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!

15) Israel Adesanya 
14) Amanda Nunes
13) Aljamain Sterling 
12) Islam Makhachev
11) Thiago Santos
10) Casey Kenney
9) Yadong Song
8  ) Joseph Benavidez
7) Kai Kara-France
6) Jordan Espinosa
5) Carlos Ulberg
4) Sean Brady
3) Livinha Souza
2) Uros Medic
1) Mario Bautista
70 total strikes

Game 1:  21'  0-1 Arsenal
Game 2:  34'  0-1 Southampton

Yesterday was great in terms of picks for me. I got 'exact' on West Brom vs Everton, and 'close' on Liverpool vs Chelsea as well as Fulham vs Tottenham. And I've just made the picks for the next round. Sheffield United vs Southampton is hard to guess, but I think Southampton might win this one. I'm also predicting that Leicester City wins against Brighton, although it might mean I'm just not learning from my mistakes. But if they lose this one, I'll try to stop relying on them 

Bitcoin can indeed be good as means of payment for international transactions because they are especially costly and take a lot of time when processed by banks in the form of fiat. Even with the currently high fees, it can be beneficial to make transactions in BTC when they cost, say, $1k or more, and it would be especially beneficial for big financial deals. However, the article unnecessarily says that Bitcoin will either become used for international trade or the price will collapse. Both can happen at the same time, or neither of these things might become the case.

Thanks for the invitation! I'm also interested to see the sponsorship and the prizes. You're saying the price depends on the number of participants, but why not give some estimates? For one, is there a minimum number of participants? And if the minimum is, say, 10 people, you could give estimates on the prize and the ranges in quantity of people. Another important question is whether the prize is purely financial and will be paid out directly to a BTC address or perhaps it will be credited to some casino account with (or without a wagering requirement).
Another question I have is regarding the bankroll: am I right in assuming there's no min bet and no min bankroll since what matters is ROI?

Scrolling through the main page is a little slower than it normally is for me, but the website's design seems fine, even though it's simple. It's also nice that you have a rainbot and a bonus. The registration process is also very nice and simple, even an email is not required. But then there was a problem when I redeemed the promocode bonus: I couldn't close the window, the 'x' didn't work. I had to go to the homepage to get rid of it. And then I wanted to try out the dice game, but it simply didn't load, leaving a blank dark grey area where the game was supposed to be. And the same happened with a couple of other games I tried to open. So clearly, the website is very buggy or there's a problem going on right now. Not to mention the accusation above.

I lost my multi bet due to these matches... I was clearly wrong about Leicester (even though Burnley didn't win), but I was also very surprised by the draw in the match of Crystal Palace with Manchester United. I also got zero points on March 3, so I'm really hoping that today's matches will be better. Only Liverpool vs Chelsea feels like a tricky one, but after yesterday I guess anything is possible with the other two matches as well... Luckily, this didn't push me down on the leaderboard, and I'm still at #10.

I think it's a ridiculous proposal. Why be so tough on betting anyway? If someone has an addiction, this person requires help. But alcohol addiction is a serious problem, and yet it's widely available (and I don't know about Western countries, but in Ukraine alcohol is advertised on TV a lot, and there are often alcohol sponsorships of various events). I think that such sponsorships are beneficial for teams, sportsbooks and bettors, so I don't see why the government would ban them. Addiction might not be a good enough reason for this decision.

I support peter0425's advice to check the investment experiment thread, and you should also check the thread mentioned in that topic by the op. Years ago, I was also interested in the topic of investing into casino bankrolls, but I ultimately decided against it. The reason was that with reputable casinos the annual profit is very small, so Bitcoin price dynamics will make more of a difference than this investment, and to profit significantly one would need to invest in some young but prospective casino which involves very high risk.

There are places all over the world that accept Bitcoin as payment, so living off Bitcoin is possible. That being said, the options are very limited, and it depends a lot on where the person lives. Moreover, I think most people aren't even interested in spending their BTC directly. They buy and hodl for profit. Then they either intend to sell or might spend it directly if Bitcoin becomes widely accepted as a payment, but it probably doesn't matter much for such people. But what makes Bitcoin different from a bubble is that the bubble bursts and gets destroyed this way, whereas Bitcoin tends to recover eventually.

Well, it's not like Yellen supported BTC, but it seems from the article that she didn't mean that it would end badly for everyone, and actually sees some potential in cryptos (even though she's generally against it). Warren is old, and I don't blame people who've lived most of their lives without the Internet and digital devices that they don't get Bitcoin. However, it would be nice if she took into account that fiat is also pretty speculative because its value is whatever the authorities say it is, and it's not backed up by anything but the trust of citizens and prestige on international level.

Fiat might be sinking, but it can still last for a long time. I mean, how long can it keep sinking before it drowns: are we talking about another year, 10 years or maybe 70 years? He's talking about inflation as the kind of sinking, but when inflation is stable, it can indeed go on for a long time without major issues. Moreover, lifeboats can only take some people, whereas if too many suddenly head for them, they're all going to sink. Bitcoin transactions would get stuck way more often, and the fees would get even higher if people suddenly move away from fiat.

That's true, but I hope they still have a chance. Of course, among the three matches from my bet, I'm most unsure about Leicester. However, they did win against Liverpool and Aston Villa, while Burnley has a very low win record this season. I guess they might have a draw, but I hope Leicester pulls everything it currently has together and wins this one. I think that even if they're definitely not at their best right now, they can still win against Burnley. Leicester is #3 when it comes to standings, whereas Burnley is #15.

I agree with you. While cryptos do make banks unnecessary, they can still be useful and very important for many people and for some specific purposes. For instance, some people just don't feel comfortable being responsible for keeping their funds safe. They want the banks to be responsible and to store the money for them. So cryptos are not going to be attractive for such people, and even if cryptos go mainstream, these people would probably want crypto banks to manage and store their cryptos as well. Apart from storing, there's also this feeling of legitimacy which having money on a bank account does, and having cryptos or just storing cash under the bed to not.

Buy low, sell high. It's a simple rule, and yet people often make the mistake of violating it. In the previous bull market, I made the same mistake and bought Ripple at $3 per coin or something. This time, I just keep calm and do whatever I feel like doing with BTC (either hodl or sell), but I don't buy more, and I don't invest in altcoins. Selling now would definitely mean losing money in your case, but not selling might mean that the value will go down even more and be like that for a while. Hodl if you're willing to wait for a few years for profit, but it's always a risk with cryptos, especially if you buy at ATH.

Op, I have a question for you: are fantasy sports much different from simulated reality sports? I'm asking because there's an English Premier League SRL, for instance, and bets on their matches are sometimes available for betting on Sportsbet.io. And there are also some other simulated reality matches to bet on sometimes. I created a thread about these events once, so you can refer to it to find more information. Note that in SRL it's the developers to assemble data on the actual teams and then run a simulation of them playing.