It's just a UFC Fight Night, not the normal pay-per-view event, so by design, it's meant to be a lower calibre. Still a good way to promote lesser-known fighters.
If you believe O'Malley will defeat Sterling and you're willing to bet on that, you can expect a decent pay out, as Sterling is a massive favourite. And it's not without reason, O'Malley, as talented as he is, struggled against Yan (many think he actually lost that fight) and will have a hard time defending Sterling's takedowns.

Let's not pretend that gambling is a legit way of earning regular income. If one was to apply logic, cold calculation, risk management, rules etc. they'd end up with a conclusion that it's best to not gamble at all and focus on other, more meaningful things.
The only way to pull a profit long-term is to search for anomalies that would shift the edge to your side, but those are rare by definition.

BlackRock is not just "one of the largest", they're THE largest, and not only in the US, but in the world. Vanguard is the 2nd largest and is not very far behind.
Both are absolute giants and the amounts of assets they manage each exceed the GDP of the vast majority of the countries.

For that reason, many are concerned if it's indeed good news if they end up dominating Bitcoin market. But there's not much anyone can do about it anyway.

Lol, that's the thing, people assume that anyone from Dagestan must be a great wrestler. Although Ankalaev has wrestling and sambo background, his fighting style looks nothing like say Khabib or Islam. He clearly prefers stand-up striking.

As for Pereira, given his age, I don't think he'll be able to improve his ground game massively. He'll be focussed on takedown defence and the ability to get back up if taken down.

I'd much rather see Prochazka fighting Pereira, but Ankalaev deserves that fight more.

Thanks both, it all makes sense now. I had a slightly wrong idea of how nodes validate transactions. Every day is a school day.


As mentioned before, ghash.io actually went above the 50% and it wasn't the first time that happened (it was the last time though). Hashpower distribution improved a lot since then, at least officially, it's hard to know for sure whether different pools are actually independent of each other.

So what do you suggest exactly? That there shouldn't be any minimal age at all for gambling, or maybe for anything? Sure, you're not wrong in saying people mature differently (some never, and some get stupider as they age), but as long as we don't have any metric or a way to measure maturity, we have to rely on arbitrary things like the minimum age. Even if it's not perfect, it's better than nothing.

"Waiting out the hard times" implies it's Binance's decision to withdraw from those markets, while everything looks like they are being pushed out. And if they are - I don't think MICA or any other regulations would help them to come back. If countries don't want Binance around (i.e. because it might be associated with the Chinese political agenda) they'll always find a way to keep them out.

I think there are quite a lot of people with comprehensive knowledge of Bitcoin, you could find many even on this forum. In it's nature, I don't think it's that complicated. The real difficulties arise when you want to make changes to the protocol and introduce new features etc.


This certificate is not intended to turn anyone into a Bitcoin developer, but to certify that the holder has an understanding of how Bitcoin works. Just like you can be licenced to drive a car without understanding the technicalities of the combustion engine etc.

There are a couple of ways they could spin it into a real thing, but they'd need to attach some special rules to it, to prevent it from getting merged with the title belt. i.e. they could make a rule that you could only win it by KO/TKO/submission, and if the fight is won by decision, the belt gets vacated and UFC fans could vote which next fight will be for the belt - to prevent it being locked in one weight class. Just a thought.


Can't disagree. You can tell something is not quite right just by looking at him. I don't think it's just the age thing. There are some rumors that he has some mental issues, and watching some of his interviews you can tell he holds some resentment against UFC/journalists and maybe a whole world.
But maybe changing the environment and moving to a different organisation could work well for him. He could get some easier fights and strangely enough, he could even get a better pay.

Thanks again for clarifying. Technical aspects of the network have never been my strong suit. Just another daft question: If nodes do not police the chain, then why is it advised for nodes to have a full copy of the blockchain? I always imagined it was for situations like the one discussed, to prevent malicious miners from propagating invalid chains.

I think I based that on some interview with a young fighter complaining about UFC forcing him to sign an initial contract of ten fights for some ridiculously low money in a range of $5k per fight. But again, I'm quoting from memory and that was at least over a decade ago, so there's a chance I got it twisted, plus, surely a lot has changed since then.

The purpose of such certificates is not to turn anyone into a full-blown Bitcoin developer, but to certify that you have a basic understanding of what Bitcoin is and how it works.
I'm guessing their target group is professional firms wanting to train their employees to help them better understand what is all about if their jobs require any kind of dealings with crypto. Or it might be a good way to boost up your CV with something that'll make you stand out from others.

The BMF belt will have a short life if Justin gets the title fight, which he should and that's what he's after. So if the BMF is put on the line it'll get unified with the lightweight title. If UFC want it to be a thing, they'll have to come up with some special rules on how it is to be passed on.


As I said, he's past his prime, there's no question about that, but if he still feels like he have a couple more fights in him - why not?
And what people tend to forget that 6 losing streak was to guys from the very top, while his 12-win streak was earned mostly on low/average-rated guys. So looking just at wins/losses record can give you a bit distorted picture.


Are you sure about that 3/6 fights thing? I vaguely recall some fighter saying that they got an initial contract for 10 fights, but that was looong time ago, so it might have changed.
And sure, if Tony decided to retire and wanted to do a farewell fight, I'm sure UFC would get that arranged. But it doesn't seem like that's what he's after.


Age is not as important in the heavyweight as it is in the lower divisions. Lewis is still an exciting fighter and that's what the UFC heavyweight desperately needs right now, especially when it's probable that Jon Jones may retire after the Stipe fight.
I'm sure UFC will make Lewis 'some' offer, but it might be worse than what he previously had, and he's at the end of his career so might want to squeeze as much as possible, so if he gets a better offer from elsewhere, he'll probably go for that.

Don't they though? A quick google search suggests Argentina has one of the highest crypto adoption rates, which would make sense considering they had some restrictions on foreign exchanges.


Do you think giants like BlackRock would even bother to file for spot ETF if they didn't know there is a demand for it? I don't expect fireworks but it will have a positive effect on the price, it might be spread over a longer period of time though. And it's not like the price would be bumped by the ETF alone. The current demand is still there, so it's just adding a "little bit" extra on the top. And coupled with reduced supply from the miners after the halving - that's a strong case for a bull market.

Ciekawe to zestawienie, nie widziałem tego nigdy wcześniej. Fajnie obrazuje perspektywe, nawet nie przypuszczałem że 2023 wygląda tak dobrze jeśli chodzi o stabilność wzrostów.
Mógłbyś podesłać linka do źródła?

Thanks for sharing. I thought ghash.io was the only time the pool went above 50%. I got into Bitcoin in late 2013 ao wasn't around when the first two times happened.

I guess we can draw the conclusion that the simplest and cheapest way to perform the attack is not to buy or produce enough hashpower, but to create a pool (or few pools pretending to be independent) and attract enough miners.


But that new chain would get rejected by the majority of the network, meaning nodes, right?

Andreas Antonopoulos lost a lot in my eyes by going full leftist in some of his tweets. I've no idea what is he up to now.
The certificate was designed for professionals from various industries to get them familiar of what Bitcoin actually is and how it works.
It's probably not very useful for anyone wanting to dive much deeper into it. You could probably learn more by experimenting yourself (i.e. playing with testnet) and talking to people on technical boards.


In all fairness, I think he explicitly said that Bitcoin is not a security. He was undecided on other cryptos.

Why attack something that did not yet have any traction? After the release in 2009 Bitcoin had many vulnerabilities comparing to which 51% attack did not sound all that scary. For example, that one time, in the block 74638, 92 billion bitcoins came into existence, you can read more about that here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0

I've never heard of any actual 51% attack on Bitcoin, but at one point (very briefly) a mining pool called ghash.io went above 50% of the total hashpower, but they had no intention of attacking the network and took steps to discourage individual miners from joining their pool.

McGregor will be fighting Chandler next, I believe the fight is already contracted even if there's no date set up yet. It won't be until 2024 as McGregor will have to return to the USADA testing pool, which have six-month testing periods (that could be waived in exceptional circumstances).

The BMF belt is retarded. I don't like seeing UFC moving further away from the sport towards some WWE-type entertainment. 



Why though? If he wants to carry on, so be it. I don't subscribe to the opinion that you should quit at your peak or shortly after. Let him retire on his own terms.

I'm not going to lie, I don't know how risk/operations management works "under the hood" of big betting sites, but I imagine it must be pretty complex.
The idea is simple for peer-to-peer betting sites, players bet against each other and the house gets its cut, so they don't care at all who wins or loses. But I don't think it's possible for P2P betting sites to offer fixed odds, I believe they have to be flexible as they don't know what the total pool will be when the bets are closed. That makes them less attractive to players.
In terms of non-P2P bookies, for them it's all about trying to figure out accurate odds and also to monitor their exposure to certain events. So when too much money is bet on one side of an event, they'd also be reducing the odds or, in some cases, they'd just lock such bet.