I have to admit that I noticed it a long time ago, but I never felt the need to ask that question, although I drew some conclusions myself like the others in their comments above. What I have concluded is that the order primarily works according to the principle that those who have awarded the most merits are the first, and then if several users give the same number of merits, the order depends on the date of registration. It is a very simple criterion that makes sense.

It somehow seems to me that there is no need to talk about earning, but about entertainment in the case of such things. From what I know, you can earn more on faucets in one hour than playing these games - although some will say that faucets are a waste of time. Besides, playing games on a smartphone usually drains the battery very quickly, and you also need internet to play online if I understand correctly?

@Obari, maybe you could have asked this question in this topic Using ToS against users normal? considering that it is on the first page of this board. I believe that you can find some very good answers to your question there.

And what is even more important for some who think that their transaction will be confirmed instantly, the confirmation depends on when Via finds the next block, which could be within a few minutes, or after a few hours. It happened to me many times that the transaction went through before Via found the block, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work as some still claim.

In addition, this issue was relevant as early as 2017 and there have been many discussions since then, and the fact is that many have learned to use RBF and CPFP, because there is not much interest in transaction accelerators as before.

To me, this seems more like PR for the company in question, because from the attached screen samples it is obvious that they do not know the difference between wallet and cryptocurrency. Table 3 says "cryptocurrencies stolen", but they mixed up cryptocurrencies and wallets, and in the second table they even add a CEX as a wallet.

There are probably hundreds of such malicious programs, and all of them have in common that they enter the system through the carelessness of the user, and AV companies just want to tell you that you will be safe if you use their protection. This is only partially true, because the first level of protection against such malicious programs is each user for himself.

The OP is confusing two things, because the fees he is talking about in relation to CEX are not only fees for miners, but something that can be called a service fee. When you withdraw coins from CEX, the usage service is charged, and that's why people always think that the fees are too expensive.

That is why it is not very desirable to withdraw funds from CEX often, especially after you have bought crypto for only a few tens of dollars. What has been happening with transactions in recent weeks is the result of human greed and stupidity to use the Bitcoin blockchain for what it is not intended for - and I would call it ordinal madness. But like all stupidity, this one will come to an end, and I only hope that all those who participate in it will feel stupid for everything they have caused.

I looked at my statistics and I am currently at over 16 500 free rolls, which means that I can hope for the jackpot, maybe even sooner than you

Of course, everything is a matter of luck, it can happen today, and maybe only for the next 10 000 free rolls. However, lately I have had a little more luck and today I rolled 9990, which is not a bad win.

Nothing is wrong with Roger Ver, but it is with people who still wonder why he is not what he was in the past. I and anyone who has a smarter job in life certainly don't care what he promotes at the moment, because we know that he supports anyone who pays enough.

What we do know is that he is a simple traitor, and also not very intelligent when he thought that he and his little communists could destroy Bitcoin with their useless fork. With these new statements, it only shows how much he understands what he's talking about, because that shitcoin he's talking about is an ordinary inflated story that's worth even less after it moved to POS.

Don't be naive, Ledger said the same thing in the past, and today we know that the whole story they told is a simple lie. Trezor has its vulnerabilities, and even cooperation with companies that deal with spying on Bitcoin users and censoring transactions is not something that can position them as reliable producers.

In addition, both companies are located in the EU, and accordingly they will have to (or are already doing so) act according to regulations that go in the direction of complete control of crypto transactions.

Can someone confirm if this HW works in combination with Electrum with the help of QR codes or only as described on the official website with the help of a microSD card? https://docs.foundationdevices.com/connect/electrum

Does anyone think that Ledger worked so hard that a new firmware would only be an option? Of course, they will use every possible trick to force users to upgrade, because otherwise they will not be able to upgrade coin apps, and accordingly they will not be able to sign the transaction.

I just hope that as many users as possible will give up using this wallet, even though currently the only option that seems somewhat safe when it comes to HW costs even $200, and I am sure that a good part of users cannot afford something like that.

Maybe the content can be insured, but I don't believe that most people do that, and as for the fact that it doesn't happen often, maybe it's in the interest of the banks that such news is not made public at all. Besides, whoever says that the contents of the safe deposit box must be robbed in the classic way, it can be seized by the police at any moment, as was the case in California. It is true that most of them got their content back, but only after lawsuits.


That time has come a long time ago, at least since the price of BTC gained value in the last 5-6 years. I understand people's need to emphasize the sign BTC, but that way they only draw attention to themselves, and in that case they must be prepared for possible consequences. As for burglars, I have a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy, so I don't worry too much about someone threatening me like that.

You don't need to be so harsh, at least when it comes to the Philippines, which became famous some time ago for an island that has become very attractive for tourists who want to pay with Bitcoin. Furthermore, all those who advocate the thesis that Bitcoin is not a currency (nor should it be) are actually those who do not understand that this is the only way it will manage to survive.

When you say some other coins, do you think there is something better (not to say safer) than Bitcoin in terms of payment?

"Safe" is something that you cannot define as definitively safe, because there are so many database leaks/hacking that it is hard to count them. It is not just gambling sites, but in general all possible databases that contain personal data, whether it is data that is under the control/protection of state or private companies.

Each of these databases is potentially vulnerable, the only question is how well it is protected and how much someone wants to hack it. When an unauthorized person comes into possession of such data, he can use it for ordinary phishing (e-mail, SMS, phone calls), for possible physical attacks on a person or his property, or for creating false documents.

In general, the more KYC you do, it is more likely that you will become a victim at some point. KYC has its purpose and there is no doubt about that, but it is definitely a double-edged sword.

People go to exotic destinations to enjoy and relax, not necessarily to use Bitcoin, even when it is completely legal and possible. Therefore, I think that such decisions do not affect tourism too much, because Thailand also banned payments with Bitcoin before, as did Turkey.

For those who go on vacation to pay with Bitcoin, there is always El Salvador or Boracay, and probably some other places where Bitcoin is not prohibited. However, if I were to choose my tourist destination, I would also take into account how each government treats its citizens, and whether there are any crazy laws that could land you in jail. Bali with its attitudes and strict laws is definitely not on my list of priorities.

Any technology that will enable online casinos to offer a more attractive service and that will enable them to fight against fraudsters will certainly be implemented. It is a business in which huge money is made and they are always ready to invest in something new, and it is no secret that those who enable something new have the chance to attract the most new players and retain those who are already their users.

In addition, during the pandemic, online casinos received a large number of new players who discovered some of their advantages compared to physical casinos, and I think that some new technologies will attract even more players of the new digital generation.

This is not a rumor, but a fact confirmed by one of the staff members. We have already discussed this so many times that any further discussion is completely pointless, just as this discussion is pointless considering that logic leads us to a single conclusion, which is that all mixers are targets of those who want to stop them. Which one will be next is just a mere guess and nothing more.

Can the value of something you deposit in a bank safe be insured at all? As far as I know, banks don't want to know what you keep there, and neither do clients want to declare the value of something that is there. In addition, in the event that thieves break into the bank and take all the contents of the safes, you have lost everything there, and you cannot prove that there was a seed there that gives you access to x BTC.

I would still believe more in my own insurance of such sensitive information, and if you do everything right and keep your mouth shut, then the risk is minimal even when and if thieves come into your living space. If someone already chooses a safe in a bank, then it makes sense to keep part of the seed in a private location, and part in the bank, so the risk is lower.

It is not a new idea, it has been talked about for years and some banks have already received permission to do exactly what you are writing about now. Of course, such a method of access is very easy for the bank's clients, but completely pointless if it is a custodial service, similar to any CEX that many use as a "crypto bank".

People who do not buy Bitcoin to use it as a currency and only want profit without too much worry will certainly choose this option, only that first of all they should be warned about all the risks arising from the custodial service. Banks will certainly (at least some) accept to enable this kind of service, but storage and fees in that case will certainly not be negligible.

The only benefit I see in this way of purchase is that the client does not have to do a new KYC, given that the bank already knows all the information, and if they also gave clients the option of withdrawing to non-custodial wallets, it would be a solid option for many who are looking for easy way to enter the crypto market.

It seems to me that in the past there were some kind of custom bets where the player asked to bet on something, and the bookmaker then made it possible for him or not - if I'm not mistaken, that was possible on the UK market. And I just remembered one example that was talked about a lot about ten years ago.


Source

I don't see why it would be crazy to include a type of bet on coaches in the offer, because clubs change them very often, and realistically, many of these people should not be coaches because they are not for that job, regardless of whether some of them are were good players.