Look, that's not how it works on this forum. If you were scammed by wixiplay.io, and you want to warn people on this forum, you should make a Scam Accusation thread and provide more detailed information. If it contains sensitive information about you, you can just blur such parts of the screenshots. When a person gives someone good or bad trust, there's a section for references there, proof that what the person is approving and disapproving of is actually true. One cannot give a link to a PM, and others don't have a reason to believe someone who put, say, a red flag to wixiplay.io without referring to the link where the whole case is described. Moreover, wixiplay.io has the right to defend itself and publicly explain their view of the situation as well. I really don't understand why you as a victim is against making a scam accusation. Or perhaps your English makes the messages too confusing and I got the whole thing wrong.

It seems to me that it's not us being wrong but you are. Fiat is designed to lose value over time. It's considered natural and even good to have steady rates of inflation. As for the debt, it increases the motivation to print more and more banknotes to finally get rid of the debt and that can cause hyperinflation and the eventual crash of the currency. And if we add cryptocurrencies to all that, I think that they are the only thing that can save the economy is major fiat currencies collapse. Because even though they are volatile, at least they cannot be controlled by people that much and explode.

I don't understand why BOOKMAKER does not have negative trust if there are unresolved scam accusations... And while the KYC would make sense with other casinos, it does not seem to be the case with Jetwin. Just a month ago, he wrote the following:
Unfortunately, he's also been inactive for almost a month now, so maybe he does not work for Jetwin or something happened to the owner of the account... And there does not seem to be anyone else replacing BOOKMAKER and answering to people's questions even in their ANN thread... Maybe it's just a matter of time before they find a replacement, and maybe the casino is just going down...

Well, even though I am also happy to see this sudden rise, if the reason behind it is the Chinese President, it can backfire harder than a typical correction would. For instance, he might issue a statement explaining that cryptocurrencies will be banned and Blockchain will be used for other purposes or that the only legal crypto will be the Chinese national crypto... This could kill the excitement overnight, followed by Bitcoin going below $7500... It is not very good that such controversial regions are still playing at important role in Bitcoin's price formation (if this is what's happening, that is). It makes it all very fragile.

This message is actually rather unclear and potentially disturbing. It can mean lots of things, I'll try to mention the main ones coming to my mind:
1. Embracing blockchain, not Bitcoin. They can adopt blockchain to store some other kinds of data, sell tickets or organize elections. Blockchain has lots of use cases beyond cryptocurrencies.
2. Embracing the crypto market to establish Chinese dominance there and try to take it all under Chinese control. Then they can impose strict regulations, and others will be likely to follow them since they will be the leading market.
3. Making their own crypto token, fully regulated by the Chinese government and having so many users that Bitcoin will seem a teeny-tiny thing compared to it. Thus they'll have the coolest crypto out there and also become more innovative.

Definitely not Hal. If you look at Satoshi's posts on Bitcointalk, you can see Satoshi talking to Hal saying things like "Thanks, Hal, it means a lot hearing it from you". One has to be too pathetic to make two accounts and talk to oneself like that. As for Craig, I don't know, it seems ridiculous to me. He's clearly one of the early users and probably interacted with Satoshi one way or another, but he is a jerk, and hopefully, Satoshi is not. And besides, for now he did not provide strong evidence that he's Satoshi even to the court. Dave Kleiman - now, that seems more likely to be true. Although I sincerely hope Satoshi is alive and well, quietly enjoying living without drawing too much attention.

I don't know, I think the opposite is more likely. Bakkt volume is still pretty low, and it's not something happening all of a sudden to cause such movement. And anyway, futures deals don't directly affect the real market, they can have all sorts of impact or none at all. The Chinese President thing, however, is a shocker and could lead to such a price boost. Let's have a look at the time of the price boost. It's approximately 3-5 a.m. UTC. It was late in the morning in China, which is a good time to read the news and start buying coins. And besides, take a look at the top Bitcoin exchanges right now. The top of the list is heavily dominated by Asian-based, if not China-based exchanges, so it's gotta be something that happened out there.

You need to hire an editor to proofread the text, there are too many mistakes in it. And sometimes the article does not seem to follow any logic, because at first, you're saying that the price boost is not likely to go away soon:
But then you finish saying that we should enjoy the good prices when they are still here since it might not be like this for long:
I think that the could go up like this naturally after hitting the bottom, so to speak, although it recovered too fast for that to be the only reason. So the Chinese version actually sounds reasonable. Something had to motivate lots of riches to invest in Bitcoin.

I don't know... Satoshi can be dead by now, for sure. It could be Dave Kleiman, it could be someone else. But honestly, I don't see this phrase in the same way. To me, it sounds like "I won't waste my time on convincing you" or like "it'll take forever to change your mind, so it does not make sense for me to go for it". And the message was written months before Satoshi disappeared, it's not like it was very close to his last Bitcointalk visit. Taking a look at that thread, though, the person was right to raise the issue of micro-payments, because it is a serious obstacle on the way towards mass adoption these days.

So the idea of this website is that you personally check every website and then add it to the list? It's not bad, but why not rely on the experience of other gamblers as well? After all, a website that scams people selectively might not scam you but scam someone else. Here is, for instance, a resource that seems very valuable to me. It's a summary of casinos based on the trust of the members of this forum associated with them. IMO is a good criterion of the trustworthiness of casinos, although it's not infallible, so it should not be the only one. And since you're checking casinos personally, I suggest you take a look at sportsbet.io (you can see the link in my signature) and add it to your website as well. Good luck!

That's a fair point. It's an important point about Bitcoin, something people probably cherished in the early days and yet forgotten nowadays. Since Bitcoin got popular, people have been focused on profits, price fluctuations and regulations, whereas the really great things are Bitcoin's independence from the governments and its decentralization. Come to think of it, though, if Bitcoin does not get much adoption, then it would not help people like Snowden to put their money in this thing because they would not be able to purchase stuff with it. To do that, they'd still need government-controlled fiat. So thinking about volatility and regulations makes sense, it's a part of the way of reaching the same goal of Bitcoin becoming an actual independent form of money.

I remember some similar stuff going on a month ago or so. It's terrible that QR-code misdirections work like this. I've never used a QR code to perform a financial operation and I don't intend to do that. I cannot distinguish one QR-code from another, which means I cannot be sure whether I'm sending money to the right person. When I see an address, I'm always checking it a couple of times before finalizing the operation. I think it's easy enough to use addresses, so why generate something you might not understand or use it to put the operation at risk? With these troubling QR-code cases I hope people will start using them less.

Well, if quantum computing advances fast, this can mean the end for Bitcoin, right? However, for now, the field has been taking baby steps, and whatever Google has these days, it cannot be a problem for Bitcoin. It's also unclear whether it's a matter of time till we have an awesome quantum computer or whether it's impossible in principle. It's like the strong AI question in this sense. But anyway, it seems that even if quantum computers destroy Bitcoin one day, they won't destroy cryptocurrency, because even these days there are already projects working on quantum-resistant cryptos (although I don't understand how it works).

I think that Facebook is launching Libra because of the first option. Having your own token means staying in control and potentially getting more gain out of it (if your token/coin becomes popular). Moreover, Facebook supporting Bitcoin would be a certain move, a big thing for Bitcoin, a serious step in establishing its worldwide dominance. Maybe Facebook does not want to provide such help to any specific project. Perhaps people like Zuckerberg know Bitcoin mainly for its bad use cases, and they don't want to be associated with that. As for scalability, it seems to be a serious problem, that's true, but I don't think it's the kind of problem Libra will be able to solve (they can make the issue less significant, but they cannot make it go away, because it's a part of how blockchain as we know it works).

I don't like seeing Bitcoin going down, and I don't look forward to the launch of Libra. I also think that Libra can possess a threat to Bitcoin in the future. However, I don't find it rational to blame Libra for Bitcoin's current issues! I mean, Libra is just a project right now, it's far from being finished, and it's even further from actually being used and thus being associated with "cryptocurrency" by people. It cannot pose a threat, not yet. Moreover, I don't think that Libra's failure (and this is something that's happening now with a harsh time Zuckerberg had in the US Congress) can affect Bitcoin's price troubles since Bitcoin is nothing like Libra anyway.

I decided my make another entry. This one's the implementation of an idea by a friend who got inspired by something similar in another contest.

1DjE4XNs1h3FSpqtr9YEC4yU5ki5TmvjFn

This is the thinking behind the martingale strategy, and it proved to be very dangerous. I'd say that if a person plays until running out of funds and then feels pity that there is not more money to play, it's an addiction, and this person needs professional help. Why did I mention martingale? Well, the thing is that eventually, you are indeed very likely to win using the strategy. After all, if you're playing on classical 50/50 chance dice, there's a very high probability that you'll win within 10 bets or so, right? However, you might run out of money before it happens, and then knowing this you can throw in more and more money, the kind of money you were not planning to spend. Because the great winning seems soooo close! Of course, it's natural to be sad if you know you were one step away from the Jackpot, it can make one feel devastated. So it's good not to know that and not to bring the situation there, where you have almost no money left and you're hoping the next bet will bring jackpot.

It seems that this issue should be solved pretty soon. Jetwin has a so-so reputation, but they are not considered scammers, so you have a chance of having it resolved normally. In case a couple of days passes, and you still don't receive your money or a reasonable explanation you agree with, you can make a scam accusation thread to draw attention to this casino and what they are doing. This can make them more motivated to explain their actions, or at least someone trusted might flag them. I hope it won't come to this, and this is just a review, but in case it goes South from your point of view, write here .

Congratulations! I hope you enjoy spending the winnings!

Look, you've made 8 posts in this thread already, although there was a quite recent post that this thread should be dedicated to other things:
I get it, you are accusing the company of scamming you, and that's something you have a right to do if you feel that someone was not fair with you. But this forum has a specific subsection dedicated to such cases. You should make a thread here with explanations, screenshots and other things that can prove that you are telling the truth. This way you'll draw more attention to your situation and will find an appropriate place for Sportsbet and you to solve the issue. Do it if you are sure that you are right and they are wrong and if you want to make the whole thing public. If not, just be patient and wait for their reply in PM. For a company like Sportsbet, it really does not make sense to scam people, because their reputation and revenue could be at stake. As you can see, they are a trusted company on this forum. It's a good thing for you because it means that the situation will most likely be resolved reasonably. At least you'll get a good explanation. Good luck!

Why did not you leave a link to the report? It's an important thing to make sure we're discussing what's actually going on rather than your stance on this matter. It's especially important since when I googled it I not only wasn't able to find it, but I also found lots of articles saying the exact opposite of what you're saying about stable coins. It seems that G7 doesn't find them reliable (see here or here). Anyway, I've found a  report on stablecoins, and while it seems to favor them over decentralized unregulated cryptocurrencies, it still find lots of risks that have to be dealt with if these coins are to be used for serious operations. I think that it's natural for the govs to favor stablecoins over cryptos like Bitcoin because stability is what they are trying to ensure with fiat and because high volatility can indeed be a big obstacle for a coin to become used in retail, for instance. But I think that stablecoins are just trying to copy fiat, and they can collapse anytime which is actually riskier than volatile cryptos. When it's volatile, you sort of see the risks, but when it's stable, it gives a fake comfort like it will always be this way.