I doubt Nonito can manage to sneak a one-time KO punch to Oubaali. He may connect some of his strong left hooks but probably not powerful enough to put Oubaali to sleep. Nonito always lacks the finishing follow-ups. And because I think this fight will go the distance, I am rooting for Oubaali, but might not actually bet. I don't think Nonito could outscore his opponent if the result is a UD.

Anyway, I agree with the odds.

What kind of remedy could we possibly think of right now?

I'm afraid at this point in time, we, the ordinary users who's got funds stuck in there, can do nothing but wait for further developments. It's more than 2 years now and it seems we're still far from seeing the light at the end of this tunnel. I just hope this won't end up as an example that justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

Anyway, if you haven't received an email, I think you can proceed to https://portal.cryptopia.co.nz/ and create an account. That's a necessary step for your claim.

LOL. But, well, yeah, possibly.

Sometimes, a signature campaign is posted and starts to accept applicants one whole week prior to the campaign manager finally choosing the best users. All the while, majority of the applicants are already making posts wearing the signatures, for free.

But I share BlackHatCoiner's observation. This is becoming a pointless requirement.

As I've always been thinking, we should be careful what we wish for. We want freedom? This is it. Bitcoin is the epitome of freedom so to speak. Bitcoin is a currency free for all, open 24/7, whose market is the definition of free market.

And now we are suddenly asking for limitations? That would be a feature incompatible with the spirit of freedom, of Bitcoin.

And it's kind of selfish to ask for a limit system that won't allow Bitcoin's price to decrease as high as 25%. How about a 25% increase in a day? Would that be allowed?

Why should we even dignify this FUD? At the end of the day, it all boils down to numbers; they don't lie. If we let the numbers speak for themselves, saying that crypto is just good at losing money is one absolute stupidity.

Exactly a year ago, the price of Bitcoin was only around $8,000. Today, it is $39,000. Not to mention that it is already the correction price, that it has already reached almost $65,000 around a month ago. Can anybody in Wall Street offer this level of ROI?

If you bought during the ATH and sold today, then it is not about whether Bitcoin is better than Wall Street or vice versa; it is about you taking foolish actions.

Let us not talk about the USD being the best currency. There is no point arguing against it.

Impressive indeed! And what made it a lot more impressive is that Bitcoin is existing on its own. It reached a trillion market cap and attracted global attention in so short a time without being ran or managed by an elite executive team, actively marketed or promoted by an experienced PR team, brought into partnerships with popular names in the business world, and so on. It only has itself to offer. Strictly speaking, it is not even offered, because unlike Microsoft, Apple, and the rest, Bitcoin was not actively pursuing supporters, users, and investors. Bitcoin was simply there to be discovered by people in whatever, even serendipitous, ways. It was only lately when Bitcoin started being actively shilled by its supporters.

Although it indeed started with Reddit's SatoshiStreetBets trying to recreate in cryptocurrency what WallStreetBets did with GameStop in the stock market, the moment Elon started to tweet showing some Dogecoin hints, the goal started to bear fruit. SatoshiStreetBets alone could or couldn't have succeeded with their plan, but what was obvious is that Elon's tweet was so influential. It appeared that SatoshiStreetBets had a very strong supporter in Elon. Elon's series of tweets served as a catalyst.

The fact that a lot of individual users over Twitter blame Elon for them getting rekt, losing their savings, and so on means that their decision to invest was merely based on Elon's tweets.

Bitcoin is basically all about freedom. It is closely interwoven with anarchism. The rule is that there is no rule. There is no CEO or board of directors, no president, no central authority, no central server, no headquarters, no leader, no owner, and so forth.

What we are going through right now is the bad side of freedom. In a currency such as Bitcoin, anybody is absolutely free to acquire as many as he/she can. Everybody is absolutely free to hoard them, hodl them, or dump them.

You may call it manipulation, but in a free yet unequal setting those who have more in wealth will have more in power. Now, what right do we have to exclude or discriminate someone from joining the market?

It undeniably has. However, it seems Elon is not to be totally blamed for it. Elon is having the time of his life on Twitter because millions are crazy enough to take every single one of his tweets seriously. They seem to decide on things based on a mere worthless tweet.

For example, millions would start buying Doge because Elon is making an equivocal or sarcastic tweet mentioning the meme coin. Meanwhile, traders would also quickly create buy orders the moment the tweet is made, expecting that the price would rally because Elon has tens of millions of blind fanatics.

A ripple effect is created out of a single Elon tweet. It's about time people take things more deeply.

Your passphrase holds your private keys so there is actually no need to write down your private keys on a piece of paper. Your passphrase is everything that you need.

But what do you mean by crypto on an online exchange? It is best to pull out all of your cryptocurrencies from exchanges and keep them in a wallet where you have your passphrase. If you login to your exchange account thousands and thousands of miles away, something might be triggered and you're asked to undergo KYC.

I haven't received a birthday present from any of the betting platforms I am using. Well, not a single one of them knows my birthday, so that's the number one reason why. Secondly, I doubt there is that kind of promo in any of the betting platforms that I am using. Or even if there is, and the necessary requirement for a user to avail of it is to submit personal identification information, I'd rather not avail of it.

Anyway, it is good that there is a company which offers this.

Other cryptocurrencies are not like Bitcoin because they're not Bitcoin. They're different. While Bitcoin is not owned by anybody and is fully open source, meaning anybody could copy it, recreate it, even improve it, the circumstances surrounding Bitcoin make all the difference.

Bitcoin came out as the first truly decentralized currency. It came out as a product of an unknown genius. In other words, it almost came out from nowhere, although, of course it has its precursors. These circumstances probably made Bitcoin more trustworthy.

Bitcoin has been copied a number of times already, but look where those copies are today. It seems to me it is all about the incredible level of trust that people have developed toward Bitcoin. Such trust does not solely come from Bitcoin's fundamental features; the circumstances around it truly helped.

Anybody could create another Bitcoin-like cryptocurrency, but it will never gain value more than, or even equal to, Bitcoin simply because of the circumstances. Another Bitcoin would simply be another Bitcoin, a Bitcoin copy, Bitcoin 2.0, and so on. An improved Bitcoin would just be another Bitcoin, an improved version, not the original. 

This is going to be a harder battle for the old legend but definitely a lot more exciting to watch than Manny Pacquiao vs. Mikey Garcia. This is also the easier option compared to fighting against Crawford. Spence Jr. may have a higher KO ratio against the older Crawford but the latter is definitely a lot more dangerous.

Manny's camp seems to have chosen the middle ground. Also, there's probably more money in this fight than the one against Mikey, but probably lesser than a Crawford match. But, again, there's definitely the consideration of facing a less dangerous opponent.

I am expecting Spence Jr. to be the slight favorite in this match but, at least as of this early, I think my money goes out to Pacquiao.

Yes, please, because if point A to point B to you means this:



then using your seed is enough. However, strictly speaking, you are not actually sending your coins from Ledger A to Ledger B. Your coins are not in your Ledger device, after all.

But if you aren't clear enough and actually meant that you really want to move your coins, then I guess you cannot have a Bitcoin transaction without a single trace left even if you use a tumbler. After all, your first step would be to send the coins from your wallet to a tumbler's address. Bitcoin is using a public ledger. All transactions are available to the public.

A deceased account is a deceased account. But there's really no such thing as a deceased account. The account remains here. It is inactive but posts made, threads opened, and so on are still available for anybody to see.

Anyway, if the owner dies, the account should also cease being active. That account wasn't anybody else's but the owner's. The achievements made were the owner's personal achievements. The merits were earned by nobody else but the owner. Those are not transferrable.

Whatever legacy that account left, if you truly want it preserved, that account shouldn't be transferred into the hands of another person.

As a matter of fact, it is appalling to see very old threads where discussions are rich and serious but a legendary account or two is already noticeably wearing a bounty signature. It is sad to see a very old account who used to be joining deep technical discussions now shitposting.

You may disagree, just like Fury and Bob Arum did last year on the grounds of the contract's rematch clause's expiration last October, but, again, the matter has already been submitted to the arbitration court. Unfortunately, on the part of Fury's camp, the judge has already ruled that Wilder still has the legal ground to demand for a third fight. I guess Fury and his camp would have no other option but to abide, unless Wilder would back out from it.

You cannot control the world economy but your national leaders have a good amount of control over your local economy. Inflation is everywhere. All countries have their own inflation rates. But what is not common among them is that inflation deprives the most basic of needs from a lot of people in other countries while the poorest people in other countries do not have a difficult life.

There'd be a whole lot of issues behind this reality, not least of which is mismanagement, corruption, incompetence, and so on largely on the part of those whose fate of the land is in their hands.

There is no point keeping what is not yours, much less arguing that the money wrongfully sent to your wallet is already yours. Secondly, this is not a small amount. You'd be tracked down and sued. You might even end up in prison if you get caught. It is best to just return the money, avoid any unnecessary legal battle against a wealthy company, and probably receive a reward.

On the other hand, have we not heard countless of times of stories where clients end up sending a coin through the wrong network but were not extended help to by the platforms they're using?

It was unfortunate. That was a very attractive price, after all.

I wonder why almost all trading platforms crashed at that point. Probably it was about their servers failing to contain the heavy traffic? It was not only Binance. Accordingly, the same happened to Coinbase, Kraken, Kucoin, Crypto.com, and probably more others.

I read even coinmarketcap and coingecko went through the same thing.

There may or may not be any connection at all but I guess if the regulating authorities themselves heard of a crypto donation amounting to more than a billion in USD for their country's COVID relief fund, it might be possible for them to revisit their earlier inclination against cryptocurrency. Vitalik's action must have been interpreted as a sort of a goodwill.

As to who's the hero and the villain between the two, the answer is obvious.