It depends on what this "new" tech is. I mean, look at NFT, it was completely new and innovative back then but look at what happened. Look at what it's users made the scene be. While the idea was there, it basically ruined the market. Early on though I guess it was a good investment since literally everything was new, and the market was booming so you can get away with making a profit off of something no matter how bad it was.

Just that, there's a LOT of worthwhile investment, idea-wise. Execution wise? They just run away really, scam their investors and get some bit of money off of that.

I think no one said to ignore new altcoins? They were just warned since newer altcoins have higher risk ratio in comparison to old and well-reputable altcoins. New investors should build up their portfolio and the best way to do that imo is to start with well-trusted coins, and then deviate from there slowly since you'd have a passive way of being able to maintain your money.

While thrusting yourself into the newer altcoin market could bring in a lot of profits if done well, newbies don't know how to do it in the first place. It wouldn't be any different from gambling if they just entered and invested in any altcoin they'd see that would look like would grow, especially if you consider how a LOT of new altcoins are just scams, or will end up to be scams.

A tad bit too early, but I guess I was the same really. I started gambling when I was in late high school, nothing too big or even official really. If you've seen a few of my past history, I started gambling in high school with my friends, but it never went outside of that. If he can manage his spending, and if his mother is actually going to help with that instead of actively just stopping it, then I reckon everything should be fine. If they have conflicting opinions and never meet in the middle though, it might create a rift between the two.

It may also have something to do with the lack of perception some people have when comes to money and the meaningful of it. Let me elaborate:

In our daily life we manage certain amounts of money and we are well aware of what those amounts are supposed to mean. A hamburger can cost 5$, a bottle of water about 0,5$-2$, etc. But then we turn on the TV and we hear about governments doing investments and plans for 1 billion $ or we see on the news on your phones that Apple may sue another company for 20 billion $. We only hear those sums of money and we don't truly know what they represent.

With that mind set, someone who wins the lottery and becomes a millionaire is someone who does not know what their new money is capable of, they may think that they can buy anything they want and go into a spending spree, not realizing that a big house in a developed country may be worth a couple of millions by its own. So they spend and spend without realizing the true magnitude of their wealth, and before they even realize, they have to fill for bankruptcy.
[/quote]
I agree. I've had some instances of this happen to me, it was when I first managed to make a successful investment, I spent like $300 and got back to like idk, $1000 - $1500? in the span of like 3-4 months. It was a big amount, especially if you consider how the initial $300 was already a big amount for me. Making up to 5x of that in a few months was insane for me, and I honestly had no idea what to do with it. I spent a few hundreds with my hobbies but I still had plenty left over back then, so I just went ahead and invested again. Never really made the same amount since then.

It's also why I don't blame lottery winners for ruining themselves, regardless it be the way of helping others (donating it willy-nilly) or spending it on anything and everything. We all have greed in us, but a greed that doesn't yet know of what it's upper limits are is scary, since you don't really know when to reign it in.

Or just, idk, offer better service than them. It doesn't need to be new in the first place, just, well, better. A lot of companies underperform, but sometimes due to monopoly people have no choice but to use said service. If a competitor who actually does things right pop up? Take a few years and people would naturally migrate imo.


Isn't this basically any other new casino out there promising anonymity? It usually doesn't last long, and as you've said it operates in a "grey area" so it's highly unlikely for it to be trusted early on, it'd probably take years before it builds up a proper reputation.

Honestly, KYC isn't bad (imo, don't burn me), the process that casinos ask for KYC is bad, dumb, and slow, and suddenly halts the user, freezing their funds without no rhyme or reason. Ofc if a casino can grow and build itself without KYC then sure, I'd go for it, but if it can't, the least it can do is provide quality service when it actually uses it.

It hasn't really affected me really. I was already a gambler before even taking up gambling signature campaigns, heck I'd consider myself as a gambler even way back when I was a highschool student really, minus all the depressing stuff that comes along with it, but a gambler nonetheless imo. It opened up a lot in terms of other people's circumstances regarding gambling though, which a lot of them are rather interesting reads (though a lot of them are also rather similar from each other).

I think you're fine man. No need to quit the campaign, just learn how to manage and deal with gambling habits and tendencies you develop, the bad ones that is. There's a lot of people that you can ask for help here anyway, as long as you're willing to work on it I reckon you should be fine.

I'd slap them with money and/or a ticket to a trip somewhere where they are fully monitored and serviced. Probably the best way to actually tackle the problem is by making them focus on something else, and with supervision at that to make sure said tackling is actually done properly.

If you want the free method, then you'd spend time with them. Actively make them participate in other activities/hobbies, ones that they'd actually enjoy and can take their minds off of gambling. Sure, self-exclusion, website banning and stuff like that can be used, but as long as anyone with the knowhow knows about how the internet works, they can easily bypass that. So actions where someone is personally taking note of what they're doing is probably a 100% better.

Possible. I mean I don't think people who have Bitcoin would suddenly run away and trade their coins for gold (or any other asset)all of a sudden in an economic crisis since there's no connection between the local currencies and Bitcoin in the first place. People would then scramble to come and look for assets that would help them avoid the devaluation of local currencies which inevitably would lead them to Bitcoin (as one of the options that is). It is volatile however, so I guess that's one risk of it in comparison to gold.

At the very least, I don't think I see Bitcoin dropping in value in an economic crisis even if people don't buy it to avoid fiat.

I'm surprised there's such a "specific" answer for it. Does that mean that any other dream I have, say about a certain game, means that I'm trying to shut it down? Honestly sounds really far-fetched to me. And while I do dream even if rarely, it's never in an instance where I was really bothered by it in the long run, heck I often forget about them after a few hours so I guess you remembering about it does have some sense of meaning.

Well, I reckon anyone playing for almost idk, 12-13 hours maybe? would experience the same thing. I don't really think it's saying to shut down gambling, I think it's just telling you to take a break.

I think it's not even a matter of religion really, just a matter of mentality itself. It just so turned out that the mentality of those people who developed the religion viewed gambling as something negative, which I don't blame, I mean the idea that gambling was bad originated from that era after all, it just continued on since no one bothered questioning it simply because they were the minority in each of their community.

It is hilarious how people associate the devil with almost literally anything they don't like though, in their eyes it's like a free pass to hate something.

True. People can want their privacy without having the need to give a reason. Gambling is an activity that is legally allowed in most countries anw, and if it wasn't then that might just be a reason itself. But anyway hiding it isn't anything weird if it was legal, I mean I hide what I eat everyday, hows that any different.

Does this work the same on apps I wonder? Like clearing the data would hard reset everything you see. In the cache thing though, I'm not totally familiar with it but isn't the data stored within a specific cache tagged to your account? That is why your ads are matched whether you view them from a phone or laptop/desktop. At least that's how I think it works, so I don't think clearing the cache would actually work. Not familiar with how they store data so idrk, might be better to if needed, just create a new account and format everything to remove any possible connections, maybe even stop using devices as others have said altogether if possible.

This looks like it's a game of luck, but no it isn't. Anybody who has tried it out would know and realize that after a few flips, you would be able to determine how strong you should start out to make it so that the bottle flips properly the way you want it to. Maybe if it was randomized with varying levels of weight and only like, two, three tries (with no practice), then it could become a possible game suitable for gambling, but eh, I don't really think it would gain traction as a gambling game. Might work on a small group though, since it is kind of fun once you get into it.

It's not that they're ruining the meaning of whitepaper, it's just that the whitepaper is mostly needed for their project to even attract someone to read their use case if there actually is one. In most cases, the whitepaper they have is simply a template used by the majority, with a few keywords changed to match their project. It was a standard that was created to present the project, especially in crypto's case where most projects can be considered as investments, and a lot of people do actually check on it, a matter of understanding it is a separate thing though.

I'd say the only real advancement here is AI though? Blockchain is more like on payment methods instead of sports gambling itself, and as for acceptance, it's, well, acceptance. Probably should've added the VAR technology instead, it's been making rounds the past few years and has been used in quite a few big official tournaments already (which I'd probably count separate from AI).

It's a question of these tech being helpful though, I don't think an AI that could make accurate bets exists as of yet, I haven't heard from ChatGPT's plugin (iirc) feature which is what I was expecting to be at the front of AI accessing the internet. VAR is kind of in the middle, Afaik it's had it's own issues but at the same time, they would've stopped using it if it only had issues so I reckon there were some pros with it.

The scenario is BTC -> fiat, so I reckon there will always be taxes involved there. In the first place isn't everything he buys and pays for have taxes already involved in them? I don't think adding one more to the pot would be that much of a problem for him.

If there's no need for the conversion to happen, and in essence means that crypto is globally accepted and globally used now, taxes would probably still exist, but not for the conversion but rather taxes like what we have right now. I hardly doubt government accepting crypto payments as a possible method would allow it to bypass tax in the first place, heck they might even impose larger tax in comparison to fiat (or cbdc or whatever they have by then).

I think you already know what the answer is, just based on the risk factors involved banks would be safer, and crypto would be riskier, in terms of the rewards they'd be the opposite, banks would be lower while crypto would reach sky-high levels if really lucky. There are other factors involved though, like inflation as others have said and in which case, doesn't affect crypto at all but at the same time, crypto is subjected to possible market manipulation attacks especially those that are relatively new (and at the same time, would probably have a greater risk-reward ratio).

All the more reason I think why OP was suggesting it, is exactly because people who gamble has already set their interest into gambling itself, so the algorithm of google has already set advertisements that they would receive. But again, as I've said before I don't really think this is going to work. There's probably higher chances of someone moving on from gambling if they shut off the internet for a month and take a good vacation somewhere.

Being supportive isn't really in the realms of addiction. They usually have discipline in the first place, and see gambling as not a source of income, rather just a side hobby to include when watching sports, so I reckon you're fine.

Probably just a spam nft, maybe in hopes that you'd click an associated link or something similar to let them install malware or just spam. Quite literally spam. Idk if it happens in other countries but my mobile number often has these spam casino messages that often message me, asking me to click the link they sent or visit whatever site they indicated. Considering how NFT can be easily made and if timed right, fees being close to zero, I guess the marketing team or whoever decided to spread said NFTs that way. Just don't open it, I don't open anything I didn't sign up for, that's for sure.

I think there's a bit of bias here in gambling is better than trading, probably because there are more people who share that they won in gambling compared to people who were successful in trading. I mean yes, there's people out there that are rich from trading, but they don't actively share their winning trades, what more for smaller traders, unlike in gambling where it's more often that people share them. It's probably why he takes gambling as better, even if we take into account the emotional aspect (which honestly, both cases have in the first place).

I don't think so. Binance is a platform for tokens/coins, so I reckon projects just pay Binance to promote said tokens after a regulatory check. Said regulatory check doesn't really give a damn about the use case of the project, so even if it wasn't cheap, as long as they pass some of the checks, then they'd probably be allowed to launch their tokens. In the end, Binance is still a platform aimed to make money, so it isn't really odd that they're trying to accept coins that they can actively promote and sell to others. They might also have a separate contract for when tokens are launched that they advertise, so more money for them as well.

In the end it isn't really manipulative of them if the users themselves know that Binance as a platform aims to market coins to them. Advertisements aren't a law that you need to follow, they're guides to what projects are actively trying to promote their project to big platforms.