A matter of preference. Just like how people have a hobby of collecting insects, there's also a lot of people that have fun in slots where you just stare at an image rolling till you get a good result. Not that odd tbh, and there's also a lot of people that enjoy both, so it isn't really weird for casinos to accommodate both. I'm more of a Live casino game type, mostly because I like playing Blackjack and poker, but I do play slots sometimes, but not that often. Still, to say that live casinos require skill is a bit of a stretch, since skills on gambling only let you react on the result, it doesn't really make any change on the result of the game itself. Both games I believe require luck instead. If we think of it solely as a game that is.

It isn't a gambling game if there isn't any luck factor involved imo. Sure, some gambling games may have skill involved like poker, but that "skill" is mostly just judgement based skills, not really a skill that influences the result, like whether you're an idiot or a genius, if the final card is a 7 of hearts, that's it, the only change would be the result you'd achieve, which is either a win or a loss depending on your judgement. Skill-based on the other hand, as long as you're able to achieve a certain level of skill, a win is guaranteed, which makes it not a gamble anymore.

Not saying that gambling games is better or not, just that skill based games deviate from the core of a gambling game, which isi luck imo.

Can't even be a high roller even if I wanted to. I have set a limited amount of funds that I use for my personal enjoyment, and that isn't limited to gambling. I like buying games and collecting figures here and there, which costs a lot at times, so I only actually have a paltry amount of budget left for gambling. Still, I enjoy playing gambling games, slots naturally included there, but I would consider myself as just a regular spinner.

Not to mention that I've watched a fair share of people actually get burned by playing like a high roller on slots. Sure, if you win, it's good and all, but that word IF is a huge chasm/boundary that most would never actually go past.

It isn't unimaginable, but also pretty rare. Mostly because people would double or triple check wallet addresses before sending it, and mostly because you don't really type the address yourself, you copy it to your clipboard or just scan a qr code with the said wallet, then that's it. It's pretty stupid for one to actually type out an address characters individually, since an accident is highly likely due to the address being a mix of letters big and small, as well as numbers.

In the end, the only reason for someone to send it wrongly is due to their carelessness. Check twice, thrice, maybe even 4 times, to see if the addresses inputted in are correct, and is indeed the address you want to send you're funds to.

Pretty old vid, I also watched a robot vid in the testing back then, most of it was the robot going out of control and basically almost beating up the testers. Still, it is true in the sense that robots will replace humans, but let's be specific here. Humans would be replaced by robots in doing miscellaneous and repetitive tasks, but they won't replace humans as the leading being with intellect in the world. We may say that robots can develop their AI with enough calculations, but humans could do the same, and they could do it without any path, while robots need a path that is specifically made by humans. Besides, technically, any knowledge achieved by a robot is knowledge achieved by humans as well, we need to stop assuming that robots are and could be a third party in our path.

Bitcointalk Username: Wexnident
Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=772456
Post Count: ..... (including this one): 2339
Betnomi Name: Wexnident
Forum Rank: Senior Member
Btc Address: 1HX7kYaPuatZPjdzjZmFXd57M5C9v7GCTD
Wear sig and avatar: Will be updated once accepted, Thanks! Updated!

Bitcointalk Username: Wexnident
Profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=772456
Post Count: ..... (including this one): 2338
Tower.bet Name: Wexnident
Forum Rank: Senior Member
Btc Address: 1HX7kYaPuatZPjdzjZmFXd57M5C9v7GCTD

For those asking for the article itself, here you go
https://medium.com/@thecryptocurrencyportal/ripple-xrp-will-complete-global-expansion-into-195-countries-by-2021-e37ed6f0e97d

You can even google "Ripple to expand into 195 countries" and results should pop up immediately. The OP has the same name as the creator of the medium article, so it's probably him as well, but a quick look up already indicates that discussion bout this topic has been ongoing since June, so you guys can reference there since there's probably a lot of meaningful discussions already made.

Other than them possibly losing more than what a normal man could? Not much I suppose. In the end, investment is still an investment, even when done by a company or a single person. The only difference is it's like a single person deciding is at most, a 2x2 Rubix cube, while a company deciding whether to invest is also a 2x2 Rubix cube, just that there are around 4-5 hands moving together at the same time without actually having the mind to coordinate with each other.

I doubt it could be possible, and even if so, people would just simply start using it in smaller values ( 0.0001btc, or in satoshis) so that it can accommodate a larger amount of population. There's absolutely no sense for a currency to be held only by a select part of a population, it would only result in damage towards its economy, which I'm pretty sure most people who can hoard Bitcoin should know. A person holding every possible fiat in the world isn't rich, but rather the poorest, just like the rest of the world who doesn't own a single coin of fiat.

I'd avoid that, since most people (ignorant mostly) actually think that anyone who owns Bitcoin is instantly rich or something, heck they may not even know what to do with it if you gave them. If you really want to though, a paper wallet should be enough, but add more details or designs that would give you a kind of like brand like atmosphere, making them think that "yup, it came from that guy indeed" kind of thing. Plus, add a simple instruction on how to actually handle Bitcoin, if you have the time, add how to buy and sell BTC, as well as the benefits of hodling you can think of. It'd also be awesome if you did a keychain or maybe just a customized item with a qrcode with it (a chibi model if you have the time, qr code below).

It's not simply a vanity project I'll tell you that. Japan is definitely one of the leading countries when it comes to inventing and tech-y stuff, and with the vast amount of culture that they have that's basically related to the development of tech, you'd always expect them to pull something off like this every once in a while. Though it is more for design or just tourist attraction, developments did come from small things like that after all. Hell, at least, it's developing towards amusement and culture, instead of for war weapons or anything of the sort.

Nah, it's probably just part of their culture or something. Every country has their own, like how new houses in our country is being blessed by priests before being used by the owner and their family. Nothing really odd for it. As for the gundam itself, probably showcasing mostly for the part, but you never know how it could be useful for some weird and odd purpose.

Afaik, even if Satoshi did come back, he can't really touch the code due to how he designed it to be like that. Even if he decided to ask the community to ask something, it'd have to be something sensible and not for selfish gains, so I highly doubt even with his return, something would change. As for the issues of BTC, it's not like everyone is forced to use it, so I really see no need to even debate about it. Fees issues? Find a period of time where not many transactions are being made, or you can wait quite some time for it in exchange for lower fees. Time issues? Then spend more on fees. You want both? Then wait for a period where not much transactions are being made.

As long as there's a certain amount of confidence, betting big on a couple of matches would provide more profit imo. Yes, spreading your assets on multiple matches could provide you better chances, but without a big enough funds to actually feel the profit coming in, there's really no point. It'd be a lot better to research a few matches and then lock on to a team you're guaranteed for sure to win. Though the odds would actually be lower since there are not only you assuming their team is going to win, but at the very least, profit is guaranteed.

Spreading bets may actually take time for you to actually see profits, but well, highly up to you and your preference when it comes to betting. Big amounts on couple of matches have the risk of also losing big amounts, but spread evenly, then your win and loss is even as well, it has both its prons and cons tbh.

Hmm but this is kind of against how Bitcoin is supposed to be used. As a form of currency, using it as a form of legacy seems contradictory, especially if you're basically riding on its volatility factor to actually accept it as a type of legacy. It's still debatable even if the current volatility of Bitcoin would be retained after the supply is completely released. Yes, the price may still fluctuate, but it shouldn't move by more than 5-10% after it has settled down. Plus, there are a lot better options to consider as a legacy instead of Bitcoin imo, possibly some that actually have a meaning or a message for the ancestor to pass on to their predecessors. Sure some may consider Bitcoin as one, but a vast majority wouldn't imo.

It's not that they prefer it, but it is because it IS a medium of exchange, plus, most actually consider it as an investment even instead of a currency. And afaik, Bitcoins speed is still an issue, and that's why the lightning network is being introduced right now, though it's still at its infancy stages. Plus, if that were all Bitcoin could offer against centralized fiat, then the Government and banks could simply create their own digital fiat, with their own centralized system to make it faster. Such developments have been oddly delayed for some reason, but it would naturally be made in the near future.

It's just a what-if scenario, a useless idea to even spend time thinking about it imo. It's not like you can turn back time to invest again, and plus, it only makes you wallow back to what could've been your life is, not just in Bitcoin, but in every other decision you've probably made that you've basically regretted for quite a while. Not a positive attitude to look about tbh, thinking about the past is fine and all, but being swallowed by the fact that you could've done better is quite detrimental to ones self.

Other than that, a $1 daily investment strategy seems nice, but fees and all of that probably wouldn't even allow you to move it over properly, and would just create an unnecessary hassle. It'd probably be better to instead buy chunks every certain period of time, let's say every 2 weeks, or maybe even a month. Of course, you won't only invest $1, but more, depending on how much you can actually invest.

Decentralization, and probably ignorance are the reasons. Maybe because adoption really isn't all that big, plus, most government bodies have been against it back then which kind of forced the idea that cryptocurrencies aren't an asset, due to both ignorance of how it works, as well as malice against it. A quick search of what "asset" means would result in something that a "business, or econmic entity" owns. Due to Decentralization, we all know how Bitcoin isn't owned by any business, but it is owned by the community, which I think makes the decision to actually apply it as an asset difficult for centralized organizations. Even if we do consider the issue regarding volatility, I'm pretty sure that is up to the discretion of the person themselves, and not really enough to influence the decision of the Government.

If the Government aren't idiots, the first thing they should do when adopting regulations against crypto would be to actually introduce to the general populace what crypto really is. If they just straight up placed regulations that are clearly against crypto, people who actually know that it isn't a scam would clearly go into a riot, and would actually show how incompetent the government is when it comes to properly looking up information (which really, a simple google lookup should be more than enough to get the gist of it).

But it does ruin the image of crypto for the general populace, especially the ignorant ones of how crypto works. Most people when they think of Bitcoin, but haven't really learned it would actually first think of it as a way to earn money, that when you're in a business related to Bitcoin, you're actually rich. Most don't even know that at its core, it's a form of a medium instead of an investment.

Seems like an old article? 12 bitcoins which equated to $5000, at today's price, 12 bitcoins should go for around more than $100,000. Sides, even if we do say that the woman got it since she didn't hide her address, that was years ago when not much was really being paid attention to the security or privacy of addresses of most people. Plus, oddly enough, it's either the killer met up with the woman herself and transferred BTC directly, or through address, but in that case, the killers should also know who the woman is. If that was the case, kind of stupid from the side of the woman who hired the killer.

There is, but negotiations broke down. If what @TedMosby's link is actually the article op has said, then negotiations broke down after the killer tried to offer more expensive ways to kill someone. Seeing that OP and the link provided pertain to the same woman, it should be the same story OP has said.