What can I say... I give my condolences to Venezuelans who have to live in such a terrible economic situation... The government does not seem to be doing good in terms of improving the situation as well. No wonder people sell their almost worthless fiat for something valuable like Bitcoin. Then again, since exchanges report fake volume sometimes, perhaps this data is inaccurate as well. It's also sad that the government is trying to push that Petro pseudo-crypto, whereas it's clearly not helping the situation. As far as I know, the majority of the population is leaving below the poverty line and unemployment is at 30%. Unfortunately, in such a terrible situation, I don't think Bitcoin can help Venezuela or vice versa.

I'd be interested to play on a new website if it has promos, giveaways, welcome bonus, faucet or other similar things. But this is just something that would catch my interest, not maintain it. Then the website if course has to be provably fair and, if possible, already have a good reputation in terms of withdrawals. No KYC is also important to me. Finally, what most dice websites lack IMO is a good animation. A solid part of playing dice is shaking them in your hands, watching them land slowly. An online experience cannot replicate everything, but it should try to offer at least some of it.

From what I see in the article, it's indeed a bad and very unfair move. Fortunately, my country is not in the EU, although it is on its way there... I think it's unfair if people have to provide ID any time they want to exchange cryptos, because that's not how it works with fiat currency exchanges in the EU. In Hungary, for example, one can exchange one type of fiat for another without providing any ID if the sum is up to 300 EUR or so. Yes, it's a small amount, but transactions like that are indeed too small for serious money laundering, so it's a waste of time and resources to investigate such acts. If a person is exchanging a lot of money, in the other hand, I think it's fair to require not only ID but also proof of source of this money.

First of all, Christmas is the same every year, but I don't think bitcoin is falling in December each year. It did last year, sort of, and we can say that it does this year, but what about, say, 2017?
As for personal usage, I did sell some BTC to buy presents for New Year and I also received my New Year present in Bitcoin in advance. So some movement can be explained by actions like that, but I don't think it's likely that this is the main reason the price if going down.
Moreover, this negative trend can be over tomorrow or in a couple of days easily, that's just how volatile bitcoin can be.

Indeed! And I also think that if we believe in Bitcoin as money rather than a way for traders to get rich, the vast majority of these transactions should not be considered. When people are trading, they are performing transactions all the time, right? And all of these transactions count, correct? Yet these transactions don't signify anything but attempts to make a profit. The real transactions are those performed by people who want to buy something for BTC, who receive it as salary, who send some BTC to their friends as presents and stuff like that, not when a person sells and buys and sells and buys again.
Oh, and I'm also wondering how the sum in USD was calculated if the price keeps changing and it would be tremendously difficult to take it into account.

Not only cryptos did not play a role in the elections, but IMO contrary to what some are saying, the reverse also did not and will not occur. Great Britain is not as great as it used to be in terms of influence and economics. Getting out of the EU is not likely to bring it prosperity, but is a rather risky move that was made possible by inclining people who are not usually voting to come and vote for Brexit. This country is not big on cryptocurrencies, either. It's no Korea, China or the US. So while currently the GBP is doing well and Bitcoin is doing so-so, I see no causal relations of any kind between the two. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that those pro-crypto millenials are those who voted against leaving the EU in the first place, so...

Where's the proof that Bitcoin begins to stutter? I don't see any significant changes over the last couple of weeks, so even if British pound got stronger, it clearly did not affect Bitcoin in any way.

One currency of one player who is not even among the strongest nowadays does not mean that confidence is renewed worldwide and if something does not happen that affects the world, it's very unlikely to touch Bitcoin. As for experts, people say all sorts of things and there cannot be reasonable price speculation, so these numbers are as good as saying that Bitcoin will be worth $15k in a couple of months.
I think that long-term it will bring even more uncertainty to the world because it's a rather destabilizing move.

It seems to me that it's impossible to make even an educated guess about that. It might seem nowadays that the progress if fast, and we don't have much time left, but people were sure that trips to Mars would be casual, whereas they still are not even close to that. In a TV series that I mention quite a lot here ('Silicon Valley') the team accidentally came up with an algorithm that compresses information in such a great way and keeps perfecting itself so fast that the strongest encryption there is, is about to get broken. It's a fiction story, of course, but we cannot know whether something like this can happen in 5 years from now, in a hundred years from now or never.
It seems to me that we are reaching the limit of the advancement of computers (transistors cannot become smaller for now, because quantum processes come in), and it's unclear whether we'll even crack quantum physics to make it work to our advantage, but we have to be cautious just in case.

Yeah, speaking of high-budget (or at least, not low-budget) movies 'Crypto' comes to my mind. I haven't watched it, so I don't know whether it's against some cryptos or against Bitcoin, but judging by the trailer it's exactly the kind of movie you've described: that is, the one enforcing the stereotype that crypto is used by criminals. A movie distributed by Lionsgate and having Kurt Russell in the main cast got terrible reviews and was only released in 164 theaters. Unfortunately, it's impossible to find the info about the budget, but the movie looks like a complete disaster, fortunately.

Of course, bold people are dangerous in gambling, I agree with that. If a person is putting a lot of money fast into the game, this person can lose a lot, but this person can win a lot as well, which makes it a high risk for a casino. Setting a reasonable maximum bet can solve the issue, but not always, since always betting a maximum bet is also bold. I wanted to add that these people are also annoying in player vs player games. When I played poker online, I hated it when people were raising the bet all the time since the very beginning! I could not handle the stress of playing against such people and often folded unless I had really good cards. I'm bad at poker, that's true, but I also think that such people might frighten a lot of players and in a way gain advantage over them. But this strategy is risky to both others and the gambler that uses it, since if someone stays strong against such moves or the odds don't go in one's favor, it's gonna be a very big loss.

The website's design is not welcoming. The margin on the right, blurred header, no secure location, header navigation being replicated in the navigation to the left... All this says about unprofessionalism. And if you cannot make a decent website, how can people trust that you can evaluate casinos seriously? It just does not give a good first impression, so to speak. Moreover, where's the clearly stated methodology? Who are your experts that evaluate casinos? And some of the info in reviews is very subjective, like the advantage of Nitrogensports being that it's the best sportsbook.
To sum up, I think that the website needs improvement, and I wish you an inspiration to do so!

If you're thinking of opening another crypto casino, think again before pursuing the project. I'm saying this because at first, you should know your competitors. This market is very competitive, and new websites appear all the time with the teams pretending that tons of similar websites are not there. The only successful and relatively new casino I remember is Stake.com. It came out of nowhere, but with a nice design and a lot of money put into the project. They've hired a good signature campaign manager, they've worked on developing a great website, they've obtained a license which also costs money. But I also see a new cheap project trying to become popular without pouring a lot of money and effort into it at least once a week for a couple of years. If you want to become successful, you'll need a very solid project overall, not just a good design, customer support, popular games (dice, poker, slots, crash) and a provably fair mechanism. Since there are enough reputable websites already, it's hard for a new one to even get attention.

I really like that the criteria are mentioned and which ones you chose for the website. I'm especially glad to see the 'responsible gambling' one since it's often neglected and is yet important for prosperous and morally justifiable business IMO. Are the criteria mentioned in the first post equal to you, op? Or do some of them weigh more than others when it comes to consideration? Say, if you set a percentage value to the criteria, would it be the same percentage for all 6 or not?
I can see that you have Sportsbet among the best Bitcoin sportsbooks, and I think it's great, but I wonder whether Nitrogensports belongs on the list, considering their dubious reputation...
And also, when I clicked on Nitrogensports to read more, I saw a black review table, basically. Maybe it's a mistake or you have not filled the content yet, but it looked wrong. It keeps redirecting from Nitrogensports to 'raging-bull-casino' review...

True. Even if the account used to belong to Nakamoto, even the article on Medium mentions that the email might have been hacked (and as far as I know, there's a known case of Satoshi's email which is linked to Bitcointalk account being hacked). But I also could not find anything that would support at least this idea with the profile of Nakamoto showing activity. It seems more like a cheap hype to me, honestly, and that nothing out of the ordinary happened. I believe this if the profile of Nakamoto they're talking about: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto. And this is the guy claiming that Satoshi befriended him or something (note that it was at least a year ago anyway). But the website is obscure, I don't see any proofs there.

To me, on the other hand, it seems only logical that in an event of rapid devaluation those that have savings will be interested to preserve them by selling fiat for precious metals and, very possibly, Bitcoin. You're saying that it's a good investment in a third-world country but not in a developed one, but it seems to me that the opposite is also reasonable. Think of it this way: people from the third world are more likely to have fewer savings and focus on survival. Thus, they'd need the money that can buy them things, even if this money is rapidly losing value. They cannot afford to make savings or whatever if the question is whether they have enough to buy food for today. In a prosperous country that is suddenly hit by hyperinflation, on the other hand, many people are interested not in survival but in remaining rich. So selling BTC to buy the money that loses value does not make sense to them, whereas selling fiat from their wealthy bank accounts for Bitcoin seems like a good choice.

Yeah, I like the project with researching the security of wallets, but why are you looking specifically at Android Wallets? I mean, does the majority of users even store Bitcoins on Android..? I thought people preferred online versions and cold wallets instead. I would never install a wallet onto my smartphone, for instance. And since the article about the methodology of this project admits that verifiability does not really say about much, I wonder whether the team is thinking about improving the methodology by adding some other factors to consider. It could be really useful to know which wallets are more secure and which are less, but limiting the project to, basically, exit scam possibility for Android wallets seems too narrow.

That's a fair point. I think the reason for that is that Bitcoin is so much more than some digital asset. Sure, it can be used to gain profit, but it can also be used to store value (preserve rather than profit) in a bank-free form, to get a feeling of a truly free market, so own money that is not controlled by any government or other entity, to possess something valuable that cannot be faked or to perform financial transactions without revealing the identity. And these are just some options that came to my mind.
A new superstar asset might be good in terms of profit but have no other important features or have those which are very different from those Bitcoin has.
But what's going to be the next big profitable thing - I have no idea.

Is it easy to manipulate the market, though? I don't see any dramatic changes over the last 24 hours in terms of the price of Bitcoin. Do you? Maybe the guy just got lucky rather than prevented the loss. It could be just a coincidence like some have rightly pointed out.
Oh, not to mention that even if it had an impact, it was 'local', not 'global'. The bet was about Bitfinex, and pouring $5 million worth of coins made the price, what, like $50 more for an hour on one major exchange? That's not an example impact or let alone manipulation to me. I think it actually shows quite the opposite: how much effort a millionaire has to put to make a tiny difference (if any at all).

Since the topic was created in 2013, she was really wrong about selling out, and I hope that the husband cashed out in 2017  
I am in the minority here, I guess, 'cause I'm a wife with a husband who is not that much into Bitcoin. He's not a believer, and sometimes he can put some pressure about cashing out, but only mild pressure (like, trying to convince me to sell), nothing serious. Sometimes he just does not understand why would I wait to cash out later when there's a risk of the price going down, but we've been together for years now, and he's growing to accept my decisions about cryptos more and more.
However, if a family is in desperate need of money and there are some bitcoins, it's better to cash them out whatever the price is, 'cause money is not everything and satisfying basic needs as well as maintaining a good relationship is important.

Wow, that's great news! This guy is awesome, he's shown his pro-Bitcoin attitude before. This project sounds interesting, it kind of reminds me of a Pied Piper decentralized internet project from Silicon Valley. And since it's Jack, it's truly reasonable to accept Bitcoin to get integrated, in case a cryptocurrency is needed.
Shit, that sounds like a terrible downside. If something is not regulated, it seems that it should mean that absolutely nothing gets regulated, since otherwise there's a way to manipulate the system to repress people for various reasons... I think that a fine balance is yet to be achieved...