|
Initiate remembrance mode, okay? Game's not over until you tap out. Your narrative is practically oozing with that rags-to-riches charm, transforming a wee bit of investment into a full-blown bonanza. Hats off to that! But the hitch, as you've duly noticed, lurks in the labyrinth of making that bonanza play nice.
The call of the wild, the adrenaline rush of putting all your chips in one basket—it's an irresistible siren's song, even for those grizzled finance veterans. It's like an action flick, yeah, but seldom scribbles a happy ending in the long run.
Ever thought about sprinkling your windfall across other not-so-rollercoaster-y investment paths? Like putting your eggs in a few different baskets to dial down the gamble and invite a steady stream of greenbacks. Okay, it might not be the same adrenaline shot, but it could fortify your financial fortress. At the end of the day, isn't the real dream a comfy nest egg rather than an arbitrary 'milli' goal?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago, my savings went down because of the FTX debacle. I've never used FTX, I've never been a customer of this company, but my savings are in BTC, and because of that failure, BTC's value went down, and so went my savings.
Today, bis repetita. I've never used Binance. I've never been a customer of this company, but because the SEC sues Binance, BTC is down, and so are my savings, so I have a message to all bitcoiners out there.
Exchanges and BTC are 2 different things. One exchange going down doesn't mean BTC must follow.
Binance will disappear? I don't give a damn.
Everything has its place. There are people who believe so much in exchanges to take care of their assets security more than they think they can do for themselves, and as such, most people save their coins on centralized exchanges with hope and believe that they are the best option. Which is the worst idea anyone can have. A true Bitcoiner knows the value and benefits of self-custodial. The price of Bitcoin always goes down based on the level of fudz, which is a cause against Bitcoin. The Bitcoin price is not controlled by anyone, but most times it can be manipulated, since the case of the SEC coming after Binance CEO is enough reason for non-believers to start panic selling, which can cause a drastic price dump, but this can only be temporary and not a permanent price. But you shouldn't be considering your savings gone until you have sold them out entirely. So long as you still hold your coin, there is a higher chance and possibility of regaining everything that you have calculated to have lost when the bull market comes. That's why we are always advised to hodl strong in a bearish market and never to sell under panic. I don't think it's about these people believing in the fact that Binance will secure their assets better than they could, I mean this is a CEX that gets hacked and robbed from almost every year by the millions, I don't think it's going to scream "security" anywhere, although you're right, there's a good amount of people in this industry who thinks that Binance will take care of their assets. Although going back, that is not what I think is the reason why. Bitcoin as it stands today's accessible through multiple channels, but it would be stupid and dishonest to say that Binance and Centralized Exchanges aren't a way for these people to get into crypto and start their cryptocurrency journey. It's been like that for years, and the recent barring of Binance and the legal implications it carries with it just spells "we can't use bitcoin anymore" to people who were introduced to cryptocurrency by Binance. And it being a major player in the industry too, makes a lot of people lose confidence in the industry, hence the drop in valuation. You could say that OP is right, people are giving too much importance over exchanges, but that attention is warranted and deserved, as they played a great part in introducing regular people into this industry too, especially in the 2019-2023 mark. Your viewpoint does carry weight; it's true that trusting centralized exchanges entirely could potentially be risky. However, let's not neglect that these platforms have catalyzed the crypto revolution for the common man. For many, exchanges like Binance have been the gateway to the world of crypto, simplifying the process of buying, selling, and holding digital assets. Yet, I agree that complete reliance on such platforms for asset security could be a bit naive. The mantra in crypto circles, "Not your keys, not your coins," still rings true. An ideal approach might involve using hardware wallets or other self-custodial solutions, along with exchanges. As for the FUD impacting Bitcoin prices, I concur that emotional trading often leads to volatility. In such scenarios, the classic advice of HODLing (Hold On for Dear Life) seems most apt, don't you think? |
|
|
|
That's what I thought too. Robbers probably aimed for the cash inside that ATM, but unfortunately It seems like the ATM wasn't really used that much for the people nearby to purchase bitcoin using that ATM. I am also wondering, there might be some cash inside since it might offer deposit and withdrawal feature like the fiat ATM. I didn't take a time to read the article though, dont know how the story goes, but if the Robbers were actually aiming for some physical Bitcoins, then I don't what else to say other than asking them if they just came out from the cave LOLOL!
Although a thief in a cave cannot obtain Bitcoin from an ATM, it is not accurate to claim that 'Bitcoin cannot be robbed'. To this day, there are still numerous cases of theft and scams involving Bitcoin. Hackers can still target all our data, which poses a threat to the wallets we keep secure. As of now, I can still assert that Bitcoin ATMs (BTMs) are safe from thieves who are not familiar with the internet, technology, or blockchain. What we've been reading in the news is mostly about Bitcoin wallets with substantial balances. However, cases of Bitcoin wallets being hacked with small balances are not widely publicized. That means there's still a significant number of incidents that go unreported. I think it's critical to distinguish between physical robbery of a Bitcoin ATM and virtual theft of Bitcoin. The former, as you've humorously pointed out, is an exercise in futility. Cryptocurrencies exist in the digital realm; one cannot "rob" them in the conventional sense. However, you're correct that Bitcoin is not immune to theft. Sophisticated hacking techniques can compromise wallets, and phishing scams can trick individuals into revealing their private keys. We've witnessed these in the numerous high-profile security breaches that have hit crypto exchanges in recent years. I'd suggest the discourse should focus on strengthening the security infrastructure of cryptocurrency systems. This involves stringent regulation of exchanges, educating users on secure handling of their private keys, and promoting hardware wallets for long-term storage. That's the way forward, don't you think? |
|
|
|
I don't think they are. If Ledger is good at one thing, that's marketing and advertising their products and services. They did a lousy job with the PR for Ledger Recover the first time. I think they will hang back, gather their thoughts, and try again once the storm passes. We are forgetting that many ideas shared by members of this forum is not what the regular crypto user thinks. The average person isn't going to run their own node, stay clear of centralized exchanges, never submit KYC, or worry too much about privacy-invasive software and services. I don't think they will see the dangers in sharing their seeds with multiple online partners either if you package it and sell it to them in a nice wrapping. Ledger will probably lose a percentage of their current userbase because people have found out their hardware wallets aren't as safe as they trusted Ledger they would be. In the long run, they might make up for it with new users, like the millions of mothers  looking to purchase hardware wallets where there is a system in place to correct their mistakes. I guess you're right. The vast majority of crypto users want convenience on top of privacy/security/decentralization. While Ledger will lose customers because of its recovery service, it won't be much of a big deal compared to the rest of the people who really don't care about anything. For crypto veterans like myself, we would look into other alternatives that respects the true values of crypto/Blockchain tech. I'm glad there are plenty of open source alternatives on the market. This would make crypto stronger in the long run. Would you imagine hardware wallet companies being compromised by the government in the future? If there were no open source wallets, no one would be able to use a hardware wallet without giving away their privacy and freedom. I hope Ledger learns its lesson and decides to abandon plans to launch the recovery service. Maybe it will turn into an open source hardware wallet company in the long run? Interesting! Still, I’d argue that the crypto is diverse enough to accommodate a spectrum of user needs and preferences. While I acknowledge the flaws in Ledger's approach, isn't there room for a more varied ecosystem? Crypto veterans like us are likely to prefer open-source, non-custodial wallets for optimal security and control. However, there's a substantial chunk of crypto users who prefer a degree of convenience and user-friendliness, even at the expense of some privacy and control. Isn't the key here diversity? The more significant issue I see here is user education. Many newbies are unaware of the potential privacy risks associated with certain practices. Rather than demonizing Ledger, perhaps our energy should be focused on enlightening these users? Remember, a well-informed user is less likely to fall prey to pitfalls, right? |
|
|
|
|
Here's the thing - the financial jitters you're experiencing are definitely real, and your idea to use Bitcoin as a cash reserve echoes a predicament faced by a global crowd. But remember, you gotta tread lightly; Bitcoin, for all its worth as an inflation shield, comes packaged with its very own risks
Yes, it's out there in the wild, decentralized, and free from governmental puppet strings. But this digital bucking bronco is known for its epic mood swings. The value can rocket sky-high only to plunge into the abyss just as swiftly. Add to this, the ground rules and warm reception to Bitcoin varies widely from one country to another, and that includes Bangladesh.
Maybe try looking at a buffet of investments. How about dipping your toes in the stock market, trading commodities, or becoming a property tycoon? Or even stocking up on foreign currencies that are more on the stable side? Each investment has its own game of roulette, but scattering your bets can help soften the blow if one goes belly up. How does this game plan sound to you?
|
|
|
|
My younger sister told me that how you bear your pocket money because dad doesn't give you much money without education fees. I told my sister that I have a little investment in Bitcoin and I am a short term trader (though the fund is little). She told that she learned about Bitcoin at her ICT related books. But she has not much knowledge about it. Then I tried to teach him the basics of Bitcoin. At last I succeed though there are enough information to learn by my sister. She told me that she is interested to be a Bitcoin user. And already she started to keep some money from daily pocket money and after that she will invest in Bitcoin. I told that not only you but also other girls should learn about Bitcoin and Blockchain technology. She told me that she will share her experience about Bitcoin with her college friends. I am now much happy by sharing with my younger sister about Bitcoin and will be more happy if she share information and teach other friends.
When I first started reading your story I thought your story was going to be a really nice story and it surprised me that your sister was going to be interested in Bitcoin. It is not right to neglect her because she is a girl because in today's world girls are also working in many big industries and various types of technological companies and are doing very well. And women are also carrying out the government duties of many countries. But suddenly I noticed that your sister came to know about Bitcoin from ICT books. then it raised some questions in my mind. And I kept thinking and also searching on the internet if any country's ico book has anything written about Bitcoin. But I couldn't find it anywhere. then it made me think that your story might be made up and fake Can you tell what the purpose of making such a fake story? Lol Your skepticism is understood! Bitcoin being mentioned in ICT textbooks is uncommon, given its controversial nature and the general conservatism in educational curricula. However, this doesn't necessarily deem the story fraudulent. Some curricula might be ahead of the curve, incorporating emerging technologies like Bitcoin into their course content. Who knows? Also, remember, we live in the age of the internet where digital resources complement textbooks. She could have encountered Bitcoin in a wider context of ICT studies. The key takeaway here is the focus on financial literacy and technology understanding among girls. Whether the story is factual or not, it does spotlight an issue that warrants attention. Women's participation in tech and finance is a discourse we should be having, wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
|
The mystery around the signature from the 1018 block certainly fuels a cryptic narrative. Though, I'd advise caution in attributing this to theft or sale of Hal Finney's keys. It's a major claim and would require substantiated evidence to uphold. Considering the decentralized and secure nature of the blockchain, this could alternatively be a publicity strategy for the ordinal explorer that leonidas.og is developing. A publicity stunt, perhaps? Nothing draws a crowd more than a bit of enigma. What we must remember is that signing a message with a private key doesn't necessarily indicate ownership of the associated Bitcoins. It's a complex and multi-layered issue, worth following closely but with a critical eye.
|
|
|
|
Had you considered using bitcoin in your discussion of this topic or not.. or do you really believe that your use of the term crypto provides any kind of a less than vague depiction of what is happening and being attempted in El Salvador in regards to bitcoin and/or its attempts at tech-friendliness?
The word crypto is a vague word that can be misused by many shitcoin promoters. They hid under the word crypto to promote their scam projects while telling unsuspecting clients that their coin and bitcoin are in the same category. So many people in my country assume that there are no differences between Bitcoin and other coins because they have been deceived that all of them are the same. This is why I always support it when people argue that the name of the coins should be mentioned because hiding under the term crypto can be abused and misused. There is a big difference between Bitcoin and shitcoin and shouldn't be used interchangeably and both terms should be clearly differentiated, but many members have misunderstood this fact and ended up. Making that mistakes each time their make comments, and also shutcoinairs have constantly and consciously used the term crypto to mean and promote the coins in the same category as bitcoin which is something we constantly discredit in our various discussions as related to Bitcoin or the entire cryptocurrency. But when it comes to El Salvador's Bitcoin adoption, the discussion there is no way we gonna accept the term crypto to be used in our discussions since El Salvador was specific in their approach to the adoption of Bitcoin and no other coin so shitcoinair can gain any place in this discussion and we must consciously and our words while having this discussion. It seems to me that there are levels of concern that come when referring to bitcoin within the concept of crypto or cryptocurrencies, and even if none of us can really figure out what the term crypto means, there should be some kind of an obligation of the person who chooses to use such word to be clear about what is the references. So the first level is merely just clarifying what is meant, and if someone is trying to suggest that there is some kind of an amorphous idea out there that involves crypto and bitcoin happens to be part of that, then even if they might be technically accurate, many times they are inaccurate an misleading by failing and refusing to clarify what they mean exactly - or alternatively if they are trying to suggest that various shitcoins are kind of like bitcoin, then that is also misleading... . ..so when it comes down to El Salvador, we know that they emphasize bitcoin and not crypto and not shitcoins, but to some degree, there likely needs to be some level of tolerance to shitcoins and other various products that might overlap with shitcoins, crypto and even sometimes it might not even be clear exactly how much any other party, person, business or other government is wrapped up into or confused by shitcoins, and so part of the process of promoting bitcoin and expanding bitcoin is going to have various overlaps with shitcoins that are affinity scamming bitcoin - .. so frequently it is not going to be clear where to draw the line exactly, even if some cases of promoting shitcoins or naysaying upon bitcoin are more clear than others and there needs to be some forced clarifications when some folks are either sloppy in their use of language, even if they might not be purposefully trying to promote shitcoins or to naysay on bitcoin and even sometimes there might be some useful products or ideas that they might have that might not be exactly bitcoin related, but in the end, likely bitcoin is going to end up touching upon all areas of life, even areas in which people are scamming and involving themselves into using bitcoin, too. Intriguing how your assertion just lit a light bulb in my brain! True, you could say there's a chasm of difference separating Bitcoin from the motley crew of cryptos often derisively dubbed 'shitcoins'. Bitcoin has demonstrated its muscle, bounceback-ability and capacity for disruption. However, does it totally nullify the use-value of the other coin-kids on the block? Sure, Bitcoin may be the cool kid now that El Salvador gave it a nod, but does that imply the entire crypto-crew is nothing but deadweights? Some of these so-called 'shitcoins' have gone through a metamorphosis, finding their own corner in the vast crypto world. Ethereum, with its smarty-pants contracts, is breaking molds left and right in numerous sectors. Are we so quick to ignore its worth? Moreover, 'crypto' isn't just some buzzword millennials love to throw around. It's a power-packed term symbolizing the revolutionary ability of blockchain tech. So, shouldn't we emphasize the gap between Bitcoin and its counterparts, but also push for a thorough grasp of the richly varied crypto-sphere? |
|
|
|
I believe it's kinda tricky .. if it is a one time payment , i don't because i believe it's the value of it at that moment but when it's little payments here and there i kinda feel as if i could've paid with fiat and it woulda been fine but with when i pay with BTC it makes me feel like i'm losing value ..
Even if it's small amount, I would advise you to not pay with Bitcoins. These coins are limited in numbers, hence very valuable, so if you just pay with Bitcoins and give away all your hard earned coins, then no one can stop you from this foolish act. Instead of accumulating these valuable coins, you just giving away the coins. Moreover I always feel bad when I pay in Bitcoins, but I do that only when I don't have any options or it's just an urgent payment that needed to be done. But one advise to everyone, soon the Bitcoins will rise in it's price, so buy and hold as many as you can. This will indeed be different from a perspective perspective because with something like this there will definitely be someone who wants it and someone who refuses too because of various considerations but I think that's normal because of course things like this can still happen because we are free to do whatever we want. We want. I also actually quite agree with you because even though it can be done for payment but I don't know why it feels quite unfortunate to do that but on the other hand in this case I also still want to feel that way because it's not wrong to do it once to do buying with bitcoin regardless it's small or big but feeling something new of course it's not wrong. Intriguing perspective! While I concur that Bitcoin's finite supply makes it inherently valuable, I'd argue it's a simplified view to discourage its use for transactions. Isn't the primary purpose of any currency to serve as a medium of exchange? Applying this logic, hoarding Bitcoin in anticipation of a price rise is akin to betting on a speculative asset, not utilizing a currency. Besides, widespread usage of Bitcoin for everyday transactions can potentially stabilize its value and reduce price volatility. What's necessary, in my view, is a balanced approach - HODL (Hold On for Dear Life, for those not in the crypto loop) some for potential future gains, and use some to encourage its mainstream adoption. That would help Bitcoin fulfil both of its purposes, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
There are different approaches and varying degrees of flexibility or restrictions that can be applied in the development of a protocol like Bitcoin. Bitcoin's protocol development involved finding a balance between flexibility and rules to maintain the security, integrity, and consensus of the network. It is a complex task to meet diverse use cases while ensuring the network remains robust and resilient. Regarding the Taproot upgrade and its impact on space requirements, Taproot is primarily focused on improving the privacy, scalability, and flexibility of Bitcoin transactions. Although Taproot introduces new codes and features, it is designed to be backward compatible, meaning it does not significantly increase the capacity requirements for individual instances. The aim is to provide more efficient transaction processing while minimizing the impact on the size of the blockchain.
isn't the beauty of Bitcoin in its simplicity? Its core principles, its resilience, its immutability? Let's mull over Taproot a bit. Sure, it brings improvements to privacy and scalability, which sound like unicorns and rainbows. But isn't there a chance it might actually complicate things further? Are we just making Bitcoin's transaction processing fancier without addressing the elephant in the room – the ever-growing size of the blockchain? And let's not forget, Bitcoin was built to be decentralized. But with these upgrades, are we making it more complicated, potentially requiring more advanced systems to participate? Could we end up centralizing what is fundamentally decentralized? That's something to scratch our heads about! |
|
|
|
- When self-control is used correctly, it will followed by self-limitation, therefore losses can be avoided. Because most of the time gambler cannot get rid of the words "I will bet again because I feel that this time I will be right and I will recover my loss" these kinds of thoughts are what drives them that they don't realize they are getting loss continously without noticing it.
Then in the end they will say that "I should have stopped betting earlier so I wouldn't have led to a big loss" their regret its too too late.
Thoughts like that can trap gamblers to keep betting because they think this one round will be the last time they gamble and will stop after that. Even though this is not the case because most of them will continue to say things like that because they think one last round will recover their losses. And what's even worse, many of them immediately place bets with big money so that the losses will be even bigger when they lose. After that loss, they said they were sorry but oddly enough, they didn't realize it the next day when they gambled again. And that caused them to experience another defeat that could be even bigger. Indeed, the person you've been conversing with has presented an astute observation of human behavior in relation to gambling. Betting is analogous to a moth being drawn to a flame. Despite the inevitable harm, it is irresistibly lured by the prospect of light. The psychological trap of "just one more bet" is a potent one. It's akin to the infamous paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. Despite all logical indicators suggesting otherwise, gamblers believe they can catch up with their losses. The subsequent regret is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. We often fail to act in our best interests, leading to remorse, which unfortunately is short-lived. It's somewhat similar to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. |
|
|
|
Sometimes I used to see the police around my region arresting people publicly playing shot card games and the label it as gambling even though those playing this game don't stake money but the law enforcement agency still categorized it as gambling, so I believe whether or not you stake an amount or just playing for the fun, it all gambling as long as there is a game to contend for the winning unless it sports games if not it all gambling.
Maybe it was because they used cards that were synonymous with gambling that the police thought they were gambling. The authorities could catch people playing cards with their friends even if they didn't use money. So if we want to play sports or anything else, we have to be careful not to use any money so the police won't take it as a bet. But I don't know. The response of each person or the police must also be different and some will think of it as gambling. Games that being use to gamble should be play privately or else this kind of incident will happened. This scenario is happening on my country. Police sometimes planting evidence to all the people that they saw playing publicly because they knew that this people really gambling but just hiding money away from the table. I’m confused these people still wants to gamble publicly while they can always play on their houses privately. Local gambling is very popular in my counter which is why police is very strict on catching them even with just a slightly hint of gambling. Indeed, the line between innocent fun and illegal gambling can be murky. It seems your country's authorities are treading on thin ice, criminalizing innocent card games based on an association with gambling. That's akin to banning a rose because it shares its thorns with a cactus. Your concern about public versus private gaming brings a fascinating question to the table - should freedom of assembly succumb to the specter of gambling? One can't help but find this a slightly Orwellian overreach. Lastly, the notion of law enforcement planting evidence is a serious allegation and hints at a systemic problem. It's the perfect recipe for a Kafkaesque nightmare. If this is indeed the norm, then the conversation needs to shift from cards and games to the principles of justice and rule of law. |
|
|
|
Your post is incomplete did you hit the wagering requirement, if so you can withdraw but if they ask you to do KYC, you should if there is a KYC requirement in their terms, they have a reason why they asked you for KYC, I have not heard or read about this casino but I cannot categorize this as a legit complaint.
You should undergo KYC first and if they still do not allow you to withdraw your money and they gave you a false accusation, then that's the time to open a complaint.
You should understand what you are signing up on the casino I guess you did not read before you hit sign up.
I am surprised at gamblers like this because they experience problems or difficulties in the casino because of their own mistakes, who do not want to complete the requirements but instead claim that they were tricked or not given good service.
He should have read the TOS first so he could avoid problems like this because in every casino, if it gives certain requirements, it will always be written in the TOS so that gamblers can fulfill them, especially when withdrawing large amounts of gamblers must be prepared if asked for special requirements.
I agree with you and it does seem like he should have done what the casino asked him to do to process withdrawals before filing a complaint. They will seriously read the ToS once their account is having problems with the site. I believe, most gamblers are not really reading the ToS, hence, such common problem is being encountered. That will be an expensive lesson for the OP. He has no battle to fight with if he clearly violated the terms of the site. Though he got away in his previous withdrawals but this time, he got caught by the site, then I don't think he can still get his money out of this if he is not willing to comply with the terms of the site. I must profess that I wholly understand your observations. The caveat emptor - "let the buyer beware" – rings particularly true in the case of online gambling. It's absolutely paramount for all players to meticulously scrutinize the Terms of Service (ToS) before indulging in such activities. This common embarrassment of neglecting the ToS leads to an unfortunate cascade of problems that could otherwise be averted. The onus lies on the individual to safeguard his or her interests. We shouldn't confuse ignorance for deception on the casino's part. It's a hard pill to swallow, but it's crucial to remember that the rules of the game are usually crystal clear for those who dare to look. |
|
|
|
Gambling is a choice we did it with our own decision there is nothing that we would say could change it.
We gamble to gain something from it even though we are aware that we could lose rather than gaining what we want.
That is the risk that we took when we decided to gamble, so we must bare the consequence of it.
sometimes people are so stressed that they start gambling Many starts it at an early age and become professional gammblor sooner Being stressed is not an excuse to start gambling if you don't want to gamble, there are actually a lot of better thing to do to gain rest and calm nerves down when ultimately stressed, gambling is actually not very much an option if I begin to mention them, even though many do see gambling as away to relax, I must tell you that if you sole purpose for gambling is because you are stressed and need rest, there is a high chance you might end up becoming even more stressed due to loses, expect you are the type who have learnt to see gambling as a way of having fun rather than making money/profit, but then, majority of those who gamble today, even the so called professionals, gamble with one goal in their mind, and that is to make money. We can rely on gambling if we're looking for comfort and pleasure, but gambling is never a solution if we're looking for momentary stress relief. Additionally, it is not a good idea to bet when under stress because we are more likely to make poor choices if we feel weak emotionally. If you feel stressed, you better keep yourself from gambling, or else, your stress might get worst in the future. There are other solutions for you to find relief. It is better to gamble when you are well-conditioned emotionally rather than relying on it when you're troublesome. Just gamble when you want to generate profit and when you are emotionally prepared because gambling will surely challenge your emotions and your decisions might only be based on what you feel. Stress and gambling go together about as well as oil and water. When you're up to your neck in stress, the last place you want to find yourself is in a casino or on an online betting site. Your decisions become hasty, the stakes feel higher, and the losses hit harder. However, I feel compelled to play the devil's advocate here. Not everyone who gambles does so with dollar signs in their eyes. There are those who treat it as a harmless diversion, a moment of respite in the hustle and bustle of life. Yes, a well-conditioned emotional state is pivotal when gambling, but let's not forget that it's not the only variable in play. Having a solid understanding of the game and its strategies is equally, if not more, important. Knowledge is power, after all. |
|
|
|
debit card could lead to plenty problem we might not able to resolve since the there are some issues that is attached to debit card uses. Those who are using card to fund there online account can be doing that is some. Level of risk attached to it and if we use our debit card on scam casinos, we might end up losing our money without getting it back.
It would be more dangerous if they continued to use credit and debit cards because, after all, we can forget to control the use of the cards. We freely deposit large amounts of money for gambling; if we can't control ourselves, it becomes even more dangerous. So it is not recommended to connect debit cards and credit cards for gambling, even for online shopping, because now many hacks are happening on many sites. It's unlikely anyone would ever connect a debit or credit card to a crypto-based casino, but for fiat casinos it can happen. If you really want to connect a debit or credit card it's better to use a new one because I'm sure everyone must have more than one card so as to minimize financial expenses for excessive gambling and also to protect against other things such as hacking. But we are in the crypto gambling industry so there is no need to use a debit or credit card. Does even the crypto casino offers the deposit method using fiat money ? As far as I know most of the crypto casinos only allows you to deposit in cryptocurrencies. There may be few casino which offers deposit method in both crypto and fiat credit cards. I think deposit using crypto is more convenient as compare to the credit card deposit. You can't trust every casino in sending your credit card information to them. There are ones which are hybrid on which they could accept out cryptocurrency deposits and at the same time they do accept out Fiat deposits too but usually these are those usual traditional casinos online which are fiat based but lately had accepted and adopted crypto payments on which they would really be might having this kind of offering when it comes to bonuses.In speaking about using up your CC for the sake of bonus then it wouldnt really be bad because you could really be having that additional but we should bare up in your mind that whether you do make use of crypto or CC or fiat which those bonuses would really be still in line or having that terms and conditions on which you would be needing to comply before you could be able to make some withdrawal on which this isnt something new. Use up your credit cards on your own ways or decisions on which it would really be that normal that you would really be exposing your identity on the time that you would be making use of these things which it is really that a common situation. Some digital wager parlors are taking the path of exclusively dealing in crypto, while others are bridging old and new, supporting both electronic moolah and traditional bucks. It's definitely not a 'one crypto fits all' kind of setup, if you know what I mean. Seems like you've got a bit of a thing for crypto transactions, dubbing them 'effortless.' Raises a question or two, doesn't it? They might be shiny and new, but let's not turn a blind eye to the hazards. The crypto rollercoaster ride can be thrilling and terrifying in equal measure. Still, you're onto something about the security of credit cards. Handing over such hush-hush intel to digital platforms can be risky business. But, let's not generalize all casinos, okay? Some of them take the safety game to a whole other level to protect their patrons. Lastly, bonus conditions? Yup, been there, done that. Crypto, credit card, or good old fiat, every bonus plan has got its own secret sauce. The ball's in our court, as gamers, to read between the lines |
|
|
|
In other casinos, it's usually a trap, they don't put terms and conditions that sometimes people are lazy to read, but this is where the importance of gambling is not to be too passionate about doing things in a hurry, for example making a deposit without having to do casino research.
It's the gambler's responsibility to do their own research before playing on a casino. If you blindly gamble without conducting a research and not reading a reviews (because you're attracted on their bonuses or promotions) then the gambler is the one at fault for not being careful incase the casino is shady and not trusted. So just like what we always remind to the gamblers especially to newbies, always read the casino's ToS. Hence if you don't agree with their rules, you're free to look for other casinos where you can gamble without issues. Honestly, the whole gambling tableau feels akin to a warzone. It's transcended mere good fortune; it's a mental duel now. To place the entire blame on the gambler when a scam occurs seems rather severe, doesn't it? Don't misconstrue my words, I am not promoting reckless gambling in any way. Nonetheless, the era calls for casinos to up their ante. Stop making their T&Cs a maze that only a lawyer can navigate. Isn't the essence of a fair game in the name itself? Above all, let's be a little gentle on the greenhorns. We've all been rookies once, haven't we? Swamped and thrilled. They require our guidance, not disdain. So, let's gird our loins and transform this into a secure haven for all. A sphere where the dice always tumble with justice. |
|
|
|
-snip-
But as far as I know RTP is really only for slots, maybe for other games there is a kind of RTP as you explained, namely the house edge, it's just that I actually think that RTP and house edge are different. This is just a response and understanding from each gambler, so it's only natural that we have differences of opinion, but I appreciate the difference in assumptions. RTP and House Edge is basically the same, the main difference is that RTP is a terminology made from the player's side while House Edge is terminology made from the casino/house's side. If you do search by google or something else, try a keyword RTP of ...... fill the blank with any game except slot and I'm sure you will find the information. Do the same with keyword house edge and you will see that basically both works the same but it is seen from 2 different sides only. Yes, I already know about it and indeed both are almost the same, it's just that the difference is in the point of view in the game, such as the famous Slot with RTP and several other games that are better known as the house edge. For those of us who know more, maybe we can understand and be able to respond to these two mentions, but those of us who are still beginners or don't understand much about casinos might still be a little confused and have questions. Even though the two have similarities and only have different mentions, the mention of RTP still only exists in slot games. Think of RTP and House Edge as the yin and yang of the casino world. Visualize it like so: RTP is like your trusty smartphone, lighting your path down a shadowy cyber-casino lane, highlighting possible windfalls. In contrast, the House Edge is the casino's digital watchdog, eternally keeping tabs to ensure their fair slice is always taken. Granted, the language might come across as cryptic, especially to greenhorns. Yet, when deconstructed, it's refreshingly clear-cut: loftier RTP translates to the possibility of more substantial returns for the gamester, while an elevated House Edge indicates grander potential dividends for the house. While it's bang on that RTP finds its primary application in slot games, it's not exclusive to them. Other table games, like blackjack or roulette, also enlist it. Hoping this sheds light and eradicates any lingering confusion! |
|
|
|
it is very strange that the casino is not able to catch abusers and one of the great measures that the casino could take would be to ask that when creating an account people start to put email, full name, residence address, valid telephone number that would later be sent an authentication code that the person would need to use to confirm the account registration, this way it would be easier to combat the many accounts that are created with the purpose of abusing the faucet, and the problem with that is that when the casino puts basic kyc something like asking for a phone number people are already complaining because they don't like it
they think this is something that takes away their privacy but if the casino doesn't do this they run the risk of suffering from abusers, so this is definitely a big problem and in my opinion casinos shouldn't be offering satoshis on faucets , it would be better to give free spin or free bet for active players than to put faucets that will only bring harm to the casino, I honestly don't see any reason for a casino to have a faucet especially when the price of bitcoin rises a lot and the casino cannot get many customers, the casino will just accumulate a lot of losses
I think they can detect some abusers, but some will always find loopholes to exploit the system. Another options besides offering faucets is giving out play money to test out the games (like some other casinos are doing). Some casino even offer the top 300 a small cash prize when they make the highest wager with this play money. Casinos will be able to detect perpetrators who want to abuse bonuses or promotions held by casinos and will give punishments according to what they do. Offering a faucet might be a solution so they don't abuse promotions or bonuses, but there must always be ways for those who want to abuse it because they aim to get more bonuses. But to deter abusers, they can use verification in the form of KYC so they won't verify each account without the casino knowing. That will make them no longer able to abuse anything in the casino because the team will monitor every activity. But of course, every casino has its own policy, which will be different from other casinos. And they are sure to combat abusers in their casinos by imposing stricter regulations. What you're saying does hold some truth, my fellow Internet companion. Yet, your words seem to suggest a slight naivety about the reality of online casinos. While it's true that some digital casinos try to shield themselves against misuse of promotional offers through KYC, many still fall prey to unscrupulous players. There's no foolproof solution, @michellee. To put it bluntly, KYC can be faked. As much as it's an integral part of the system, it's not an absolute deterrent. If it were, we wouldn't have any abusers around. Handing out play money for testing games? That's a decent idea, but not a full-on remedy. It could instead cultivate a freeloading culture. Just because something works for a few doesn't mean it'll work for all. |
|
|
|
Just found this on the stake forum.  If anybody ever gets accused of multiaccounting on stake again get this. Drake's publicly known account since 2021 has the stake username "DeepPockets6". Yet on last Saturday's stream he played with the account "eatingyourfood" . What's a little bit strange, in the Saturday raffle (takes place every Saturday) this eatingyourfood account won several times in March-April 2022. The Drake - Stake announcement was official on March 22nd. On April 4th 2022 this account won the raffle 5 times even though Stake employees and/or people with affiliate benefits are not allowed to enter. People speculated for a long time who eatingyourfood is and since last weekend we know. I must say this once again feels a little bit off. There might be a simple explanation for this.... Stake might give Drake affiliate benefits on the "DeepPockets6" account, but not on the "eatingyourfood" account. So Drake might be playing with his own money on the "eatingyourfood" account. The VIPs obviously get more privileges than the normal average Joe, so we cannot blame them for looking after their high rollers. Multi-accounting is only illegal, if you are abusing rewards and bonuses by using more than one account. (Drake obviously do not worry about things like that, he prints money on a daily basis) You are right, that could be an explanation. There is still one thing a little strange. According to Eddie on a stream over a year ago, Drake said it's ok to not participate in the raffle giveaway, so they no longer counted it when DeepPockets6 was drawn. But since nobody knew the eatingyourfood was also his he won with the tickets this account made. That's till a little bit off my my eyes. But what can we do, we are just small fish compared to a guy like him. I believe though there should be the same rules for everybody. People have the option to change their minds... and Drake has that option too. He might have discussed that with some of his friends and he might be one of his friends referrals, so he only wants his friend to benefit from his non-affiliate account, where he use his own money. Who knows how these people operate... but I think he gets advice from his VIP managers or even directly from Eddie, so he will do something that will further benefit him and his friends. (I doubt that the casino would support him getting referral rewards from money that they provide to him for marketing purposes) My, oh my! Drake's actions might seem offbeat, but who are we to judge? Life’s full of U-turns, and this could be one. As for DeepPockets6’s win, could it be serendipity? Eddie's role remains a conjecture unless evidence says otherwise. Let's not stir the pot based on ifs and buts. Keep it cool, everyone |
|
|
|
~snip~
Well, in every casino, good and friendly treatment with the players is always imperative, especially when it comes to having a problem, usually the biggest problems arise when they cannot make a withdrawal, that is when they should be the most sensitive to the responses, because first the client is Upset and secondly the client needs a quick solution and this is Something that frustrates,at least in the players this is true in most cases they will always complain, that is why, of course there is also another type of claims that are not so sensitive, but in the same way you can and should treat your clients very well. Customer support! A gambler's nemesis. Feels like unearthing a Da Vinci Code, waiting for some casinos to respond. When they do? A generic, copy-pasted missive that ignores the issue. But fear not! With dedication and vigilance, any casino can deliver exceptional support, leaving players gratified. It starts with proactive, well-versed agents, masters of the casino's inner workings. It's not just about competence; it's about agents with a soul, truly valuing players and their experiences. Displaying empathy, building trust, and fostering loyalty. When obstacles emerge, these agents are the ace up your sleeve, delivering prompt, efficient solutions. In the grand scheme, support isn't just about fixing problems. It's shaping a delightful, engaging experience for players. A casino that treats customers with respect and finesse becomes a beloved gambling sanctuary. It is so, we as players are always going to remember something, if we have a problem and even more so if it is a withdrawal problem we are going to remember every word that support tells us, and that is a reason to hate or love a casino, if the The casino behaves very well with us and they give us quick solutions, we will be very grateful and we will always recommend that casino, one could even say that the casino could be defended when it is in trouble, now if the deal is bad and Everything goes wrong , the casino will be hated by that Player, and if that Player has friends they are able to Make them Leave that casino. A casino's lifeline? Stellar customer support. If a punter is stuck, dealing with a withdrawal glitch or whatnot, the support crew's gotta be the Avengers swooping in. Right words, timely action. Mess it up? You might as well hand them over to your competition. It's all about the respect, bro. Show 'em they matter, you got yourself a loyal fan base ready to back you up. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
