I gambled for the first time when we were playing arcade games with friends. We used to go to arcade together and we all had a limited number of coins to play so we'd gamble witch each other by betting on games and certain players. We'd play mortal kombat and each person would bet a coin on themselves so that if they won they'd be able to play for free by getting the opponent's coin. If they won again they'd stay in the match and get another coin and be able to play another free game and so on. It was harmless gambling.

Yes it does sound funny because they're mixing an activity that isn't really something people aspire to do with charity. So they're trying to make people like casinos more because these ones are not so bad since they also help people. Hey, at least when you're losing money gambling it's for a good cause

I've never played in a charitable casino, in fact this is the first  time that I hear about it. It's definitely a good idea, but makes me wonder how big is the part of the profits that they donate. I know of a few charity organizations that raise money for children and they keep more than 60% of the money for themselves. Sometimes as much as 90%.

I agree this is probably not his view but something he grew into after watching enough of mainstream media channels. You can hear a lot of these people on TV. A good example is that actor from Gotham who testified in the FTX case, even though he's not an expert and shows that he has a very basic understanding of the thing.

I heard that and there's a very faint sound of tune in the background. I think someone added the humming and the melody behind it on purpose to create a feeling of tension among listeners but failed. The sound is just annoying, it doesn't add anything to the video.

That's why when someone asks me if I'm trying different casinos and stuff I say that I don't. There's a lot of nice graphic layouts and fun games on these sites but I just use 2 in total where I'm verified. I'd really play on different ones if not for KYC. I just don't want my picture to circulate somewhere on the deep web. I feel like with KYC casinos are limiting the number of users and killing their own revenue.



That's a pretty good business model if you ask me. They can expand into a porn site from there or start an onlyfans profile.

The post is pretty long and not everybody is going to have time to read it, so I'll get to the point.

Your family members don't care about privacy and/or don't know what you're doing with their private information. They aren't aware that it can be used against them, for instance someone could make a fake ID and use it to buy something on credit. You're abusing their trust by putting their private data anywhere you can just to earn a few dollars. If you and your family are very poor and can't find other ways to make money, I can live with that, but it's more probable you're doing it for your own benefit, because it seems easy and you're not risking anything.

How come a smart abuser of bonuses, a hunter as you call yourself, can't understand how crypto payments work? I thought you were smarter than those dumb casino operators who allow you to claim bonuses as all your family members without getting caught?

You're a menace. People like you are the reason why casinos have to put up those crazy wagering requirements and ask all the legit players for KYC. You're the reason why bonuses are getting smaller and smaller because people aren't claiming them to play in the casino but farming them with multiple accounts.

That's what you should call yourself, a farmer.

I see no problem in the way the casino resolved this situation. He made a mistake and they don't want to allow him to withdraw because self-excluded accounts are blocked from both playing and withdrawing. It makes sense because a gambler may want to freeze the money on their account by self-excluding so that he won't be able to compulsively move the money to a new casino, where he isn't excluded.


If they gave him an ETA, that's half way done. I don't believe a big player like stake would first tell him when the funds will be available for withdrawal and then not allow it. I'm sure if they lie and OP doesn't get the money we'll hear about it.

From the interactions i had with people on online comments sections I've learned that most people don't care and won't comment if a service was done well, but when there's a small issue they all come running.

I still hold coins from 2015 and I'm going to do it regardless of the price. If I suddenly saw an exchange price of 100k USD tomorrow, I wouldn't sell because I'd be suspicious of this and feel like someone is buying us out with fiat money knowing something big is going to happen like a US defaulting on its debt or something.
I'd probably sell a bit like 0.1 to test them out in case this was some kind of a bug I could take advantage of, but that's all. I guess I'm attached to my coins in a strange way, or maybe I don't see a reason to give it up so cheap. I'll wait until I can buy things that I need directly, without having to go through fiat gateway in order to do so.

99 is not just over 90, for most people that's a vegetative state. My father is 85 and I have to often repeat things to get him to understand. He doesn't use a computer, needs a phone with speed dial to call people. I'm saying this because I don't believe Charlie's words are his own. People like that need help getting in and out of bed. He must have people who get him dressed every day and press buttons in the elevator for him. He must also have people who tell him what to say and when.

Having an old father and knowing some of his old friends I can tell you that old people get bitter and they look for arguments just to show they can still argue. Charlie talks about bitcoin because there are people willing to argue with him about it.

I feel like Zeihan is just an attention whore. Suddenly he's a guest at all those Internet podcasts, people are quoting him everywhere. I try to ignore the guy mostly because of the things he said about bitcoin. If this dude is willing to share opinions on things he has no understanding of, think about how much he's going to bend the reality in fields where he actually has some knowledge.
I know nothing about ships and sailing so I don't go around talking about it. If someone were to ask me about it I wouldn't try to make up something. Zeihan is willing to give opinions when he's got 0 knowledge and experience and that makes him a bullshitter.

There's always a group that feels threatened by new technologies or innovations.
There are numerous false statements made by people who were into computers like Bill Gates, who said in 1994: "I see little commercial potential for the internet for the next 10 years."
If someone familiar with computers and the Internet, who was programming in the 70s, so he had decades of experience, could be so wrong, so can be any of the current so called "financial experts."

What amazes me is that people trust Buffet and Munger on this when these people have never been interested in tech stocks. They're mentally stuck in the 20th century and completely missed the rise of Google, Facebook and Amazon. Now they suddenly have an opinion on the market they don't understand and don't participate in.

This is correct, although all the previous bull runs, including the last "weak" one took us far above the fair value of bitcoin and far above the average mining cost.
For instance, when we went to 60k in 2021 the mining cost was below 20k and the fair price was somewhere around 30k, which is why the price stopped there after crashing from the ATH.
Let's assume that the fair price in 2024 keeps rising like it did in all the previous years and the mining cost goes up 2x. We'll have a fair value somewhere around 50k and the mining cost around 40. It doesn't mean bitcoin's price will go parabolic to 2x the fair value (100k) It can as well do 20% over the last ATH and it still technically will be a new ATH and a bull market.

People expect us to be between 100 and 200k by the end of 2024, but people also expected bitcoin to reach 100k in 2021 and then expected 10k last year, so whatever people expect has nothing to do with what really happens. I'd even say that expectations are very rarely met.

I used to live on low income back in 2015 and 2016 when bitcoin was in a bear market and I didn't know how long it could last. What helped me a lot is that I had a cabin in the woods that had central heating, plenty of firewood all the media connected including the Internet and all it needed was a little cleanup.

It all depends on what the cost of living in your area is and how much you can do on your own. I have friends who live in the city and 1 month of rent costs them almost as much as I pay for the whole year. In the city you get to share all the costs like when you live in building with lifts you share the cost of their maintenance. You also pay for the electricity used in the hallways and in the parking garage.
It adds up over the years.

My advice, if you want to save up, find a piece of land and live as far from the noisy and smelly city as you can.

Better ground fighter usually has the advantage unless you're extremely good at avoiding take downs like Cro Cop for example.
Hard to say which of them is going to win, they both have their advantages but Makhachev weighs more which is important for take downs a small height disadvantage doesn't mean much on the ground.
I'd put my money on him, but anything can happen.

Speak for yourself. It's you, not we. Once you've been here for a few years you stop being scared of stupid things like bitcoin going to 0. Do some critical thinking and you'll come to a conclusion that it's almost impossible for bitcoin to go to 0. I say almost because if we had a big worldwide collapse of governments and currencies and countries falling into chaos, things like that could happen, but still it wouldn't be a literal 0, but low numbers, maybe only triple digits, like in 2015.

I don't regret anything. Spot price is just spot price and to me everything below 30k was a bargain. I've been buying for the last 6 months and will continue until we reach some fair price levels.

This is the thing, you underestimate bitcoin, pretty much like people who in 2010 and 2011 were hoping for a milestone of $100 and in their wildest dreams thought of 1k high.
Bitcoin went wild in the next few years, hitting $300 in early 2013 and then people started thinking a step forward, about 10k, but the next big thing was 20k. 10k was never a big top.
The majority of people always look a step forward and only exceptional visionaries manage to see beyond that.

Say you'd spent $100k in bitcoin last year at 15k and your end game happened to be 250k, which by all means is achievable in the next 10 years. Would you say that it didn't make you rich? That would be 1.6 million. Enough to live happily ever after in most parts of the world, assuming that you're not completely broke and in debt before bitcoin hits that level.

To me the most outrageous proposal was for bitcoin to abandon PoW and go PoS, like ETH. This should, and I hope that it will, never happen as it would make bitcoin more centralized and more vulnerable to attacks. IMO in the long run ETH users will come to a conclusion that this was a bad idea and it will cost them some money if they hold these tokens.

Probably second on that list would be what BCH was pushing which was a fork and block size change that would result in abandoning the current chain that we're in.

Layer 2 upgrades don't concern me at all as long as the main protocol stays the same.

Money as a form of payment is not evil, just like a knife isn't evil, it's just a tool. In the hands of a chef it helps to make tasty food and in the hands of an assassin it's a tool used to murder people.
Money can be used to pay for murder, but it can also be used to pay for your child's hospital treatment.

That said, bitcoin is a better form of money, as it's yours. I've said it a number of times already that by using fiat money you agree to all current and future laws that the owners of the money establish. I say owners, because you're only a user, you're not the owner. The USA is the owner of the dollar and its central bank is the issuer. You're only a user that can be at any moment cut off from the system and denied the right to use this payment method.

Why should he go through all of this when he has an answer from the support?

Think about it for a moment. You see someone lost a wallet, you approach him and say hey, your wallet is on the ground, and he says, I don't care, what do you do? You Go there pick it up and approach him again? You call other people to the spot to show them the wallet?
Seriously, I'd just walk away. If the owner doesn't care, I did my job and I think OP did his job 2 times already, first by reporting it to the support and second time by starting this thread. There's no point to go to Owl's thread and once again report the bug they don't show any interest in fixing.

It should be obvious for anyone who sees a casino that they will have to add their fees whenever they can. They have the building to maintain, machines have to be fixed, everything uses electricity, and so on.
Jackpots are announced with lights and sounds to make everybody know and feel attracted to the game. When you see someone win you feel like you can do it too and then after many games reality kicks in and you either get into denial and withdraw more money to play, or you go home empty handed.

It's a funny thing that predictions change with the mood of the people who make them. When people see constant red on their charts they tend to predict red, when the y see a lot of green, they predict green and there's always a small period of denial in between.
When the price was at 16k they were predicting 12 even 10k. When it broke up to 20k they were in denial for some time saying that it must be a fakeout and we're going back to 17k, but now many analysts change into bulls saying that 25k is next. Sometimes I read them for fun, but 99% of them suck at predicting the price.

IMO 25k is not really a resistance. It was never a significant level both on the way up and down. It was never defended for a long time and it didn't have a lot of volume. 29-30k is much more important. Everything below 30k should be considered a depression and undervaluation.