Logan doesn't have a whole lot of anything when it comes to boxing, he's just riding this wave that the Paul brothers have managed to whip up. I kind of have respect for them to be able to make something from nothing mind, and maybe a younger fighter like Logan could beat Mike in his older age, in fact it's pretty likely I would say, but Logan doesn't throw all that much, and I don't see him knocking out anyone anytime soon.

We're talking about one of the most legendary boxers to step in the ring, against someone who has only recently stepped in the ring, and lost all of his fights. Though, I'll be honest he did better than expected against Mayweather, though we have to remember he has previously lost against another Youtuber who doesn't even box anymore.

I suspect most people will be putting their money on Sean Brady, but I'm really feeling a Chiesa win. Plus, I've started to gain my mojo back when it comes to fight predictions, I went through a particularly bad stage for a couple of months recently, so hopefully I'm right, and that continues.

Every Dagestan fighter gets compared to Khabib I feel. They fight completely different. It's quite crazy that during the time where Khabib was active, a lot of people didn't really think he was that good, and boring. Then, as soon as he retires they look for someone who's the next him.

I've got Lookboonme, Kanf, and Chiesa. I'm fancying more of the underdogs this event, and while I'm avoiding betting on most of them, I expect that to be the case.

The sport is getting bigger, and bigger every year. I'm sure this would be easy to look up, but I believe there's over five hundred fighters on the roster now. The rate that the UFC as an organisation is growing is nice to see. Even if you're not a fan of Dana, it's nice to see a sport which has always struggled with growth seeming to break away from the negative stigma surrounding the sport. By negative stigma I mean brute's just smashing each others faces, I'll be honest originally I avoided watching it because I believed the stereotypes in it being a little over the top, and that's probably the case for a while.

I watched the first UFC event the other day, and it was incredible how there wasn't any rules, and there was multiple fight ending sequences that would be illegal these days.

I actually think a video a week is a little optimistic. I think I'd rather see monthly content, at least to start. I think this is how most people start out on Youtube, and other video production websites. Bring out the best quality possible, don't go in making schedules that will be hard to keep too, and keep it consistent.

I've got this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207305.0

However,  I think it would probably be better suited putting it up for giveaway on a the 15th/20th anniversary (which I absolutely love, and aren't in a hurry to get rid of). Since the Youtube audience wouldn't be that interested I suppose.

If it's a problem, it's not going to be a problem just for Bitcoin. If it's effecting services on a mass scale, then it's likely that a clean up operating is organised. Technically, I believe nothing would be a safe haven, since I believe the Russians are developing this not only to potentially attack, and defend satellites, but also to avoid the existing missile defenses of other countries, and be able to hit them from above undetected.

So, technically our very livelihood could be threatened. Though, as most things it's likely going to be counteracted by similar technology from others, and they'll be a stand still.

A lot of threats that exist for Bitcoin, aren't only a threat to Bitcoin. That's actually one of our strengths, since we don't have a centralised figure to try, and protect Bitcoin when things go south, unlike banks for example. However, we don't need it because much of what Bitcoin is about, how it functions, and who uses it, if Bitcoin becomes effected by something that could potentially hinder it, other services would be effected too. This also goes for the quantum computer argument.

I doubt that the admins would have enough time in the day to monitor all the the personal messages being sent on the forum, and would be a waste of time in the majority of cases. Unless, they particularly like drama, but then they could just go watch the soaps.

If you're concerned about them reading your messages, then encrypt your messages.
Very likely.

Although, I get your point. I've always seen this as admins may look at personal messages when required, after all every forum or website I can think of has access to the information, unless there's some sort of forum that automatically encrypts it, but I don't think that exists.

Anyway, they likely only actually monitor it when it's reported as the quote from Hilariousandco indicates, and probably special legal cases. For example, theymos responding to a police data request.

What I'm really interested in seeing is what sort of players that will play for Newcastle, considering who they are owned by. I'm not going to dig into the political stuff here too much, but I imagine not every top player will want to go there. For example, and this is just an example since I could never imagine his even being entertained, but take Salah at Liverpool for example. Currently, there's a few issues surrounding his contract, would Newcastle be a team that you could realistically see Salah playing for, due to the political issues, I don't think I ever could even if they did become a top team.

Plus, I think plenty of other players won't want too either. I guess it depends on their personal morals, as well as how much they value money. Obviously, like you say Manchester City took many years to build up, though they did build up pretty quickly.

AI in this case wouldn't be all that impressive. AI technology is still pretty limited, and all it would do was look at the database as you say; even if it's the full database, and it would give you a percentage based prediction. I believe Sky Sports already do this while the game is on, they give you the percentage of a certain outcome, which is very likely to be AI rather than experts as they say. Anyway, back to the point it would only give you a percentage, and therefore you could do exactly what it would give you now. Basically, bet on the favourites since they statistically win more games.

I'd like to favour Tommy I really would, but he has looked subpar one a number of his fights, and as I mentioned before the hype around him is because of his name, rather than what hes done in the ring. Though, Tommy's previous performances while they may have been disappointing, they were still against professional boxers, and Paul hasn't proven himself publicly against another boxer yet. MMA, and boxing is completely different, yeah boxing is somewhat incorporated in MMA, but nine out of 10 fights some sort of grappling is used, so I'm still questioning how well Jake would do against a real professional boxer.

I don't want to see the Conor fight, that would be just a circus. A Youtuber who loves trolling, and a Conor who has completely deviated from his quick wits, and turned more hostile. I don't think I'd even find the pre fight drama entertaining. Although, with the fans turning on Conor recently, mainly his own doing I must say, knocking out Jake Paul might be a redeeming factor for him.

No big names, but we've been spoiled the last few weeks with big names, and good cards. This might be an entertaining card regardless of the lack of big name fighters. Though, we've got some banger cards coming up in the next few weeks, so I can definitely accept having a subpar night before then.

I expect Burns to give Chimaev a harder time than his previous fights, he'll definitely get hit at least once lets say . He isn't going to be able to bully Burns as much. Could be a potential hiccup in the road for Chimaev, which could lower his stock. I see Dana looking for an alternative fight for both.

More slots for quality users is a good thing. Don't let them being in a signature campaign stop you from reporting them if they're breaking the rules. Unfortunately, the most problematic ones are run by campaign managers that couldn't care less, since they're usually paying in some worthless token of theirs, so they just replace the bad quality posters, with the well...the same.  

Absolutely. Some users change for the better, some adapt trying to avoid punishment by trying to disguise it, or some just couldn't care less about getting their posts deleted. However, there are definitely a select few who improve their post quality, and become decent users of the forum. They're just drowned out by the mass amounts that don't.

I'll always have respect for someone who can change their ways, after all mistakes aren't bad when you correct them.

Any good site will provide you with all the information you need to guide you along the process of verifying their claims. After all, a fair website is one that provides their services to all, despite their lack of technical ability. To be honest, I don't usually play against the house, and prefer sports betting, so I can't really verify whether the top casinos have this sort of guide in place. Although, it should be.

If that's the case the site should have a provably fair way of verifying that they change the seed each time despite it being on a auto bet.

It's mostly about money for most people. I mean if I offered you 1 million to step in the ring with Logan Paul would you? Of course you would, there's a very minimal chance of getting hurt from a Mike Tyson perspective, a butt load more money than 1 million pounds to be paid, and he gets to do something he enjoys. Exhibition fights are literally the icing on the cake for professional boxers once they've passed a certain age. I don't blame them on milking it.  

Probably wouldn't ruin it at all, especially not for a exhibition. Sports fans are fickle, and we only care about entertainment these days, gone are the days where it was about pride, and honour. Most boxers these days want some cash, and fame. I'm not suggesting that's entirely a bad thing though, just different to how it used to be. Anyway, if it wasn't for these things fighting sports wouldn't be such a big event that they are today.

Report the user using the "report to moderator" button found on the bottom right of each post, give a nice little detailed comment, and include your references. That way you'll get your answer, and we could potentially remove some unwanted posts on the forum. Don't worry about getting a bad report, it's insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, it's annoying to see to be honest. Also, I know Islam Magomedov is his friend, but he continues to try, and belittle other fighters while trying to hype up his guy. Islam is good, however I'm not entirely convinced he's the real deal once he comes across the top guys in the division. Only time will tell, but I'm not a fan of the attitude from Khabib. I grew to love him because he was the quiet one, and strcikly business. He's getting closer, and closer to Mcgregor everyday. I know that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I liked his whole persona of doing his talking inside the cage.  

I'll be honest I haven't managed to watch a kickboxing event for quite some time now so couldn't possibly comment on it. Though, I can't remember it being that bad, and didn't think it was worse than boxing.

The heavyweight division is only entertaining because of 5-6 fighters. Some of them aren't even that great, they just love to swang, and bang which makes entertaining fights. Think Chisora, and Whyte. Other than that, Ruiz recently due to his upset, and humble attitude, and then it's the three headed dragon as Fury put it; Joshua, Fury, Wilder. Outside of that, it's rather poor. I mean Uysk is a relatively new addition to the mix, but I don't see him standing up to Wilder or Fury.

As much as the fans are against Dana, I think he might be one of the better ones. At least, with the UFC it's highly competitive, and we get better odds because of that. Plus, big fights actually happen.

I'm trying to pretend this isn't happening to be honest.

I'm really doubtful about Tommy doing anything here. He looked awful in his last fight, and I think Tommy probably has a lot of his hype because he's related to Tyson, and he looked like a greek god. Other than that, I've not seen a whole lot of special things  from him. I was more confident with Tyron Woodley winning, than I'm with Tommy put it that way.

I'm not sure if Jake will be able to knock Tommy out, but I think he'll out point him. I can't believe I'm actually considering putting money down on Jake Paul to win a professional boxing fight against another professional boxer. Seriously, I can't remember Tyron having such good odds despite being a UFC champion at some point, why on earth has Tommy been given the clear favourite?

I've been saying this for a while now; climate change is the buzz word, which is being used to pile onto Bitcoin, and make it public enemy number one despite there being far bigger contributors that the government, and companies approve of when it works in their favour.

I'd like to compare the electricity costs for running fiat currencies which nowadays rely mostly on computers, since I would estimate that it uses a significant amount that isn't considered green energy.

This also begs the question is climate change really in our control or is it natural variance. After all, throughout the years we've gone through hot periods, and significant cold periods not comparable to modern times. Therefore, our data we're relying on could in fact be natural variance since the world is billions of years old.

In fact, I suspect not only Bitcoin, but the whole human output has insignificant effects when considering the whole picture. Though, I guess that could be debatable, but I know for absolute sure that there are other technologies out there, and process which are contributing more significantly than Bitcoin, and at the same time being less valuable to the people. For example, fiat currencies.

Not sure, they've already bought the club so can't go back on it. Plus, I don't think this investment is particularly for immediate success. I suspect that the Saudi investors bought the club, as a PR move rather than looking to make money on the business. Getting relegated, and then getting promoted again would only solidify the support of the fans after they've seen significant investment despite going down.

I still think Burnley are too stubborn to go down. They've always had the ability to wear down teams better than them, and get either three points or one. I mean, didn't they draw with Chelsea the other day after being dominated for a large part of the match?

I wouldn't say "absolutely" safe as you put it. The attack vector is significantly smaller than a hot wallet, but from experience nothing is ever 100% or absolute secure. There's bugs that can be exploited, and various other physical attacks that could happen, especially since if you carry a hardware wallet around with you, then that could potentially be less secure through threat of physical harm. Anyone, not to jump down that rabbit hole, I'd probably rephrase, and say hardware wallets are usually enough for most users on a security stand point.

For example, nuclear power plants that don't have internet access have been locally compromised, which was quite well documented in the news a few years ago. My point being is, because an attack vector isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it's completely safe. I don't actually consider anything safe, besides Bitcoin has had exploits which have been abused in the past, they were rectified, but the very currency we rely on today to store significant amounts of our wealth has been abused previously, and will likely run into problems in the future. Also, banks, hospitals, and military bases have been compromised, and you'd assume that they have the top individuals at the helm making all the security decisions.

Nearly everything with a electronic components can be hacked, remember that hacking isn't always digitally, but can be physical hacks too. No software is ever coded to perfection, though is it reasonably safe? Yeah. Though, a cold wallet will likely always trump it.

The good news is; hardware wallets aren't exactly new technology we've always have the ability to do something like this, but lacked a need. In fact, banks implemented this years ago, where you would enter your pin, and a signature would be created, and the computer just reads that signature, though they have been recalled in the past for security concerns.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning your primary method of storage is only as good as your backup, since physical devices can stop working, be damaged etc.

Bit early, but I would say Newcastle, Norwich, and Watford will be going down this season. Burnley are stubborn bastards, and I expect them to stay up by the skin of their teeth once again. Newcastle probably will take out their wallet, but I think there aren't going to be a lot of good enough players willing to move in January, and make an immediate impact. They'll likely be a different team next season, and they may well survive this year. However, investment doesn't bring instant success, and they've looked pretty awful this season.

Villa, Brentford, and Leeds are on the safer side of things I'd say. Still definitely possible, but Brentford have made a good start to the season, and have actually taken points of the bigger teams which will help them.

This completely depends on the software you're going to be using, and the method of storage.

Bitcoin core online - decent
Bitcoin core offline - Hard pressed to find anything better

Electrum online - decent
Electrum offline - Again, pretty hard to find anything better

I've just said this in another thread, but usually hardware wallets are going to be the more appealing to new users, because they offer the ability to continue to use your wallet online, while also assuring certain attack vectors are blocked. Though, unless you specifically ask about a certain wallet, it'll be very difficult to give you specific advice since you could probably write a book about security revolving around storing Bitcoin.