very hard to determine what to do. For instance, when Bitcoin hit $20k by the end of 2020, one could argue that buying was crazy because Bitcoin was at its ATH at that point. However, as the time showed, it was actually a profitable decision because it turned out that Bitcoin can go way higher than that. Another example is that one could invest in Bitcoin in November 2018 when the price was less than $7k. But then it went down to $4k and remained at this level for months, so for that period $7k actually turned out to be the high point, not the low one.

Bets 12-14:

https://sportsbet.io/sharebetslip/5f25050e-2d5a-4389-a49a-d14ab389e268
Bet ID: 606dcb51c139f9abfd256476
Bet ID: 606dcb37b7f4c43d623d4208

Game 1:  10'  3-0 Arsenal
Game 2:  15'  1-2 Arsenal
Game 3:  26'  1-2 Southampton

I think such awards could be interested if they were organized differently. For instance, they they were held at a certain time frame, people could nominate casinos and vote for them (vote for casinos in general or give marks to casinos for certain features). Your rates cannot be impartial even if you really try to make them so. It's just in human nature to make mistakes, to have a limited and partial perspective. That's why it's important to encourage many people to participate in such matters or to at least to to take their experience into account. For instance, you gave Bitstarz the first place even though it's reputation on Bitcointalk is pretty bad with multiple scam accusations.

I don't think there will be enough people interested in this venue to achieve the same effect as has a tweet by someone who has millions of subscribers. Moreover, even the effect of such tweets is hard to determine. For one, they might coincide with some serious actions (they can announce a decision to adopt Bitcoin at some level rather than just announce some opinion about Bitcoin). Another thing is that they can be popularized a lot by media outlets which might not do the same for an online flash mob. Furthermore, this usually doesn't make lasting changes to the price, so even if this whole thing is very successful, it will drive the price up only briefly, and then the price will fall back due to the lack of support.

I think there are important differences here. Slots are programmed in a certain way, so they are very predictable when it comes to the winning chance. They're also independent of anything other than their code, so no matter what happens in the world, they function in the same way and a person wins on loses at a certain rate. Cryptocurrencies are not limited by anything when it comes to the price, so the % of winning or losing from these investments can vary greatly. Moreover, they are largely affected by what's going on in the world, so bullish news can trigger some growth of the price, and bearish ones can trigger the opposite. I think that it's possible to navigate cryptos and consistently perform well with trading them, whereas with purely preprogrammed randomized slot win/loss outcomes it's not possible.

If institutions are interested in long-term hodling and their share is indeed increasing (it's unclear whether this trend will persist), it's possible that the price will become more stable. I don't see anything problematic about smaller volatility of Bitcoin, I think it would be beneficial for those actually trying to adopt it as payment. But I'm not sure that the share held by institutions will keep increasing and that the institutions will only be interested in the long-term profit, so overall I don't see reasons to believe that the market is going to change significantly just yet.

There is no proof of causal relationship between Bitcoin halving and the price going up. Bitcoin tends to rise overall throughout its history, and linking this tendency to halvings is just one way to look at it. It's especially so because the price doesn't even rise rightaway, it just rises at some point and people say it's all because of the long-term halving effect. It's just a mere correlation, a way of putting separate events together as if they're actually related to one another. So regarding the price of Bitcoin in 2024, it's very hard to make reasonable predictions, considering how significantly Bitcoin price has grown already over the years. And it's also hard to determine whether halving will have anything to do with the price.

I got Error 1020 on this one and couldn't access the website. I honestly don't understand why my attempt to enter the website was considered a threat, I'm not using VPN and I don't think I've ever tried to access this website before. If it's some sort of system they decided to use to block people from restricted jurisdictions (although if they don't have a license, it would be weird), there are more friendly ways to do this by making a page that says 'Sorry, but we don't accept players from your country' or something like this. Did anyone else have this problem?

I think that to get such popular people to work on the movie, you'd need way more than $12 million unless they feel generous because of caring about the topic (which I don't think is going to happen). That movie Steve Jobs you're referring to cost $30 million, so I guess that's a more realistic budget. Moreover, it's really hard to make a biopic about a person whose identity remains a secret and about whom we have very limited information.
Apart from that, people like this don't work on a story they aren't interested in, and while Steve Jobs is extremely popular and recognized for his achievements, whereas Satoshi is definitely not that popular.