Yeah, if there is a way to use that money, an addict will find a way to do that. I think that if resources allow it, this person should dive into an environment where gambling is impossible. No Internet, no smartphone kind of situation. Perceiving the nature, focusing on some activities, working on social relationships... This could really create the situation where the person goes past the period of willing to gamble. Although it seems that such methods work, I find them cruel.

Even if it's a group of people, there must be the leader of this group that should be considered the Satoshi. I don't think it's a group, though. For one, this forum's Satoshi was lost likely one person. More importantly, why would Hal Finney be the first Bitcoin recipient? A group of people could run some tests between themselves.
Satoshi could be a woman, though, as far as I know. People keep saying "he", but it could be a "she".
Perhaps, we'll never know. And I think it's for the best.

Actually, there's been an thread about it already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205444. However, it's important info, so I guess it's okay to have another thread about it. Like people states both here and there, though, the EU-level bill has to pass before any of that stuff with Germany can become possible. So it's early to talk about great news yet in this case. Moreover, the banks might refuse to process cryptos on their own, it's not like all they are waiting for is for cryptos to become legal for them.

Apart from this post, there is also the fact that Hal and Satoshi accounts on bitcointalk talked in threads sometimes. I remember one of Satoshi posts saying something like "thank you, Hal, it means a lot coming from you". Why would Satoshi thank himself like that? So the answer is definitely 'No'.
Till this day it's unclear who is the real Satoshi, but it doesn't mean that literally anyone could be that person. Some people can be crossed out. Hal is one of them.

What is the $3k number about? In the tweet, it is said that if the price is the way it is right now, 61% would profit from selling. I wonder how that number is calculated, though. If it a thorough study of addresses that have been holding BTC since a certain period of time but not since the $9k and above time? And what about people using exchanges all the time? What about those who bought prior to 2017?
It seems to be a number which is hard to calculate.

I think I finally get it. Okay, if it is indeed like you say it is (and we neglect the fact that one can invest €100 and never get the rebate back because it's a scam), then it is risk-free for a captain.  I wanted to ask the following questions, though:
1. Who is paying the rebate to the captain and what is the motive behind this action?
2. What happens when a captain invests 100 euro but other people don't invest 900 euro, so there is no 1000 euro syndicate?
Apart from that, even though I read your thing about people who don't know betting but want to do that, it seems unfair to the members of the syndicate. And it does resemble a ponzi.

I am not watching TV at all, and it's been like that for years, so I don't know who and why even watches that (TV series excluded). My point is that TV is probably for people who are not interested in Bitcoin anyway. And obviously the service is promoting itself rather than Bitcoin. Moreover, I don't like the tobacco shop part. It's a personal choice to smoke or not, but promoting it is not a good thing. Moreover, it's not a good association with Bitcoin is creates. I mean, it's not as bad as it could be, I guess, but a chain of cinemas/cafes/shopping malls would be better. Still, though, it seems that this is better than nothing, it's still publicity and not necessarily a bad one.

I agree that the problem is not only that it's prohibited but also that the banks don't want to do that. Creating the legislation that at least allows it is a start, though. Maybe some banks would like to take this opportunity. I think it could actually ensure their survival and the usage of customers you've mentioned. If banks offer people to store Bitcoins with them, they can charge a small extra fee many would be interested to pay for what might seem like double protection as well as the guarantee of legality. And yes, this way this person loses the sole access to money and the pseudo-anonymity, but some might value other things over it and still be interested in cryptos. And besides, it's banks that could profit (and some already do) most from the reduced fees or international transfers.

Well, some have already considered that move. Yes, national cryptocurrencies are not decentralized or anonymous, so they can be less attractive for crypto enthusiasts. However, there are some problems they could solve for the state once and for all. For instance, there cannot be any counterfeit money, and it's a big problem with cash. Then, cash has to be produced regularly, since such fragile material things spoil fast. Finally, it could save a lot on international fees and big transfers. Considering all of that, I think that more countries will at least think about it and perhaps even implement it.

Wow, I got the 0.0001 bonus which must mean that I was not among the first 100 that registered. I guess it's a sign that the website is getting attention, congrats!
So I tried playing Supreem and I stand by the statement that some exlanation of how the game works would be nice. I suppose it's the more you bet the bigger your chances are kind of thing? If that's so, it's not a bad game and it's not abundant but it's not unique either, I have seen it before and with a better animation.
I also suggest you to make the betting rounds a bit shorter.
And something seems to be wrong with coinflip, because there've been two people in the game and it said 'The game is about to start' but did not after a couple of minutes. I can see that there've been made guesses why that is so, but it was a bit annoying, so maybe this feature of the host clicking something should be abolished.

I've registered on the website, and I am waiting for my credits to try out the games. I like the design, but so far I don't think I understand how the Supreem game works. The options look like those for a dice game, but there's this "waiting for a round to fill thing". Is it a PvP dice game of some sort? Or it is something completely different? Some information about the game would not hurt, you know, especially since you're calling it 'unique'.
I've sent the message through the chat on the website, but I have not received anything yet. I'll try to see how it's going again tomorrow.

Well, the effect on the price should not concern us when we are talking about adoption. As for the argument itself, I think that trading is not as good as people trying to actually buy stuff with Bitcoin. And yes, it's sad that they have to sell their BTC for fiat for that. And come to think of it, if many people sell BTC to spend money on Holidays, the price is likely to go down even. Anyway, ATMs at least show some recognition that people might have money in BTC, which is not bad already. But I'd prefer something like PayPass for BTC instead, of course, as this way unnecessary transformations into fiat and fees could be avoided.

I agree with you that if a person simply loses, it's a scam. But I have not really seen many cases similar to what you are talking about. Most of the time when I see scam accusations, they are related to a situation where people cannot withdraw funds from a casino or something. Another kind of case somewhat resembles those you're talking about, but they are different nevertheless. I am talking about people who were playing and kept losing against the odds (literally, when it's a game with strict odds but you keep losing). And these people might be right because it can mean that a website states certain odds when they are actually way lower, so people lose because of casinos being unfair.

I think that the second thing is an important point. Not only the US, but many authorities from many countries can be very pissed with a person that challenges the status of fiat and gives people new opportunities. Moreover, Satoshi would probably have to go to court on tax evasion charges and be forced to give a solid ton of money to some government because of being that state's tax resident. Apart from that, this person would have to live with attention to every aspect of one's life and the lives of those who are dear. It's a step you make, and then there's no way back from insisting journalists for the rest of life. So yeah, there are many good reasons why this person does not reveal identity.

I think that makes sense. However, not fully. It is impossible to ultimately prove that Satoshi is Satoshi, I agree with that. But there can be a certain distinction about various candidates, and a person making a signed message would at least be someone worth taking seriously, and someone who will generally be considered Satoshi. And I think that then this person can get confirmed by some others that might know the real Satoshi from the early times, this person might be able to clarify some things about Bitcoin in a way that will differ from the thoughts of others... And so there'll be a pretty good chance that this person is Satoshi. I, however, think that it won't happen.

I don't think it's right to say this in our context. If there were, like, 30 halving events before, and the vast majority were followed by the bull runs, it could be said that historically the two are correlated. But there've been only two halving events, and they were not immediately associated with price growth. In fact, the price actually went down and was finding its way up for a while, and the bull run of the end of 2017 can hardly be attributed to an event that happened almost a year and a half before that.
So this halving can bring joy, especially if the FOMO works, but it can also have any other or no impact.

Thanks for raising this topic! Cryptos are indeed pretty popular and Ukraine, and since our films are still rather terrible, so I don't watch them (just look at the trailers and you can see objectivation of females, homophobia, stereotypes and dumb jokes). it was interesting for me to hear that they mention cryptos!
Like someone already mentioned, it was not always blank, I remember it saying that cryptos are legal. It's not true, though. Here cryptos are neither legal nor illegal, but our country is welcoming new technologies (Blockchain has been mentioned by the authorities as a good thing even), so it's a matter of time till they are legalized. A couple of draft laws about regulation failed, though.
I haven't watched this film, but the trailer says that a school gets a new principal, who previously worked in a penal colony. And then there's this school, the cool guys of this school, teachers approving of the new principal. Moving to the Bitcoin part, the following dialogue is happening between people who look like typical Post-Soviet gangsters:
- Do you know what's Bitcoin?
- Yep, it's a composer.
I think the joke is that Bitcoin and Beethoven sound a bit similar.
So anyway, this film, unfortunately, seems to be among those that reinforce the stereotype that Bitcoin is for criminals.

You've mentioned an article about using the radio (did not know that it was possible), but I wanted to remind the op of the satellite solution, which is not the Internet but seems alright. I have not used Blockstream, but it seems to be a decent project. I am also not sure whether what they say is true, but if it is, transactions are supposed to be cheap and the service is available 24/7. Most of the time, though, I believe that the Internet connection is not a problem, and the tendency is that it will be even less of a problem in the future. Watching a video by Antonopoulos, though, it seems that it's not cost-effective, because it requires equipment which will cost at least $100.

To be honest, I don't see the logic behind it. Or perhaps it's sarcasm and I did not get it... I believe that we'll be fine because quantum computing will never become advanced enough. And I agree that if quantum computing succeeds, it will be a big problem not only for cryptos but for security as we know it. If someone has such power, it can get in the hands of some pissed-off workers of those companies, or it can even be used by those companies to attack privacy just like they love to do it these days. Hopefully, measures against quantum computing will come before quantum computing can do much damage. There are hopes for that since D. Chaum is already working on quantum-resistant crypto.

With Bitcoin, I don't think it's ever too late to invest. Especially now, when the market is so down. You should not regret what happened in the past. Some have not heard of Bitcoin, some heard but did not really believe (this happened to my parents in 2012 or so), some heard and had a gut, but did not have money to spare on investments (I bought 1 Ethereum and 1 Litecoin when they cost less than $20 each. I knew they were going to rise, but I did not have more money to spend on investments, and one should only invest what one can afford to lose, so that's what I did), some already wasted that money in one way or another (a friend that told my parents to buy Bitcoin in 2012). Bitcoin still has plenty of room to grow, and all of us are still early adopters.