It's either that or they've already fixed it. My country is not on the list of ineligible jurisdictions, and the website works for me. I don't really understand why it's obligatory to use the Comet Wallet and why is this website's only token is their own (what about accepting Bitcoin/Ethereum?). Speaking of tokens, does this mean that people who win get their rewards in your tokens as well? How and where can they exchange them for something of bigger value to the players, like Bitcoin? Is there a crypto exchange for that, for example? I'm not a gamer, but the whole idea seems interesting to me. I mean, I can see how people can be attracted to that. But the token thing seems unclear.

When I open the website, the default language is now English. I see pretty much everything in English. It's also good that you're planning to add Bitcoin since it's weird not to have it on such a website. I read that stuff you wrote about DC, but honestly, I don't understand what it means... Is it the name of the chips or of a token that functions on your platform. My question is whether DC is a separate cryptocurrency or just a thing which is actually some bits of Ethereum or another crypto on this website... I don't understand what 'experience coin' means.

Honestly, the website's design looks pretty similar to the one of a well-established sports-betting company Sportsbet.io. Dark background with white text and some stuff being in green - these things are common between the two. Moreover, even the navigation system has its similarities. Perhaps, you could comment on that, op? Would you call it a coincidence?
I also have a couple of questions about the ToS. For instance, what does it mean that the currency the player signifies cannot be changed? Can't a person use more than one currency?? Apart from that, if you require KYC for any withdrawals, you gotta realize that it can be a major drawback for some people. Moreover, what's that thing in the KYC about a utility bill related to a landline phone? In the last couple of flat where I lived there was no landline phone! I mean, who uses those nowadays?

0.5% house edge sounds like a great deal, and a provably fair feature is also nice to see. A customizable bet amount would also be nice, though. I don't know about plagiarism, because buying a script from a company does not sound like an illegal thing to do, but it works nicely. I registered fast, got my free credits and started playing. At first, I liked the dice animation, but then after 5 times or so those numbers rolling were kind of painful for eyes. Perhaps, an animation of the actual dice rolling would be better. As for slots, the animation there could also be more sophisticated, but it is alright as it is.

Some have already mentioned, but if you are talking about a hardware wallet that you can carry around and which does not have anything apart from its wallet functions, I'd opt for Ledger. Well, actually, I am not sure whether it's a good one, but it is at least one of the most popular choices. I won Ledger Nano X in a contest, and I'll get it in a month or so. So I have not used one yet, but from what I've read it's a safe and high-quality choice. If I were to buy one, I'd buy the one I won, because I really believe that it's simply the best one available But you should do your research, of course. Oh, and as for where to buy it, here's the official website: https://shop.ledger.com/pages/ledger-nano-x.

It's important to note that China is excited about Blockchain, not cryptocurrencies. It was not obvious from the initial president's statement whether they are distinguished by the government, but I remember reading a clarification later that it's about Blockchain, not about approving of these speculative cryptocurrencies we have nowadays (although I cannot find that article right now...). If that's the case, then China might use Blockchain for various purposes and perhaps even make their own crypto, but not boost the adoption of the actual cryptos like Bitcoin.

Well, Ripple tried to do it in a bank-friendly way, and they attracted investors who are obviously not happy now that the project did not have much progress over the last couple of years. However, I don't see how this relates to Bitcoin since Bitcoin was not an investment tied to some project in the first place, thus Satoshi could not be accused of similar things as Ripple's team. However, I do believe that it's safer for Satoshi to remain anonymous because someone could surely try to make him go to jail for creating a new form of money and for making as well as allowing to make money without paying taxes.

My #1 concern is that Bitcoin cannot handle being popular, and if it gets more popular, there'll be big problems with expensive and time-consuming transactions. This is basically a concern about micro-transactions (so a daily life thing, yeah) and no user-friendly solution to this problem. #2 is probably that Bitcoin will never become stable enough to be used in daily life without referring to fiat and then adjusting the price in BTC. #3 is that Bitcoin will get killed by a critical bug nobody will notice in time. There've been terrible bugs before, and while they were fixed in time, what makes us sure that this will always be the case in the future?
Seriously, though, while I care about #1 and think that it's the biggest challenge for Bitcoin, #2 and #3 don't seem that important or likely to me.

Well, it's the first time I'm hearing this name. Hopefully, also the last one. Whoever signs the message or at least accesses Bitcointalk (I remember that the email was hacked but the real Satoshi can probably restore access to the account nevertheless, no?) can try to claim to be Satoshi. This person would still need to explain stuff so that it's more convincing. But attempting to explain without the first step - now, this is just useless words to me. It became a great and very effective way of making somebody out of nobody and even draw attention to whichever project the impostor represents.

Well, would you look at that! I thought Bakkt was doomed after its first very unfortunate week. I really did not believe it would grow so much! I am still not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, though. I fear that futures might turn people away from the real, volatile yet free market of Bitcoin since with futures you don't have to worry about those things. And I know that Bakkt is more than just Bitcoin futures, but I am just not sure. At the same time, it can be a way for people to get to know Bitcoin more, it could make more people familiar with it, and that's a good thing.

Like others said, TOR + mixer sounds good. I think you're safe with these, but it depends on how badly you need anonymity, of course. If you really want to make a private transaction, then apart from TOR/VPN choose a different cryptocurrency that offers to make real private transactions. I mean crypto like Dash or Monero. This way your transaction won't be seen, and if you use TOR, your IP address will be hidden as well. Keep in mind, though, that whichever option you choose, there'll be people saying that it's all traceable. Who knows, maybe they are right. It's just that when people get busted, it's usually not revealed by the authorities what exactly allowed them to catch a person. But I tend to believe it was these people's stupid mistakes like using an email with your name and surname on a forum, not the authorities tracing the untraceable.

I'd like to see a friendly guide into the Lightning Network with the main possibilities, fees, potential concerns and stuff like that. I read some stuff, but not something that would make me feel safe about trying it out.
Another thing I'd be interested in is a movie about Bitcoin coming into being, so to speak. The background ideas that are related to it. Again, I know some stuff, but a nice historical movie could help to see the bigger picture, so to speak.
And finally, I'd like to address the crypto-related content in general. It mainly focuses on the price moving up/down and announcements/regulations which are often connected to the first point. How about interesting articles about Bitcoin upgrades, thoughts on Bitcoin's future from the development team and stuff like that? You know, things that are related to Bitcoin directly.

I think that Bitcoin is a different thing, and this is why this analogy is not very accurate. I don't know how often assets people invest in turn out okay after suffering major losses, but Bitcoin is that kind of investment. Sure, the investors of 2009-2012 might be very rich (although I guess a very small fraction of people who had BTC now managed to hold them long enough to really profit from it), but people who bought in 2017 made a bad middle-term choice, while long-term they can still turn out to be rich. 5 years from now $20k might easily seem like a very low price to pay per Bitcoin. People just gotta be patient with this one.

I agree that this is how it should start, but honestly, I don't think that it would be an ultimate proof for me. It would prove that this person was very close to Satoshi psychologically (since Satoshi entrusted this person with the keys) or literally (so this person could steal access). But not that it's necessarily Satoshi Nakamoto. Craig, for instance, might succeed in opening the wallet soon (although I doubt that), but I would rather believe that the real Satoshi died and Craig stole his ideas and money. So to sum this up, signing a message is necessary, but not sufficient proof that a person is Satoshi, at least for me.

Yeah, I guess this is the main reason. Plus the population, which was already mentioned. And addressing the op's question, while China is a popular country that comes to mind when people talk about cryptocurrencies, it's actually debatable whether China is a dominant country when it comes to Bitcoin. Nowadays, at least, after the harsh policies introduced by the authorities. Unfortunately, it's hard to make sure the data is accurate, but from what's available it seems that China is not so dominant anymore. For one, it's only #5 among the countries running Bitcoin nodes. Moreover, it's #4 by the number of Bitcoin hodlers . While these positions are not bad, considering that China is #1 by population, these are not outstanding numbers.

Wow, I think it's a great initiative! Since economics is about money in various forms, it would not be fair not to include the newest innovation in this area as well. It's important for these lessons to be neutral, though, not highly in favor of EUR or BTC. It should be about facts, possible advantages and disadvantages of both systems. I also think it's a nice try to make kids interested in their lessons. I work part-time as a school teacher, and it seems that the topic that teenagers are most excited about is new electronic devices, the role of technology in our lives and stuff like that. So talking to them about the new electronic kind of money can be a way of making them interested in Economics in general, especially since Bitcoin pushes the boundaries of what is considered money or not and stuff like that.

The lists of Ethereum gambling dapps have already been provided by other players, and I could not find anything better than that. It seems to me that even though smart contracts get rid of the trust and centralization issues, decentralized apps are not very popular. I mean, we've been in gambling for years, and while it's not hard to name websites that accept ETH payments, it's not easy to recall a website that is based on the Ethereum platform. I've played on one of such websites once and I think I understand why they don't get as popular as traditional online gambling websites. It's probably because of the user-friendliness aspect. At least, the one I use was pretty complicated, but I suppose for now it's the problem with smart contracts in general. You have to use Metamask, transfer your Ethereum first, then send it to the Ethreum address to make a bet, and then once you win you have to start by figuring out where your money is. And besides, it's not easy to understand whether a smart contract is truly doing what its creators say it's doing, because of the technical stuff. So obviously it's easier to find a trusted user-friendly casino rather than use an Ethereum-based site.

Op, please address the quoted point, because it seems accurate and disturbing. The idea of a game where the last person to enter wins does not seem bad, but all of these time extensions are making it confusing. Some people said that it's obviously a scam where you can be the last one to enter, stop the game and win everything, but if the stopping time is decided automatically, I suppose this is not the case. But what about people throwing in money multiple times using their bots? How would you deal with this issue? And also, why not simplify the game? For instance, make it a game where the last person is an n-th participant where n is a random number within a certain reasonable range (between 1 and 30, perhaps? You can reduce the prize, of course) and n cannot be viewed until the game is over but can be verified afterward. I am not good with the technicalities and perhaps this is a bad idea, but it's just a thought about improving the game.

It's a nice joke to me, but I hope you're not serious. Any totalitarian move is a bad move. At first, they ban what you also hate, but the next thing you know is that your views are banned, too! I don't like how the Chinese government is dealing with what it does not like. And such radical moves can even be bad for cryptos, by the way, because there was already a clarifying statement that China supports Blockchain but not cryptocurrencies. So talking about cryptocurrencies being the central and most important use case of Bitcoin can be banned next, you know. Furthermore, it's important to allow people to make negative content about Blockchain, because some of these people might point to serious problems or lead to others improving the tech to answer the claims made by those people. When there is no freedom of speech, progress can't be fast.

I think this is a good explanation. Market capitalization = the number of bitcoins * the price per bitcoin. It's as simple as that, so it's a real objective parameter of the market that can be taken into account. Trading volume, on the other hand, is tricky. Since it's exchanges' responsibility to report the value of the total amount of BTC traded there, it's known to be an unreliable thing. Volumes can and often are faked, and for now, there does not seem to exist a solution. As for the market cap, there's another thing I'd like to mention in regard to it. It is closely connected with the notion of market dominance which is the percentage of the total crypto market capitalization. And this one's been criticized for not depicting the real dominance of a coin on the market. Those who criticize this form of calculating dominance maintain that Bitcoin is actually way stronger than the dominance rate suggests, for instance. So op, take this into account as well.