Lower income earners can still benefit from diversification. You're making the assumption that Bitcoin will grow in 2-3 years, it isn't guaranteed.

If you don't have a lot to start out with, the answer isn't to go all in on a single asset. Take $1,000 as a starting investment and keep reinvesting the yearly gains. You don't need large yearly gains as long as you keep reinvesting and do so over a long period.

Your bankroll is irrelevant. Strategies, patience, skill, etc. are completely irrelevant. There is not a single game in the casino that will generate you cash over time. People tend to over estimate their luck based on short term success and attribute to some meaningless personal trait.

If you want the greatest chance of making money, black jack with a single deck will give you a house edge of about 1% which is the lowest of any casino game. Some online crypto casinos may have some dice games with an even lower house edge, but I prefer table games.

Mathematically, you could use your entire bankroll on one wager and it would not make any difference in EV. For the sake of at least having some fun, I do about 5% of my bankroll each wager.

21M total coins is an arbitrary number and the number of total coins in existence is irrelevant. If there was a point in time that demand was so high that Bitcoin was a global currency, the value of each coin goes up because the total possible supply remains stagnant.

Say everyone's coins were halved tomorrow. Would that make any difference if the purchasing power of one bitcoin were doubled? No.

Seems like you're making a distinction between trading and investing, albeit in a confusing manner: Day trading is not investing, and day trading requires a lot of good fortune. Perhaps some may disagree, IMO day trading profitability requires immense capital and luck. It's not a consistent method to build wealth.

Investing over time is a consistent way to build wealth and it does not require luck nor much experience. Investments diversified over multiple sectors will all but guarantee you a positive ROI over 30-40 years. The only circumstances of someone losing money over long term investments involve lack of diversification in assets, or they liquidate during a recession, both easily avoidable.

Sure, if you want to perfect you investing strategies for greater return, that's fine. You don't need to special expertise, that's the great thing about long term investing. The time does the work for you.

The lawsuit isn't contending the casino caused death. The lawsuit is alleging the casino is negligent in not providing medical care and allowing a player in medical duress to be delayed potentially life saving treatment. They don't actually need to cause the death in order to be civilly liable. A negligence standard for lawsuits is quite low, meaning if this was sent through the court systems the casino could be found liable regardless of how he died. In this case, the casino is a proxy for the dealer. The dealer is the one who is negligent, but they sued the casino because they have the big bucks to pay out

Anyways, I'm not sure what the exact laws would be in play for the casino to be liable here nor what the outcome of this case was, but the case seems nonsensical. Plenty of people pass out in casinos. Why would this dealer have any reason to know he was experiencing a medical emergency?

Slots have some of the highest house edge of any casino game. The bonus buys are not worth it no matter what the game is or the purported multipliers it gives you on your bet. I don't think the stats are public but the house edge on bonus buys are either the same or or higher. Under no circumstances do they lower house edge for the player. Slot providers would not openly offer an option to players that increases RTP from an operating point of view. Side bets on table games work the same way, all of them are designed to increase the house edge. At least with those, you can calculate how much the house edge increases. With these bonus buys, you're left guessing.

Interesting chart. I recall some economists with in 2008-2009 stating that QE was going to be disastrously bad policy that would eventually lead to hyperinflation. The immediate effect the U.S. economy received was a bit of liquidity, and the inflation concerns didn't actually come to fruition after the second and even third round of QE. Hyperinflation was a bit hyperbolic, though their concerns were not unfounded.

I do think the fed playing around with its liability sheet will eventually cause inflation and probably send the global economy into a ditch along with it. Best course of action was to stay out of  a disaster the U.S. congress caused in 2008 through subprime mortgages.

If you want to bet on it for the novelty as a gimmick, I suppose. How you begin to calculate mathematical odds for something like this is beyond me. Cheating could potentially be rampant in individualized "sports" like this as well. In team outcome games, rigging becomes a whole lot more difficult. How do you verify fairness in something like this?


Believe it or not, competitive eating is a thing. And where there is competition, presumably there is someone out there willing to bet on it.

Say some portion of these entities are coins being used for long term storage, whereas the remaining percentage are user funds that can be circulated in the market -- the portion of coins being used for long term storage theoretically limits the supply and makes Bitcoin more valuable, even if it's a small amount of the total Bitcoins in circulation.

To your point about FTX, if a large holder ends up getting hacked, it has lasting effects on the market. It would be preferable to me if single entities didn't hoard large amounts of BTC, but that's not up to anyone as to how much BTC should someone can hoard. I suppose it's up to consumers to decide who they trust their coins with, which should be no one but themselves but to each his own.

The modern banking system relies on fractional reserve banking, and crypto would essentially disallow banks from doing so. Fractional reserve banking only works because the government usually acts as arbiter with an infinite balance in case the bank goes under which is why banks would be reluctant to adopt more crypto into their portfolio.

The government hasn't hesitated in the past to bail out private banks, so it remains within their interest to act recklessly with depositor funds and be bailed out with no penalty.

The U.S. is one of the most regulated markets in the world and it will never become a tax free zone for crypto assets (or any other asset, for that matter). It won't be any different when CBDC's get introduced either, I'd expect even higher regulations when the central banks start issuing out CBDC's.

Trump is not going to change any of this. He is pro-free markets, but he's also anti-Bitcoin. He's gone on the record calling it a scam and a threat to USD. He'll easily be influenced into curbing Bitcoin growth by regulating it, and that's under the presumption he wins in 2024 which isn't guaranteed.

They're not following Elon's lead. Washington Post, left wing propaganda rag, believes anything short of draconian censorship is an increase in disinformation. Of course, "disinformation" being inconvenient facts that contradict their own agenda. Facebook and youtube still have heavy censorship, nothing's changed.

More speech is good for democracy, even if it makes the MSM upset.

The irony is that Bitcoin itself is not "hackable" yet hackers find themselves stealing some amount of BTC/crypto that is worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, every single year. The traditional financial sector with reversible transactions are more immune to damage from hacks. I don't prefer reversible transactions or the modern banking system, though it is a bit naive to suggest crypto is a solution to hacks.


Global adoption is going to take more than seven years. 2030 is too hopeful.

Western countries are adopting hedonistic lifestyles from what I've seen, it means less children. The Muslim majority countries are too, but they still reproduce at a rate at or above maintenance so it isn't inherently an issue.


Lower population means less economic growth, but it also means more available resources per capita. At some point, population becomes oversaturated.

Appears the article link is down, regardless, the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. The central banks will inject money into the economy if they want to aid the economy, but they themselves are not actually creating any jobs in the process. CBDC's make it easier to control the money supply, and if the goal were to eliminate private banks, you could start at CBDC's, sure.

I've seen sports betters claim that it's more skillful to bet on sports, I don't buy it. If a certain sportsbooks has odds that aren't aligned with the actual odds (of course we don't know what the "true" odds are for a sports match, it's not a precise mathematical calculation), you can potentially find a bet with a theoretical positive EV. That does not guarantee profit. Arbitrage is also possible, but those opportunities are rare.

Sports betting does have a house edge, it's fairly difficult to calculate or recognize. I'm assuming the ostensible lack of a house edge makes sports betting attractive. Gives the illusion that it's easier to win. It really isn't.

First of all, decentralization does not mean that market manipulation can't be invoked. It just means a centralized authority cannot manipulate the market. An a decentralized asset can be influenced by large amounts of capital. That being said, market manipulation tends to be a zero sum game. Someone's gains must be a result of another person's losses, so there's incentive by the wealthy not to manipulate the market. For example, someone holding a large amount of BTC could flood the market with cheap BTC and theoretically manipulate Bitcoin prices -- though that would obviously involve selling their coins at a discount. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but the principle holds true.

Individuals don't really manipulate markets because they don't hold the capital, organizations do as a collective. And the government is the organization which holds virtually unlimited capital. They don't engage in manipulation with malice -- it's normally to bolster the economic numbers above what they ought to be.

Military regimes are not democrat nor are they sustainable. It's difficult to point to a current lasting military regime.

They turn authoritarian very quickly. The best case scenario is for a military regime to transition to a civilian regime, though people are reluctant to give up power once they achieve it, hence the perpetual state of violence in African countries.

Looks like the article was removed, but to answer your questions despite what it may have said: Supply and demand always dictate what prices consumers pay for products. If there's ever deviation from supply and demand, it's because the government has manipulated the market on their own accord, usually by money printing, to control price.

Assuming Javier Milei wins and he actually follows through with pro-Bitcoin policies, it'd be massive for Argentina and Bitcoin. Triple digit inflation rates are a result of the money printing related to COVID and other matters -- the central banks have been trying to fight bad fiscal policy for years. If he wants to limit central bank influence, that would mean prolonging the inflationary spike and let the economy/prices naturally recover. They would be better off than letting the banks trying to conduct an impossible balancing act of balancing the economy and interest rates.