Indeed, I've always wondered why many lotteries, including national lotteries, that offer huge jackpots have only one winning combination or ticket. The prizes are beyond life-changing. They could be divided into, say, 5 and still be life-changing. If only there's this mechanism, many might be encouraged to join because the probability increases, and they'd also be of help to more people.

But I don't think this mechanism, just like what OP has in mind, will protect small players against big players. After all, there's no limit as to how much combination or ticket you'll buy. If there are 10 available slots and there'll be 5 winners, it could still happen that 3 of them are the same participant. So it's still the same rule that the more tickets you have the higher probability of winning.

Never mind CZ, Brian Armstrong, and other crypto businessmen, they're expected to have Bitcoin because they're right in the center of the game. But there's this argument I've stumbled upon quite a long time ago that since even the traditional financial giants, or gurus if you may, like Ray Dalio, Paul Tudor Jones, Larry Fink, George Soros, and others have seen some potentials in Bitcoin, there must be something in Bitcoin. If even these brilliant financial institutions see something in Bitcoin, why can't you? If even they are convinced of Bitcoin in one way or another, why aren't you? Are you wiser than them?

There must be some truth in it, but it must be a lot better if you're convinced of the soundness of Bitcoin yourself, and that you're getting into it not because these old men are into it but because you've seen for yourself that Bitcoin indeed has a future. These individuals aren't infallible. You also need to consider that these rich people have some millions to spare in whatever they think has certain potentials. They have the luxury to take risks or perhaps even some trial and error.

There are probably a hundred available approaches to it. Especially to rich, influential, and powerful countries like the US, there must be a lot of ways to confront it.

For one, just like in individuals and families, government debts could actually mean greater productivity. And I'm sure that whenever the US gives generous aids, for example, there are a team of economic experts that have already computed the benefits that would come out of it.

Moreover, there's the power of the government to impose all kinds of taxes. And then they also have the absolute power over the money printer.

From a dollar to $36,034,846.94 or even $90,323,070 during its ATH, and only in 14 years, if somebody was solid enough to have kept it through all those years, he/she deserves a daily vacation for the rest of his/her life. If that were me, I'd now be living in front of the beach somewhere far from the city.

Yeah, we're now beginning to appreciate Bitcoin more for what it truly is than a way to retire early, although at $28,000 it could still multiply several fold. So, yeah, now's still the best time to stack some Sats.

I agree. A superstar will fight another superstar. That's the unwritten rule. First, the big money is there. Second, it's an awful match if a top pound-for-pound fighter will face against somebody unranked. Third, indeed, you need to make a name for yourself first before a star should even consider you, however of a loudmouth you are.

Spence and Crawford fighting at 154 is not an issue. Spence complained about 147. Crawford also admitted he had a hard time making it. They're both looking forward to be at 154 in their next fights. They'll debut in that division together. It's certainly not an issue if there isn't any belt on the line. It's their first time.

I also don't think Crawford is avoiding Charlo. Who is Charlo, after all? The boxer who could barely win a round against Canelo? If I were Crawford, I'd rather go straight to Canelo after defeating Spence in a rematch.

What do you mean you don't need enough knowledge? Well, "enough" is subjective, but I consider the bare minimum to be "enough". By minimum, I mean the amount of basic knowledge about the what and why and how of Bitcoin and other information that guarantees you that your coins would be kept safe for the longest time possible.

Well, there's probably a little hypocrisy when you said that you're not in a hurry to start investing in Bitcoin. In the first place, we're talking about "investing" in Bitcoin. We all want to buy Bitcoin at a cheap price. You know, the halving is near, a spot ETF in the US might also be near, and so on.

The same goes with you saying that "Bitcoin is not something I will start today and get rich tomorrow". Obviously, by talking about Bitcoin as an investment, by talking about DCA, we're not particularly talking about freedom and control and whatnot. We're talking about making money, aren't we?

The initial price wasn't $1.00 but $0.00764. $1.00 was already equivalent to 1,309.03BTC. Wow! So, if you were able to buy a dollar worth of Bitcoin 14 years ago, you would already have a staggering $36,034,846.94 today. Who would have imagined that? That's just in a matter of 14 years. Nothing can beat Bitcoin's price growth.

But that's the initial price as far as the New Liberty Standard (NLS) is concerned. I have read many times that the first fiat value of Bitcoin was merely $0.00099. That was also in 2009 when Sirius here traded 5,050BTC for $5.02 over PayPal. So, that's probably the first BTC-fiat exchange, although that wasn't done on a platform like NLS.

I've had a number of fat-finger errors in gambling in the past, but nothing like OP's story stuck in my mind. In particular, what I can only remember is the confusion in decimals and zeros. I remember I've erroneously placed a bet in ETH with a missing zero after the decimal, so I was surprised when I saw my total stake to be something like 0.2 ETH when I only intended to bet only 0.02 ETH, or somewhere that amount.

There were also times when an error message pops out because I've erroneously placed bet amounts that are larger than my wallet balance. Errors actually prompted me to maintain only small amounts in my betting wallet. I once had a sign of relief that I was able to withdraw much of my funds right before a similar error was committed. I could have lost a huge bet.

Hello, Best_Change!

1. You might want to double-check the link you posted. I think it's a wrong link. It's a Telegram link. Anyway, here's the payment link guys: https://blockstream.info/tx/f24b0d7c22896c887f9f4cecb7446e17f3087d6d51dfda4d4877d8faff55527e.
2. I'm not sure if the weekly bonus should go to Darker45 or to _BlackStar. The post and the spreadsheet indicated it's for Darker45 but the actual payment says it's for _BlackStar.
3. Congratulations, Zaguru12! Welcome to the family!
4. "Closed" in the subject/title evokes all the wrong emotions. LOL! Anyway, I understand it means CFNP.  

As always, thank you, Best_Change!

My apologies, I didn't listen to the podcast either. If I did, I might not be able to understand much of it anyway. But with how you present it, notwithstanding the emphasis on the word decentralized, it looks centralized. We've been there, done that. I don't know, but despite highlighting decentralization-- "decentralized use cases", "decentralized bridge", "decentralized exchange"-- it sounds to me exactly like those that came to the market before carrying the same label at the same time maintaining a single point of failure. This sounds like the decentralized finance and decentralized bridges that pestered the market heavily in the past, from which billions and billions were stolen. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't know; it seems there isn't a definitive data on this. I have heard both opposing arguments. I mean, both claims that women are more economical and men are more economical. I looked around me. Both seems true in different cases. There doesn't seem to be a uniform reality.

On the one hand, it is usual to hear that household budgeting should be left to women because they know better. Husbands should just provide the money and they'd be amazed at how their wives would manage to keep everything financially in order at the end of the day however insufficient their income may seem.

But, on the other hand, it isn't also unusual to hear that money should be kept away from women because they might just squander it shopping unnecessary stuff, visiting salons, and so on.

So, I don't think being economical is something about sex or gender.

Yeah, those were the fees for high priority transactions. I didn't take a screenshot when I checked the mempool. But I think OP has posted some pics. The plunging fees and draining mempool were also the talk even outside this forum. Anyway, you can check on the chart below how things were much lower yesterday and the other day. But changes were fast. Of course, that's expected. Many were waiting for the fee to go down and when it did they quickly took advantage of it. That's always the cycle.



Anyway, below is the screenshot of the situation right now. It has gone down again. It's always best to check the mempool first before broadcasting transactions to take advantage of the transaction fee fluctuations.




Perhaps. I hope it wasn't because we already resigned to the thought that the monkeys have already taken over the network.

Demetrius Andrade is only dangerous in numbers. Outside his spotless record, however, he's not anymore something that can threaten somebody like David Benavidez. Andrade is on his way out while Benavidez is at the top of his career. At least Andrade will bow down and have his first loss under the hands of a fighter like Benavidez. That's gonna be worth it.

Despite both being undefeated, betting ML for Benavidez won't probably be worth it, so perhaps I'll just go with a Benavidez win via KO no more than 10 rounds. Notwithstanding his 32-0 record, Andrade will surely be the huge underdog.

Yeah, I get it that OP is trying to discourage crypto beginners from altcoins. And I agree with that. Altcoins, if one is to explore them, should come much later. They're risky. Beginners should focus on Bitcoin. And wallets that support altcoins may indeed encourage beginners to invest in altcoins.

If so, then why advise beginners to only install wallets that are listed under the Wallet software child board? Does OP know that Mycelium support altcoins? Is OP aware that even hardware wallets like Trezor or Ledger are also supporting altcoins?

OP's advice doesn't seem to make sense. Newbies shouldn't just install a wallet simply because it is listed under the Wallet software child board. They better do their own research and decide. Armory, for example, may not be for them yet.

This is the kind of idea that many influencers are peddling all over social media. They are banking on the fact that many crypto newbies regret that they came late. They didn't really miss the bus, of course, but they arrived when BTC, ETH, and others are already expensive. They emphasize how all the shitcoins like Doge, Shib, and the like have already pumped hard and that they shouldn't miss another opportunity this time around. And then they proceed to promote a new shitcoin. They are shills, of course. Either they're paid to do it or they're heavily invested in it.

This is nothing but a trap. They highlight low prices, low market cap, and so on. These are baits. If you want to risk on new and unknown shitcoins, be aware that you're likely to lose than to profit.

You're raising the question here. You'll probably receive a resounding no as an answer. You raise the same question somewhere else and the answer could possibly be a resounding yes.

The world has grown digital. Fiat will also have to adapt. This is not just a matter of relevance but also of efficiency, not just from the point of view of finance and business people but also of law enforcers. So if I were somebody who belongs to these categories, I'd also be saying yes.

But since I have already encountered Bitcoin and has gone a little bit deep down the rabbit hole, I'd say no. But my no is not just on CBDC but also on fiat in general. Nobody in the Bitcoin community would probably say yes to fiat and no to CBDC.

Therefore, the debate on CBDC belongs to the fiat community. To the Bitcoin community, CBDC is similar to fiat. It's just a change of form. Therefore, by saying no to fiat, the necessary implication is that we're also saying no to CBDC.

I don't actually see an urgent reason why you have to defend yourself. You may not have an unsullied reputation, but the trust feedback speaks for itself. You've got more than 20 green ones and only 2 red ones. In addition, you've also got solid and long-term clients. That must be something. To a company looking for an experienced and reliable campaign manager, that must weigh more than those below-the-belt PMs discouraging them of your services.

If I put myself in the shoes of one who is reasonable and who is tasked to look for a great manager, I'd probably be curious about those cheap shots, but they certainly won't make me decide right there and then that you're out of the list. You're definitely a top candidate. Again, you've got the reputation as well as an incredible portfolio.

We're breathing fresh air once again. It seems the mempool is now free of dead monkeys, or perhaps only a few are left. I don't know if it hit 1 sat/vB for high priority transactions ever since the ordinals took over the mempool, but yesterday it went as low as 2 sat/vB. Right now, it's still low at 4 sat/vB.

There wasn't much who participated in the poll but it's funny how the majority thought this will not subside ever again. Many also thought this will only subside next year. Little did they know it would only take even less than a month for it to clear out. Perhaps even OP wasn't expecting this since the shortest option in the poll was 1 month.

Just like any hype, those monkeys couldn't live long.

I'm not sure if this is really a wise advice. What do you mean we have to make sure we're installing only the wallets listed under the Wallet software child board? Is that child board even vetting crypto wallets and decide that only the best will make it on the list? BlueWallet, for example, is highly recommended and it's not on that child board.

And what do you mean "don't install wallet with many coins"? Do you realize that Mycelium, for example, which is listed on that child board, is a multi-coin wallet?

The plan is to start a certain kind of business, a dream business as you say. For that plan or that dream business to be achieved, the amount needed is $20,000. You are already on track to finally succeed as planned. You're almost there. I now wonder why do you have to change direction all of a sudden? If the plan remains perfect, why do you have to swerve?

I would consider the other option only if I found out that there's something significantly wrong with the plan and that it probably won't work out in the end, or perhaps if I realized that I actually don't like the idea or the business. But if these aren't factors, I'd certainly stick to the plan.