I love how you quickly take the blame off the coach and find some set of players to land it upon. On impulse, I would've been prompted to ask if you're related to him .

The defense were jam-packed with those subs and you remember what they say about too many hands and the soup? They spoil it. They were so defensive conscious that they ended up on the erroneous side and you know what caused it? They were under great pressure from United which was stimulated by lack of wingers to push attack for Chelsea, so United were having monopoly of attacking potentials and they really put themselves at good advantage with the deficit on Chelsea.

Rather than Sanchez and Chalobah. The goal stems from the poor decision of the coach on substitute to bring on. The team is made up of only defenders now. Like who plays football with 8 defenders, 1 attacker and 1 goalkeeper. There was clearly no one from the Chelsea wing to push attacks which gave Manchester United the opportunity to press very hard and get a goal.

He's only lucky that with casemiro's red card, this game has come to a little balance, else you'd have seen the score card reach like 5:0 in the second half. It's very bad to play without attackers.  J. Pedro being the only attacker there is very stressful for him. So others cannot even get into a good position to push the ball into a scoring position and I wouldn't blame them since they were trained more on defending. They should bring Garnacho on very early so we can see a somewhat good pair with J. Pedro

I'm very much displeased with the Chelsea coach substitutions, he's risking more players on that pitch early on. The best thing to do after the exit of Sanchez was to remove the striker J. Pedro because Estevao could strike, same with Palmer and Neto. He has destabilized the team coordination now which allowed Bruno to score. He's playing 5 man defense now, it's not the best thing to do because that would create opportunity for Manchester United to press on.

 Removing Palmer is understandable, but Neto and Estaveo is a hell no from me. Pedro would suffer very well in this match because it's clear it's now all about defensive play for Chelsea. It's sad no one might be able to feed him.

This is quite understandable. Age is a factor that influence duration of a long-term holding plan. Younger people tend to have more long-term holding leverage than older people. It still depends on when you started holding and when you started shaving profits. I wouldn't make any assumptions here since you're an old guy and It's still cool that you've a way of replenishing what you shaved off your portfolio through mining so you're still in the game although not as effective and profitable as it would've been if you were just holding and not shaving off profits.

People tend to become more accustomed to what they can use easily of which in Nigeria you cannot spend Bitcoin easily, also it makes use of technology and you can agree with me that the average seller out there aren't tech savvy. Most people reject transfer, talk less of crypto

You know people can be scammed easily when they use technology they're not accustomed to, even fraudulent customers can make away with their funds pretending to help.

I think before Bitcoin is really a big deal in day to day transactions in Nigeria, the government should give it a favorable ground, then people would feel safer using it.

If you check the performance of Bitcoin over the various shitcoins you held, you'll see that they're not comparable which would tell the wise to get more involved in Bitcoin and limit or totally stop exposure to shitcoins.

In your activities, ensure you're not getting exposed to shitcoins with not more than 5% of your Bitcoin portfolio size. Bitcoin always rewards long-term holders, if you were one, you should've been in good profits now. Opportunities are still available to grab as much Bitcoin as possible so in the near future you wouldn't have to go over a second phase of regrets

This part of the document leaves a clue

"The death is not being treated as suspicious," a police spokesperson said.
Hatton had 45 wins in 48 bouts over his career but in the years after he retired he said he had tried to kill himself several times and had been open about his struggle with depression, drink and drugs."
https://www.reuters.com/sports/former-world-boxing-champion-hatton-dies-aged-46-2025-09-14/

This is possible since he only had children with two separate women with no wife or girlfriend to keep him company in his retirement days. Depression is more effective when you're alone.

The first scenario is realistic while the second isn't. I think it's paramount to compare two realistic possibilities. That not withstanding, both has addiction prospects with the worst being the second one since he places bets with large sums, maybe he buys games from an assumed reliable source and if that source disappoints he'll start chasing loses with big amounts as usual and would wreck himself financially even before he knows what's happening.

Aggressive DCA is showing more dedication and seriousness in your accumulation journey by buying continuously with as much good sum as possible from your discretionary income without burning yourself in the process. Dips are only rare opportunities to buy more quantities at lower prices and it might not be the best practice to strangle your DCA purchases with the hope that you'll catch a major dip.

Dips occur by chance and it's not something you just fold your hands and wait for before improving your game in Bitcoin accumulation, remember Bitcoin price is volatile and if you buy continuously you'll be able to buy at both highs and lows and increasing your aggressiveness if you're able is increasing your purchasing power to get more quantities per purchase which would amount to something tangible on the long-run.

 IMO it's not a good practice to be whimpy in your DCA because you're accumulating funds for your target dip and what if the dip ends up not happening, then you'll have wasted time and chances waiting for the dip while you could've spread some of the funds across your buying period and if Bitcoin price continues going higher, you'll regret not being as aggressive as you could be simply because you were being unnecessarily conservative and waiting for a dip that didn't end up happening.

It's about proper planning and you've got to maximize every chance you've got to acquire more quantities of Bitcoin for yourself.

Let's not forget that being in politics doesn't change the personality of someone if he's already exposed to gambling earlier. Although I kind of understand what the Philippines government is trying to do by preventing people holding government offices from gambling because gambling brings so much lack of productivity when abused, especially if done in the office environment.

Again, I think they went far with their control practices since it's always better to moderate people's activities while in office environment and allow them live their free lives at the end of the day.

Maybe putting a regulation on how much they can gamble monthly with respect to their earnings could've worked better than stopping them entirely which makes them seek out some illegal means of satisfying their gambling desires.

Where did you get this whack strategy from?  It's important you don't sell your Bitcoin within your accumulation phase. It doesn't make sense and it would be dragging you behind and reducing your success rate at reaching your accumulation target ASAP.

If you continue targeting the price increase and shaving profits of your portfolio as an investor still within your accumulation journey, then you're the same as a trader since you've the short-term profit taking mentality and this isn't good for your portfolio and on the long-run you may see clearly that you've succeeded in selling much BTC too soon because you had your focus on the wrong criteria for profitability which should be having more quantities and holding for a long-term instead of going for short term profits.

Nope, Bitcoin accumulation is based on your financial strength and availability of discretionary income. If you've a large discretionary income present, it's fine to lump sum since the funds are available. Personally, I wouldn't lump sum with everything at once. I'll like to divide the money into 3 parts, lump sum with the first part, use the second part to increase my aggressiveness in DCA and keep the last part for buying my target dip.

Lump summing doesn't stop you from buying on regular basis, it's always advisable that an investor has plans to follow up his accumulation journey by buying at possible intervals with respect to his cashflow even after lump sum. Lump sum is buying more quantities up front since there's a large discretionary income available at the time you got into Bitcoin and if your immediate buy isn't up to your accumulation target, then you're still in accumulation phase and should draw out plans to continuously purchase Bitcoin in order to arrive at your accumulation target.

Again lump summing in a dip doesn't stop DCA, like the investor from the description I gave above that has kept a part of his initial discretionary income from start for buying dips, he could continue with DCA and use the funds he already set aside to buy the dip when it comes by. Good thing you can still save up around 20% of your regular buy amount steadily for the purpose of buying dips and keep investing the other 80% into Bitcoin, so that by the time a dip shows up, you've enough funds to lump sum and get more quantities for yourself while your DCA remains not altered.

Bitcoin price shouldn't be the main focus of any serious investor, if they continue targeting a very low entry point, then they would surely remain spectators for long. Every price you meet Bitcoin is a good entry price and as long as you have discretionary income there is no need to keep waiting, you should follow up your Bitcoin involvement practically by buying at good intervals and holding . Good thing the DCA strategy provides every investor the opportunity to buy Bitcoin across highs and lows thereby smoothing the effect of volatility on their investment.

The more they wait for a targeted dip, the more they procrastinate their buying Bitcoin and possibly their target dip may not come by and they end up not buying Bitcoin for yet a whole cycle and they end up wasting unnecessary time that they would've used to obtain a good stash of Bitcoin for themselves. As time goes by their procrastination might turn into fear and resentment towards Bitcoin and they may end up not investing at all and when Bitcoin price guess very high, they always end up in serious regrets that they were not actionable with their involvement into Bitcoin.

Having multiple sources of income is good to make available more discretionary income that we can use to invest into Bitcoin. However even the funds from the multiple sources aren't managed properly by being as aggressive as possible without overdoing it and building out our emergency fund and other variances of backup funds in the process of accumulating Bitcoin, our portfolio still has the rights of being tempered regardless of our multiple sources of income.

This is why good cashflow management practices are very vital in our investment journey as it ensures our expenses is well planned and catered for and discretionary income are well identified and utilized properly. Good cashflow management practices helps us remain consistent in buying Bitcoin since every fund that comes our way is well utilized for it's various purpose and constant repetition of those practices ensures consistent purchase of Bitcoin and building of backup funds which would in turn guard our investment from actually being tempered.

There is no better way to enjoy your money than keeping silent about it and doing your things low-key. Being loud about financial dealings exposes you to unnecessary attention which most times undermines your security. It's always safer to keep people in the dark about your finances. This issue with exposure with wins is what made me resort to online gambling only since it gives me the level of privacy I want in the event of a big win

Most times I see this as war on decentralization and privacy.  These"duty coins" theorem tries to challenge Bitcoin core promise of fungibility which charity states that 1BTC = 1BTC irrespective of it's history.

Most people using DEX might be victims as you can swap coins not knowing it's tainted and when it arrives on the CEX it gets blocked and the account frozen. This would only create fear in people and make them tilt towards the use of licensed exchanges for their activities thereby encouraging centralization the more.

I think using conjoin services can be of help in this case as it would alter the direct history of tainting to a large extent, maybe you can send some coins to a new address with the service to spend them without trace of being tainted unless they decide to freeze coins that used Coinjoin services too.

Bitcoin doesn't just represent an instrument for financial inclusion, it has reshaped our thinking towards trust and ownership of assets. Unlike traditional systems that needs intermediaries, Bitcoin operates with a trustless protocol that eliminated the involvement of banks and government as gatekeepers.

It's propagation tends to combine two features "transparency and privacy" Transparency at the protocol level and privacy at individual level as long as the individual practice non-custodial ownership of funds. This kind of feature is hardly seen in traditional finance systems.

The implication of Bitcoin encompasses just finance concern, it extends to human rights enabling people living under oppressive governments and very much unstable economies to properly safeguard their finances in Bitcoin.

Beyond security issues, he would cause a distraction to the progress of Bitcoin, people would focus on him rather than the project and the community would want to revolve Bitcoin progress around him, his actions and his activities.

His absence has helped Bitcoin stand strong over the years and helped more with the decentralization of Bitcoin. If he appears people would want to look at him as the final authority in Bitcoin and it would defeat the knowledge that no individual owns Bitcoin.

Government may slap him with different law suits and criminal accusations.

If he surfaces, knowing that he owns an enormous 1 million BTC, Bitcoin price would crash because FUD may arise among investors who would think there may likely be a possibility that those coins would be dumped  by him.

It's better he stays anonymous, it's very good for the progress of Bitcoin.

I don't think this is just a silly act perpetrated by a commoner, instead it was a carefully planned out act by a group of people for political reasons. I think Charlie must've got on lots of people's nerves, even powerful people and that led to his death. To me, his shooting is more political.

I didn't really think anyone should be killed to show disagreement with his views. Charlie made lots of comments I personally find upsetting and irrational but again killing him was not the best option, it's high time the world moves away from the elimination strategy to dialoguing in the event of disagreement.

I really really bad for Burnley today. They did everything in their power to share points with Liverpool until the last minute of extra time. I am not really pleased with the decision of the referee to give Ugockukwu a second yellow card for that tackle that led to his red card. Honestly that tackle didn't deserve a card, it felt like robbing and it somehow weakened their defensive prowress.  Liverpool have been lucky to be securing late winners in their last 3 matches. It was a boring match today but they somehow managed to pull off a win with the penalty kick by M. Salah