Burns has always been underestimated I feel. He showed up in that fight, and it's the first time we've seen Chimaev actually hurt. Like, at one point I'm pretty sure his legs give out under him. He was hurt, and as DC would say "hurt bad". However, I'm not sure if he will be the next khabib, different fighting styles. Chimaev could've gone to the ground a little more against Burns, but he seems rather stubborn, and wanted to stand toe to toe, and hopefully knock him out. While after the fight he admitted this was a mistake, it was probably due to Burns' ground game, despite Chimaev being more than proficient in that area.

Khabib on the other hand, stayed safe the majority of the time. He didn't fall in love with knocking people out, and instead stuck to his game plan. I'm not sure at least at this stage of his career if Chimaev has the same discipline as Khabib.

I was talking about Jack Shore (the other Welsh guy) losing to Ricky Simons last weekend. It was his first professional loss. Mason yeah came in on a short notice on that fight I believe, and obviously has only lost the one in his professional record. So, going pretty well I'd say for the welsh men in the UFC.

Don't say that, I've already put Mokaev on a bet now. I've got it running with a few others on the night, and the Liverpool game today, which I don't usually like betting on friendlies, but here we go.

I do like Klein though. He's a bit frantic at times, but a good fighter nonetheless. I've obviously got Mason on my betslip. I'll post my actual bets, this one's just for fun one at the moment.

I haven't seen that article or any talk around it, but I did say a few pages back that I expect Haaland to have the impact that Aguero did. Brilliant when he plays, but ultimately out injured a lot of the season. A bit like Sturridge for anyone that's watched his career. Probably one of the most gifted players in the league at his heights, but not only did he have injury problems, he was also accused of not pushing through them. I think Gerrard in his book alluded to that.

It's funny an article like that comes up though, as that was my exact thoughts. I've watched a bit of Haaland play, and he is very injury prone, and doesn't seem to like super aggressive players. Well, in the Premier League with the physicality, but also the schedule he's going to find it very difficult. I actually think City are weaker now, than they were last season. Call me crazy if you want .

Just take a look at their records, and you'll see that Curtis has wins over the very top level guys, and his only losses have come to the current champion, and another top five fighter. Compare that to Tom, who is very much on the rise, but hasn't been really tested all that much. There's a massive difference. That doesn't mean Tom doesn't go in there, and knock Curtis out, but I'll be betting on Curtis while cheering on Tom.

I like Tom, and I think he's a brilliant prospect, but I do think this match up might have come a little too soon for him. He ideally needed a few more lower down opponents before Curtis. Especially when you look at his wrestling skills, but again his stand up is nothing to scoff at either.

I will say though, I would find it a little odd if someone inherited an account. I mean, I wouldn't want anyone in my family to inherit my account. Maybe, to confirm death, but I wouldn't want them to use it, and anyway they can create a new account, and just let theymos or an admin know through that new account rather than accessing mine. Plus, I wouldn't want to inherit someone's account either. The whole situation doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's not like money that you can inherit or a boat. The account is effectively an extension of you. It represents you, rather than a possession item.

Just to play devil's advocate here; You can't, but you can't automatically distrust them either. A neutral tag letting users know that the account has been inherited could be a way of going about this. That's if users want to go the innocent until proven guilty route. Obviously, that neutral tag stands there to sort of discredit any posts before the account changed hands. However, I would expect the vast majority of DefaultTrust would paint the account red. However, the user inheriting the account might not even care about the trust rating.

This is all assuming there's proof, which I believe might be a little hard to do considering most accounts are pseudonymous at the very least. Most users families here probably aren't even aware of this account.

That's the preferred approach to this obviously. I'm not quite sure what you're asking is allowed or not, but either of these two options would be allowed per the forum rules. Obviously, concerning the trust system is a little different.

As long as the signature campaign managers are made aware, they can act appropriately based on their own criteria.

I do get the animosity towards those that appear to be merit fishing, Although, their motivation is there, their application isn't necessarily so. I think getting the pitch fork out, is probably a bad idea, since these types of users can easily adjust, and become valuable users of the forum. There's been many of times where a user has annoyed me a little at first with their posting habits, but years down the line have actually become some of the more prominent users of the forum.

So, while merit fishing should probably be pointed out, I don't think it's a death sentence for a user. They just need to change their thinking a little bit. At the end of the day, if they're posting simply to earn merit, as long as the information is useful, and isn't regurgitated, then I haven't got a problem with their motivations that led to the post, as long as it's of good quality.

Theoretical in it. I don't think people are thinking about specifics since it's just basically asking what do you think the priorities are.

The thing is, as soon as you put this into the rules it almost legitimises bounties offering in Bitcoin, which isn't the impression we want to give. If we went down this route, we'll likely have to go the route of requiring escrow, and then there's the issue of which escrows, since putting it in the rules will validate certain escrows, which again is something we want to avoid.

Yeah, anything can happen. However, I just don't see O'Malley getting the win. Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of him, and while I do respect his striking ability he isn't a very well rounded fighter. He'll never be champion in my opinion, and I don't think he'll get that close unless he significantly develops his overall game. Yan either out strikes him or looks to control him in the grappling situations or gets in on the mat.

I'll be betting on Yan.

Unless it's bottom tier teams, then I usually go for the 1-0. To many times I've seen us light up the league, to only get a goal against bottom tier or worse yet, lose 1-0. I don't know about you though, I'm quietly confident about our chances again this season. It seems a lot of the rival fans are already writing us off, which is a little weird. Mane wasn't the only player in our team, and it isn't exactly like we haven't replaced him. I do think being that underdog suits us too.

Obviously, City getting Haaland is big, but I don't think it's going to have as big of an impact that a lot of people are expecting.

NotATether nails it right on the head. Bitcoin doesn't have to keep up with other currencies. However, it's almost guaranteed that fiat will continue to be subject to inflation, while Bitcoin will eventually become either deflationary or very marginally inflation resistant. That's the way it's designed. Now, we currently see quite a lot of volatility, but when block rewards are either very very low or completely gone, that should also bring the volatility down. At the moment, we do see a little bit of inflation since we're introducing new Bitcoin into circulation, although note that isn't being printed off like traditional fiat currencies, instead it has already been pre allocated.

So, we theoretically know how much Bitcoin that'll exist, and we know that beyond a certain point inflation should be a thing of the past, if you're using Bitcoin. However, that's not to say that'll it'll "keep up" with inflation hikes in other currencies, and nor is it expected too.

The thing is people asked to see him fight a pro boxer, and in his defence he went for Tommy Fury who is reasonably established. It isn't his fault that he pulled out, regardless of the circumstances. He tried to fight a pro boxer with a decent reputation. Alright, I believe that reputation is more because of his affiliations with his brother, rather than his boxing ability, but he is taking steps up.

Jake knows how to pick his opponents, and he has enough hype, and fame behind him that boxers, and MMA fighters are willing to get knocked out by him just for the pay day. So, he can basically select opponents who he thinks will make him look good, as well as have a relatively easy day in that ring. Therefore, Jake is likely always going to be the favourite, until he can't cherry pick his opponents any more.

I know you might say that cherry picking isn't exactly making a statement, but name me one fighter in the last couple of years that didn't get cherry picked fights. Even some of the biggest names in modern boxing had easy fights.

This just seems like easy money to me. Alright, the odds won't look great, but Petr Yan, and Chimaev look to have a relatively easy night. Chimaev will likely look to out strike Diaz, if he can't do that he can always take it to the ground, and finish it any time he wants.

Very odd matchmaking in my opinion, but I'll likely make the most of it. I know this is seen as a heathen thing to do, but bet365 has a accumulator bonus on right now, so you could make the most of it, and just chuck them on your accumulator for a extra 10% bonus.

Which definitely happens. It's much harder to strike up a decent conversation in the Altcoin section, than it is in somewhere like Development & Technical Discussion on the main Bitcoin section. This is because of two reasons; the altcoin section is somewhat boycotted, even though interesting discussion does happen, and in fact would benefit users Bitcoin knowledge, and be more aware of some of the issues Bitcoin might have, and what users are trying to implement to make alternatives better, which might in the future mean that Bitcoin implements something similar. This is a rare occurrence definitely, but I think it's because of the lack of involvement from most users.

Then, there's the second issue where generally speaking; the altcoin section attracts more lower quality users. That's not to say that all of them are though. That's something the moderation team needs to sort out, since most of the Altcoin section isn't getting reports, probably due to the first reason. It's boycotted. I'm hoping to get into the deep of this problem. However, at the moment we're kind of catching up on older posts made in 2017/2018. Most reports in the announcement section as an example, are from this period. I'd say 90% of reports made in those sections are on old reports.

I can't speak for other moderators, but once I feel like I'm getting a grasp on the announcement section, I'll be moving onto the other sections like Altcoin Discussion, which I've tested recently, and can report a ton of reports in a very short amount of time. So, that section is a behemoth of a task, but I'm sure we'll eventually be able to get on top of it.

I don't even want to look at the statistics of how many posts have been removed in the announcement sections, I can imagine it's well over 100k. I've easily removed hundreds of pages of spam this year alone, and I know mprep is very actively managing the section too, as well as some patrollers, and other global moderators.

Call me mad, but I genuinely believe we're starting to make an impact on that section, and given enough time I can't see why we can't get on top of the rest of the sub sections. I'm willing to put a ton of effort in to reclaiming the altcoin section, however I'm not sure that the reputation it has will ever be forgotten, and it would continue to be boycotted regardless of how clean we get it.

I mean, I've also got to hand it to Jake to having a back up fighter to not disappoint the fans. I kind of wish this was the way it was planned out all the time. Nothing worse than seeing your favourite fighter not get to fight due to their opponent backing out. I'm by no means saying Jake is my favourite boxer, but for a lot of people he will be since he introduced them to boxing.

Tommy was such a promising boxer. I mean you didn't get invited to Rocky 5? for nothing. The guy was as promising as they got, and had very heavy hands. It's actually quite a tragic story about Tommy. There's a few Youtube videos which are well worth the watch which document his fall. Towards the end he looked like a shadow of himself. It's sad how it went for him. At the start of his career he had all the promise in the world, but also seemed liked a genuinely nice guy.

I wasn't aware he had a son though so that's new.

Yeah, Tom has fought decent opponents, but he just hasn't got the experience that Curtis has against the top guys. I consider Spivak a bit of a gatekeeper, and while Volkov is decent, he isn't going to become champion, and have the same fear that Ngannou has. Ngannou, Gane, Curtis, and even Derrick Lewis are also different gravy I think.

Like I said, I'll be supporting Tom, but if I were to put a bet on or make a prediction it would be Curtis, probably via decision due to his superior wrestling. Now, if Tom comes out, and dominates on the ground, that'll definitely put him in high regard. I just can't see that happening. The odds are also close suggesting the bookies are also thinking that Tom has the stand up advantage while Curtis has the ground advantage.

Interesting perspective .

Although, the above isn't necessarily true. There's plenty of examples of newer users being more knowledgeable than their seniors. That's almost true in every walk of life. Length of time, doesn't equal knowledge. It does, have a correlation, but it definitely isn't something to follow completely. There's plenty of users here that are probably classed as senior by most users, yet routinely get things wrong.

Throw me into a technical discussion about Bitcoin's intrinsics, and you'll find many younger users more knowledgable in areas than myself. We all have different strengths, and weaknesses, and knowledge about Bitcoin is no different. Some will excel, and some won't.

It's a matter of fact that anyone making predictions is doing just that, making predictions based on things they've perceived as correlations, and weighing in the current climate of the economy, and basing a prediction off of that. Basically, it's pure speculation, and anyone claiming to have got it right once, has probably predicted it a million times before that. There's a common saying of throwing enough shit on the wall before some of it sticks, and that rings true here.

The thing is no one remembers the person who predicted wrong, but everyone remembers when someone gets it right. That's the nature of the business, and any speculators should be taken with a pinch of salt. Ultimately, they're just like you, and I. I actually believe Bitcoin is more unpredictable than other investments out there.

Ciryl Gane probably has a shot if/when they face again. Blaydes if he goes to his wrestling, and avoids the big shots, can definitely do it. It's one of the those divisions where a long reigning champion isn't really expected, due to the big punchers in the division. I think Blaydes is more than capable, and I do think as I said before is rather underestimated. I'm not even sure why, he has a decent punch on him, and has some of the most well rounded wrestling in the division, which is a upper hand on the current champion who has very limited wrestling skills. Despite, recently out wrestling Gane, which I'll be honest was shocked about.

That might've been the case initially, but it certainly isn't the case any more. Bitcoin is much more decentralised than any fiat currency, and honestly pretty much any noteworthy alternative. If you don't want to use a third party, you can absolutely do that. The only thing that Bitcoin really relies on his people running nodes, and miners. Other than that, you can completely take control of your Bitcoin, and spend it where ever you like or do whatever you like, obviously as long as you comply to the laws in your country.

So, if you care about decentralisation, cryptocurrency is the way to go. Doesn't mean it suits other personal needs though, depends on the use case, and the person.

In almost every case it will be. You're basically giving the banks permission to gamble with your money, despite them potentially being decent at investing, they're still using your money, to gain more money, and that's why they offer interest rates to entice people to keep their money in the bank.

However, Bitcoin isn't for everyone. For those that aren't well up on security standards, and not very familiar with how the internet works, and potential attacks, I can see the benefit of banks. Although, I still think hoarding cash, and securing it physically is still better than trusting banks to handle your money.