While the bond market is leaning towards a crisis similar to the one we had in 2008 and there've been enough articles and videos about it, it not disputable whether Bitcoin is an additional risk or a savior. I believe in Bitcoin, and I think that it has the potential to save the economy once major fiat currencies crash (and I believe the next economic crisis will be about this). However, investors are a different bunch of people, and I would not want them to get involved with Bitcoin. Investors care only about profits, they don't value the technology or use cases. And it reinstates that Bitcoin is an investment opportunity, rather than money, leading, among other things, to serious taxes.

It would be a great improvement to allow users to leave feedback! I think it's a major downside of the majority of websites like this that they don't allow users to tell what they think. Personal reviews matter, and it would also be great if people could give something like 1-5 stars to casinos as well.
I went through the list of the first 20 casino bonuses, but when I press the "Load next 20 of 244 items" button, it does not do anything... A bug or perhaps the lack of data?
As for the list of Bitcoin casinos, it indeed lacks some of the famous ones, like Fortunejack, Sportsbet.io (or is it not there, because you don't take sports betting websites into account?), Bustabit, Bitsler... Are you going to review them?

Having only two casinos is definitely not enough. And not only these casinos are not famous among the crypto gamblers, but they also have a questionable reputation. Loki Casino, for instance, is accused of denying payments without obviously being right about it (also here). As for Playamo, it also has some unresolved cases of confiscating money, closing accounts, etc., even though most of the cases are resolved.
I get it that this website seems to focus on bonuses, but IMO trust is more important since if you see a bonus but in the end cannot withdraw money from the website, your bonus is worthless.
Op, here's a link to a list of crypto casinos that you might find useful for your website: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154971.0.

And I guess others are right that the answer to this depends a lot on the initial price at which you bought it. If one bought BTC for $500 per coin, then selling now means getting awesome profits, and waiting for another 10x rise might be greedy and not worth the risks of losing what you've already managed to accumulate. On the other hand, if one bought them during the recent drop at, say, $4k per coin, then waiting to make more profits seems more justified, does not it? But you are right, of course, that personal belief on what Bitcoin can reach is also important here, and selling at $10k if you're sure it will be $100k does not make much sense.

Maybe it's not so important nowadays, but if Bitcoin is going to grow, it will be way more useful to quote prices in Satoshi. But it's hard to adjust to changes. I find it difficult to convert the prices in my mind, without turning to some tools. Not because it's difficult, but because I am not used to it. And I think that the price per BTC makes more sense these days that the price per Satoshi or of 1 dollar is Satoshis.
And I guess others are right to bring in the game things like mBTC first. As the price will grow, I think we'll be slowly moving towards Satoshis through other nominative units first.

I saw that message, but I posted here since, in their previous post, Sportsbet explicitly mentioned that they want this giveaway to go here, not in Games and Rounds section, and since everyone posted their predictions here, it would be weird for me to post mine in a different thread. Sportsbet replied to you about this promo, so honestly, I am not sure why you believe that my post was supposed to go in a different thread (if I understood you correctly):
Moreover, even in the post you've mentioned Sportsbet provides links for other giveaways, but says the following about the one I participated in:

This seems to be a great application of Blockchain! At least, it can really help to avoid companies that make very similar fake products and sell them to patients. I guess it's an especially serious problem when it comes to expensive medication like the one people take when they have cancer. And there's indeed nothing better than blockchain to make sure that only licensed stuff gets through. However, it cannot help prevent pharmaceutical companies from making money on people by selling them something that is, best case scenario, useless or even harmful. Anyway, a good goal, and a good idea to improve things.

I don't know, I have mixed feelings about this. Okay, I get it that Bitcoin is not very suitable for Walmart. But a stable coin like Tether just kills the whole point of being a cryptocurrency, doesn't it? Sure, this money cannot be faked, but the transactions will probably have the same problems as Bitcoin currently has if we are talking about many transactions per second. Why not use DAG instead? Or something that already exists nowadays? Why do they always need to try making their own currency, as if it's going to be any better than more than a thousand cryptos we already have. It seems very profit-oriented, not user-oriented. And I am not sure the spread of centralized coins is beneficial for the crypto market.

Okay, first of all, it's just a project law, so it's not the right time to panic just yet. There's still a chance it won't come into force, right?
Secondly, Bitcoin is not very beneficial to central bankers, no matter how you market it. But, why try making a useful coin out of Bitcoin when there already are cryptos like Ripple, centralized and willing to work with banks? And what's this project law's stance on Ripple, by the way?
Moreover, if banks want to benefit from blockchain, they can simply issue their own tokens.
But without Bitcoin being decentralized I don't see how the crypto revolution could happen. Instead, it would be a minor improvement of the same system that now allows not to fake money and to spend less of fees.

Yeah, but I think that's user-friendliness is not the main problem. Some people, for instance, are really afraid of volatility. They are used to the stability of fiat, and they cannot feel safe around something with such an unstable price. Another problem is that Bitcoin is not suitable for small transactions performed by a big amount of people in a short period of time, and this is the kind of transactions we mostly perform. The waiting time and the fees are just not acceptable, and when it comes to Bitcoin LN, I think its major problem is that it's not user-friendly, and some people think it's too centralized.

Okay, at first glance it seems very unrealistic. So let's put it in perspective. Q1 of 2023 is in, say, 3.5 years from now. Bitcoin is currently worth roughly $10k, so this prediction suggests the price will grow 25x. Let's start by analyzing whether it happened before. 3.5 years ago Bitcoin was worth around $400, so it managed to grow around 50x till the time of the ATH and roughly 25x till the current time. Interestingly enough, Tim's prediction is basically saying that the growth rate will remain more or less the same, and just like Bitcoin grew 25x in 3.5 years till now, it will do the same in the following 3.5 years. And that takes into account a year of the bearish market even! So I'd say it's realistic, even though unbelievable.

It's not an easy task to predict the outcome of these games, but why not try when there's a great giveaway encouraging to do so:
Liverpool v Norwich City X
A.F.C. Bournemouth v Sheffield United 2
Burnley v Southampton X
Crystal Palace v Everton 2
Leicester City v Wolverhampton 2
Tottenham Hotspur v Aston Villa X
Watford v Brighton 1
West Ham United v Manchester City 2
Manchester United v Chelsea 2
Newcastle United v Arsenal 1

Good luck, everyone!

I think you should move this thread (or make a new one?) in the Reputation board of this forum. This is where suspicious cases belong, and this is where they receive attention and get investigated. If you go with moving the thread, just scroll till the end of the first page and look near the left bottom corner, it should have a 'Move' button.
I don't think I even heard of Fairlay, but it seems to be a casino with normal reputation. At least, even though back in 2017 there was a scam accusation thread against them, their bitcointalk account does not have negative trust feedback. The profile has not been active for weeks, unfortunately, but I guess there's a chance they'll respond to a reputation thread if you make it. I hope the matter will be peacefully resolved, and you'll get your money in case you did not violate any of the casino's rules. You can also try to attract their attention by posting something in their ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673475.0
Good luck!

And this is something one should do every time, even if phishing websites are not frequent. I usually use the links that I already used (when browser already knows it) or bookmarks. This can help to avoid suspicious websites, but of course, there's no protection from hackers that attack the original websites. Not having much money in a casino or on an exchange website for a long period of time seems to be one of the main rules, though. There's less chance of having problems with a good wallet than an intermediary like casino/exchange, who often even warn people not to store their money there.

I actually do it from time to time. I have an official job, and there I receive my salary in local fiat and only local fiat according to the legislation. But I also do quite a lot of freelance. And when it comes to payment options, I regularly mention that I don't mind getting paid in Bitcoin. Employers usually ignore this phrase, but at least this way they hear it more often and slowly get used to the idea of Bitcoin as money.
As for grocery stores, we have chains of supermarkets, so the decisions are centralized... And honestly, considering the current priority fees, I would not want to pay for my groceries in BTC.

Binance might not be involved, it is true. In fact, it probably is not involved. At least, Binance claims they have digital watermarks by which they can identify whether the data was taken from them and that the leaked photos do not have it. They are also saying that they used to work with an intermediary in February, so it could be some issues resulting from there. However, I think that Binance is responsible nevertheless because people never gave their data to some random employees or companies. They trusted Binance, and the exchange was not able to secure information that can do a lot of harm.

I think a certain balance is needed. There is sensitive information that should not be public, like medical records, details of private life, information about children. And there's also information that should be public, like sources and amounts of income of governmental officials, job offers and other things. A person is safer if the society does not have direct access to the info about this person's wealth. Basically, I am talking about the point made by kaya11. I, for one, do not mind sharing my ID in the supermarket if I buy alcohol, or entering some data online if I buy a train ticket. But giving my passport to a random person or, even more, having it available online for anyone who wants to see it? If this sort of information becomes public, it can be very harmful.

This sounds vague. I get it that the system minimizes the risks of being scammed to pretty much zero since the payments are performed via smart contracts. But the zero loss thing? I don't get it. If you bought the tickets and did not become the lucky winner, it means that your money is sent to the winner, right? So where does the money that one, as you say, receives back, come from? And what would be the motivation for someone not only not to collect any fees/make a house edge, but also to return 100% of losses to players? I know there's rakeback, but that is understandable and people receive only a part of what they lost. But this mechanism of no losses seems too good to be true, so to say.

I agree that Bitcoin is not likely to become a Global Reserve Currency, since there soon might simply not be enough BTC and scalability is an extremely big challenge here. As for flexible supply that the article states - I don't think it's necessary, and volatility might slowly become less of a problem as more and more people play a part in the price formation. However, I believe that Bitcoin can become sort of an unofficial standard to which people measure up other currencies if Bitcoin becomes stable with time (this matter is debatable, but if you look at how volatile Bitcoin used to be early on, you can see something that gives hope).

The website is working a bit uncomfortably (with pauses), probably because of all the info about the prices being updated in real-time. I also wanted to ask where do you get the data from, since coinmarketcap has slightly different prices of the top coins, and pretty much a different chart if you go to the last coins on your website. Also, how is this website better than coinmarketcap.com we all know and use? Coinmarketcap has more options for sorting the data, and even though there have been some issues with the trustworthiness of the information related to, for instance, faked exchange volumes, till this day I haven't seen anything better.
Yeah, I also noticed how clicking on a crypto redirects to coinlib. Not a good sign.