I cannot seem to see his point. The man's argument is simply illogical. He's saying things which are irrelevant to his position.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin regardless if it is used by criminals and not priests, by scammers and not honest people, and so on. It is the same Bitcoin even if it is adopted by the US or El Salvador. Why is he attacking Bitcoin's improbability simply because the country adopting it first is El Salvador and not the US? It doesn't speak of Bitcoin if it is being used by a country that is on its back.

So Bitcoin is feasible if it is the US that accepts it and not if it is El Salvador or Cuba or whatever economically-challenged countries?

I am not 100% sure what OP meant by multiplayer but I think there are dice games which are basically multiplayer. For example, there are live dice games. That is a multiplayer dice game because you are not the only player who is in the game. Other players are also placing bets on the same roll that you are placing your bet on.

As to PVP in dice I haven't heard of it. There might be one, who knows? I haven't played in one, though, but it sounds interesting. Rather than play against the house, why not play against another player?

This sounds pretty good.

However, pardon my skepticism but it seems there isn't a single proof that this store actually exists and that this interview actually took place at all. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Isn't it more interesting to share a picture of the actual store along with the signage saying it accepts Bitcoin rather than just a couple of shots showing items inside a random grocery store? Also, I highly doubt this "BTC bitcoin accepted here" photo is also taken from the business establishment itself. It looks like an image grabbed from somewhere online.

And you're also saying you were just passing by the road, see a board up the store that bitcoin payments are accepted, and immediately meet the owner, had a long discussion with him, and finally interviewed him?

Finally, your interview is unplanned and random or impromptu. It doesn't appear so.

This is making a very simple thing look complicated. If you are familiar with Khabane or Khaby Lame, you get my point.

The hard part in trading actually is not the computation of risk and reward ratio. Rather, it is the determination of the reward. In your example, you have an entry price of $100 and a profit target of $160. How did you determine the $160? Why not just $130? Why not $140 or $150 or even $200 or $250? Is there a resistance at $165 or $170? Is $160 the targeted peak before the price will correct? Why do you think so? How did you come up with it?

I'm afraid the managers here in this forum won't publicly post their rates on this thread. I haven't managed a bounty campaign before but I guess there are no strictly flat rates. It would most probably depend on the specific tasks and the number of participants, among other factors. Perhaps fees are also negotiable to a certain extent.

Rightly or wrongly, the credibility of the projects are sometimes associated with the credibility of bounty managers. As such, if a campaign is managed by the likes of Hhampuz or yahoo62278, it could be expected that the slots get filled up easily. So perhaps it matters a lot if a bounty campaign is managed by an unknown newbie or a popular legendary manager.

I also didn't click on the link.

Anyway, when it comes to luck-based games such as roulette, strategies will never end up profitable in the long run. But one of the reasons why roulette is fun is that you can experiment with strategies. But there's not much strategies you can make with a roulette really. When I play roulette, aside from just placing a bet randomly, all I can make use of is the pattern. It is not wise to rely on patterns, of course, but when it is already 8 consecutive reds or even number, you might want to bet on black or odd number.

I, too, am not really sure of what the law really intends to enforce. There is that Article 7 which says, "Every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service." And yet there is also that Article 12 which says, "Those who, by evident and notorious fact, do not have access to the technologies that allow them to carry out transactions in bitcoin are excluded from the obligation expressed in Art. 7 of this law."^[1]

There is no explicit mention of companies but the country's finance minister, Alejandro Zelaya, has also said that there are no sanctions to businesses that do not accept Bitcoin.^[2]

I may be wrong in my interpretation but I am assuming that when the president's spokesman, Ernesto Sanabria, and even the president himself, says, without qualification, that Bitcoin is not mandatory or that it is "totally optional," it means it is optional both to individuals and business entities.^[3][4]

Of course, I could be wrong.

---

[1] https://freopp.org/el-salvadors-bitcoin-law-full-proposed-english-text-9a2153ad1d19
[2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/el-salvador-not-require-bitcoin-175818038.html
[3] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/23/el-salvador-will-not-require-bitcoin-acceptance-president-bukele-confirms/
[4] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/18/bitcoin-use-will-be-totally-optional-in-el-salvador-finance-minister-says/

Other users have already advised you to get at least the basic knowledge first before finally releasing money. And rightly so. What I intend to point out is that this is not just for you to finally decide whether you will purchase only Bitcoin or only ETH or both; this is actually to minimize the risk. You planning to purchase without understanding how the cryptocurrency market works means you will be exposed to the different predators in the market. The market is full of phishing attempts, fake sites and apps, scams, and so on. Studying the market means understanding how to buy, where to buy, what wallet to use, and so forth.

In a dice game, losing is not that painful. That you will eventually get back to step 1 or end up with nothing does not make the game bad. It doesn't actually take away all the fun because you are fully aware that it is the end 99% of the time. I also used to experiment with a lot of dice strategies in the past. It was fun. There's this particular strategy which seems to make my money last longer. But then when I apply the same the following day, it doesn't work out like yesterday and my bubble is popped.

In the end, dice is simply a past time activity. It is never a way to make money.

I don't think this is what is being implemented in the country right now. In my understanding, there is not only freedom to receive/keep Bitcoin payments as Bitcoin or USD, there is also freedom to accept Bitcoin or not. In other words, people and businesses have the freedom not to download the Bitcoin wallet or application. In other words, not to accept Bitcoin payments.

President Bukele has this to say:


https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1429608848998993924

The second and third paragraph says, "People will be able to download an application to receive payments or gifts in #bitcoin or DOLLARS." "If they want they will download it and if they don't want to, no." respectively.

The advantage of the house does not come from how you manage your money or how much in bet you would place in a roll. The advantage of the house is constant and it comes from the house edge. The casino is always a step ahead of the player so in the bigger picture there is really no beating the casino.

The house edge is not affected by any wagering mechanism. So it doesn't matter what strategy you use. The house is always at an advantage over the player.

Yes, there were confusions at the start particularly because Article 7 of the Bitcoin law explicitly states that "Every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service."^[1] This is now being repeatedly mentioned by anti-Bitcoin entities to sow misinformation among the public. This caused fear and uncertainty among the people especially those who do not have the access both to knowledge and the technologies needed.

However, the same law also explicitly states in Article 12 that "Those who, by evident and notorious fact, do not have access to the technologies that allow them to carry out transactions in bitcoin are excluded from the obligation expressed in Art. 7 of this law."^[Ibid.]

Moreover, the president himself has made it clear very recently that the people have the freedom to download the app or not. "If they want they will download it and if they don't want to, no."^[2]

The problem is that the oppositions are peddling lies to the public. And now even the old pensioners are afraid that their regular pension is to be converted into Bitcoin. This is not happening. Again, Bitcoin is as legal a tender as the USD. Anybody has the freedom to choose USD over Bitcoin.

[1] https://freopp.org/el-salvadors-bitcoin-law-full-proposed-english-text-9a2153ad1d19
[2] https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1429608848998993924

I'm curious where the OP got this news. I think OP hasn't been properly informed about this. Bitcoin is not the country's only legal tender. El Salvador is not replacing the USD with Bitcoin. The USD is to stay as a legal tender alongside Bitcoin. This means to say that businesses as well as the country's citizens have the freedom to use USD over Bitcoin. They are not forced to use Bitcoin. If they do not understand how Bitcoin works or simply do not like to use Bitcoin at all, it is their freedom not to use it.

So now there is not only Binance in the middle of Person 1 and Person 2's transaction; there is also Pexpay. Binance takes personal information from users who wish to use its platform and trade peer to peer and then there's also Pexpay that will facilitate transactions.


That's good to hear. However, zero is a big word. If it's possible to leak a top secret file kept by the most secure agencies in the world, then I'd rather not exaggerate and use the terms minimal or very little instead of zero.

Which means the survey results may not be representative of the public's general sentiment. The respondents have relatively high appreciation of the subject because they know and understand what it is. However, I believe only a minor percentage of the overall population in the world knows about crypto and blockchain. If the respondents were chosen randomly and widely scattered from different classes of people, economic status, education, and so on, the results could have been very different.

Anyway, I don't think the fiat currency will be gone in 5 to 10 years.

You're probably referring to a random guy you just met online. If you are, this is an old tale. Unfortunately, this keeps repeating on and on and on.

Anyway, on to the lessons one could get from this:

1. When it comes to investment or trading or any offer for a profit coming from a random person online, dismiss all of them immediately. Label them as scam if you wish. It is better to err on the side of safety.

2. Don't trust and don't verify either. But if you wish to verify, for goodness' sake, do it before you even make a deposit. If you wish to raise this up in a forum like this one, do it before you waste money. Always resolve your doubts and suspicions first before you commit.

3. Profit is hard to make. Don't expect it to just be given away by anybody.

4. A scammer is a scammer. If you have already been scammed once, don't let him do it again. There will be offers to follow like OP's $100k fund or a KYC for withdrawal. Don't commit the same mistake.

At the very least this is questionable, at most this is false. What is only guaranteed in a DEx is that it is an exchange. The D there which means decentralized may not be. There are factors which argue that UniSwap is not as decentralized as it may claim. We only need to look at what UniSwap Labs can do to the overall direction of the project to somehow get the idea that they have sufficient power to make changes outside the governance protocol.

To be fair, this might be the thing that the SEC wants to understand. So this is not really an investigation of a wrongdoing on the part of the platform. This is just to understand how things really work.

I doubt this user is an official representative of Binance or in any way connected with the exchange. If he/she is, then let it be known that Binance's P2P somehow betrays the very reason for P2P which is to avoid centralized platforms and sharing personal information. Binance's P2P is done through a centralized third party which asks as a matter of compulsory requirement to submit personal information.

Edit:

Yes, in the name of AML as expected.

Users' data are strongly protected until a leak happens. If something happens once, it is bound to happen again. There was also the same promise and assurance before which ended up with at least 60,000 users' personal information compromised.


https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2019/08/07/binance-customer-data-has-leaked-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/

It is therefore the same with developing countries and developed countries when it comes to gambling companies preying more on the economically inferior segment of the population. If this is true both in my country, a developing one, and in the UK, a highly developed one, there must be something more to this than just pure coincidence.

I guess it matters significantly that gambling is offered to the particular portion of the population who wishes to get out of their economic difficulties the easy way. There must be more money in doing business with them. I think luck sells more easily to poor people than rich ones.

How so? I mean, why do you think that such a point will occur?

If it cannot be avoided that you use an exchange, just make sure you are choosing one from among the top and most trusted. And also make sure you are not keeping your coins there. The moment you're finished with your business, pull out your coins and keep them in a storage under your sole control.


Having limited resources is in fact the very reason why small players will have to protect what little they have at all cost. If it means they need to buy a hardware wallet, then they should do it. If a hardware wallet is too expensive for them, there are open-source non-custodial wallets out there that are for free. They just have to make sure they are downloading them from the official sites. They should also make sure they are keeping their seed in a very safe place outside the access of anybody else. In other words, they need to be careful in every step of the way.

Hacks do not happen everyday. A cold wallet or an open-source non-custodial wallet, careful verification in every transaction, safekeeping of password and PIN and seed, and so on will reduce the risk of getting hacked to the minimum.