In theory it shouldn't matter, in reality it probably does matter to some extent, whether that's actually distinguishable is probably the right question. Ultimately though, you get to choose your own username here, so if you didn't want to get stereotyped or profiled because of your username, you could pick something that you deem less likely for that to happen. Ultimately for me, that wouldn't influence my decision. If people don't like my username or Welsh people, then that's fair enough . It's not going to be a factor in picking a username.

Although, generally it's not something that pops into my head. I imagine many users here don't even look at the username of the poster unless they particularly like or dislike what was said.

While this is probably true for the most part, there will be some subconscious bias to usernames, that's just human nature, which I think is what OP might be onto here. For example, and this is a rather loose example; If you like cars, and someone else has the name CARLOVER3948389, then you might be more inclined to give that user merit or pay more attention since they share a common interest. It might not be a massive amount of bias, but I'm sure there will be some there if you did a case study on it. I imagine there's been other studies in a similar vain that have been conducted.

I just watched the press conference, which I know I'm a little late too, but I must say I was quite impressed by Jake. He didn't resort to his normal internet personality, and came across as a nice guy. Giving credits to Anderson, and you can kind of tell that this kid grew up watching, and admiring him. That's nice to see. I know they recreated the picture they took several years ago with Logan too.

Obviously, the fights a little bit off now, and I thought a press conference was a little early, but Anderson talks about how he's training all the time. So, that might be worth considering, since I know that generally fighters that are ageing usually don't end up committing to the same training schedule they did when they were in their prime. So, that age might not show as much on Anderson, which I do believe is the case since he's looked good just over a year ago in his last fights.

Definitely not needed. However, it could potentially attract new users if it was implemented the correct way. Although, I don't think many prospective users would be all that interested prior to signing up to the forum. So, I'm not completely sold on the idea. One thing for sure is; it wouldn't hurt to do something like this.

I know Cyrus was planning on doing videos highlighting top threads or whatever, I just don't think it's entertaining enough, especially for a video format. A blog might have slightly more success, but ultimately people aren't going to be reading your blog, they'd much rather read the material direct. So, I think it all depends on how's it implemented I think.

This just isn't true. Especially when some traders might trade at the beginning to build enough of a portfolio up, and then start holding when they've got to a certain amount. Although, if you're a good trader you can make some serious money, and users have. Much more than I'll ever be able to get holding Bitcoin. Unless, you're talking about the very long term, but I don't think I'm going to be alive to even seen that.

I do agree with your other point, that you need a certain amount of starting capital to make trading work, but ultimately to benefit from holding in the medium to long term, you'll also need a decent starting capital. Obviously, this entirely depends on your goals, and what return you're expecting on your investment in the first place.

Yeah, well I think I might've been the opposite. I was much less brave as you put it, when I was at the start of my Bitcoin journey. Whereas, I'm a lot more nonchalant about the short term price of Bitcoin. It really does depend on your goals though. If you don't need the money you've invested into Bitcoin in the short to medium term, it's much easier to be calm about it all. Especially, if you've got the knowledge, and belief that it's features, and principles will mean it'll increase in the future, you've basically got a winning formula.

Although, I can understand why newbies would be reluctant. I mean, we're in unprecedented times with a rather large scale war, recovering from a global pandemic unlike anything else in the last fifty years, and finally the recession which I believe is now showing its ugly head globally. Bitcoin was built in response to the last bank bailouts, and therefore I expect we'd need to get mid way through some struggle, i.e midway through the recession to see the results, since people will be looking for alternatives once we start to see the light at the tunnel.

That's not to say we'll be anywhere near out of the recession though. I believe we haven't recovered from the recessions before this, so we'll likely be feeling the effects of this one for a while, especially since it'll be compounded from the past recessions. So, I can completely understand why newbies aren't jumping in right now, it requires a certain mindset to actually invest in these times.

That's where I think a lot of us are going to become stuck a little. You have the one end of the spectrum where players haven't played, and then the other where they've been playing a awful amount in a short period of time, and then going into one of the busiest periods of the Premier League schedule.

I think I'd prefer players that are actively playing, and therefore retaining match fitness, but I don't know. I guess we'll find out, but that could throw a curveball in a lot of our predictions. Might make for an interesting mid point in the season.

Interesting, do you happen to have a source for that study? I've always assumed that boxing is worse due to the compounding effect I mentioned, whereas at least with UFC it's not a prolonged thing, it's usually in short bursts. Although, that isn't always true either. Just look at Nate Diaz, and Tony Fergusson.

Yeah, although Izzy did move up a weight class, and was significantly under weight, since that division allows a larger amount of weight difference, obviously. So, it's understandable how he was taken to the ground a lot. The most surprising thing to me was due to that ground threat he was actually losing on the stand up exchanges. I'd expect him to be a lot better if he were to go up again though.

On that note; Izzy will likely try to stay safe, and therefore I think the decision win for Izzy is the most logicial one, and due to it being a even match it might have some decents odds. I haven't checked the odds yet, since it's a little while away. However, anything above 2.5 would be pretty good odds I would think. I can't see Izzy knocking out Alex, and I think Alex won't be able to land what he wants on Izzy due to Izzy circling, and keeping the distance.

That's my early prediction, bare in mind I'm a fan of Izzy so I don't really want to see him lose, and therefore am a little biased. Although, I do think that's where the value bet is. Obviously, until I look at the odds, maybe the knock out with Alex, I just can't see him pulling it off this time.

We see it with others, Chimaev was technically rushed into the top five, and I doubt anyone will have a problem with him challenging for the title. The thing is, Izzy's division has been rather stale for a while now. It's only been Bobby that has enough about him to challenge, and I thought their last fight was very close.

Although, Pereira is new to the UFC, and has been rushed. He got put against Strickland who was on a very good run himself, and knocked him out without much fuss at all. There's no one else really except Whittaker he could go against, but I'd rather see that fight after the Izzy one, since there's a story behind the Izzy fight. Which if Pereira got knocked out or lost against Whittaker it kind of destroys that story line. So, overall I don't really have much of a problem with it. I'm excited for the hype behind it even if it was to be a boring fight.

Even then, it's usually more than just plugging in, and raking in the profits. You should be considering a lot when you're going into mining. Especially anticipating drops, as well as rises. So, if you're operating on a minimal amount of profit, it's probably worth considering whether it's worth it at all.

Although, the price of mining machines usually price out anyone that has cold feet, since they're rather expensive. Altcoins are probably the more lucrative market in terms of mining, and then later converting that to Bitcoin. However, that also comes with additional risks.

As with Bitcoin, it doesn't work in all cases. Much of my outlooks in life are probably associated with socialism, and obviously Wales has quite the history with socialist beliefs, with the National Health Service. However, I'm quite quick to accept that it doesn't work in every single situation, so much like Bitcoin it's not for everyone or every single situation you can think of.

Decentralisation only works in certain areas. If you implemented it everywhere it just wouldn't make sense. Same as a Libertarian Government likely wouldn't work great on it's own. I think extracting key beliefs from each, and implementing them based on the situation is much more effective.

For example, a decentralised currency such as Bitcoin makes sense. However, even Bitcoin is subject to more centralisation in certain areas. For example, mining.

Right, but when it comes to wallets, and basically being responsible for your own money. It's only recommendable to do your upmost when it comes to securing your funds, and therefore half arsing a two factor authentication (2FA) doesn't really cut it. Every security practice you can put into place has a downside, however it completely depends on your threat model what you deem acceptable risk, and what you don't deem acceptable risk. Personally, a lot of the traditional two factor authentications are half arsed, and wouldn't cut it for me.

I'd say that weak 2FA is only acceptable if A) you know the risks, and accept them B) It's a temporary measure until you can implement better security. I'm a firm believer that security shouldn't be compromised on unless the drawbacks are much, much higher than the benefits. For example, security should only be compromised for convenience, however if you compromise too much, you no longer have security. If you don't have enough convenience it's likely to cause you problems, i.e having a key file stored 100 miles away from you, in a field is probably going to cause more harm than good if you need that to access funds.

If you have to use someone else, I'd stay away from the bigger players that have been known to be quite privacy invasive. For example, AWS.

While I do agree, it really depends on the person hosting it. If you can't implement it securely, you might be better off relying on someone that can. If you don't live on your own or with people that you can trust, again that's a security flaw that could potentially bite you in the arse. So, I do think while generally speaking having your own VPS is the way to go, I think it highly depends on the individuals circumstances.

Obviously, it might be worth reconsidering launching something if you can't implement a VPS securely. However, that's another topic for another day.

I can't wait for the day where people stop asking me, "but where can you exchange it". That'll be the day. Despite it being quite obvious to people within the community, this is a common question I get asked whenever I talk about Bitcoin. People genuinely still believe it's fake money or toy money.

So, in align with that I don't think Bitcoin will get harder to buy. It's just going to get easier. As more people invest in Bitcoin the market gets bigger, and therefore the opportunities get bigger. So, companies will start flocking to it, and therefore exchanges. Plus, despite what people say, at whatever price we reach there will be someone willing to sell, and someone willing to buy.

While this is definitely playing into people's minds when buying/selling Bitcoin. This is likely to be very short term. People will get over it in the longer term. So, while September is looking rather grim at the moment, I suspect in the next poll we'll see some more positivity. I don't know how long it'll take to get out of this slump since there's a number of things going on that's basically effected every single economy out there. However, I still remain positive that next year we'll be resting at a slightly higher amount than we are here.

The long term, I've still got a extremely positive outlook on things, despite our setbacks this year.

I wouldn't classify it as easy. Izzy's going to be dealing with some skeletons in the closet, which might make him a little more shy, than he usually is. Alex could potentially win on volume during this time, and of course he can always catch him. I do think Izzy's going to be super defensive, and cautious to avoid getting clipped though. It could potentially be a very boring fight.

He'll use his distance like he always does, and Alex at times has struggled with that during their past fights. He's better when it turns into a brawl or he gets in on the inside. Strickland was perfect for him since he basically didn't move his head, and just sat there waiting to get punched thinking he could take it.

My prediction is a Izzy win, but I don't think it'll be easy. Plus, despite Izzy having the potentially better ground game, we haven't really seen that from him, and I don't see him doing anything out of the norm in this fight either, that would be too risky.

Yeah, but trying to judge form of players, and teams after coming back from the World Cup is going to be difficult, since they'll gel with their national teams. Could mean it'll be an interesting few weeks leading up to the Christmas period. I haven't actually checked, but what happens with the teams that don't have many players going to the World Cup? I assume they'll just be training for period of time? So, you could potentially have some match fitness problems with the lower down teams, which might make a very interesting relegation battle come the end of the season.

A true newbie, i.e one that hasn't invested in Bitcoin or stocks before is going to have a fun time. Espeically, if they've over invested. Although, that's usually not the case. As a newbie you're usually a little bit scared to dip your feet in, even though you're sure that Bitcoin can help your current situation. It took me a long while before I built up that mental fortitude to be able to keep invested, especially when we've taken big dives.

The price barely effects me these days. I'm not concerned in the slightest, and I've accepted whatever will be, will be. Ultimately, if you don't invest in Bitcoin you have to rely on a third party to manage your money or be severely limited to only local transactions with cash. Plus, you're very likely going to be in the rat race until the day you die, with Bitcoin, and the way it can move up, and down quite significantly you have a chance of potentially earning some money you otherwise wouldn't with being invested solely in fiat.

So, taking all that into consideration, newbies should develop their mental game over a few years, usually. Although, investing small amounts is definitely the best way to show what you've been missing out on, but also not become to effected with the swings.

They need to be enough to make mining/processing the transaction worth it. Although, when you compare it to other methods of transferring money, it works out similar. Since, most banks charge for international payments to be processed, and that can actually be much more expensive even compared to when Bitcoin's network was at it's most bloated, and therefore most expensive.

Plus, I envision that fees will be improved upon even further. Obviously a lot of users talk about Lightening, and segwit. These will either be improved further or new implementations will be made with the ultimate goal of making it worthwhile for everyone. Therefore, decent fees, and decent reward. 

It's also worth noting that Izzy pretty much dominated until getting knocked out. So, while Alex is definitely a good knockout artist, he probably does get beat convincingly without getting that knockout. Obviously, it doesn't matter if he can continue to find that knock out, but I'm not convinced he can.

Especially, since Izzy has learned to evade in MMA, and has become the master at it. Sometimes that means boring fights, but he hardly ever puts himself in danger even when he moved up a weight class. He's never really in any danger so to think that he'll put himself in danger against someone who's knocked him out in the past, personally I can't see it.