1. Viruses on iPhones are extremely uncommon. If it's not jailbroken the selection of apps you have access to is even more limited and vetted. Even more so, if you uninstall the offending app, it should be safe. Phones work more like a sandbox with their apps. The worst issue I could see here realistically would be to download a malicious wallet that simply steals funds. But not a full device compromise as it could happen on windows.

2. So long as you don't allow anything to run code on your machine, it's hard for anyone to install a key logger on your machine. Clicking a link isn't all that bad. Just make sure you use a new password on EVERY site you use. And additionally make sure you always are on the correct URL. For example blockchain.com is different than biockchain.com. This is what you should be most careful on in the web.

Define scale... People usually use that word talking about something completely different with bitcoin.

Anyway, I think the point trying to be made here is that BTC doesn't generate a stable positive cash flow as for example QQQ or S&P500 would do long term.

Well, my take would be that with BTC a positive cash flow isn't important. BTC is cash money, but completely disconnected from any systemic risks as modern finance defines them. There's absolutely no possibility of bank collapse, hyperinflation, government or state failure etc. People that hold BTC already must have their means to survive otherwise with their everyday transactions.

Frankly, BTC is a better instrument of facilitating every day transactions only in places where inflation is crazy high and government can't easily support its citizens. In such occasions there are some edge cases that could see more utility from BTC than their local cash. But most people in let's say Venezuela where there is a lot of inflation don't even have regular access to good computers or Internet.

That sounds much like term deposits and government bonds. Well, these options aren't real investments. They bear no risk. They merely let you beat part of the projected annual inflation but not much more.

This is a topic that has been widely discussed. There's an inverse relation between bitcoin's utility as a payment tool and its price for example. Because when prices skyrocket, so do the fees. So when bitcoin goes up in price, it's not so useful for payments anymore because you have strong counter incentives to use it for everyday payments due to fees consisting of an evergrowing part of your transactions as prices rise.

It's important to note however that the current economic crisis was entirely predictable. When economists heard of a global pandemic with a disease that spreads like crazy, they knew what was coming. It's the very reason the US broke past precedent by printing money on direct orders for the government. Some say more money might be needed in the US even already. And if such need exists at this point it'll probably be filled by the treasury. There are some interesting takes on the effectiveness of this approach.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/business/coronavirus-stimulus-money.html

Also interesting article:
Should the government keep running up debt to get us out of the crisis? Overwhelmingly, economists say yes

In my view, economists are now more than ever reaching a consensus that austerity might have been the wrong path to follow at times of crisis. Views on monetary policy seem to change also. And this time it probably won't take as long for us to discover if the plan worked or not. After there's a vaccine widely deployed, we can pick up our notebooks and churn out the numbers.

AskGamblers as in a AskGamblers.com the self proclaimed Best Online Gambling Website in 2020 🥇?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but why is so much weight put onto such website? They don't seem like a "regulatory body" even.

Because when you hear regulatory body, you think government officials; law experts, lawmakers, parliamentarians and generally people that would make up a government organization that exerts authority over something like an industry. For all I know AskGamblers' interaction with users goes as far as having a forum. Why should their word be respected more than anything on this forum. After all, AskGamblers' primary source of income must be casinos themselves, so there's a bit of a conflict of interest here. It would be like allowing a judge to accept bribes if you ask them to be the final authority protecting gamblers/bettors.

With bets like this one, it would be extremely long term to decide who would win. I'm surprised there even are markets open on that one.
A book maker has to be extremely confident they can remain pen for such a long term without interruption to carry over a bet that might last a decade. I'd surely have trust issues with any book market putting my money into such bet. Let alone the fact that missions to mars (manned) might never happen in our generation (in spite of optimistic claims).

Hard to say that crypto will come out as a winner from this... Coronavirus' impact on the economy hasn't really been assessed yet. Government will have to look at the end of the year to look at the total impact. The goal also was to try and circumvent any direct impact by issuing loans and bonds to businesses, as well as cash to individuals even before there had been an assessment.

There's also less money flowing around in general due to the economic crisis. The economy will shrink, question is how much. But until then I doubt we could consider crypto a winner. The win is that so far there wasn't a considerable crash, but the positive moves for some altcoins are probably just short term wins and speculation other than anything else.

Those are some big maybies, and while I would agree that Coinbase COULD in theory be 100% neutral as a wallet, I don't think it would be the right thing to do for a company.
My observation was from a point of view regarding ethics. For everything else, there's competition among wallet software where each developer (or open source user) can code his wallet to act as he wants. So in terms of bitcoin as a whole, there's no issue of censorship slippery slope under this hypothetical. Aside of that, I ain't worried of customer protection under the pretense of a company and users of their services.

There had been occasions where I was forced to have a life insurance over a short period of time. Frankly when you're too young most of the insurance companies won't even recommend you a long term plan unless you include savings with it. Which if you ask me is quite odd. Why not save on your own or just start a plain savings program. So no, due to my age, I've never considered a normal life insurance program.

But even if I were to consider one, I don't think I'd care if a company accepted BTC for it. It seems like huge logistical trouble for a big company to handle BTC payments (due to bureaucracy mostly) for it to be worth it. On the contrary, on the user level, it would be much simpler to convert BTC to FIAT. Personally I would just look for the best price in terms of USD value. Charging in BTC might ask for a price difference anyway to cover costs. Long term that doesn't seem convenient.

Also by paying life insurance, you lose your anonymity. So paying with BTC doesn't add much benefit.

I agree with everything else you said here, but UNETHICAL? Theft, extortion and deception are considered to be breaking even the Non Aggression Principle. Which is... The very basis of libertarianism. By extention of that very notion, simply remaining idle while you see someone being scammed and knowing it could also be considered unethical.

Given that "not your keys, not your bitcoins" is true, then Coinbase would not only be liable of allowing the extortion to take place while they knew so, but it'd also be against their rational interest since it was as you say, their money. So I don't see why preventing someone from a sure monetary loss would be unethical by any standard.

Sure Coinbase has other unethical practice. Maybe their mere existence as a wallet is counter-intuitive for BTC, but preventing theft isn't unethical. Unless we bitcoiners want to build a new book of ethics ofc.

Every post you see about crypto market makers is mere speculation. We can't even be sure as to whether or not they exist or not.
In other markets, there are specific regulations about how the service of market maker can be provided, who can be licensed to do it, requirements, limitations, responsibilities etc. That's how we got to know about it in the first place.

In terms of crypto exchanges, I don't think there are openings for such positions. If an exchange wants liquidity, it's likely they just using own funds to build up buy and sell walls. As much of a conflict of interest that can be, there's little regulation against it. As of third parties running unauthorized and shadowy market maker operations for profit, they're likely just doing it in full automation. I bet it would require huge volumes to be done in crypto and it would be very risky due to crazy volatility.

Can you link to any such accusations that were posted? I personally haven't seen many for n26 and revolut in specific. Especially revolut, they even have crypto integrated in their services.

No, I think traditional banks are more risky in that regard. In my country for example, whenever a bank would see me depositing from exchanges, that would call me ASAP and ask for my tax returns. Even though they're not legally obliged to, they just don't feel secure having cash deposited from crypto-related platforms. If I were to be depositing bigger sums maybe their harassment would have been more annoying I'm sure. They were just looking for an excuse to close my account in the first place. Had my tax returns not been much greater than my BTC-related deposits they would have likely limited me.

In Terms of utility, Ethereum has built the foreground for it to stay in a high position but I do no think I will be for long.
For how many currencies and economies it has o support, plus the transactions or icos ,it I s just not scaling well.

I don't know why happens to it next but there are any competitors that offer better utility like more transactions and services like DAX but don't have a 10 TB Blockchain. ETH is hard to deploy these days and most serious tokens have been looking into alternatives.Word is that even erc20 will be done faster by others. We can only wait and see how long it lasts.

Ramdev, you wake up with this account from a three year hiatus and only show up to defend a casino accused of a rigged provably fair system? Why?

It's quite suspicious an account like yours would wake up only to defend a casino. Seems like a shill.
Do you have a connection with wixiplay? If so, disclose it.

It's true that bitcoin can't be controlled by governments but the control can be exercised on various other aspects of the crypto economy. Exchanges are an important one.
Governments could try to attack BTC by finding ways to make it harder to use. For example not permitting business transactions, not recognizing it as property etc. But this would only attract interest to countries that haven't banned it and accelerate the processes to build autonomous and decentralized ways to trade crypto. Many of which are already in development and growing.

n26 and Revolut won't shut you down simply for trading crypto on exchanges. That's not a concern on their platforms at least. Multiple users of this forum use that bank also.

The more risky ones are the new ones. You should also look if the online bank operates under its own license or a sub-licence. Because big systemic banks often highly dislike it when other baks-like services using their platform are associated with crypto a lot. So in that sense it's important to look into what you're putting your money into. Maltan banks also have a bad history. Not specifically against bitcoin, but mostly to the fact that the banks would close only some time after launching. Ferratum and Nemea bank come to mind.

Well part of the issue is that if they are regulated they can't be caught accommodating players from territories the casino isn't licensed to operate at. Casinos that become large and have an existing player base, would rather keep things as they are and more sable instead of taking any risks.
Blocking VPNs is a common practice for big casinos and betting platforms that like to portray themselves as licensed. Some do it with more rigor than others too.

20% isn't that far off from the usual for profits related to capital gains. It's a bit on the high side, but surely not unreasonable.

Case in point is that by putting it in law for a country like South Korea, where application of law is known to be strict, then exchanges couldn't do much but conform. More regulation on that regard can't always be bad in my view. Korea was accused of having some rigged exchanges and in some occasions even driving crypto prices for a worldwide market, with what might have been fake trades. Now with a tax, local exchanges will either seek to legitimize themselves or completely lose business. For the rest of the world I can see this as a decent move from the government because it'll drive some less legitimate exchanges out of the market. But overall it would also mean less interest to invest in crypto. Both due to costs but also bureaucracy.

In other news, Trump called masks 'patriotic'
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/20/trump-says-coronavirus-masks-are-patriotic-after-months-of-largely-resisting-wearing-one.html

I bet he was sat down and talked down by many experts. There's an entire movement behind denial to wear a mask and general non-conformity with lockdown measures and its almost entirely republicans that are doing it.
Trump had fought hard to make edge statements on vaccines too. My view is that his goal was to earn the vote of people in this growing movement (as opposed to helping the movement itself grow).

In my view, this must have caused trump to lose at least part of the vote of the group he was pandering to. His weak stance on coronavirus handling probably had a damaging effect if anything else. Not in the US more of the people have lost relatives than in other countries. So talk about health care is again on the table.

First of all, I have to say that this is an edge case. Surely good for them and nice to have the word for crypto out. But It's rare for a company to succeed during the pandemic and the one in question was blessed with an extremely lucrative deal. Otherwise it's likely that it could have seen losses like everyone else.

Also worth noting that their recent success doesn't really have to do much with their crypto aspects. So it's not entirely correct to bring up both aspects of the company and try to play it as the success could be attributed to them using crypto. It was just a coincidence that they happened to have been using cryptocurrency relate technologies when they got a good deal.

Seeing that it's Kenya, I think it's more likely that the actual amount spent on the league is a lie and part of a publicity stunt.
I.e., pay some officials in charge a gross sum, in turn they lie about how much you spent and you get off with some great advertising.

However, promotion of companies in a league's name isn't uncommon at all. In Greece the league licences its name to a company each year for a sum of money. From 2007 to 2017 the top league was named after the national betting company, and then 2017 2019 leagues was named after a water company that became a sponsor! Even a team did it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthi_F.C. and also had a car manufacturer's name in its crest for a few years. It's good advertising for the companies and good money for the teams to utilized.

IDK if this case is true in terms of the amounts, sounds like not, but Kenyan league could sure use some money and it would do good if managed right. Not unlikely that there was a sponsorship but I think the level of the amount sounds a bit much though.