I was just asking


I don't count on them

Trump seems to be a lame duck already (even if he personally thinks otherwise), so we can safely write him off ("terminate", in his own terms). Regarding Biden, that's the whole point that he should understand he knows nothing about crypto and accordingly does as much. Bitcoin would do just fine without either if only they weren't or wouldn't be putting grit in the machine (what Trump had been doing all his presidency)

To think bad of people is a sin, but rarely a mistake

With that said, we mustn't forget to apply Hanlon's razor where applicable. It requires us to "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". As George Carlin put it, think of how stupid the average person is and realize half of them are stupider than that. In other words, the cashless system is far from being fool-proof (unlike cold hard nickels), and, as with any such system deployed on a large enough scale, some idiot will most certainly shoot somebody in the foot, and not necessarily himself

But was Trump a real deal?

And even if he was, how much did it help crypto? Next to none, I guess. In fact, people like Trump are more easily manipulated by their circle ("court") than people like Biden who only looks like he is a puppet. Remember the age-old adage that the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist? It's applicable here (also the one about the barking dog). And I would say, Biden may turn more pro-Bitcoin if he wisely chooses not to touch this topic and announce his stance at all (unlike Trump)

While Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, it is still used by people

Therefore, its prosperity totally depends on the people who are involved with it (read, it is both Biden and Trump in the given context). You simply can't get around this simple fact of life. As it stands, Bitcoin's success is not written in stone at all, and if people lose interest in it (for whatever reason), its days are numbered as is the case with pretty much anything out there. Why people might choose to abandon it is a different question, but it is entirely possible

In fact, I have already shared it

With all the real data proving that you can statistically beat the house edge on any limited timeframe. It is not the question of being lucky to win, quite the other way around, that is to say, you should be statistically unlucky to lose. In fact, it has nothing to do with the house edge at all. If you are curious, it's about variance

But what makes it truly amazing is to check what other people have to say, and even catch them supporting one point and at the same time challenging another point which can't be supported and challenged simultaneously (read, it is either all here or all there). That essentially reveals how little most folks here understand about stats and randomness as it plays out in real life despite their vocal claims to the contrary

Donald Trump got the full 2020 experience... Covid & unemployment

I wouldn't call that a negative opinion

If anything, it should pass as a realistic one. And this is not about the government at all, either rogue or benevolent. In fact, it is more about the dark side of human nature as such, and the cashless option gives it a perfect weapon in the form of almost complete control of some people over the lives of other people. There is no "government" as something standing on its own. technically, it is just a bunch of people with authority, and to expect them to always act out of good will is extremely naive. The temptation to abuse this control would be too strong specifically because of its devastating power and effect. Cash, on the other hand, effectively solves this issue (along with crypto)

Here we go again

There is "real" strategy, and it is martingale based on the idea of statistical outliers on a finite timeframe. Or why do you think Wolf.bet doesn't allow flashbet starting with the lowest possible denominations (here I refer mostly to Dogecoin)? It is utterly ironic that quite a few people claim I'm basically telling bullshit and then, lo, Wolf.bet does exactly what I'm trying to convey in order to render this approach useless (more specifically, to avoid losing its bankroll to a concerted effort by a bunch of malicious actors)

It goes well beyond an authoritarian government

Even in the case of the most benevolent and libertarian government ever conceivable, that government would have to fight with criminal activities involving money in one or another way, e.g. money laundering. Mistakes are inevitable, but with a cashless system, any such would instantly put you on the brink of physical extinction. And I'm not speaking of someone's malicious intent to deliberately hurt you, even if for the sole reason they can and think it would serve you right

Вопрос не в том, какие большие в Америке налоги. Для начала следует уточнить, какие корпорации их там платят. Трамп отстегнул порнозвезде Сторми Дэниэлс больше, чем заплатил налогов американскому правительству


В связи с тяжелым экономическим положением Амазон, Гугль и Эппл планируют уволить несколько членов Конгресса

Эти варианты подробно разбираются в англоязычных источниках

И там есть определенные, назовем их так, непроходимые случаи, когда возникает условно патовая ситуация, и американскому парламенту придется решать вопрос по ходу дела. Но в принципе Конгресс сам себе верховная власть в Америке, поэтому вполне возможен и коллективный президент, ибо все необходимые властные полномочия у местного парламента имеются. Это точно не уровень отечественной Думы

Крайне маловероятно

Дни Трампа сочтены, поскольку все судебные тяжбы должны обязательно разрешиться до Нового года, вроде такое условие есть. Ну и вдобавок можно привести слова кого-то из предвыборного штаба Байдена на этот счет:


Хотя было бы интересно посмотреть, как его под белы рученьки выводили бы из Овального кабинета. Как говорится, show must go on

Well, then you may be in for a big surprise one day

Just because you think you take the path that the righteous choose, it doesn't automatically make it look that way in someone else's eyes. You know, the beauty is the eye of the beholder, as they say, and not only beauty, for that matter. Moreover, someone with sufficient mandate may specifically not like how righteous and good you and your actions are. The temptation is just too strong, up to a point where it doesn't really matter how good or bad your ways would be. To sum it up, it's only a matter of time till you fall prey to this cashless and equally ruthless system, innocent or guilty. Therefore, cash is the way to go (in addition to crypto, naturally)

The difference depends on your goals

If your single goal is to earn income (i.e. you are not looking for supporting network, community governance, etc), then it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. In that case, staking is just a specific investment vehicle, i.e. a certain type of investment instruments like cryptos (on their own), stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and so on. In this vein, it works pretty much like a saving account where you are guaranteed a fixed return in nominal terms

People who can’t tell the difference between whole numbers and decimals are missing the point

If only it were just about that

As this thread clearly shows, people are ready to blame and accuse not for actual wrongdoings, no matter whose fault it really is, but for misdeeds that didn't happen and could only happen in imagined or outright conjured-up and contrived circumstances, for example, Wolf.bet running dummy accounts with hidden names to promote the daily race. Is this still a "legit" call or are we already past that point?

Cashless is an easy way to control people

If you do something wrong, or someone with authority thinks you do, they can easily turn your life into a nightmare by simply cutting you off of your money with a single press of a button. This is not possible with cash, and that's why there is such a mighty push from governments toward phasing out ready money. I'm not even saying about cases where no malicious intent is involved as cash is the only way to go if electronic payment channels get blocked (read, when you can no longer pay with your card or phone)


There's no "underlying blockchain network" with CBDCs. A CBDC is as centralized as any other digital fiat out there

Ну это вопрос не совсем к VISA и Mastercard

Они лишь объяву размещают (зачеркнуто) обрабатывают платежи для эмитентов карт, выпущенных под их брендом. Это вопрос больше к тем, кто непосредственно работает с деньгами конченых (зачеркнуто) конечных юзеров. Например, давеча Бинанс выпустил свою дебетовую криптокарту на Визе, т.е. это не Виза выпустила карточку для клиентов Бинанс, а собственно Бинанс. От Визы лишь требуется не совать палки в колеса, как это уже раз было с WaveCrest, если мне не изменяет память

It is strange that many folks sill share this misconception

As it has been explained a countless number of times (I even wrote an article on this topic), CBDCs have nothing to do with either blockchain in particular or decentralized technologies in general. But this misunderstanding still persists, and people continue to assume that such currencies will be built similar to Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies

Technically, you are right

However, this is not how things are going to unfold in real life. People complaining here and elsewhere would still hurt the public image of the casino. You are not allowed to set your own network fees on most exchanges (in fact, I don't know about any where you can do that), and this is considered normal and standard behavior. In other words, doing it differently would be too risky, while benefits minuscule provided there are any at all