Yeah, I also thought about it. But you see I kind of understand that the op does not want to make another 2k rolls just for the sake of increasing the sample, especially since he/she is convinced that FortuneJack is a scam. And besides, nobody said how many rolls is enough, so even if he goes through another 2k I bet there'll be people saying 'nah, still not enough to prove anything'. And I don't understand why FortuneJack won't provide more bet history.. I read the reply, I just did not understand whether it sounds like a real reason.

It's important to talk these issues through and doubt the trust we usually take for granted when it comes to established companies like FortuneJack. You are saying that you could not get more bet history, did you receive any official explanation why so?
Also, I probably don't understand something but isn't a provably fair casino unable to cheat, because one can check any transaction and make sure it's fair?
Since respected people say that 2k rolls is not enough, maybe you could get more betting history now?
It seems to me that Lucky7btc does not say that its his 2k rolls history.. The post is confusing but there's a mention at the beginning and in the end, hinting that it was a story of another user.

It could theoretically but not practically. It's truly hard to imagine the kind of news or events that could lead to such rapid changes. Especially with the $50 case. Too many people would need to make the same decision about their funds at the same time to make it happen, and I still think that we'd need at least a week for that.
Bitcoin's bottom seems to be nearby if another Craig Wright does not ruin the whole thing IMO. Unfortunately, there are still a couple of too influential people that are capable of making Bitcoin drop another 50% of the current price. I hope they are not interested in that, though, and we'll be okay.

But printing more money is too risky, isn't it? The EU is putting a lot of effort in making sure they control the price of euro and the rate of inflation. They evaluate how much basic products cost and adjust the amount of money so that there is very stable inflation rate. Printing more money than planned can easily lead to euro's rapid devalvation and that, in turn, to international economic crisis in Europe. I guess it's time to start saying goodbye to controlled fiat and embracing the money that is limited in supply 'from the inside' with all of its ups and downs.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that Russia is not interested in fair and transparent elections. If it does implement blockchain, though, it's a win for Russia and a potential loss for other countries that might go for opposing cryptos for political reasons. Anyway, I am a native Russian speaker, so let's check the news. The vast majority of websites that wrote something in Russian about this are related to cryptocurrencies (so are not official news portals). The article raises more questions than it answers. But the important thing is that blockchain will be used for primany election (choosing leaders inside of the party)! So the party just wants to know for real whom people see as their leaders inside of the party. Kinda reminds me of the Soviet Union 'elections' between the candidates, all of whom are communists  
I don't think they do. According to an article (in Russian) about it, only those who have verified accounts on the portal of public services will be able to vote with blockchain. They probably won't share the personal data of voters publicly, but I am pretty sure they'll know who voted for whom.
The article says the reason for this is prevention of double voting.

Ouch, it's really sad that the Twins are likely to lose a court case against Shrem because of a bad lawyer. They've been advocates on Bitcoin for a long time. I don't see why they case so much about 31 million dollars in Bitcoin, though, since they're millionaires anyway, but if their lawyer gave them bad advice on purpose, I think he should have been fined for a lot more than $15k. As I understand, however, it's unclear whether it was due to ignorance or not, so he got away with a minor fine (he probably got the hell lot of money, being a lawyer of billionaires).

A lot has been partially mentioned by other members, but I want to make a summary and add something new as well. There are different kinds of casinos. Some are just accepting payments in cryptocurrencies, so they are not based on blockchain. Other Bitcoin casinos have a provably fair algorithm which as far as I understand requires a blockchain to work, since it used cryptographic hash: https://bitcoinchaser.com/provably-fair-gambling/. There are also Ethereum-based casinos that operate on smart contracts and can also be counted as blockchain-based ones. There one can be 100% sure that the payments will be made in case of winning, because they will be performed automatically by the contract.

Oh, come on! Do they really think that if the previous crisis was resolved very professionally by the US, it's okay to make the same mistake again? It's good that people started looking into this thing before it's too late. Hopefully, this can prevent the crisis. Anyway, I think that what will lead to the next global financial crisis is dollar hyperinflation when the US finally starts printing too much fiat because of a huge debt to other countries. Since dollar is kind of a standard of money, most of currencies will probably collapse shortly after. Maybe Euro ha sa chance of survival, but I am not sure. What could really save the situation then is cryptocurrencies with limited supply and decentralization.

I don't know, maybe the op is up to something. At least, there truly are articles by newsbtc.com and cryptodaily.co.uk about Samsung somehow supporting Ethereum and excluding Bitcoin. They are based on an unboxing video where the guy says it explicitly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XWmczWFLts&feature=youtu.be&t=368. This customer could have just not understood the whole thing, though, I think it's not enough evidence. And it's based on pre-released version, so maybe it's just a temporary thing that they already made a working thing for Ethereum, but not for Bitcoin yet. For now we just have a couple of videos that show that only Ethereum is mentioned in the list of supported cryptos in the built-in crypto wallet. We have to wait for official info before jumping to conclusions.

Why did not you make active links in the post? Anyway, the channel has less than 30 subscribers, and there are too many half-naked women there. Apart from that, there are photos of famous people, for which I bet you don't have copyright.
The idea of a graphic telegram casino sound nice, I've seen some bot casinos before, but they has only basic symbols and text. I checked out the bot and it just shows some pictures of the results, but no animation of the process. Maybe it's impossible to make it work in Telegram, but playing slots without even watching the process and without any guarantees that the game is fair - nah, that's not for me.

Thanks for explaining how it's going to work. I also agree on the inaccuracy of the minimum deposit requirement. After all, people will be motivated enough to deposit money so that they wager more than others. At the same time, of course, it makes sense that if the person who wagered more than others actually wagered a really small amount of money, the prize might be too big. That's why I offer the following: why not to make a minimum wager requirement to qualify for each prize instead? IMO it would make much more sense.

It's a good idea to make a list not only of verified good websites but also of the ones we should blacklist. I've been mentioning it for a while in various discussions that the list of scam really matters, because choosing a bad website is worth that choosing one that is okay but does not provide the best offers for gamblers. People keep trying to play on new websites, and we can regularly see stories about people getting scammed there.
What's a big downside of this list is that it's terribly small. I also think that an review website with the lists would be more appropriate than just a thread on bitcointalk.

Inherent taxation is a pretty cool idea which could solve the issue of tax evasion once and for all. I hope the tex is reasonable, though, because otherwise it is a serious downside. The fact that we are talking about a stable coin here, though, means that even these somewhat progressive people are not ready for real cryptocurrencies. And the bank is just another unnecessary thing in all this! Anyway, the idea is original, but not without flaws and probably, as you said yourself, not going to come true. If it does, it will lead to more tensions between Spain and Catalonia IMO, since the issue of identification will affect the tax payments.

This makes sense, but while that hyped up effect is rather likely to happen, being driven purely by anticipation of the better times, the second thing is not bound to happen. Similar logic was used to argue that Bitcoin won't go below $6k but it did anyway. People said that if bitcoin's price goes lower, mining will not be profitable, so that won't be the case. However, the price dropped, mining did become unprofitable, many miners simply left the business broken and here we are. Nothing prevents the same thing from happening in 2020 with miners leaving the market, difficulty adjusting accordingly and halving not driving price up long-term.

I agree! The amount of money should not matter when choosing an exchange. Exchanges with low volumes are risky anyway, and on the main exchanges you can really play with the lowest possible amounts. Believe it or not, I started exploring exchanges with $10-$20. I did not want to lose a lot of money, so I decided to deposit a small sum to see how things work there. Op, the things that should be considered when choosing an exchange are whether you're okay with going through KYC, which cryptos you want to trade etc. Keep in mind that some exchanges have high fees! I personally like hitbtc, but I think the interface might be not very friendly if you are new to trading.

That depends on the part Bitcoin will play and on the units we use. For now we are far from shortage, of course. However, if the population and with it the amount of money in the world grows with Bitcoin taking the bigger and bigger stake in it, we might arrive to problems. Let's say we are in the world where Bitcoin is legal tender, transactions and fees issues are somehow solved and we come to the point when 1 Satoshi is worth around $1. This means that there are now some things that should cost less (say, a chewing gum or a candy), but it cannot, because we don't have anything smaller than Satoshi. I went through some discussions on the possibility to break down Satoshi into smaller units, and it seems that it's impossible currently but might be possible through gradual changes. If it is, Bitcoin shortage will not happen. If it's not, it might theoretically.

It's sad that there is no data on the series on imdb (when something serious is going on, there's usually at least something), and even though Connolly is not nobody, popular websites did not bother to write any articles about his new show and websites like imdb and wikipedia don't have info on connection between Connolly and "Cryptos". The show seems to be in really early stages, and the background idea seems to be about crypto crowdfunding rather than disrupting financial industry, but the team contains crypto believers. If they make it 'Silicon Valley' style, it might be a good show and make a significant difference.

Unfortunately, as in this example, even those banks that are 'crypto-curious' actually hate real cryptocurrencies and companies and only want to profit from cheap transactions as well as somehow contribute to the death of the free market by trying to offer alternatives for people. JPMorgan's crypto won't be decentralized. Some argue it's not a crypto at all: https://www.ccn.com/why-jp-morgans-bitcoin-killer-isnt-even-a-real-cryptocurrency.

I think the banks refuse to help out crypto projects, because they are afraid that the student will overthrow the teacher if you know what I mean. If a crypto project is openly trying to establish connection with banks, chances are it is not against paying taxes and not interested in money laundering, because they would not want to attract attention and control from the banks if they did.

My story is very similar to the one of pawanjain, 949miner, YudinKadoya and others who replied in the thread. I started studying at the university, and my father got really interested in bitcoin when the Silk Road founder was arrested. He read about the free market, explored the faucets and registered on bitcointalk. After some time I started thinking about earning some money while studying, and the forum was not the only thing I started doing back then, but it was one of them and a pretty important one. Nowadays I still take part in signature campaigns, but even when I don't have one, I still read topics on the forum, go through crypto news and take part in discussions, because it became something I care about not just because of money (especially now, when the payments are way below what they used to be). But there really was time in my life when bitcointalk was my only job and it allowed me to rent a flat, pay the bills and buy some food! And I'll never forget that.

Here's a website I use when I want to sell crypto for fiat: https://www.bestchange.com/bitcoin-to-paypal-usd.html. If that person feels more convenient with fiat, why won't you sell your Bitcoin and get the money transferred straight to his/her Paypal account? Note: I usually use this website to find suitable exchanges to sell Bitcoin for my country's local currency. I've never been scammed here, so I trust the source, but I cannot guarantee it's 100% legit. Moreover, sometimes the website it lists can require a lot of personal info (that's the case with Cyberbtc). In case you are Russian or Ukrainian, there are many online local exchanges that transfer money straight to bank accounts with you providing only email and sometimes phone and name.