What I think when I read your posts is that you're illiterate and lazy. With all the tools available today, doesn't it occur to you to check what you write? Especially whatever you put in the title. Then you wonder why people don't give you merits. They'll give you even less and less as you end up on more ignore lists.


He takes them out of his ass.

I've counted three.


That's what I was thinking, maybe the "rep" here is just a member of the staff who doesn't deal with these matters and only knows about promotions and general information about the casino.

You oppose this:


With this:


That never works.

Maybe if you stopped using Meta as a personal diary to write down whatever's on your mind at the moment, you might actually get some.

It's probably nothing; they'll likely just leave them there in custody, and that's it. Although, coming from Trump, nothing would surprise me—after all, he also said at a Bitcoin conference, “You never sell your Bitcoin,” and then sold Bitcoin through his companies. But I think that at the federal level, he couldn't bypass his own Strategic Reserve order without first revoking it, or he could face legal problems.

No, I don't use it at all—not in casinos, not on my phone, and not on other forums that offer that option. I'll pass; I actually like the white/clear background.



You can simply use a blue light filter to avoid that problem.

Use the emergency fund—and sometimes not even that. There are no “emergencies” that cost more than 6 months’ salary.

In the rare cases where there might be one—such as if your house has a structural problem that isn’t covered by insurance—you don’t need the funds by tomorrow; you can take out a loan, sell assets, or try to cash flow them. However, that hasn't happened to me; usually, I go years without dipping into my emergency fund.

Yeah, actually this one:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5588303.0

Looks like LoyceV was correct on this:

Rather than just parroting the marketing pitch used to sell this move, it would be good to take a critical look at it. And my take is that he keeps diluting shareholders’ stakes as if there were no tomorrow, in an attempt to fix his previous screw-ups.

Well, I recently said here that these topics bored me, and here I am again.

I've made a couple of decisions that some people on both sides are probably not going to like, but anyone who doesn't like them can go fuck themselves.

On the one hand, I've removed inspace from my trust list. To me, it's clear that the red is mostly due to the conflict between two sides (and that much of it is happening behind the scenes without us even knowing about it). Just like the red tag for BC Game when they changed managers. If you understand the context, you don't need a million examples to see the pattern.

Also, I checked out the “Scam Accusations” section to look at the threads about the casino I represent, and I found these:

Degen. $601 in bets voided, deposit refunded. SCAM

Degen.com Confiscated My Winnings

Degen Casino refuses to pay 513.98 USDT Sportsbook winnings

I'm going to wait for a resolution from contesthunters. As I see it, some cases are already there, and in other cases, holydarkness has advised those affected to post them there. I quite trust him and I will wait. But for now, I'm not happy with what I see, and can be summarized here:


I recently quit a campaign simply because I could see that the casino was being run in an amateurish way. I'll have no problem quitting this one if I don't see more satisfactory explanations from the casino and/or fair resolutions on contesthunters.

Similar things have happened to me in the past, but you have to realize that what happened to you is an extremely unlikely event. The thing is, if you gamble for many years, you end up seeing those very unlikely events actually happen. Now, what you have to do from now is avoid making the mistake of seeking that same rush you felt after today's session.

The OP seems unaware that the world doesn't work that way—putting forward an idea on a forum and telling everyone to follow it. Bitcoin is hardly used as a medium of exchange these days, as evidenced by the low transaction fees. Nor do I see many more places to spend my Bitcoin directly than I did 5 years ago, for example. What we do see is that it's much easier to convert Bitcoin to fiat, and there's much more centralization.

The problem is that Bitcoin has shifted from its original concept as a medium of exchange—P2P cash—to that of “digital gold,” a term that has gained popularity in recent years, meaning it’s more of a store of value. However, it doesn’t seem to be performing very well as a store of value lately. We’ll see what the future holds.

Sex appeal? Have you seen the picture? I bet you didn't even bother to click on the link.



I think you'd have to be either very lonely or very desperate to let yourself be manipulated by a woman with as little sex appeal as that. She's probably a psychopath with highly developed psychological manipulation skills. And she'd know how to make herself look sexier than she does in the photo.

Why do you say this? If Bitcoin follows the classic cycle pattern, we won’t enter a bull market until after the 2028 halving—probably not until at least 2029. It’s another matter entirely if the price recovers a bit and approaches $100K, for example, but I don’t see the price skyrocketing this year.

It’s another matter entirely if you believe the cycles have changed, but we don’t have data on that, and they could have changed for better or for worse. You might think the price will recover and reach $300K by 2027, but that’s just as likely as the price spending a couple of cycles in “zombie mode” without breaking the previous high of $126K.

You haven't addressed the main point here.


I don't know about the other casinos but you have tagged the casino I represent now. If you can prove to me that the casino is a scam, I'll leave the campaign right away. I recently left a campaign because I didn't like things at the casino (not anything about scams but I could see that some aspects were managed in a too amateurish way). Also, it wouldn't be for me the first or second time I leave or am kicked out of a campaign because I don't agree with something.

But I have you in my trust list and see that you have left a red tag based on one case that is still going on.

Why haven't you red tagged Rainbet, for example? There are so many such accusations on that section on so many casinos that you haven't tagged that it is clear that this is more a part of the behind-the-scenes battle among managers than a tag based on objective reasons.

It does go before the board, which he controls.

Michael Saylor has lost voting control of MicroStrategy

I haven't found any more up-to-date information, but from what I've heard lately, he controls about 45% of the voting rights. The headline is exaggerated, like many of those published when he lost 50%, because although it is technically possible for each and every shareholder to band together to vote against him, companies are often controlled with a much smaller percentage—for example, Bezos controls Amazon with just 9%.


I think they assigned a very low probability to this bear market scenario, and if you had asked me at the end of 2024, I would have assigned the same probability to it as well. Apart from that, I think he is delusional as for his room to maneuver in really bad bear market scenarios. This clip went viral:

Refinance where Michael?

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. I haven't heard from him in a while—I've got him on ignore—but since you brought him up, I went to his sent trust feedback and I'll let you see this small sample:



If anyone still doubts whether this guy is a moron, just go and see his trust feedback sent.

On the other hand, the other day I was reading about this controversy surrounding 7788bitcoin, and to be honest, these topics are starting to bore me. Although I do think it makes more sense that, if you believe he bought the account, the tag should be negative in this case.

I think what happened to me is similar to what happened to The Sceptical Chymist—there was a time when he was very active in the Reputation section, and I think he became well-known on the forum because of it, but you hardly ever see him in those threads anymore.

Although I can’t say for sure whether I’ll be more active around here again in the near or distant future.

When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be yet another situation where some idiot gambles away his money and then plays the victim, blaming the casino, but in this case I see that, aside from personal responsibility—which certainly exists—the casino is also partly to blame. If what his lawyer says is true, it seems the casino's VIP hosts identified the guy as a “whale” to milk and did everything they could to get him to bet more and more. Without knowing more details about the case, it's hard to draw any conclusions; we'll see what happens at the trial.

Not really. It happened to me once or twice when I was playing poker—I wanted to enter a multi-table tournament but couldn’t because of real-life situations. But in the end, you know you have to be really lucky to win one, even if you’re good. Those who play tournaments professionally make a profit at the end of the year, and maybe they’ve made almost all of that profit in just three weeks, while being bored for most of the year.

But aside from that, thinking that anything related to gambling is so important that you feel bad about missing out on it is a bad sign.

It doesn't have to. A while back, I wasn't sure if the FIFO rule applied to companies like Strategy that buy and sell Bitcoin, but I looked it up on Gemini AI and see that it doesn't apply—they're free to choose which Bitcoins to sell (from those purchased at price X). In other words, they may have chosen to report Bitcoins purchased at a higher price to the U.S. tax authorities in order to report a loss and offset a profit—or vice versa.

I wish they would make it that easy for us individuals to report our gains or losses.