Welp, it's a free market and exchanges are under no obligation to be charities. Such competition is going to earn Binance more from fees and it's likely that if too many people are eligible that nobody of the participants will even earn more than they spenton fees, (unless they owned BNB from before also). It's a win for the exchange no matter how it turns out.

But don't think that stock markets weren't doing the same. Back in the day where monitors would cost tens of thousands, government controlled stock markets would give free positions to traders with large volumes. And it's still happening with fees. Brokers that bring on more cash tend to be getting better rates than you and I can get in terms of fees.

And another one today:
[OPEN][SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN] 🚀KawBet | Bitcoin Casino & Crypto-currency 🎰

That is not a very good argument against any asset that can be traded freely.

The questions to destroy OP's bitcoin destroying question would be pretty simple.

Where would the price reach if a party with that wealth wanted to buy all of bitcoin?
Would everybody sell? How about mining?

It's something against any rational party's interest. Freely tradable goods are only valuable so long as there's demand and a market around them. No rational actor will ever want to buy all of bitcoin. Even considering that it might be possible and overlooking other holes in this mindset. Any issues that might arise from a single party owning all of BTC are less severe than a single party owning all of another asset.

If a party buys all of the stock of a company, it's faced with devaluation if they seek to liquidate again. Value is based on human actions and not on utility with stocks. After a stock is desisted, there's no free market for it unless regulators step in again to allow a re-listing. With bitcoin, those hurdles wouldn't exist. The party owning all of BTC could liquidate without limitations. Not even those limitations phrased in the OP. It doesn't matter that BTC can't be liquidated like company assets, because it can be liquidated in any other way.

After having experienced overcrowded casinos, overy regulated gambling and ultra-high taxes along with bad house-edges on real casinos, I'd always go for the experience of an online casino. That is in terms of the metrics however.

The real life experience is always better. If I wanted to have fun with a coupe of friends on an occasion, then a real life venue would of course be irreplaceable. Bricks and mortar casinos make up for the experience with providing free drinks and snacks sometimes. But if you live in an area where casinos are scarce and you have to squeeze between others you're unlikely to enjoy that much. 

Another week goes by and my funds are still not with me.
I really wanted to like this new casino and support it with constructive feedback but it's made harder and harder when I can't even withdraw.

Coinmarketcap has attempted to create a so called 'adjusted volume' metric. It's now the default ranking other than the volume exchanges report.
However, it's still hard for any such website to get reliable statistics. Very few exchanges give out data in a way that each trade could be calculated back to the full volume. Since most don't ranking websites have to rely on listing exchanges based on reported volume and/or come up with their own ways of putting a weighted multiplier based on how much an exchange is likely to be lying about volumes and to what extent.

I think the reward is just fine, not sure what point the above posters are trying to make...

But in terms of handling a sample for research, paying respondents could make up for a non-representative sample. I hope OP has considered to also ask for interest in other platforms. Maybe in IRC they'd have more luck to find traders and bitcoin holders. Just my two cents.

I don't think Binance would allow the coin to reach a price that high. It'd make its utility pointless. You need to have a portion of it to save on fees. Without being able to buy a decent portion of it affordably it's all pointless. If the price was reaching that high, I'm sure they'd issue a new coin which would surely negate the price of the older one.

Important to emphasize that this is only related to addresses and assuming that coins in them are owned by a single entity per address
 This is in fact a false assumption.

Custodianship still holds strong with BTC. People deposit their coins to exchanges. We will never truly know how many holders actually do this. Moreover, this can work the opposite way also. Maybe some addresses he funds as part of a loaning scheme, whwre a larger org gives coins to individuals. This is more common in chains where smart contracts run but even with bircoin it can be done through some custodian measures and contractual legal agreements like GBTC does.

Amazon cards are not transferable between region-specific websites.
If the card is for Amazon.de, it only works on amazon.de. If it's for amazon.com, it only works for amazon.com etc.

So, what would that Db consist of? Are we sure it's not a scam darknet listing?
A good mixer wouldn't keep any logs that could identify users or transactions. Even if they did, what else would be in that Db that could be of value? Any specific vulnerabilities of this specific mixer that would contain information of any value?

OP is a little conflicting as the title talks about a Db and the content of the website source. Even if true, maybe the darknet market listing could be a troll.

Your image host is down at the moment!
Nice post, but still it doesn't JUST have to do with the total number of rolls. The odds tend to even out in the long run, but long unlucky streaks can have the exact opposite effect of good luck even in the short run. That's why strategies like martingale always fail and can be especially catastrophic in a short run too.

Malta in specific has a history of having corrupt officials. They are indeed very crypto friendly, hell, they even outright sell passports. They get fines from EU for being too liberal with selling EU rights to the highest bidders, but obviously their profits are higher. I bet that this time around they say so about Binance because of some schematics that would require the exchange to pay more directly to the government.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be accepted by governments for it to function. That's among its core values.

It's not a good investment. It's just speculation and not much work behind it to support it.
The founder, I guess, is looking to create a get rich quick scheme from the hype and 'potential' around crypto. Better stay away or only consider it like gambling. Not putting in what you can't afford to lose.

Useful to also know the icann service:
https://lookup.icann.org/

For new domains or recently sold/deleted/transfer their service tends to be among the most reliable ones for web-based alternatives. Other ones might use cache services or scrape an API to avoid using more processing time by doing actual WHOIS requests.

In the eyes of bankers, BTC mixing sounds too many alarms.
It's using an unlicensed (in their view) form of digital cash, with pseudonymous and decentralized transactions, and even then the coins are tumbled in a way that the original recipient is lost on the way. For the coins to be sent to an unregistered and likely pseudonyms address again, for unknown transactions.

The intentions might be pure, or maybe not. But I get why this entire ordeal would drive systemic regulators and bankers crazy. Bitcoin mixers are taking away businesses from bankers that used to turn a blind eye to money laundering, arguably a sizeable share of their cash transactions.

To be honest, it's not that of a cheap price.
PVA can be a lot cheaper than 1$ per SMS. Telegram accepts even the least reputable providers, but these accounts can get limited or banned very easily.

People that do daily trading on a daily basis and are focused above a monitor could benefit by triangular trading between crypto/fiat pairs because for a while the crypto pairs appeared to have been sustaining smaller losses. But really, getting into altcoins is a much more dangerous trap long term. There are very few coins with a proven work in development and infrastructure and aside of bitcoin very few things can be for sure with crypto.

I would say absolutely not.

Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies have different aspects of them that involve multiple fields.
A single person can't be a jack of all trades and also master them all. If you need programming, get a programmer, if you need predictive models, get an analyst etc. There's no such thing as a crypto advisor...

It's a shame if posts are being deleted without explanation in such a way that even senior members can't understand what's going on.
Imagine being a newbie, stumbling into a thread that you want to read, only for it to go 404 when you hit F5. I'd be hella confused.

Other than that, I think that the incentive is good but info tends to sometimes be lost in the forum format. I would feel better editing a more permanent page like the bitcoin wiki, and then responding to questions in the B&H section by linking to relevant articles.