Some bullish news, BlackRock's CEO, Larry Fink sees Bitcoin as a good opportunity and wants to "democratize crypto". After having their initial ETF application rejected (apparently for trivial reasons) they re-filed it recently. BlackRock Wants to Make It Cheaper to Trade Bitcoin, Larry Fink Sayshttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-05/blackrock-wants-to-make-it-cheaper-to-trade-bitcoin-fink-saysBlackRock Inc. Chief Executive Officer Larry Fink called Bitcoin an “international asset” and said the money manager wants to use its heft to make it less expensive and easier to invest in the cryptocurrency.
“It costs a lot of money right now to transact Bitcoin,” Fink said Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business. “We hope our regulators look at these filings as a way to democratize crypto.”
The money management giant filed paperwork last month to set up an exchange-traded fund that invests directly in Bitcoin, which prompted a flurry of similar applications from rival issuers and a rally in Bitcoin’s price to more than $30,000. Bitcoin rose more than 12% in June alone and is up more than 80% year-to-date.
... ps. they seemed to intend to subscribe-wall this article but I can read it fine, and hope you are too. |
|
|
|
The bank notes are going to disappear in a few months to a year after CBDC. Just think people are forced to use CBDC because they can't buy any stuff from grocery stores if you're not using CBDC. The government will make it also available to all, probably even giving phones to the elderly so they can receive stimulus packages thru CBDC.
Easier to distribute stimi to people that has CBDC account on their phones. You'll see the benefit so they'd really going to sign up for it.
You could be right, but I don't think it'll be that quick. Few months to a year would be a very short notice. But I don't see cash getting completely replaced until we have CBDC, or other solutions that are available to everyone (including homeless etc). Currently banks can deny you a service even without stating any reason, so potentially some people would be left out without any means to participate in the system. This is not true, true p2p eliminates an intermediary or third party, if there is a third party it is no longer peer to peer, but peer to intermediary, and intermediary to the other peer.
What's widely described as P2P online crypto transactions (e.g. exchanging btc for fiat) would still require a 3rd party fiat processor. The only "true" P2P transaction would be exchanging btc for physical cash, but that won't be possible if/when cash goes away. |
|
|
|
Yes, parents are the first people who should be questioned why their underage children can access gambling sites, I mean when they give freedom to hold cellphones for example, they should also control what their children do with their cellphones. I think it is quite easy to see slightly different behavior when their children have become users who play gambling. From money for example, surely children who are still minors have money from their parents' gifts, and as parents must have set aside how much their monthly / weekly / daily money is, when they look more extravagant then it is suspicious which then must be followed up.
Sometimes it really looks like most parents in so-called developed countries don't even try to raise their children, they just feed them, cloth them, buy them stuff and outsource looking after them to schools or nurseries. Controlling what kids do on their phones gets almost impossible when we're talking about late teens. If you didn't teach your kids self-control and installed proper values by then, there's not much you can do. In terms of preventing them from gambling, the best you could do is control their finances and monitor their spending. To gamble online they'd have to make an online deposit, for which you'd need a bank account. I don't even know if it'd be possible to make such deposit from a junior account. |
|
|
|
In a situation when a government asserts total control over the payment systems, P2P may not be a solution. You could still do it, sure, but you could be facing investigation for suspicious activities if you keep sending/receiving money from unaffiliated strangers. The only true way to prevent censorship of financial transaction is to not get corrupt governments get into power, and create serious political resistance when there are signals of government overreaching their powers. That's the problem I have with many bitcoiners. They're way too tolerant of any attacks on cash payment, or sometimes even cheering for them hoping that "It's all good because bitcoin will replace cash". That's a silly approach. If the rulers won't tolerate cash because they can't control it, then they will introduce a crackdown on Bitcoin, it's just a matter of time. Do you think that CBDC will eradicate Paper Money? I don't think so and even if it's going to happen it will be very slow because we have people that don't want to use digital payment still, it's going to be a matter of choice, choose what suits your convenience.
It seems inevitable to be honest even just due to impracticality of paper cash and high processing costs. You don't even need CBDC for that, cash use is already on steep decline. Masses will always go with the easiest and most comfortable solutions, and digital payments are far easier than handling cash. At very best we could hope for cash to function as a niche way of payment. There are countries like Slovakia who actually added right to cash payments to their constitution. And to me being able to use it (even if 99% of the population don't) is good enough. |
|
|
|
You talk about sports betting which mainly depends on one's research and analysis skills and not only their luck, the fact that 90% or even more lose in the long run applies mainly on gambling games where the outcome of a bet solely depends on one's luck and nothing else can have any influence on it. About sports betting, I don't really think one cannot stay profitable in the long run as long as they can manage to have a better win rate than the loss rate.
So those who are into sports betting should think about making their research and analysis skills better over time so that they have enough knowledge and experience about the games they are going to be making bets on, that is the only way they can maximize their chances of winning more bets over time.
I have no trouble believing that those 90% would also be applicable to those wo engage only in sports betting. Most of people would not make any deep analysis to give them an upper hand. And even if you do run proper research and analyses, it still doesn't guarantee you'll have a mathematical advantage. Even if your analysis is spot on, it'll only help you to determine odds for an event, but then you'll have to find a bookie who (according to you) miscalculated their odds, so you could take advantage from the difference. Making constant profit from sports betting is really hard, it only works fine for arbitrage betting, but you can get banned really quickly if you do that. |
|
|
|
And you can't remove that fact, house edge will continue killing you unless you have that long lasted luck that will allow you to win from time to time, but it's again questionable as there's no lasting luck in terms of gambling, it's more on how you control yourself especially your emotions when playing, with good control and sets of limitation maybe you will be able to earn some from each session that you will going to play.
The first and second part of your post seem to be contradictive. If the house edge is the reason for players to be losing money, then how will controlling their emotions make things any different? It could be preventing them from getting carried away and losing more money, but it won't shift the edge in their favour. I think hoping for a "good luck" is what makes people keep gambling, as pretty much everyone is aware that the odds are stacked against them. Some people don't even care about the house edge. Many games (online or physical) don't even have any disclosure on what the house edge is (e.g. many slots games) and often times even a customer service won't be able to tell you if you ask. |
|
|
|
As far as I can see, it is not good to gamble in casinos every day, you should just set a day when you will gamble. And the reason why you often win is on the day that you only stick to playing and the budget that you will use for gambling on that day should also be limited.
It's like you just look for the day when you often win when playing gambling, and avoid the day when you often lose so that you don't lose repeatedly every time you gamble.
If it's not good to be playing everyday, than why would be good to be playing on a set day? It sounds like it's just less bad. But if it's still bad, then why play at all? Gambling, in most cases is a bad idea. Many of posters are afraid to admit it due to wearing signatures advertising casinos, but that's true. And not sure if I'm reading your post right, but you made it sound like playing only on specific day would make one win more often, which is obviously wrong. |
|
|
|
|
OP, how would you determine the right stake for a value bet you have identified?
Let's say you can bet on only one coin toss, your chance is 50% but the payout rate is say 2.5. What percent of your betting funds would you put at stake and what logic/formula would you use?
|
|
|
|
It's been awhile I try daily to make profit
Stake casino mostly mines
But it take back profit.. I have 2k balance.. is there method
To get 100 $ per day
Of course there isn't. If there was one, we'll all be doing that and nobody would work. And if there was a way to get $100/day regularly by betting, then you could just bump it up to say $1,000/day by following the same pattern but increasing stakes by x10. But in reality, what do you think happens if you regularly bet at odds that are set to bring a profit to the betting site? Who's going to make a profit, you or the house? To be profitable you'd either have to rely on pure luck, or you'll have to bet only when you spot an opportunity where it's you who have the mathematical edge. But by definition, such opportunities won't come very often, so they won't yield you any regular, daily income. |
|
|
|
I don't have a gambling addiction, but I acknowledge that there are issues with my gambling habits that need to be addressed and corrected. One of the effective ways to tackle this is by observing, imitating, or modifying the patterns of other gamblers to suit me best.
Suits you best how? If your goal is to lose money then it sounds like a good plan. Pretty much all gamblers end up losing, so why would you want to copy them? Do you set aside specific times each day or week for gambling? If you enjoy sports betting, do you bet on games throughout the week whenever they're available?
Don't gamble for entertainment, don't do it regularly and do not set aside any time for that, there are plenty of better things to do with your life. You should only be betting when you spot an opportunity where you think you have an advantage over the house, otherwise you're just letting yourself get screwed. |
|
|
|
I like the word you used; "down", not "gone". As far as you didn't sell your Bitcoin when the price went down, your savings is not gone, the value just dropped and it will get back up again, it might just take time.
I don't think anyone would consider their investment "gone" whenever its market value drops. It looks like you took and twisted an old saying that "you don't lose until you sell" (which is blatantly false). Saving coins with exchanges is technically the same thing as saving money in the bank. A centralized system stores your money in the bank, while a centralized system stores your coin in a CEX. I wonder why people don't get this.
Who doesn't get this actually? Are you saying that people don't realise that centralised exchanges are centralised? I think they do and I think many don't mind that, just as they don't mind keeping their fiat money in a bank account rather than stashing cash under the mattress. I am not entirely against centralized exchanges but it is very wrong to save your coins in them. It ends badly most of the time. I don't know how much this needs to be stressed before people get it.
Used the exchanges to trade, if you want, but you shouldn't save in them.
Throwing blanket statement like that makes no sense. It's all about assessing risk and reward. Also, if keeping funds on CEX for saving is too risky, then why would you say it's OK to keep them there for the purpose of trading (which itself bears additional risk of a loss). There's |
|
|
|
SEveryone has a different character, maybe p[/quotea trip to the beach is something that makes you feel fun. But, some people are bored with travel, work, play with family. Therefore, they seek pleasure by spending their money on gambling. Of course, for us people who gamble not for fun, it will be easier to get frustrated than those who can control their emotions. Why is it considered fun?
- Traditional casino makes a person meet people around who can become friends,
- Some online casinos have a chat feature between members, so gamblers can discuss any topic
- Play with luck
People have different ideas of fun and different preferences, fair enough. But we can also say that certain activities are objectively stupid to do. And I think that chasing a dopamine rush by risking your hard-earned money at odds that are not favorable to you is one of those things. As for social interactions and making friends - that's not exclusive to gambling, there are plenty of activities where social interactions are at the core, rather than being a possible side-effect of you getting ripped off by the casino. |
|
|
|
Also, if we find any site allowing minors to gamble, can legal action be taken against them?
If a casino knowingly allowed any minor to gamble (either online, or in brick-and-mortar one) they could certainly face hefty fines, or even risk losing their licence. On top of that, they could be forced to return any money lost by underage player. Things get complicated when minors use either fake IDs or their parents' bank details to sign up online and lie about their age. In such case, if the casino is proven to take all reasonable steps to prevent that from happening, they probably won't get fined, and it'd be on the parents to not properly monitor their child. But it all depends on the jurisdiction, as laws can differ. |
|
|
|
6 months ago, my savings went down because of the FTX debacle. I've never used FTX, I've never been a customer of this company, but my savings are in BTC, and because of that failure, BTC's value went down, and so went my savings.
Today, bis repetita. I've never used Binance. I've never been a customer of this company, but because the SEC sues Binance, BTC is down, and so are my savings, so I have a message to all bitcoiners out there.
Exchanges and BTC are 2 different things. One exchange going down doesn't mean BTC must follow.
Binance will disappear? I don't give a damn.
Your savings, if expressed in bitcoins, remained the same. And if you choose to look at the fiat value of your holdings, then you understand that this is only possible when there are ways to exchange btc to fiat, i.e. exchanges. So I don't get why would you act surprised if events like the collapse of one of the major exchanges have an effect on Bitcoin's price. And I wouldn't compare Binance to FTX. Unlike FTX, who were a bunch of scammers with no trace of any moral spine, Binance has a very good track record and so far they acted very professionally, and despite being hacked a few times, no customer has lost any money. |
|
|
|
It's really not something to be proud of that till date I haven't been able to buy anything directly with Bitcoin without having to first convert it to fiat before spending. It's not because I don't want to but that's the reality of where I live. There are no Bitcoin merchants where I stay. I once dreamt of paying my rent with Bitcoin when I started here as my landlord was based abroad then. Sadly, he wasn't one of those open to trying new things.
Even if you don't have any local merchants accepting Bitcoin, there are always other ways, like buying things online or buying gift cards with btc (there used to be some services actually selling gift cards for btc with a discount, so it was actually a good deal). Alternatively you could use crypto debit cards. They have the same functionality as fiat ones but are powered by your crypto holdings. Would it count as a bitcoin purchase? I don't know, but still a good option if you want to put crypto in a real life use. |
|
|
|
I was never really a fan of Bitcoin ATMs, because I never felt the need to use one(and there aren't any Bitcoin ATMs in the city where I live).
Bitcoin/crypto is more convenient 100% online and without having to visit a certain place outside of your house.
Sure, but if convenience is your goal, then your best bet is probably to ditch crypto altogether and stick entirely to fiat. The appeal of ATMs is/was the ability to exchange fiat/crypto anonymously (if cash is accepted), something rather hard to do when exchanging online. I've never used Bitcoin Depot's ATM before, but a quick google search shows that they allow btc purchases with physical cash and require phone verification + email, so something that doesn't necessarily have to be linked to anyone's real identity. For this reason I expect they might face some regulatory problems in the future, given the global tendency to crackdown on anonymous transactions. Their debut was quite successful though, with 12% rise of the stock price: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/07/03/crypto-atm-operator-bitcoin-depot-debuts-on-nasdaq-following-spac-merger/ |
|
|
|
The question is, why would you choose this form of "fun" over infinite other options that do not require you to risk your assets at unfavorable odds?
If one has enough self-control, then you'd expect them to make sensible decisions, including the choice of activities they do for entertainment.
And if someone is engaging in gambling only when they spot an opportunity where they have a mathematical advantage - then they should approach it in a cold and calculated way rather than get carried away with emotions of "fun".
All these are happening because some gamblers were inexperienced enough or lack some personal strategies to use for gambling that could give them the required results needed. When we are gambling, we are taking time to invest ourselves on having pleasurable moments provided that we are not too curious about winning when we gamble, but for the sake of those that depends on winning while gambling, they have a lot of task to do while becoming an expertise in gambling after they would have tried out many strategies to discover the one best for them. You've quoted my post, but haven't really attempted to answer my question. Out of all the fun activities in the world, why would anyone choose gambling? And you seem to be perpetuating a myth that "experience" in gambling converts to some better (or even profitable) strategies, when the truth is, for most people, the longer you play the more you lose. So absolute gambling newbie at the start would have a better net profit/loss record than experienced gamblers. |
|
|
|
(...) If I remember correctly, I converted nearly 0.08 BTC, and that was in 2019. Just imagine if I choose to hold it , and sold last bull run, and didn't bought a computer. I would've been richer right now, but of course we don't know the future, and TBH I don't have no regrets on it because I didn't have any computers to use at that time, and I urgently need it.
I understand, I had the same feelings about my past bitcoin purchases and had some regrets of just not stacking up and holding, especially for buying things that weren't good for me like cheap cigarettes etc. But I came to the conclusion that it's a flawed logic, for two reasons: 1) if everyone was just holding from the start without using it, Bitcoin would have probably never taken off; 2) it's very unlikely you would have correctly identified the right time to sell anyway, i.e. in 2014 many people regretted not selling in 2013 when BTC got to $1,200, and many had thought it would never get there again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
