Cause it's done internally? It's the same idea as KYC technically since casinos don't technically reveal our identities to others no? Same thing, they don't reveal the identities of their employees to others. Owners? Maybe. But employees? They're probably not paid enough to give enough of a damn lmao.

It also doesn't help that some people can get really, really emotional. I imagine someone just doxxing any employees, visiting them irl and harassing them cause the casino they're working on "scammed" them of their money. Kinda extreme, but hey, it can happen.

Tech evolving as well as factors that enabled users to learn how to use it, which led to big growth (looking at you pandemic). Tech has evolved rather quickly in the past couple of decades and simple stuff like providing services online can easily be done nowadays with the right knowledge and some money. That made it a lot easier for businesses to reach out to a wider and far more varied audience, leading to more growth for their business and possible changes to it. Pandemic happening actually lead to this being emphasized since, well, people can't exactly go out now so where do they go? The internet, which sadly lead to the development of Tiktok but that's another thing.

Other changes would include branching out of the simple I give money I get money if I win idea of gambling. In a sense, gacha is gambling and just from that simple idea, you can see how it developed into its very own industry with a lot of big games like Genshin, HI3, and other similar games. While it caters more to gamers than gamblers, you can't deny that gacha has that gamble factor and many people do indeed spend money on it.

I think you've pointed it out already, accounts are most likely to be tied to your identity so I don't think it's proper to sell it. In the first place, I think it's really dumb for someone to sell their casino account especially if said identity tied was theirs. And if we're talking about hackers, I don't think they'd really give a damn on whose identity is with the account really.

As far as I know, no. I think it's because they're KYC rules already, in some sense, touch upon it? In some sense them saying you can't use another account or you applying for KYC is basically them saying you can't use any other account, that includes ones being sold.

Build afresh. I still see no reason why you'd want to buy an account since if you wanted the benefits, you can build it up yourself in the long run since, well, it's designed to give you rewards in the long run.

Nope. No way in hell.

Definitely not. There's probably some loopholes that allow it to happen and for account buyers to be safe, but hell if the casino finds out then say goodbye to it lol.

Yes. Rarely do I stick with it though. It mostly comes to me whenever I see some of their promos or in-house games. I'm pretty comfortable with the sites I'm playing at right now and it's a rather big pain in the ass to scour around and check a new site whether they conform to my standards so I rarely switch over or add a new casino to my usual list. At best, I'd try to play in them for a session or two but then that's about it.

As for offers and rewards, I rarely try to actively get them really. I mean if I can, then I would but if not? No sense in spending more of my time and money to get a single spin more.

It doesn't. Like for real. It's really easy for someone to just create a new account on another casino, or if tried to ban himself offline, then go register online or something. Casinos don't have any measures at all for trying to curb it to that point since in the end, they're still customers aka money/profit for them.

I mean it already says a lot with them needing someone to request the user to freeze their account before freezing it. Otherwise, you would've expected the legal team of a casino to require individual financial statements so that they can track the difference between the amount they use monthly to pay vs their monthly income. Probably goes a bunch of legal stuff, but tldr, they can't. And even if they can't, they probably won't. Unless required by the law.

The thing is, staking the money is the thrill that the fun is representing. Without it, gambling simply wouldn't be gambling. Now there's a difference between gambling to have fun vs gambling to profit though. While on paper, they're both playing while staking their money, one side is relying on the result to determine an external factor outside of the "fun" part, while the other doesn't. They differ in terms of what they encompass so to speak.

They may both gamble with the intention of making money but whatever comes after that part makes the two types of gamblers differ from each other. One side is expectant on having something after it (aka the money they "can" win), the other is well, just done with playing. If they win, then yay, is what they'd probably feel I guess. Except ofc if they win big. Anyone, regardless of whether their goal was to get rich or not, would absolutely go crazy if they win it big.

There's bound to be a difference between the value of said keys vs the value the bank made you owe. It mostly comes from the interest value and depreciation of whatever asset your planning to surrender since there's probably going to be a re-evaluation of sorts if you do surrender whatever asset it is as part of payment for failing the mortgage.

I don't think such issues would normally happen though since banks would usually do a strict check with regards to the financial status of the person applying for a loan. At the very least, they probably considered already that you'd probably have ample alternatives, some may be on the extreme side if you do ever fail to pay. Maybe even adjust the plan so that you can accommodate it with what your current status is.

Most people, if not all, pretty much correlate the altcoin season with the Bitcoin bull season mostly due to similar such events happening in the past. It's like big daddy suddenly got a raise so the kids are able to grab some good food outside.

As for altcoins performing subpar compared to the past, there are already some coins up by 10% the past week, similar to what Bitcoin had. You're most probably more concerned about the specific altcoins you're holding than the ones that actually had growth. An altcoin season doesn't mean that all altcoins would pump up, it's just the more noticeable ones that would.

The safest bet for what to buy would naturally be ETH and other similar well-performing altcoins that are already well known. If you want to explore, then look for some coins that create a new or unique idea, like how NFTs were when they were introduced. Pretty hard to be on the lookout but hey, that's par for the course.

Warming up. I see the slow increase as a gradual effect due to the Bitcoin ETF, possibly a few more other factors but majorly that. It's also possible that said ETF slowly increased the confidence for Bitcoin growth hence why the gradual increase in price that we saw from 40 to 50k. Honestly, I expected the price to halt at 50k, maybe drop down to 40 again for a few days but it's still been a pretty steady increase. If we do go directly to 60k though then I might just change my words from warming up to instant bull.

No idea. Probably stemmed from the negative connotation that most people had in the past about gambling with how they quickly lose money to it and immediately turn towards relatives, friends, or whatnot, basically the usual stuff that's been happening even today. They might've added some religious context to it but that's probably the basic gist of its origin. It also doesn't help that some religions seem to have the idea that money is the root of evil or something similar of the sort, mainly due to greed being a part of it. You can get the idea if you turn to the bad side of most things and see the immediate cause without considering any other details.

Wouldn't the price just naturally adjust? I think the "lowered cost of living" part is due to how Bitcoin has its own economy (unlike the dollar) but in the end, wouldn't the price automatically adjust to the usual high prices? Heck it might even be higher just so that merchants can accommodate the variances that Bitcoin has, which in most cases can be pretty high.

To compare, it's not like your $80 would change when converted to Bitcoin, it's still worth $80 at that point. And as for looking at prices with Bitcoin, as I said, it would naturally adjust according to whatever dollar equivalent it has, say $10, then no matter the BTC price, it'd always equate to $10 at the end of the day. I also don't see it realistic to put the entirety of your money as Bitcoin due to the high volatility, regardless of however much profit you can possibly make off of it since at the end of the day, it's just a "possibility".

I'd say definitely. I think a lot of mistakes that VAR decisions bring out are because, at the end of the day, it's still a human being that identifies whatever actually happened in those moments, and said moments are pretty short from the event itself to them needing to release the decision about the event or not. If enough data was fed and accuracy was aimed to be the goal, then I 100% reckon AI would 100% replace VAR, or at least the personnel behind it. They might even work together in the early days really just to reduce the amount of mistakes (not that VAR hasn't done a lot of said mistakes tbf).

It will take time though. You know how nitpicky stuff like these can, especially if it's a controversial idea like putting AI to replace the work that people do.

Sounds like just a way for the project to take advantage of the kind-heartedness of people. There are probably a lot of legit foundations out there that support said families of first responders, no need to support some dumb coin or project. While I get the appeal that people can earn while trying to support others, it's much more solid and trustworthy that a project only really supports one.

It also doesn't help that a LOT of projects before have done the same, but have made no real impact on said group they wanted to help. Hardly doubt this would be the same. Much prefer a project focus on their users first then follow up with support with whatever they want afterwards.

It doesn't even have to go to the point of depending someone, it just involves simple goddamn math. Look at your salary, look at your expenses, look at your savings, calculate for at least maybe 10+ years on what you want and where you want to be, and adjust as you see fit! The hard part i guess is that adjustments are done via your decision-making instead of any solid formula so I guess a lot of people are pretty lenient with themselves, but that's on you yourself in the end.

If you're at a point where you have to ask for loans to pay some stuff due to spending it all in gambling (or even spending said loan in gambling itself) then yea, you're an addict. No sane person would willingly go under debt really just because of gambling, or any hobby/activity related stuff.
So you argue that whatever you borrow is something you cant afford to lose? Well I mean yea, outside of anything entertainment-related, as long as it's for something that you rely on to live, e.g. the basic needs of a human, then asking for a loan is sensible. Outside of that? Not worth it.

Well, it's up by 9% in the past half a year but honestly? With all the ups and downs of Doge and how there was no real sense of, well, development with it, I hardly doubt anyone would try to invest in for the long term. Maybe short buys every now and then since as we've seen, it does give out relatively good growth profits every now and then but not necessarily constant.

Let's not even mention how it's a memecoin in the first place and how the damn coin is easily influenced by Elon Musk and his followers. Honestly any coin that has someone with that much influence probably shouldn't have even lasted that long.

I think most people define the bull run after it has passed the last ATH we had? I mean if you consider the last 6 months, you can consider that we're already in the bull run since we went up by 50% since then. If you wanted a lower time range, then yea, I'd expect most people to see it when ATH is exceeded and probably see something like 20-30% growth in a couple of days or a week.

So yea, considering all that, we're closer but not that close. It might still depend on how fast BTC goes up, but considering how the market reacts whenever we get to these marks we'd almost always expect it to go down a bit or go steady for a few weeks before doing anything else really.

I mean, little odds don't mean that it's a guaranteed win. It's just dumb to assume that it automatically is really. Not to mention that he went ahead and staked $1k, I mean who does that really? It'd probably be better to do a bunch of small bets with high odds since there's a better chance of him winning more and losing less. I mean why would he even want to bet in the first place? It's not like that 1k would net a lot when staked on a low-odds bet.

Then there's the TV. Jeez. I swear TVs are one of the top 5 in terms of being victims of domestic violence .

Well, a lot of the areas most people live in are industrialized already, so it isn't a surprise why the majority aren't interested in it. It's not crypto in general really, it's anything tech-related since in the past few decades there's been a LOT of development with regards to it, ones that you wouldn't have thought to have happened only in a decade or two (which sadly involves Tiktok).

It also doesn't help that food-related sectors are pretty much solid in terms of foundation already to the point where there's a guaranteed list of investors who would support their process and growth. I wouldn't say it's bad to the economy really, I mean any possible development in tech can also help in the development of the food industry in the future who knows. And as I said already, food industries can stand on their own already even without the interest of the younger audience, and would be able to do so in the near future as well since they're a vital part of the basic needs of a human. Assuming they'd fall simply because people are more interested in tech seems kind of over exaggerated.

No no you got this the wrong way. They're not forcing you to use your money. You're making it look like they're forcing you to use your money since they won't block the account. See the thing is blocking accounts are only a thing for people who can't seem to stop spending and this means that THEY themselves spend the money, the casino does in no way force you to spend it. It's common sense really. Let's not be entitled shall we? In the first place signing up to a casino only to ask them to block you because you don't want to spend money just seems dumb.

And I also don't really see an issue here, you were able to withdraw your funds so I think tjat's that. Them blocking or not blocking your account? Doesn't look like it matters, just forget about the casino, end of the story.

Where'd you get that you need experience to play? This is rather dumb, similar to how companies would accept low level employees and yet require you to have 1-2 years of experience lol. Having fun requires no experience. Maybe if your idea of fun was those extreme-ish sports, then yea, experience is definitely a necessity since it's your life we're weighing here but other than those, I don't think you need to have experience. Especially in the case of gambling. Money, maybe, experience? Nope.