I'm more opt to the fact that they are just currently experimenting I suppose? It's kind of a small test, and they probably want to reduce the workload for the long term, hence the usage of smart contracts of the ETH. As for why ETH and not other cryptocurrencies they probably based it on its current market price and/or it's current popularity in the community. Also for ETH having a brighter future than BTC? We're what? 5 years since ETH was made and 5 years of fighting against BTC, and yet who stands as the king as of yet? BTC is it not? Though tbh, I don't neglect the fact that ETH may exceed BTC, heck every other coin out there has a chance tbh, but really, just comparing the 5 years that have passed, you can see who currently stands as the better coin.

That's just one part of it tbh, and only a minority would actually acknowledge that fact. Do remember that majority of the people in the world don't even have the chance to actually earn more than a million dollars (Save up). Most of the uniqueness of BTC comes from it being a digital currency, it pretty much gives you anonymity when doing transactions and well, pretty much a lot easier to use compared to fiat. Being decentralized as well gives you quite a lot of freedom when using it.

It's just a matter of time tho imo. Mobile Phones and Internet access are almost considered included to the things that a person must have, though relatively, it has lower importance compared to food,water, clothes and the like, it has higher importance compared to the rest.

One side of good news I guess? Not really surprising though. Most people don't really have the time normally to study BTC intensively after all. They have their family, work, relationships and the like, and most of the time, they just lurk at sites for info for around 1-2 hrs. Not to mention the amount of plausibly false information that they may unintentionally learn, learning can be quite hard if you're just lurking.

Can you spare more details regarding what they were actually betting on? Like for example, is it the time span of the virus, time till vaccine is made, or something? Cause if it's similar to the above, I see no reason for you to admonish their efforts to make odds of the like. Though I have no idea how the friggin hell they are going to make the odds fair since even if a vaccine is under construction, doesn't necessarily mean that it would work immediately. However, if it was the number of deaths by x number of days, or something like that, then hell be my guest. I'd even join you in admonishing them. Treating lives as something to gamble on isn't correct imo, but if it was the former which was about the virus itself, I see no harm..

Well most traders hope for what suits them the best. Not only traders tbh, most people hope for what is best for them, hence, they talk more about what they want to happen, what they want to do, and not what they don't want to happen to them. That's why there are sayings and talks about how reality hits you hard, the reality is not a joke, the workforce is the difference from what a school is kinda thing. And well, I don't blame them tbh. Still, it that doesn't really mean that we only expect growth. A lot of people also expect when downs are going to happen, because it's a chance after all. A chance to invest, enter, and the like so expectations are more like them aligning stuff in their plans. But that doesn't mean the plan has nothing like going down or not. It's just they want that to happen.

Well lockdowns do bring about boredome ngl. And we all know how some people have that stupid urge to take advantage of most people's weakness and welp, pretty much trick em so that they could earn. Nintendo switch is masculine majority cause most people in the end who play games are males, and also males are mostly the only ones who would probably spend quite a sum of money to play games.

Additionally, egirls have been doing that trope for quite a while already ngl. Their fan base just pretty much shot up because of the lockdown. People have nothing to do mate, and well, some people get taken in by egirls showing stuff explicitly not for showing, low key avoiding the rules. Not saying all of them though, but a few of them yea.

There really isn't an answer to the question "how many". If you're trading quite blindly, it's possible to lose every time you trade, but it's also possible to win every time you trade. Since you've experienced trading, you should know what are the reasons you lost right? Starting from the wrong market movement/prediction that you thought of, try moving your mindset from there. Additionally, there isn't any trader that doesn't suffer any losses, but they can minimize the losses they get. That's probably the best end result they can achieve if they lose money.

As for the amount, $100 seems to be quite enough imo, just that don't expect any big profits to suddenly come in. Day trading doesn't really give out big profits since you take advantage of the minimal changes that happen in the market.

Use your braaaiiiinnn. No offense, but really. Most trading tips are all about understanding the whats and hows of it. You can read it, say you understand it, but if you don't really do understand it then that's your fault. It's like how in drawing where no matter what number amount of tips you actually get, it's pretty impossible to get good at it in a single day, or week or month for that matter. Pretty much the same with trading, you can't get good at it after a single trade, or 2, or 3. All the good traders out there are an accumulation of experience which constitutes of wins and losses, maybe losses being more than wins. Advises are in the end, there to warn you, but only that.

I doubt it's impossible though. Humans think up of weird things that could actually be helpful, and This pretty much just recycles the usage of SMS systems which have been around for a  few decades now, so I doubt they'd have that much difficulties implementing a system that could transfer crypto through that. And besides, based on what I understand, it's more like them informing a 3rd party that they would like to transfer funds from theirs to another. They'd basically ask others to transfer money for them. It's kind of similar to how you just mail a friend or something and ask them to buy you something in a convenience store or the like.

If it did favor early adopters, then they basically control the market for almost the entire time before the event which is as you said "doubling". Not to mention that there wouldn't be even enough traders to adopt BTC because of the lack of supply that early adopters would encounter. It's kind of understandable though, the concept of starting from small then building it slowly to become bigger and bigger, but that wouldn't give out a solid foundation because Bitcoin itself requires the community to continue existing.

As for the second scenario, wouldn't that give out a lack of development? Especially with regards to the mining part. Plus, early adopters should still get some sort of advantage. If you were to compare it to the first reward of 50btc per block, then miners would hugely be disadvantaged once a few years have passed right? Just compare it to now and imagine if at the beginning. No one would probably mine at that point, with the minimal reward they are getting.

The bigger the hope, the bigger the disappointment mate. Yes, in all honesty, most of us especially those that are recent entries in the crypto scene are expecting the same bounce up it did in the past halvings, but realistically speaking such increases seem to be quite impossible. You can see it with how developed the current scene is already. Not to mention that there were still various factors that actually helped the price in the past halvings. Right now? The only factors here are actually NOT helping it increase in price. Just look at how the price of BTC is right now with the current state of affairs because of the effects of the fear brought by the Corona Virus.

I doubt it would go below $5k though. $5k at most, that would be the lowest I predict the price would go. Tbh, if it still follows the same margin of drop and rise before the sudden influence of the virus, the current drop would be more than enough and the price would instead go up. Probably exceeding that of $7.3k, which it has achieved a few days ago (or was that yesterday). Still, I expect a number of traders that are actually waiting for any massive price drops so that they can reinvest/reenter their money once again. I'm also waiting for it, but even if it didn't come, so be it. I'm still entering from a few entry points that I can consider to be profitable though.

Risk of Holding is that you never know if a coin could actually exceed the price you bought it. Let's say BTC in an imaginary scenario. You bought it at $6k, but at that point on, it's price never exceeded as such. It only ranged from below $5.5k, wouldn't you call that a risk? This is just an imaginary scenario btw, since HODLing BTC is quite good imo. It always exceeds prices you never expect it to most of the time after all. As for trading, well, you just got to watch the price changes as well as possible news that could influence it. It may seem easy, but it's rather hard since it's basically a speculation most of the time. There ain't many people out there that could put a percentage beside speculated events and base their decisions from that after all.

HODLL. Thing is, are you going to use it for something or what? Not really a good thing to ask a public forum imo, so you should probably investigate a bit more. If you actually see any reason behind what they say EXCEPT for their bs TA's, then you might follow it. But if it's just random speculation bs, then I suggest following what YOU want instead. Additionally, even if there was proof, if you don't really need money that immediately, I suggest hodling. Best power out there tbh. And mate, here's the thing. We aren't some weird ass cult ( no offense to the legit cults out there) here that blindly believes what CEO's and well-known people spout. We are well educated human beings that bloody know how to think, so I suggest stop listening to them until they have at least minimal factual basis for what they are actually saying.

I prefer DEX cause even if it was just an additional reward, the anonymity it provides is just up my wants. But, there is an issue with scams and losing money can be quite painful especially if you pretty much worked your ass for it. This is why even though I prefer DEX, I mostly use CEX every time I trade. It's not like I want to, but I don't have much choice. It's just an issue of probability tbh. Using DEX's provides scammers a lot more chances to scam me, whereas CEX's most often than not have quite a secure system for trading. KYC may be a pain in the ass, but comparing that to me losing my money, well, you could guess which is better right?

I won't actually blame the casinos even if they were unable to pay the workers that are currently asking for assistance. It isn't like the casino business is the only one having difficulties and tbh, this requires proper fund management from the person themselves. If the casino helps them, then everyone's happy tbh. But if the casino doesn't, I doubt they have the right to actually complain about it. After all, business is business. You work for me and I pay for you, and I believe most contracts uphold this basic concept. It isn't their responsibility, but, it can be their right to freely give them. It isn't like how rich people are required to help poor people, but rather the government is required to prevent people from being poor right? And it's also up to the government to prevent the rich from taking advantage of their riches. Though sadly, responsibility is a difficult thing to uphold, especially when in the government.

Well, tbh, I'm more opt right now to a mix of both as useful for my everyday life. I mean, yea, I was at first hoping for full integration of a system run by a community, but erm, this might ruin the entire concept of development which is done by the government. Yes there are tons of friggin corruption done here and there, much so that accounts of usages of tax and the like aren't most likely equal to the ones they are showing. The idea of crypto is innovative, as you can see with how many companies and countries are thinking of the idea itself and how they could put it to their advantage, but as a country itself, without the support of a governing body (even if it wasn't the government, some other form or something idk), improvement of facilities and faculties of different parts might be difficult. I'd be more favored to the idea of BTC erm, changing the position of USD as the top? maybe? but still, countries have their own currency to be used for daily transactions.

You can't gamble if your impulsive, easily swayed by your emotions. That's pretty much the premise of every single bad action a gambler could do after all. It isn't really a matter of destroying yourself financially or your family, any type of addiction could do that. Impulsiveness is a characteristic that pretty much turns around your entire life after making one wrong decision after all, and unlike schools, we all know how rl is much much crueler. If you make a mistake, a scolding isn't the only thing you'd get, there would always be a punishment befit for your misdoings. Gambling in of itself isn't wrong IMO. The concept of playing with your money which is most often seen negatively isn't wrong, cause tbh, if it was, even the simple action of buying a toy/game for yourself is already wrong. Gambling is a form of entertainment, just that, most people go beyond what it is supposed to be, leading it to be seen as a negative activity.

Good news for traders. More people would induce changes in price and would probably boost it up quite well. Still though, I doubt it would induce that much of a change since most traders have probably know how to trade BTC anyway, and this is just adding a new platform for it. Plus, just like what @pooya87 said, this doesn't really introduce any of the advantages that BTC itself has. It still views BTC as an investment, not an asset. I just hope that even with that though, more people would recognize what BTC is. Even if they do view at as an investment at first, as long as their views are widened while being exposed to it, Alls well that ends well I guess.

I'm pretty sure it is? Just looking at how it's progressed over the decade has been, as well as the usage and implementations of it globally, It can be described as one. Naturally, a few arguments would say it isn't one especially since it dropped just recently because of the panic, but if we were to take into account its changes from the very start, wouldn't you say that it's developed quite finely? Countries all around the globe have pretty much developed a system to account for cryptocurrencies. Wouldn't you say that it used the 10 years of the randomness it has experienced to develop? Also the argument of it not being one by just looking at the COVID 19 effect and the bubble effect, it contradicts the notion that "there is no absolute antifragility" since the argument itself is looking for one. It's kind of how even Superman has a weakness right? So wouldn't judging the development of BTC based on a few factors instead of the entire scene kind of wrong?