In terms of international law, it is not just justified, it is even required. Hamas, after all, is labeled as a terrorist organization.

As far as this specific issue is concerned, I'm afraid opinions on whether this is right or wrong might highly be influenced by our individual leanings, prejudices, biases, and so on.

But as far as the overall implication of this is concerned, it's dangerous. It's prone to abuse. In the first place, how are they linked to Hamas? Do they have solid bases or they're acting only on weak suspicions?

I hope every single user who is affected by this action receives a detailed explanation on how his/her account is linked to a terrorist organization. Providing only general statements is unfair.

Edit: After reading news related to this, I realized this is an old headline. While there are indeed recent freezing of accounts, this news about 190 accounts locked or seized by Israel is relatively old.^[1] And it's not only Hamas that they're linked to but also Daesh and other terrorist groups. This kind of operation has been happening for years already.

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/05/05/israel-has-seized-190-binance-accounts-with-alleged-terrorist-ties-since-2021-reuters/

I think everybody who is into online gambling must have experienced gambling while at work or at school or doing something else. The good, or bad, thing about online gambling is that you can get on with it while you're also on to something else. You can easily include it in your multitasking.

Gambling has never been more convenient. You can do it even while you're traveling, eating, studying, working, and so on. Moderating gambling has never been more challenging. I'm just thankful that I am not that addicted to it. As somebody who doesn't have savings surplus, I can't afford to be easily swayed by the attractions of gambling.

I haven't listened to Snowden's speech at the Bitcoin Conference in Amsterdam. I might, though. It's just a little more than 20 minutes, after all. But I think he's saying what's obvious. It's clear that institutions joining in the Bitcoin game implies lack of privacy. These are centralized institutions; registered, licensed, compliant to the laws, and so on. The people's freedom as to how they would like to use their Bitcoin, itself a currency that supposed to represent freedom, would be significantly diminished or even gone when they're within a centralized entity.

It won't matter now.

1. The founder isn't even known, so whether Satoshi is still alive or not doesn't have any bearing as to how Bitcoin grows from here.

2. Even if the founder is known, he/she/they neither safeguard nor contribute to its development anymore. The founder has already "moved on to other things" and has left Bitcoin to everybody. Bitcoin is open-source and decentralized.

3. Times change. Circumstances have changed since Bitcoin was conceived. However it will evolve in the future, it will be the call of those who are there.

4. Many Bitcoin users actually don't care. Some of them aren't even familiar of the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Some of them haven't heard of the names Wei Dai or Hal Finney or Nick Szabo or Adam Back and all and the Cypherpunks. Regardless of the founder or whether he/she/they are still alive or not, they just buy Bitcoin for some reasons.

Physical robberies and attacks are much more worrisome but also much less common than online theft. Apparently, the bigger problem in the crypto space today is more of the latter than the former. And this is exacerbated by the widespread growth of centralized platforms which collect personal information from its users. Although this is also largely due to regulatory policies, these platforms aren't without responsibilities.

Actually, it's a simply thing. No data collection means no data breach. Data collection means there's data to be stolen. So, I guess crypto users will have to try their best to avoid platforms which demand personal data.

I don't quite get your point, but to make it clear, you can generate as many Bitcoin addresses as you want with your seed phrase. So you don't have to have one hardware wallet for every single Bitcoin address. My golly, you'd end up having a full bag of hardware wallets if you do it that way.

Moreover, most hardware wallets can only support one seed phrase. In which case, you cannot generate a new seed phrase every time you generate a new address. If you want to generate a new seed phrase from a single hardware wallet, you need to reset it, wipe everything off, and start all over again as if the hardware is new.

But is there a need to have one set of seed phrase for every address? That sounds crazy. That's possible, though, but your room will surely be filled with back ups. Imagine, you'll consume tens of addresses, if not hundreds in your entire lifetime, and you need to have at least 3 copies of each seed phrase.

It's probably not entirely unavoidable, but rich and poor nations and individuals alike are more inclined to borrow than not. To a poor country, to support its needs. To a rich country, to support its dreams.

If a country is debt-free, it can plan to do a whole lot of things. It can be generous in providing tax exemptions to investors. It can provide a lot of free services to its citizens. Hell, it can even try to be powerful and build up a strong and highly-equipped military and join other wars and bully other countries. It can assert influence within the region or the entire world by giving out aids and assistance. It can support other countries' projects and programs.

If you're a president, you probably don't care that your country is debt-free; you care that you left grand projects and programs that make people fondly remember you. Every president's ulterior goal is to build a selfish legacy.

It's indeed tricky to create balance. Regardless, they all borrow. Even the countries with the highest GDP per capita, those that have huge reserves; they all have debts. Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland, Norway, Qatar all have debts.

This is true, but there are also circumstances which make it either harder or easier. If you're just gambling online at the comforts of your home, it is easy to leave and be back a day or two after. But if you've travelled to gamble in a casino, for example, and you still have money left, it's hard to do it. At most, what you can do is pause for a while, eat snacks, loiter around, or whatever just to cut your losing streak. Well, you can go home but it's probably a much harder decision to make.

This is also my experience when I gamble in a cockfight arena. I pay for the entrance, sometimes including the VIP entrance, so whenever I'm on a losing streak and I still have money left, it's hard to just call it a day. The most that I can do oftentimes is take a break and let that stroke of misfortune pass by.

Is this even new? You've been here since 2014. I suppose you've already seen the worst of Bitcoin. Have you not developed those strong hands yet?

As a matter of fact, what's happening right now is much better than what happened in the past. In 2018, many have given up. I know of loved ones who are among them. Imagine getting tired of waiting after only a year, so they ended up selling Bitcoin at $3,000-$4,000 when it was almost $20,000 a year prior.

On the same day one year ago, Bitcoin was below $20,000. Today, it's $27,000. I cannot complain. Let the rise be slow so that I can accumulate little by little along the way.

However, for somebody who is living in a bombed 20-story residential building in Gaza, it probably doesn't matter whether your money is in cash or in Bitcoin. If your building is reduced to rubble, will your seed phrase written on a tiny piece of paper survive?

I know that a digital copy stored online, even if encrypted, isn't recommended, but facing a terrible war, invasion, or bombardment, would it be wiser to keep a copy online?

Anyway, I think this conflict is much more about the shift in military gears or certain economic motives. This is basically about long-standing hatred.

I also hope and pray for peace, everywhere!

The cause is different from Julian. This might benefit the cause, yes, but Julian is already in the hands of the government. He is in jail. If the fate of Julian is not as important as the cause, he can rot there, for all we care. But if people care for Julian, perhaps they won't stoke what's considered to be a dead war.  


Well, I was just thinking of the other possibilities. The government, after all, is not anymore hiding from all kinds of crimes that were committed in Afghanistan. That the military was actually a cruel pack of wild animals in that foreign country isn't something new I guess.

Leaked materials are far better than useless ape jpegs. Nobody would join a movement broadcasting transactions involving poor artworks. Many might, though, if it involves information of war crimes committed by no less than the government.  


Those are third parties. Don't trust, verify doesn't exempt them. When I tried doing the steps to help publish the logs, at a certain point an address is asked where the information will be sent. I don't know how to verify those information myself. Also, I'm asked to pay first.

Indeed, as you presented, advertising and shilling are exactly the same. There's always that element to hype a product, mislead the innocent public, and so on. This is nothing but a service which provides inorganic, or outright fake, boosts, likes, shares, comments, retweets, upvotes, votes, and so forth. This service might even include spamming. The goal is simply to be trending. That doesn't necessarily translate to investment. Neither is it a confirmation that a project isn't scam.

But, yeah, many crypto projects used this kind of service. And such is the reason why social media is already pestered with scam crypto projects and products. As a result, only those who were born yesterday will fall victim to it. And platforms such as CMC, online crypto publications, rating sites, and so on all look scammers now.  

And you also missed this forum.

If we are to label each and every centralized exchange that has this kind of problem as scammers, then all centralized exchanges are scammers. Let us all, therefore, avoid them.

I understand that bank recall is not an easy process and it all depends on their policies, but is there a bank that doesn't offer this function? Isn't this feature required by law? Especially in your case in which the company itself was the one that requested the bank recall, I suppose it's easier. Anyway, you might want to consult a lawyer who is an expert and has experiences in fund recoveries for this. He/she might give you the best advice.

It might also help if the response of the bank is put into an official document so that you can forward it to Kraken itself. They might take another route favorable to you.

OP, I don't know what sources you used or where you got your data, but it seems they're not updated. Liquipedia has got it all. For TI 2023, here's the Liquipedia page for it: https://liquipedia.net/dota2/The_International/2023.

Everything's there. From the updated prize pool, which is now $2,933,270, to the teams that qualified, their respective players, their categories, and so on.

It seems the excitement of TI is getting weaker and weaker. The decision to retire the Battle Pass surely affected it. The ordinary fans and players worldwide always looked forward to it. Not to mention that it was also a huge source of money for the prize pool.

Not anymore updated with DOTA II, but I might still watch some games and place small bets.

This is basically an effort in support of Julian Assange. The website makes it clear. I don't know, it seems this effort is a statement that reminds the US government that they're still in this kind of war. I'm afraid this won't benefit Julian. This might instead cause a backlash and the UK might end up favoring the US' extradition request.

Anyway, everybody can join in this effort. This is being outsourced in a way. This is probably because the amount of information to be published is massive. Anybody can publish a log paying only the network fee. You can also choose the quantity of information you want to publish. And then you'll provide a Bech32 Bitcoin address for the information.

Right now, the fee is just 2 Sats/vB even in high priority transactions. The number of inscription is growing, probably taking advantage of the cheap fees. If many will help in publishing these information, we should expect transactions to flood the mempool. The fees will certainly rise as a result.

To those who want to help, please make sure the address you'll provide will never be linked to you as it might expose you to certain risks. I'm not even sure if this effort is actually coming from the real supporters of Assange. For all we know, this could be coming from the government itself or from certain individuals who want to clog the Bitcoin network. And there's also no way to verify the veracity of the information to be published.

We can generalize that everybody has debts, rich and poor alike. As one's wealth grows so are his/her expenses. I think this is basically the same with countries. When a country gets rich, it can afford to do and provide a lot of things. That means its expenses also grow. It can provide quality and free education, healthcare, and so on. It can build all kinds of infrastructures. It can provide incentives to businesses and to its citizens. It can continuously upgrade its military. It can even spend much on other countries.

In other words, there's always a reason to spend more than what's earned. So, there's debt. To rich economies, add to it the fact that they are highly capable of borrowing. They can have massive amounts of debts because of their paying capacity. So, they have the luxury to borrow. But the economy isn't strong all the time. Sometimes it weakens. It fluctuates. And then there are irresponsible administrations that just squander money mindlessly. The end will always be a ballooning debt.

I cannot assure anybody that the sites are legit or not. I cannot even understand what's written in those ads, but they seem to look like those gambling sites in my country that have already grown in numbers exponentially for the past few years. I don't know if they're following the same strategy, but in here in my country they're usually operated by Chinese gambling corporations that are mostly shady in nature. Many of them are involved in so many illegal activities. 

I'm not sure if Web Paranoid's assessment is to be trusted but their system considers sixs8.me as suspicious.

It's actually not uncommon to see shady gambling sites being promoted everywhere. I always encounter the ads of 1xbet and 1xbit everywhere.

In general, the people are already bitterly facing the huge problems brought by the current monetary system. If Bitcoin will one day dominate the world, there'll be disruptions which might be interpreted as sheer havoc wreaked by Bitcoin, especially by its critics. The truth is that these will be minor ones as compared to the continuous damage caused by fiat. And these are necessary, too. But we surely won't be crying a river when the money printer operator would finally lose his/her job.


I think the banks won't go. Their roles may significantly change, though. Custodians will never be completely erased from the face of the earth. Plus there are also banking services that Bitcoin might not be able to replace. But, again, that the staff of banks will have to move jobs because of Bitcoin is never a heavy toll as compared to sticking with the status quo in which the people's currency is devalued nonstop.

 

Don't liken Bitcoin adoption to a bomb dropped from the sky. Why would people be surprised when the growth of Bitcoin is gradual? Right now, we're heading that way already. This has been going on since Bitcoin came into existence. It has been 14 years already. So, why would they be shocked when Bitcoin reaches a certain level of success? Bitcoin is a movement.   


Lack of understanding is easy to address. They only have to spare some time learning about it. Governments must have already heard about Bitcoin. They can easily invite experts to provide them better enlightenment. What's hard to address is stubbornly sticking to the fiat standard despite fully knowing how damaging and poor of a monetary system it is. The only way governments are closed-minded is when their leaders are benefiting so much from a rotten currency.


Gold and cash may be good but hard to keep. Moreover, they can easily be seized or stolen. They can also be damaged in many ways. They can't easily be moved anywhere, especially across international borders. They can easily be confiscated as well. As to cash, it might be replaced with a digital version sooner or later. As to gold, it can't be used as a currency. In which case, Bitcoin is much much better.

I didn't click on the link. But since you're already here presenting your new service, how about you tell us exactly how you will do it?

Are the project information that you'd provide something that the investors cannot themselves access? If they are, how do you gather them? If they aren't, then why should they need you?

The same question as to the updates that you'd provide. Will you be providing them before all the announcements, press releases, and news? If you will, I'm curious how you get insider information from so many different projects. If you won't, then I see no need of your services.

Anyway, I guess there's no service that can ensure in any way the safety of anybody's token investment. If I invest in Kim Kardashian Inu (KKI)-- an actual token, by the way-- for example, how could you guarantee me of a worry-free investment?

I agree, it's almost impossible or simply unnatural for somebody to have bought something at $1 and not sell it while there are still buyers at $1,000. You got it for next to nothing; you can readily observe around you that it's still pretty much unknown, no business is accepting it; it's basically just a creation of somebody unknown and not by a bank or a popular company; these are reasons which might convince an early adopter to take advantage of what might be considered a sudden and quick hype.

However, although $1,000, for example, is already a crazy number if we are to consider that it was just $0.00099 years ago, this isn't completely unthought-of. This number isn't entirely unimaginable. Some adopters are probably already doing some early arithmetic that sees that possibility. Hal Finney, as early as a week after the launch, had already computed that it could reach $10 million. And although the possibility is "slim", you're risking only what, a dollar or a few cents? That bet is still worth it.

Yeah, even now, since there's still less than 10% of the world's population who owns Bitcoin, the room for growth is still huge. And especially considering that institutions are now coming in, it seems nothing can go wrong with our Bitcoin bet. $100,000 is a given, but there's certainly more.


No volume is next to impossible, at least with how things are developing right now, so 20 years from now, that's 2029, there will certainly be a much larger volume. We're on the right track.