Not sure Usyk has the power to put Joshua away or the pressure. In the first fight he did hurt Joshua quite a few times, but he never presses on it. He goes back to sitting behind his jab. So, in my opinion to knock Joshua out he'll need to be really loading up his shots, and he doesn't really do that. He isn't putting Joshua out in one punch, at least I wouldn't have thought so, and nothing up until this point has suggested he can.

I might bet on it, along with a few UFC fights. Usyk be decision again looks the most likely, and should get decents odds. Should be above evens I imagine.

Yeah, I haven't ruled out that. However, the things that stand out to me is the comment about letting them know how you've secured your account, and the fact they claimed to have frozen accounts. The latter being a outright lie. That's not exactly good, if you're looking to do some white hat work.

Although, that might have been a way of trying to convince the user. I'm not going to get my pitchfork out, but I do believe users should be cautious dealing with this user in further message exchanges. Not that I distrust them entirely, but at the very least advise caution.

On a side note, I don't like that anyone can find out if a user has a security question or not. I'm not a fan of security questions in the first place, but probing like that just opens up those accounts for further attack. I kind of wish that the security question field popped up regardless of if a user has set one or not. If someone tries to guess the security question of one of these users, it simply just gives a non match, rather than indicating they don't have one set up.

To piggyback on this, also would mean that multiple industries would be compromised since they rely on the same thing Bitcoin does. Meaning, a solution would've already been found or Bitcoin being broken is the last of our worries. However, as suggested we've got a ton of time to think about quantum resistant measures which probably won't happen for a long time. I'm not sure about our lifetime, but I imagine we'll be ahead of schedule on a solution, since there's already been some half baked solutions proposed already.

Yeah, and considering how much companies usually keep of your data, I wouldn't doubt that exchanges are using this on mass. I imagine this sort of data will unfortunately become a gold mine in the near future. Hence why people should care about not willy nilly giving their information to any company or person for that matter, that asks for it.

Hasn't it already been achieved? Freedom to hold your own money, be responsible for it, spend it globally, and not have to rely on a third party for that? That goal in my opinion has already been met, and was met several years ago.

Just because the majority of people aren't using Bitcoin, doesn't mean it hasn't achieved its goal of allowing people freedom to use their money how they want. It just hasn't caught on massively yet.

I'd probably agree for the most part, however where it gets tricky is not all DefaultTrust leave fair, and accurate trust ratings, at least not all the time. There are internal feuds, and sometimes feedback that's not agreed upon by the majority of the DefaultTrust, the issue with guests is they might not know the dynamics or even how the trust system works.

So, they'll take that as bitcointalk itself not trusting the users, which isn't the case. There's too much subjectivity when it comes to trust, to force that on guests, who don't have any knowledge of the system.

While, I think it's great to look after as much users as possible, whether they're registered or not, I think at the very least a disclaimer would have to be put in place, due to the mentioned reasons above.

This type of thing happens a lot, if you're a user with a little bit of a reputation, regardless where you're at, then you'll likely see this. I've had business accounts which were particularly valuable in the past on other websites, and they literally non stop, every day, sometimes all day get password resets.

It's why some websites only allow a certain amount of requests, but that might then mean the legitimate user not being able to do it, because others have done it before them, and continue to do so.

These are usually very low, speculative malicious users though. So, can usually be safely ignored. As long as you have your credentials, and accounts secured, and ideally some sort of two factor authentication. You should be alright.

I watch the UFC every weekend, and this thread isn't congested by loads of people trying to earn money, talking about random things. Usually, it's confined to betting, and discussion around certain fighters, where I find the football threads here tend to deviate a lot. Although, it's also off season for football, I don't watch internationals, and only watch the Premier League, so when that starts back up, I'll be involved a bit more again.

Izzy will likely out point him, just like in their kick boxing matches, it was almost domination in terms of point fighting, but Alex has that power. They don't call him stone hands for nothing. Man can punch, and we need that threat, but also that rivalry to really wake up Izzy. His style of fighting gets him the wins, although the one with Whittaker recently was very close, but ultimately it doesn't entertain the fans.

Likely, by asking you to get back to them how you secured your account after removing it, is likely a way to get more information. They've already claimed that they've frozen accounts, which isn't really possible, unless they had some kind of database access, which would mean they'd be able to remove the security questions themselves if they really wanted too.

In other words, this user isn't to be trusted, and no reply is warranted. If they have information about security, they can contact theymos. Other than that, them finding out who has a security question, and who doesn't is fairly simple as LoyceV alluded to above.

I suspect, a further attack would've been launched if you replied to them. Smells of social engineering, where they attempt to gain your trust by offering you some semi valid advice, and then looking to exploit that further down the line. 

Is it big though or have I missed the sarcasm implied here? Judging by your following sentence I'd assume so. Anyway, I'll chip in with its absolutely 100 percent expected, and by no means is unprecedented. This isn't really news per say, more confirmation of something that was already assumed.

Yeah, and we can't blame people to be holding or getting out. We're probably heading for a global recession that few have seen worse. Natural for people to ditch things that they aren't quite confident in or on the contrary hoard them, in hopes that'll put them in a better position years down the line when we're coping with the recession a little more.

Don't get me wrong, Izzy has pretty much beat everyone that he can in his division. I was worried about Costa a while ago, but he provided himself decisively in that fight. I want to see Izzy styling on his opponents, because he's very capable of it.

Alex might be able to pressure that out of him, here's to hoping anyway. Anyway, for this weekend I'm probably going to give it a miss from a betting perspective. I'll still get my picks out closer to the date, but I'm really not fancying many of the fighters, and while the card might turn out to be a banger, I'm not overly familiar with everyone on it. 

Plus, a terrible match up unless Khamzat wants to stand up, and bang. I'd like to see it, but honestly I kind of want to see Pereira vs Izzy just because of their history, and I think it might just make Izzy become a little more active. He'll want to prove people wrong about being knocked out, and therefore might step on the gas a little more.

I know I said top five or top three, but in certain circumstances I can understand pushing them there sooner. This case is one of them I think. I don't think Pereira would be a dominant champion if he did win it, and quite frankly he most definitely has holes in his game as of right now, which have been exposed slightly in past fights.

Maybe, in this case it's what the division needs.

Top five at the very least. However, most of the time the second ranked fighter has already taken a shot at the champion, and lost. So, it would make sense if future contenders go through them first. I'm happy with top five, but I'm much more comfortable with top three being allowed a shot at the title. Anything below that, and it starts to get a little bit weird, like Conor.

Title shot should be earned, but should be given to anyone that's deserving. Sometimes fighters don't get that chance despite putting on good shows, and working their way up.

It's a bit like the beer advertisements that were banned not so long ago...actually a very long time ago now, I'm getting old. The sport wants to remain as kid friendly as possible, and in modern times everything is about being on brand. You can't claim to be a sport for everyone when you're shoving gambling down the viewers throat from every possible angle. I imagine they'd lose a lot of money through this, so I'm not sure if it's respectable from them. Almost convinces me they're doing this for the greater good, rather than to line their own pockets.

Although, just because the Premier league does it, doesn't mean the broadcasters have too, right?

I'm a Izzy fan, but I'd like to see him take a little more risks. I mean, he claimed he didn't care about holding the belt, and wanted to style on his opponents, but we didn't see any of that. So, just words from him I think.

Look at Volk, held a belt for a while now, but still is exciting, and takes calculated risks. I want to see Izzy do that, because when he puts pressure on he's one of the best. Think about the Gastelum fight, he was forced to take risks, and it was a lot more entertaining than we've seen recently.

I guess I'm just getting bored of seeing him play it safe just to keep the belt. The division was already getting stale, but him point fighting doesn't really help. I can't blame him exactly, I mean the longer he holds it, the more money, and legacy he builds. I'm just talking from a fans point of view, and considering the excitement factor which Izzy is quickly losing.

Reads to me like someone jumping on a trend, with how the current market is looking, and the wider issue of a global recession, people will be believing this for a while, and that might increase sales for their books.

I wouldn't look at this statement, and expect a sound, logicically approach. It's simply a marketing scheme, which will likely work. Doesn't matter if they're wrong in the long term, people would've already forgot. However, when you look at it short term, people are going to be like; "they were right!", and look at his work. Since, it's very probable that if we hit $100k tomorrow, we'd have a price correction not long after that, and then they'd be able to bask in that glory for a little while.

To be honest, I'm not overly familiar with their work, but if you're going to make bold predictions at least go into depth on why you think so.

Overall, nothing statement which likely has an agenda attached to it. Also, ignore people's titles, mathematician doesn't really make his reasoning any more sound. Judge people on their logic, not their titles.

They weighed the same, the day before. That's how it works across most fighting sports. However, due to the way they weight cut, i.e mostly waters. On the day you're going to see some fighters gain their mass back rather quickly, and therefore will be heavier than the day before.

Now, there's been criticism of this in the past, but the only way you're going to stop this is by weighing them before they step in the cage. However, that presents new problems like, bad weight cuts causing the fighters to be drained before actually fighting, since they'd be fighting like a hour after they finished cutting, more cancelled fights or fighters losing their purse, and quite frankly wouldn't earn the UFC as many money since they wouldn't get double the viewers, since a lot of people tune into the weigh ins. Thus, they make more sponsorship money.

So, to answer your question in short; It's impossible to prevent a fighter from cutting so much that he weighs the same as his opponent the day before the fight, but ultimately is heavier on the day.

I mean, not really. I'm not looking forward to any major changes in the future. I've become quite accustomed to the current forum software, and I also share the view that laptops/desktops are miles better than phones. I don't login on phones any more, and I just use the phone for reading while out of office.

I understand users frustrations with using the forum on a mobile device, but my thoughts are I don't know how you'd effectively tackle the problem of quoting, and editing. Go to any modern forum these days (discourse), and you'd likely get the same. I've had to sign up to a site to ask a specific question before, and it would've been easier on a laptop that's for sure.

The only difference with bitcointalk or better yet the underlying software it uses Simple Machines Forum is it allows for extensive editing of the post you're replying too. A lot of modern forums don't allow this, and you simply have to quote them completely or it shows you're replying to a certain post, but not specific parts in the post itself. I personally prefer this system, despite it sometimes taking a lot longer, it allows us to be a bit more specific in our replies.

Would rotating the device, potentially mitigate the scaling issue? Then, using IME arrows on the keyboard, allow for better editing? For example, I can't live without IME arrows. I'm actually not sure if that's a universal term, and I'm not exactly sure what the abbreviation stands for, but on my custom ROM I've got "IME arrows" which basically allow you to go back, and forward without using the backspace, and space button.

I know that highlighting text can sometimes be tricky, and then there's the quotation side of things. I just don't know what you would implement inside a app, to be better at achieving it. I've typed up fairly lengthy content on things that aren't related to the forum, and while it doesn't come close to a keyboard, it wasn't too bad. The only other complexity I see with the forum is quoting, and then editing or snipping that quote as some users like to call it. That, isn't easily fixed, because of the limitations of a phone though.

What's exactly bad about Bitcointalk on a mobile phone? Apart from editing/posting, since that's going to be horrible anyway on a smaller keyboard. When I've used a phone to look at the forum, mostly to read, and not to log in mind you, I've never really had a problem with it.

I have logged in on an alt account I specifically made for insecure connections a few years ago, and I remember it being very slow to quote, and what not, but at the end of the day, would a app really make this any better? Especially, the amount of time needed to develop the app.

I'm not convinced it will, at least when you think of the effort needed to develop it, and maintain it. I guess the question is, how many users are actually using a mobile phone to connect to here? (I do suspect quite a lot)

Hate to say it, but Gini was brilliant for breaking up play, and holding onto the ball when needed. Obviously, that meant at times we weren't as attacking, but there's a balance. We leak goals because of our high line. I don't think its the quality of the midfield per say, its just that high line can get caught out from time to time. However, it works most of the time.

City, are especially good at breaking our high line, and anyone with a decent play maker. I actually think that's partly the reason we lost so heavily against Aston Villa. There was obviously other reasons at play there too.

As for a new signing. I'm not sure. Bellingham would be the one for the future, but he's a little bit raw at the moment.