Welcome to the Bitcointalk forum!

Our community can be very observant and very strict sometimes because we have had both good and bad experiences with new projects in the past. I hope you will prove to be honorable, faithful and charitable to this community!

I like the quirky Ann design. I myself have quite a sweet tooth so this is quite nice to look at! I will be sure to take a deeper look at your casino and try it out for myself, if possible.

See you around!

It might be one-way glass? I hope.

I agree. The most likely way that Bitcoin could perhaps be banned is if every country in the world became a global dictatorship under a single unified ruler. But to be honest, even then we would protest, build our own networks and Bitcoin might even then be kept alive. We would risking everything for freedom but I think humanity has proven time and time again that even in the cruelest dictatorships there will be those who stand up and do whats right.


I do not doubt that even in North Korea there exist groups of people who mine their own version of Bitcoin without government approval or oversight.

I think the answer is both yes and no.

If investing, then the child must use money it already owns. But the use of that money should be delegated to the parents as it is their responsibility to prevent the child from harming their financial situation.

Fiat money has to be earned. It cannot be "made" by anyone else other than the government. And of course the government prints fiat irresponsibly, damaging the economy of their country for rotten reasons.So the child must earn fiat. This is the biggest obstacle for the child as it is not allowed to work.

This is not the case with Bitcoin, however. The child, if it is smart and old enough, could technically mine the Bitcoin using their own computer. In this case, there is no labor and no risk of loss of additional, pre-owned money.

So I believe in this case the mined coin belongs 100% to the child and it should do with it as it wishes. And if the child loses the money, it will be an important life lesson and no harm done.

We all know what kind of damage gambling addictions can do, especially to some certain groups of people who are predisposed to addiction. But this is a problem which goes beyond gambling. The question should be how do we stop those certain frail groups from participating in something that will be bad for them? I do not think we should. Every adult should make their own choices and not be baby-sitted by someone else.

Sometimes those people need a firm life-lesson which they will never forget. It usually helps them out of their addiction. Money is just money. And the money they lost could be seen as an educational fee.

That being said, most gamblers do not have a gambling problem.

Gambling games are not all that graphics intensive, I am pretty sure any mobile phone will have around the same graphical quality as your high end gaming pc at home with the newest graphics card...

Its just questionable why anyone would need to gamble in such a hurry that instead of waiting to come home to their desktop computer or laptop (also mobile, to be honest) they would rather play on a tiny screen.

It can't be good for your eyes. And the experience/fun is diminished anyway. But I guess that some people just need to gamble while sitting on the toilet at work? 

You guys are measuring the wrong way. Yes they might be both coming from a RECENT loss but lets look at both of their track records over years. Obviously Figueroa might have been on a bad luck streak just like Magsayo, but Magsayo's history is less flawed by a 1 fight (draw). So how does one even compare the two histories? Its hard to tell but Figueroa has been showing more weakness in the recent past, so my money is on Magsayo.

Just because he recently had some bad luck in his fight against Vargas and has finally gotten 1 loss does not make this an eventuality which will happen again. 24 wins 1 loss. Cmon.

It would seem we are headed towards a good ending. I agree. Perhaps we have already crossed the main line to a good ending and are already there.

We would still see many people holding the network together in exchange for transaction fee rewards. The question is: can the transaction rewards for Bitcoin fall so low that it would become unprofitable to continue and the entire system would grind to a halt? And can that happen to Bitcoin, realistically?

I think no. As long as people have an incentive to transact their Bitcoin, we do not have to worry. The biggest incentive is total financial freedom. From the government, regulations and banks. Especially if you live in a dictatorial country, you can offer services in exchange for Bitcoin without revealing your identity (as long as you stay away from centralized platforms like banks or exchanges) and nobody can take your money away from you. This way, The government becomes forced to comply with the wishes of their people. Paying taxes becomes optional. It all becomes a question of: do you want your country to prosper? If you live in a good country, yes. But if you live in a dictatorship, you have the choice to stop funding the governments actions. You take the power away from the dictators by refusing taxation and regulation. The governments are forced to bow down to the wishes of the people, not the other way around. Total democratic, anonymous and financial freedom.

Worst case scenario Bitcoin switches to PoS or something else, which is yet to be discovered. The good news is we have over 120 years left until we have to worry about that. More than enough time to plan for eventualities.

I completely agree. Nonito Donaire might be older but in boxing, that makes little difference. This is not football, where each tiny bit of physical endurance is essential. This is more about strength, experience and skill, which Donaire has heaps of. People put way too much importance on age and completely ignore the fact that legendary boxers like Donaire have an amazing track record which has not wavered much. I also am betting on Donaire this fight.

Promoters only pretend to say that fights "won't happen" its all marketing strategy to get peoples attention. I don't fall for it.

I do not wish to seem disrespectful to the elderly, for we can certainly learn a lot from their wisdom. But wisdom is not knowledge. Investing in modern technologies like Bitcoin requires both wisdom and knowledge. This is why I do not trust the words of old people who do not know of how to do things in our modern times. They still live in the past and cannot comprehend the technology of today. Just watch one of them try to use a computer and you will understand what I mean.

This explains why there are so many boomers trying to "ban" something which is unbannable.

I am not so sure about Figueroa after watching him struggle and lose the fight against Stephen Fulton Jr. in November of 2021 and he only had a single fight in 2022. What happened? Depression? All in all it seems like he is starting to lose steam and its all going a bit downhill for him, currently. That really does not spark confidence for me to bet on him.

On the other side, Magsayo has been winning and fighting year to year. Absolutely no stopping him! Aside from his one recent loss, his track record is way better. Obviously he is going to win this fight with certainty.

Exactly my thoughts on the entire matter. They just want to get rid of competition before unleashing the horror of their dictatorial digital currency. What they unfortunately have no realized is how futile their attempts will be since we already have Bitcoin. And they will not be able to destroy Bitcoin or its value. Anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature knows this and will not give up their Bitcoin over some pseudo-crypto that the government quickly put together out of panic because their current monetary system is being effectively attacked by Bitcoin and even altcoins...

What

That looks amazing! Great job, Helena!





I feel like this is going to throw shade on other similiar strategies and I do not like it. The "study" was based entirely on a DCA type based on buying on a fixed time interval with a fixed sum. The other types of DCA were not even considered.

Buying each dip is a completely different kind of DCA which was not discussed here.

Although I am not sure if Value Averaging can be considered a DCA, technically, lets be clear that VA > DCA. Obviously this type is not a risk-spreading DCA as the one being discussed but rather a profit maximization strategy using a continuous income source, which is infinitely more important.

Also the risk of losing all your money in an investment with LS is something that should be considered. With DCA at least you will have some money left in your pocket if your investment goes belly up.

The study is flawed because it equates prices before mass adoption and after. Unless you have a way of predicting early unicorn investments, only the time scale from 2018 onwards should be considered, as the market cap shows this is when the mass adoption of Bitcoin really began. The prices were at 8-10k.

Sorry that was my bad, of course I meant defensive not offensive style. Obviously. I just got a bit mixed up who I meant lol. Once Haney finds an opening, his counter punching combos are really nice to watch. Not so much his signature jabs but that might be where defensive styles lack style. He really seems to like parrying from a higher guard stance with his jab.

But his attack combos? The transitions are really nice.

I just think his size will be the deciding factor when combined with his defense in his fight vs Loma..

If you change the DCA strategy to one which buys the dip at seemingly steadying-out bearish market conditions instead of at fixed time intervals, one might see completely different results.


HODl seems to prove the best strategy only when assuming 5000%+ future prices. And what chance does a normie trader have to spot Bitcoin's potential in the early days?

So I see that study as fundamentally flawed. You simply cannot take into account pre-mainstream prices just as you cannot account for ICO/IPO investments turning out to be unicorns.

This is why DCA>LS

I think its possible to predict futures but only to a certain degree. 100% is of course impossible because of the very nature of the universe at the smallest measurements. But what we can predict is the probabilities of certain future events. This is where AI can definitely do much more than the human mind. And the more complex and advanced AI technology becomes, the better the predictions become...

Either way, its due to the probabilistic nature of the predictions, it will be considered gambling but with improved odds. So, not that much of an improvement.


Also, since the technology is available to everyone, that means everyone will expect the same outcome. This will have an effect of lowering the odds automatically.

I think that there is a better question you should be asking. In fact, you are asking the wrong question.

Let me ask you this: Has the war on drugs been a success, from your perspective, is it hard to procure drugs? Have the laws at all helped the people or rather hurt them?

Instead of locking drug addicts up in prison and have them stamped out of society forever as criminals, should they not be rehabilitated? And since drugs are easy to procure for anyone with an internet connection, we cannot say that the restrictions have actually stemmed the flow of drugs to the people.

What the laws HAVE done is make a quality regulation impossible. So anyone smoking Marijuana (which is a racist term invented to unjustly blame the Mexican people for the distribution of the drug) is in danger of inhaling deadly chemicals because the dealers do not care about their customers health and would even spray the drug with deadly research chemicals to make it appear to be more potent. Some even add shaved, microscopic bits of lead or sugar to their product in order to increase the weight.

Anyone who wishes to take drugs will be able to procure them easily. So the government should finally acknowledge this fact instead of putting their heads in the sand and legalize them in order to take away the profits from the mafia/cartel murderers and instead use the tax from the sales to fund rehabilitation, youth protection enforcement and quality control.

Do you also have any idea how much tax money YOU are paying to lock up some pothead for years and years?

The lower the market cap, the easier the price of the coin or token is to manipulate. This is just simple logic.

So I do not see how exactly it is NOT easy to manipulate. All you really need is a lot of money. Even Bitcoin was manipulated greatly when it just started out with a small market cap. A lot of rich whales do this everyday with new coins or tokens that are new and have a low market cap. We call those coins pump and dump schemes.

Especially if the coin can be leveraged as a derivative. At that point, liquidating the funds of the smaller investors is very easy. Incidentally the exact reason why I stay away from derivatives nowadays.