Video production has a lot of pitfalls, and what you might think would take a week, might actually take four weeks. The times which I've actually wanted to capture something, and then edit it together has taken me a lot longer than anticipated, I know I'm not particularly skilled in that department, and the team they've got working on this should be, however I can understand running into snags, especially if Cyrus is overseeing this, and the team is capturing it, since it might not be to Cyrus' tastes the first few times they watch the footage back.

This is especially true when you haven't worked with someone before, usually despite having communicated what you want, there's a variance in the ideas, and therefore the actual video filmed. This however should get better with time. I'm speculating there, however in life I've come to the conclusion that proposed deadlines are rarely ever met, and if something can go wrong it likely will.

It wouldn't be possible to accurately calculate whether x amount of weight makes a difference, because it would completely depend on the circumstances, and the fighter themselves. Some people will perform better without additional weight, and others will prefer to be carrying a bit of timber. Joshua, it probably suits to be somewhat heavy, because he's a big puncher, and not particularly that great at the technical sides of boxing, which usually require a little more finesse.

However, if you want to compare weights just look at Usyk coming into the fight with Joshua, we was 15-20 pounds lighter than Joshua if my memory serves me correctly. I know there definitely was a big difference, since it was a major talking point before the fight, that Usyk would struggle with the power of Joshua because he's used to fighting at a lighter weight, and is significantly lighter than Joshua. Obviously, we know that if it did make a difference, it didn't change the outcome for Usyk. Maybe, if Usyk weighed more he would have got the knockout, but in the grand scheme of things it likely wouldn't have made that much of a difference in this fight, unless he would have struggled with the additional weight, and then Joshua could have performed better because of the reduced speed.

It's all speculative though, which is somewhat pointless.

I would say the UFC have purposely not put many big names on the card this weekend due to the Fury card, but that can't be the case since they had a banger of an event when Joshua was fighting who arguably has the bigger pull of casual fans of boxing.

I can't remember seeing the post match interview, so must have went for a toilet break or something. I'll have to look it up. I know he was clearly disappointed with the result, he looked good on the night leading up to it, but it was absolutely the right decision from the ref.  I know that Holland was saying just before the result to Daukaus that they should make the rematch soon, I believe he said even next week. Obviously, that hasn't happened, and wouldn't happen due to concussion rules, however I expect we'll see it somewhat soon.

I'm going to be very nervous prior to the fight, but at the moment I couldn't be more confident that Fury will do what he did the second time around. I've always thought that Wilder has a god complex, and I just don't trust him to look at himself, and actually be critical about his ability, and therefore make the necessary changes.

If Wilder comes in with the same game plan, Fury will just pressure him like the last time it was pretty clear to everyone that night, Wilder doesn't like pressure, and he definitely can't fight off the back foot. He needs his opponents to be in front of him, so he can line up that power shot, if they are constantly attacking it really does expose his limitations as a boxer.

It's a shame about the Kevin Holland VS Kyle Daukaus match up, I had a bet riding on a Daukaus decision, and I had him up until that nasty head clash. I'm glad it was made a no contest though, because it did significantly change the fight, and I'm somewhat glad that it led to a finish so that they wouldn't carry on the fight the same night, since you never know how concussions can influence the fight. I expect them to be fighting in a few weeks if Holland is cleared without any issues.

I'll be honest this weekend's fights I'm not looking forward to probably one of the only cards in recent times I'm thinking about missing. Though, I'll be honest those are the ones which usually turn out to be bangers. Thinking the Fury fight will take precedence though, I haven't checked the time that it's suppose to be happening yet, but I believe it's in America so I'm assuming it'll be a late one for me.

The great thing about using a currency which isn't mainstream is no one will assume that you are holding any, if you don't tell someone that you use Bitcoin, and there is no evidence on you at the time of robbery that would hint to you holding Bitcoin, they probably aren't going to try, and get that information out of you. Therefore, as long as you don't tell anyone, you could argue that holding value in Bitcoin has its own defense mechanism, simply because most robberies are looking for items that you have on you that are of value, and fiat.

Therefore, you could just give up the cash that you have on you, which should be minimal because you shouldn't be carrying all that much, and then you hopefully would be holding most of your money in Bitcoin rather than fiat.

Almost certainly not a disaster as they put it, though I would say it's far from ideal for those that use Bitcoin as a currency rather than an investment. Although, those do seem to be rather thin. Most users here, and most people I know invested in Bitcoin are doing it to eventually cash out back into fiat.

Ideally, it would be nice to see the volatility be below 1% over a extended period of time, at least from a user point of view. The investors probably wouldn't be happy with that, and undoubtedly would start posting about Bitcoin being dead.

It's the fees, and the volatility which is the stumbling block for being able to use Bitcoin for every day items, and needs I would say. Though, progression is definitely being made towards bettering the fees, and  think it's a common thought process that the volatility will get better in time.

I'd go with a decision win for Machachev, I just don't see Hooker dealing with the grappling, and isn't likely to get the knockout which I think his is only chance of winning that fight. As for the Thiago Santos vs Johnny Walker fight, I'll always put a cheeky bet on Thiago knockout out his opponent. Especially, when he has more rounds to do it. I think the Kevin Holland vs Kyle Daukaus fight is an interesting one, it'll be interesting to see how Kevin performs against a big puncher, but it'll also be interesting to see if Kyle Daukaus tries to take it to the mat considering Holland's weakness down there.

On paper this weekend's event is one of the better one's though I always find the relatively unknown fighters on cards are always the most exciting, and the most anticipated ones are somewhat uneventful in comparison.

Nah, I don't think so. The Ruiz fight Joshua was winning the fight prior to being caught when they were exchanging back, and forth. In fact, I believe he had already knocked down Ruiz a few times prior to being knocked down himself. However, this fight was completely different, he was never winning in this fight, and it didn't even look close. Unfortunately, the score cards by the judges make it closer than it actually was, and probably because of the British bias, but I had Joshua winning maybe 4 rounds maximum, but probably more like 3 rounds at a push.

He was outworked, out skilled, and looked like he got wobbled quite a few times, and not just the once in the last few seconds of the last round. He would need to significantly improve, and probably revert back to his old ways, and go for the knockout quickly. Otherwise, Usyk will do more of the same in the rematch.

Common sense sure, we could probably do with more of that in the world. However, misinformation isn't something that is easy to spot when you are new to something. Bitcoin is also incredibly complex, and some of the misinformation out there isn't actually intentional. You only have to go over the Development, and Technical Discussion section, and you'll see users getting it wrong unintentionally all the time, that isn't a problem though, it's when someone thinks they know something, and decides to make a guide or educational post about it, which we've definitely seen in the past.

Yeah, it's also in the design of Bitcoin. I was trying to touch upon that above, however Bitcoin is actually designed to have some level of volatility, and the older Bitcoin becomes, and the closer we come to mining the total supply, then the volatility should probably be much lower than current levels. However, that doesn't change the fact that currently the volatility is what's stopping Bitcoin from being used as a everyday currency.

The volatility is directly tied into why Bitcoin is being used as a investment, and a stepping stone if you will to a speculative investor. Most investors currently don't want to use it as a currency, and probably don't even see it as a proper legitimate currency, and instead have the long term goals of withdrawing back into fiat once they've made their money.

Besides waiting for confirmations to assure that the casino's don't get burned by double spends, could actually be argued to be a good thing, because it somewhat protects against users falling prey to their gambling addictions due to grace period created by waiting for those confirmations, since most gamblers will act upon impulse, and end up spending more due to being in the heat of the moment.

At the moment, double spend attacks are somewhat rare due to the fact that most companies or people accepting Bitcoin regularly wait for the confirmations, however if this wasn't the case, and more people were willing to accept Bitcoin without waiting for confirmations, double spend attacks would become more frequent. I don't see a near future where users won't wait for confirmations.

I did post something about this when the news broke I believe. I think in a flat out kickboxing match up, then he probably does have a decent chance. Although, he's entering the MMA world, and I feel like he's just going to get bullied in the grappling, and wrestling department. I doubt he will ever reach the position that he could face off against Adesanya. Though, who really knows I haven't seen his skills past the kickboxing, he might be like Adesanya where his take down defense is good. IF that's the case then we could have a potential grudge fight on our hands, which I'm all for. I'd love some competition in the division for Adesanya, things are very close to becoming stale.

Personally, if I was Adesanya, and I did have to fight him. I wouldn't be kickboxing him, I'd be taking him down, and trying to get some GnP. There's just too much risk, and with him getting knocked out by him before, and the only one there might be some self doubt in there. So, I would absolutely concentrate on welcoming him to the MMA world by mixing it up a little.

I don't think this forum or any other forum is the problem, yeah there's misinformation here, but when it's posted on a forum like format it's more likely to be called out by other users, and debunked. I think it's the news sources that the general population sort of trusts even by just reading the title that's the problem. I have no solutions to the problem, since the only way you would be able to do it is via censorship, and that definitely isn't an answer, potentially governments could be persuaded to bring in legislation, after all they should really be against misinformation, even if it's for a currency that they might not want to support.

That's the problem that's trying to be highlighted here. People can do all of the research that they want before investing, but the issue is that there's a plethora of misinformation out there, and for someone who's new to investing in cryptocurrencies they likely don't know the reputable sources, and they can't exactly validate any new information they've read. This is the problem, while there are quite a few resources out there which try to minimize this, it's hard because new users are likely to be more encouraged to click the click bait titles, that the misinformation usually deploys as a technique of spreading the misinformation.

As far as I know, it's generally easier for top level athletes to get a visa. He has all the support behind him if it's for a fight, and can afford to off load the legal process to his team, and concentrate on training. I expect Adesanya to be fighting early 2022. Hopefully, that'll be against Whittaker, as I think at the moment that's the only fight which makes sense, and personally within that division I think Whittaker is the only one capable of beating him. Though, I'm a fan of Adesanya so I'll be routing for him.

It's obvious why the UFC are still interested in him, he's one of the best combat sports athletes in it's history, and while he does have controversies they actually somewhat benefit the UFC. I know it's a terrible thing to talk about, and I'm absolutely not condoning anything he has or will do, but from a UFC perspective they just see the money, more people will tune in because of the idea of watching him get knocked out. Think about boxing, and how Mayweather is perceived by fans, you've probably got the minority actually liking him as a person, and boxer, but really the reason he brings in such a crowd is because people want to see him get knocked out or lose a fight.

It's sickening that the richer, and more famous you are generally the more that you can get away with. I haven't verified the above claims, but if it's true that his partner made the statement that the blood was from dry lips (or whatever reason was given), then there should be some sort of duty of care to actually validate that as truth, rather than just believing it.

Nah, I don't think he underestimated Usyk. I think he was just bettered on the night. Now, I've heard that Joshua has activated the rematch clause, which is probably predictable. However, he has to be a lot better than he was the other night if he's to win against Usyk. Personally, I don't see it happening, and I expect a similar fight the second time around. It's a shame, and I do hope that Joshua vs Fury actually happens regardless, however it has definitely put a dampener on the fight because of it potentially never being a unification fight.  

I'm not entirely writing off Wilder, we have to remember in their first fight despite Fury dominating it, he did get caught with a sweet combination late on, which resulted him on the canvas. I don't know if he was lucky or he's just got one hell of a chin, but he clearly took Wilders best shots, that's the best combination, and what looked like the sweetest he's ever connected with his power punches, and Fury got up. Now, on another day Fury might have been knocked on conscious, because those were some hefty shots.

Although, I guess the major point about the second fight was Fury highlighted, and pretty much exposed Wilder, and his inability to fight off the back foot. He's always waiting for the perfect punch, and Fury just took things into his own hands. What's riding on this fight is if Wilder can make the necessary adjustments to prevent that, for example better utilizing a jab off the back foot. Though, basing it on Wilder's technical ability in all the years he's been training, I don't expect him to make any significant adjustments.

From Bitcoin's very inception there's been gross misinformation even from supposedly reputable news sources. I have caught, and observed the BBC promoting misinformation or even scare mongering from using Bitcoin, based on loosely based accusations, without any substance. I found that instead of taking the responsibility themselves they were quoting other articles from tabloid's in the British Media, without actually verifying their claims. Instead, they were using words such as supposedly, or claimed probably to cover their arse if someone actually challenged their points. Though, by simply sharing or reiterating the point of their media, they were convincing their readers to stay away from Bitcoin, as they should know that the general public consumption is based on the title, and potentially a few sentences in the first paragraph of the article, and even when their readers do read the entire article they usually aren't actively approaching it with a conscious mind, and won't identify the type of language they are using, like the ones I outlined above; claimed, and supposedly.

Point being; Bitcoin has always struggled with misinformation, and I find this is the biggest roadblock when I have discussions about Bitcoin with others; they always seem to bring up past articles that the BBC, and various other news sources had written up, usually trying to paint Bitcoin in a negative light, and when that's already embedded in their minds, it's hard to convince them otherwise.

Potentially, I would argue that more, and more people every day are becoming aware of how the news, and other sources of information are pushing some sort of agenda. Plus, we have a plethora of archive websites, and fact checking websites. I'd like to think, and I do believe it's the case that people are becoming wise to it.

They probably do exist to some extent, although the rich prime scam is a pretty commonly talked about scam, and probably isn't even that effective when it's involving fiat currencies these days. Though, there are definitely more sophisticated scams circulating about both in cryptocurrencies, and fiat. Bitcoin years ago tended to appeal to a certain crowd, and while it's stereotyping to a degree, I believe it was somewhat true that in the early days Bitcoin appealed to those that were interested in computers, and cryptography, and therefore they were at least a little more resistant to the more obvious scams. However, as Bitcoin becomes more of a mainstream interest, then the potential for scamming increases.

I'd argue if the volatility continued in the long run, then yeah it would be a problem, at least if you are looking to use Bitcoin as a currency, or even using it as a reserve. However, the vast majority of new investors are likely in it for the short term, and wanted to cash out into fiat eventually which then volatility could actually be seen as something amazing. 

Stocks, and other investments which are subject to volatility aren't trying to be a currency. If Bitcoin is to operate like a traditional currency, i.e a currency which people use for daily items, transactions, and not just investment then absolutely stability is key to that. So, I would argue that ideally we would like Bitcoin to be different to stocks. Although, the volatility is to be expected, and is to be expected for a little bit longer. Generally, as we get closer to the 21 million Bitcoin out in circulation, volatility should at least drop a little. After all; Bitcoin was sort of designed this way, it's not like volatility is a unexpected side effect, it's actually part of the plan of Bitcoin.

Besides, volatility actually increases adoption in the short term, and those that invest in for the short term, will become familiar with the currency, and potentially adopt it in the long term. Volatility seems to always catch a negative stigma, and while it isn't ideal for a currency, as an investment opportunity it's literally a traders wet dream. I would go out on a limb here, and say that there's no other market which repeatedly gives you the potential to double or triple your investment.