If we compare DdmrDdmr's sent merit in the last 120 days (around 2400 merit sent) to the rest of the top ten on the Most generous merit senders list, LoyceV, El duderino_, yourself, Ratimov, JayJuanGee, ETFbitcoin, and hugeblack come in higher than them. So, surprisingly to me, despite DdmrDdmr's constant merit sprees, still one of the lower ends in the top 10.

I don't know if that's because they're sending less per merit transaction than others (which at first glance appears so) or if they simply don't have as much merit to spend. I haven't done the math for the latter. Obviously, very likely the quickest to spend that amount of merit compared to the rest.

I'm expecting a close fight, not sure on the outcome. I see it both going to decision, and a TKO. I don't think Cerrone will find the knockout though. I've found as he has got a little older, his chin has been rather suspect. Plus, his ability has clearly been waning over the years. So, despite Joe being out for a long time, he could get the job done here. It's Cerrone though, so we know there's going to be a fight on.

For me, the odds on a betting perspective are with Joe, who has the value for money. I don't think I consider Cerrone a big enough favourite, not to go against him here, even if the odds aren't massively wide.

Also, this event is going to be good. I've got Gaethje against Oliveira which might be surpriging to some. I just find that while Oliveira is exceptional when it comes to the ground game, he gets clipped way to often in previous fights, something you can't do against Gaethje.

Yeah, avoid virtual keyboards, although I personally wouldn't touch the default keyboard (unless replacing it for a open source version) i.e installing addon packs or emoji's. Also, disable any sort of feature that can predict or memorise your words. I don't use phones as a way of storing Bitcoin, but I don't have the prediction text on either way for this exact reason. Delete your personal dictionary, and get rid of anything that's collecting your data.

Also, on a side note, I'd be looking for an alternative to Gboard if you're entering anything sensitive on it. I'd seek a open source alternative that you can verify yourself. This is mainly from a privacy stand point, as I'm sure a lot of people rely on Google products, although if you don't want them using your data to serve you cryptocurrency apps, in my mind it'll be worth seeking the alternative.

What a night, and what a main event. As expected the results were pretty much all over the place, but a entertaining night definitely. I thought the judges got the decisions correct, and the main event definitely delivered. Chito looked very good, and I know a lot of people will think that Font did enough in those rounds with his volume, but I'm of the impression that damage is better than low impact volume. Font was probably hurt 5/6 times in that fight, and I'm still not sure how he managed to survive until the end. He looked absolutely out on his feet a few times, and obviously wore the damage on his face.

I imagine after that Font will be having a rather lengthy time away from the cage, Chito on the other hand didn't take much damage so his recovery could be relatively quick.

Another event I'm staying away with bets. I'll probably get some updated predictions up before the event though. Although, seems like a slippery slope a lot of these fights. Saving my money for the following event, which will likely be an event I get some wings in, and some beers.

I was going to put a bet on the Font vs Vera fight going the distance, but the odds just wasn't enough to justify the risk to be honest. For the Jake fight, my head says him, but my heart says Andrei Arlovski. Again, could be a fight that goes the distance.

I wasn't expecting much, but I did want to watch a exciting game. I expected City to win, but scoring so early as kind have put a dampener on it for neutrals, and well us Liverpool fans. I don't see Leeds fighting their way back now, seems City are up for it. Leeds not so much.

This could go right down to the wire this, I think Newcastle will likely fold in half for City though, unlike against us today. Although, we should have scored more, we had the opportunities, it felt like Jota, and Mane had 3/4 between them, pretty clear cut chances.

Right, can't say I've noticed it with reCAPTCHA or any other captcha for that matter, however I know that the privacy settings on Firefox can be fairly invasive. I've broken a few sites with the strict option on Firefox, I do believe it does warn you that can be the case though. I've had problems with cookies with the strict option, which logs you out of a website even when you don't want it too. Although, no problems with captcha systems on my end with it, at least that I've noticed.

I assume that Google is attempting some sort of browser fingerprinting, as there'll be configurations which are more likely to be bots, than humans. So, I expect that browser does play a part, and having strict enabled might just be a little more restrictive than that of Chromium's features. I can't say for definite since I don't run Chromium.

Luckily the forum seems to work without any issues with strict privacy enabled on Firefox.

Yeah, there are some alternatives that work better for users, I don't know what their effectiveness is for the website owners though. Bot protection over the last few years has been dominated by Google's captcha system. So, while it might be objectively better for users, it might not catch or prevent as many bots as Google's. Obviously, the trade off for that is a terrible user experience for legitimate users using a shared connection.

 The only option with the Google one is to request a new identity from Tor, but even then that can be hit or miss, due to most connections/identities falling to the same fate.

Not sure I agree with it personally, I believe that the humanitarian crisis is a much more pressing issue than investors losing their money. Ultimately, my counter argument to your view would be; the investors should have known not to store a large amount of money on those exchanges. I know that sounds awful, and like I don't have any sympathy at all, but I do. I would hate for it to happen to me, and no doubt I would be absolutely enraged. However, I do believe that the humanitarian crisis we are seeing, couldn't have been avoided by the average person, where as the investors could have or at the very least mitigated it. It's besides the point though, the situations aren't comparable.

However, I do agree with your latter part. I do believe that some countries will no doubt be taking this approach to further better themselves in the West in the future. However, this particular situation I think is a little different, since they aren't supporting the war on either side, instead they're focusing on the humanitarian aid which quite frankly is the crisis at the moment. Despite, what anyone thinks about the war, (I'm most certainly anti war) I think all sides can agree the humanitarian crisis right now is absolutely awful.

Quite possibly the opposite. El Salvador's increase could be just because a lot of people wasn't aware of Bitcoin before the recent news. Then the other countries could be just looking for information on it, rather than already being part of a "Bitcoin community" as you put it.

At the end of the day there's no significance on why, trends are trends, and at least it's indicative of a countries sort of perception to Bitcoin, whether hostile or not. The trend itself isn't indicative of it really, it's when looking at supportive evidence that you can conclude. For example, a country that has banned it, but still has a lot of people searching up, suggests that the people of that country are looking for ways to beat the system potentially or they don't have full faith in their countries decisions or it could be in direct reaction to the banning of a cryptocurrency that they've never heard of or understood.

So, while these trends aren't painting the whole picture, when you look at supporting evidence, you can kind of get a overall feel for how that country feels towards Bitcoin, without actually living there.

Good. I don't think there's any particular significance in it involving Bitcoin, but its always good to see humanitarian aid being supported.

They'll definitely be looking to reinvest that money in their own country given different circumstances, but we're in unprecedented times with the war in the East. I do believe it's one of the worst humanitarian crisis' of recent memory, and I'm all in support for trying to help at least reduce it. Although, sadly likely to be a drop in the ocean, even though it's a lot of money. However, I don't think anyone is going to be against this going the humanitarian aid.

I know this is to a much lesser extent, but typically seized assets get sold or reinvested. I know that police stations around here sell unclaimed stolen goods via auctions, and I believe the proceeds are either donated or used for direct repairs to the police's fleet or buildings. Might be wrong on the latter part of that, though.

On a side note, never thought I'd be willing to pick Yahoo over any other site .

This doesn't take a smart person to work this out, it requires someone who can think clearly without bias. A lot of people are very defensive of fiat, without really knowing it. We've basically been told this is how it is, and you'll learn to love it, despite personally to me money being one of the biggest issues in the world.

The real question is what cryptocurrency will replace the current fiat system, and will it be Bitcoin? Bitcoin mitigates some of its problems, but not all. I'm not completely sure, and I've said previously that I believe Bitcoin might not be the solution to our problem, but a ways of getting there. A foundation if you will.

I might be wrong, and I know that paragraph there will be greeted with some scepticism, but I'm not trying to say altcoins are the way to go, because quite clearly currently Bitcoin is the most promising. However, Bitcoin to me might just be the prototype, unless it can adapt, if it can adopt, and evolve to our needs while improving fiat even more, there's no reason why Bitcoin can't be the solution. At the moment, Its not the complete solution, but rather a partial solution to a pretty bad global money system.

You can analyse trends, but that's only comparing to what trends were like before it, so its not exactly fool proof, and not exactly reliable. So, while predictions can be made, there's still a little bit of luck involved, and some risk. I think most people would coin it as "calculated risk". Investors on the stock market have shown that they can somewhat accurately predict within a certain margin of what's going to happen, and Bitcoin isn't massively different.

There will be trends, and there will be margins to predict in. However, Bitcoin is a little different to traditional investment stocks, since it's a new currency, and not only a new currency, but a cryptocurrency which doesn't exactly have much history to base predictions on.

Personally, I don't listen to what other people have to say via predictions. I look at Bitcoin, take a look at what it provides differently to our current money system, e.g freedom to be in control of your own money, and not having to rely on a third party for that, and then base my optimism on that. Its genuinely checked out so far.

Not sure if they would go to extreme lengths like that, after all they would have to get visas to go live somewhere else, which isn't exactly easy in a lot of countries. Although, I don't know what the extent of the ban was in China, was it a ban on the person operating inside of China or was it physically having the mining operation in China. I guess what I'm trying to allude to is; if it was a ban on having the mining operation inside of China specifically, then all they would have to do is find a place to operate it outside of China, i.e renting a warehouse in a European or American country or even a neighbouring country, and continue mining. Obviously, not everyone is in a position to do that, and that isn't something you can make happen right away, but it might be able to explain the somewhat quick recovery.

I'd expect people that are being suppressed to have even more interest in escaping that. Its been proven multiple times in the past, and I believe it was Edward Bernays' biggest message overall which he basically said not to limit the people outright, but instead give them a choice while pumping out propaganda to influence them.

Outright banning Bitcoin isn't effective it would be much better to do it like the West does; allow it, regulate it, but pump out stories which might not exactly have any truth to them. For example, we've seen it recently where there's basically been a barrage of news stories on how energy inefficient Bitcoin is, and how it's the leading contributor, which is absolutely nonsense, but I have seen it in the titles of a few poor news sources.

Before clicking on this thread, I was expecting countries from Africa to rank pretty highly not only because its banned in some of those areas, but for me Bitcoin is the best opportunity to escape corruption, as well as the rat race of earning pennies, while in the long run those earnings being mitigated by rising inflation.

The main contributing factor being somewhat similar to how the forum implements points of evil. Google or whatever Captcha provider basically assigns how problematic a certain IP has been, and based on that presents the captchas. Tor being particularly problematic for them, tends to result in some frustrating captchas that tend to go on forever. So, on a home / virgin IP you won't be presented with them, whereas the more people that use a IP basically increases the chances of triggering the captcha.

To be honest, if you aren't using a connection which has proven problematic it would be rather tedious. Obviously, with Tor or VPNs which has a lot of users you expect it. However, I'm not a fan of websites requiring a captcha regardless of your "points of evil" assigned to your IP.

I've come to terms with Ronaldo saving Manchester United. Although, ultimately its not going to amount to much. We knew Ronaldo was one of the best players to ever play the game, and he continues to prove that despite playing a the worst Manchester United team of my memory. He's incredible, however I don't know how long he'll be playing for United. I imagine this season has taken a toll on him for personal reasons, but also for the situation United as a club find themselves in. Although, if United were to lose Ronaldo that's 20+ goals gone from their rather small amount of goals, and they likely don't pick up half the points they have done with him in the team.

Seriously, I think having Ronaldo in there right now is the one thing that's preventing the camel from breaking its back. Once they lose him, dare I say it, are they regelation contenders in their current form?

Yeah I don't see it as protecting him. If Ngannou loses that fight his stock doesn't go down. Just as Conor's didn't go down against Mayweather. Despite what fans might say about that fight sometimes, Mcgregor actually looked pretty decent early on. However, we knew he wasn't built for multiple rounds, he barely lasts in UFC let alone Boxing. Tyson Fury is similar in that he's undefeated, and again a incredible athlete given his size.

Yeah, it's easy to forget sometimes his age, since he hasn't been around the UFC or even MMA all that long, like I previously alluded too. The guy has grown up fighting, but didn't start learning MMA on a professional level until a couple of years ago. It's still five plus years, but at the end of the day compare that to who he's fighting against, who have practically been doing it since they were children.

Aye, but it doesn't mean the Guardian is correct in this instance. There's been a ongoing sort of campaign against Bitcoin, where pretty much all the news sources are releasing the same sort of articles about how Bitcoin is detrimental to the environment, and how its resurrecting old coal plants which wouldn't have been around if it wasn't for Bitcoin. Frankly, I'm not buying it. There's far more industries which are contributing a lot more, but are ignored. Plus, Bitcoin isn't any less important than some of these industries, so singling out Bitcoin just seems rather biased in the first place. While, I do admit that Bitcoin definitely is contributing, and there will be ways that we can improve it, I still wouldn't say it's the worse offender

He may have won his fight, but I don't think that win did much for his stock. For example, Garcia has been considered for a long time one of the early prospects which has all the talent in the world, and going into this fight not many expected him to be losing it realistically. Boxing knows they've got a star on their hands, the only problem is there's questions on his committent, to me he seems to be far more involved in becoming a social media star, rather than a boxer. I think that's shown in the last year or so.

So, yeah he did win the fight, ultimately though his performance, and overall committent to the sport recently is up for question. Although, I do think its being unfair the guy is incredibly young, and pretty much has the world in front of him. It's up to him how he wants to spend that time, I don't get mad at fighters who want to do something a little less dangerous, and gruelling to earn their way.