I thought about that, but my idea is not to add another column, but to change the info in the column which you already have (column #2 called "Bitcointalk"). You could just write 'Yes (Inactive)', 'Yes (Active)', 'No' there, and it would already signify the status. It's just that the topic is called "comprehensive list", and to me it means the fullest list possible, so removing casinos from it doesn't make sense to me.
Well, I agree that playing in casinos which aren't represented on the forum is risky, and I don't think you should spend time on searching for such casinos, but it if you already have a suggestion to add some sportsbook, or you've already added it, there's no need to remove it just because they stopped being active on the forum, I think.

Op, I also think that betting should be done for fun, but it seems that many take it very seriously. I remember people on the forum saying that one shouldn't bet on a sport they don't know much because it is likely to lead to losses. But if it's all for fun, a person can choose whichever approach to betting.
As for the points you've raised, I think the problem is often that the two teams playing are very similar to one another in terms of strength, and picking a winner (or a draw) is quite hard for such games. At the same time, the underdog wins pretty often (and not only in those cases when the odds are similar), so betting is indeed a difficult thing to be consistently good at.

I'm not sure that this is the first casino with Bitcoin Lightning Network, but it's surely quite rare to see such things. I can see you also support USDT, but do you support regular Bitcoin transactions or only the Lightning Network?
I also see from the terms that even though you don't normally ask for ID, the casino is not fully anonymous since an ID can be asked when a person wants to withdraw consent, and some info like full name, phone number or Internet connection info can be asked in some cases.

Op, it's a nice list and a useful table with various info, but I think something should be done from the technical point of view. When I see the post in this thread from my PC, the last thing I see is Min Deposit, and this section is a little clipped as well. I went to see your posts through your profile to find out that there is also info about withdrawal and additional notes. Or is it just me facing this problem?

Also, perhaps instead of removing the websites which aren't active on the forum, why not just mark the status of a casino in the Bitcointalk column, for instance? Yes (active), yes (inactive) or something like that.

I've signed the petition a while ago. I don't do drugs, it's just not my thing. But I don't think people should get imprisoned for doing or distributing them either. Especially Ross seems like a good human being who just wanted to make an engaging use case for cryptos and wanted people to enjoy their freedoms which they, I believe, deserve to enjoy. I really hope they release him soon...
As for the movie, the trailer doesn't look like it's going to dive deep into the character of Ross Ulbricht, Austrian school of Economics and all that. And the top review on imdb is currently the one that gives this movie 1/10 for inaccuracies and unfair treatment of the situation.

I think when Binance is going down, it's merely due to extremely high traffic, and if people cannot sell or buy temporarily, it's probably not affecting the price that much. The price is still very high, and some corrections are ought to happen. One just shouldn't hold money on an exchange, and in that case it won't be a problem to buy or sell elsewhere at a particular moment, in case Binance is down. Right now, however, it seems to be holding up, and the price has stopped going down as well. Being reliant on an exchange and preferring it to others when there's choice are two different things.

I've been thinking about it for a while and saying that something like a crypto insurance could become very popular. Sure, some people will buy BTC and store their own keys, take and enjoy responsibility for their own money and stuff. But I think many people who're now fully into fiat but start thinking about Bitcoin would be more comfortable with storing BTC elsewhere and having someone else responsible for the safety of their coins. While this goes against the ideology of Bitcoin, it's still a form of crypto adoption, and it might become popular in the future.

That's a long and well-written article, strongly supported by sources and providing lots of background.
However, I want to address some points. For one, you're saying that Bitcoin's a singularity, the "ark of salvation". There are also other cryptocurrencies, so they might take up some of the wealth moved from other assets. Bitcoin is not the rise, but it's not the only crypto experiencing an upward trend. Ethereum almost trippled in price over the last 3 months, for instance.
I also don't think that Bitcoin will reach even $200k within the current bull run. Honestly, even the current price seems incredibly high to me.
And with Bitcoin fees spiking higher, more people will probably move to other top cryptos, so Bitcoin won't rise as high as $10 million because it won't be the only one rising.

I've never seen such a long list of restricted countries! Mine is also there, just like pretty much any other country. In such a case, I don't see why the developers couldn't go the opposite way and just name a short list of countries from which they do accept players... It's a very bad start for a casino, I think, because if people even want to give it a chance and open the link to take a look at what the website has to offer, they'd most likely just face the restriction notification and be annoyed by it. Not to mention that this casino has a strict KYC policy.

If the team is in EPL, I think it already means it has talent, no? You don't just get into the league by mediocre play, so the team is full of highly skilled people. They might not be the best in the world, but they're very close to it. And in that case, cohesion is what they lack to become stronger. By the way, they actually get relegated in the show, so the show doesn't try to say that cohesion is all a team needs.
It cannot just be limited to physical fitness. If there's a strong player who wants to score the goals himself and doesn't pass to another player even though that player has a better chance of scoring a goal just because they're competing with each other, it's a problem of the team's cohesion, not of physical fitness.

Draws are still freaking hard to predict for me. Southampton and Chelsea draw was predicted by only 4 people from the pool, congrats to them!
My feeling that Liverpool was not strong enough to win was right, but I did not expect it to lose like that to Everton either (congrats to 3 people who got this right).
But I got 3 points for Burnley vs West Brom, and this round has been very well for me so far, with 7.5 points along with webtricks and cryptofrka.

It's very risky and a lot can go wrong, but wow, in your experiment you made an amazing profit! It doesn't mean that this approach would work again, I think, but it's a nice case study. However, you didn't put actual money into it and thus didn't really turn $3 into $1k if I understand correctly. That's the only sad thing about it.
And you were "betting" on the outcome in these rounds, right? It's just that you write the score of every match, but the odds are for the 1x2 outcome, correct?

Unfortunately, that didn't happen, but I've just placed a bet on the second goal being Chelsea's. With an unsuccessful first half, I'm really hoping they'll play more confidently now and will score a goal shortly. I also think they can still win this one!
The odds are still pretty good on this one, especially with a superboost to 1.57:

Edit: Yay, it was a nice and easy win here for me!

I can see that the majority picked Liverpool to win, but I'm not so sure about it. Liverpool has three recent losses, and the overall performance of these teams this season seems to be equally not great (both have 11 wins, and in both cases it's a little less than half of games won this season). I'm not confident in my pick, but I chose a draw for this match. Draws are tricky to predict, but I think that in this case it's a pretty realistic scenario. But yeah, apparently it's a very unpopular opinion on this match, with only two other people from the pool making this choice 

It's a pretty big deal. I remember just a couple of years Apple reaching this milestone, and Bitcoin seems so far from it. And just after a few years the price jumped up, pushing BTC capitalization up. Now we need a boost of Bitcoin users because adoption is still at a pretty low level. Even more so, we need to remember that Bitcoin is not about investments returns, but about a new type of money. Unfortunately, it seems to me that when the price is rising so incredibly, it overshadows Bitcoin's purpose as money and also sheds light on a serious problem with Bitcoin as money: really high transaction fees.

I think it's really important to use well-established and reputable products when it comes to keeping your cryptos safe. Ledger is committed to keeping the coins safe, so I'd choose it over Safepal. Binance is an exchange, and exchanges aren't exactly famous for keeping users' money safe and in their hands, so even though it's a reputable company, I'd trust Ledger more over it. And besides, others already mentioned that apparently there are significant vulnerabities when it comes to Safepal (although the Kraken lab didn't find anything critical since they weren't able to steal the money).

Janation, but can the performance be good if the team has some internal conflicts? And if cohesion corresponds to performance, does it mean it's enough to just look at recent performance and assume that it's a sign of the team's strong level of cohesion?
Another question I don't see answered yet is this: if one does want to evaluate a team's cohesion, where would one look for such information? Rumors? Watching recent matches? Or perhaps this data is already evaluated by someone somewhere?

Op, most of the gold is owned by rich people, but it can be a store of wealth for anyone who buys it. As for Bitcoin, I think it's too volatile to be a store of wealth for anyone, but if we omit this consideration, there are other important things. For one, it's not a fact that the majority of BTC is owned by a small bunch of rich people. If you're referring to the richest Bitcoin addresses, many of those belong to exchanges and actually have the money of tons of people, so it doesn't count. And even if we ignore this, Bitcoin can be a store of wealth just like gold. To that you replied that people don't have extra wealth, but then the problem is that people don't have wealth, not that they can't store it in BTC.

I agree that gambling is a very good use case for cryptocurrencies. However, with recent spikes in Bitcoin fees, it's also a challenge for them because who'd pay the same fees at the deposit or withdrawal amount?
As for avoiding punishments, I don't think that's what cryptos are for. And crypto casinos also often have their own restricted areas and stuff, so playing from a restricted jurisdiction is not a good idea.
As for your website, I think it's interesting info that you're sharing there, there were things I didn't hear about there.

I don't watch streamers, so I don't care much how they present themselves and stuff, but it seems to me that taking money from sponsors is completely fine since it's beneficial both for the casino (promotion) and for the streamer (money). However, just shilling about a casino is not a nice practice. I think that it would be best to disclose this info and say openly that they sponsor you. But if someone's paying you, it doesn't mean that you don't express your own opinion. You can both enjoy the experience and get paid. And if you don't really like the casino, you shouldn't take the sponsorship either, I think. So overall, I think it's a normal practice.