I'll be honest, I find that the "smaller" cards in terms of well known fighters are usually some of the more entertaining ones. Often with bigger names, against other big names its a cagey fight due to the person not wanting to make a mistake, as the margins are much smaller against the top fighters. However, with the smaller events we get some exciting matchups, and a few knockouts to kick off the evening. I might not predict many knockouts usually, but I think there could be a few tonight.

Despite that, here's my predictions:

Jared Vanderaa vs Sergey Spivak (to go the distance).
Drako Rodriguez (points)
Chas Skelly vs Jamall Emmers (to go the distance)
Casey O'neill (points)
Nate Landwehr vs Julian Erosa (To NOT go the distance)
John Castaneda (points)
Drakkar Klose (winner)
Danny Chavez vs Jared Gordon (To go the distance)
Rafael alves (to miss weight by 11 lbs..........) (void)
Tom Aspinall (By TKO)
Phil Hawes vs Nassourdine Imavov (Fight to go the distance, and fighters blowing out of their arse)
Curtis Blaydes (TKO)

This is such a tedious, and pointless discussion at this point. We've got through multiple "bubbles", and its yet to burst. The thing is its highly unlikely Bitcoin would "burst" over night. There's far too much demand, and interest in Bitcoin for it to just disappear. At the moment, this is just tabloid nonsense which will endlessly be churned out, and unfortunately will always end up getting people to click on it which just continuously encourages the same headlines.

Honestly, the best thing we can do is ignore this discussion whenever its brought up. Its used as a way to discredit Bitcoin, and even if they are right, there's still potential to earn, and make a living off of Bitcoin in the mean time.

Hey, I didn't say there wasn't any boring fights I think its almost expected to have bad, and good fights. Honestly, a lot of the "bad" fights are sometimes entertaining with the technical side of things. For example, watching fighters know how to distance themselves, and when or not to engage can be entertaining.

Israel usually delivers just because of the nature of the way he fights. Stand up is often fun to watch, but honestly I think if someone can take down Israel it might be either really interesting on how he deals with it, or a complete chink in his armour.

Yeah, and that's what it all boils down. Their business plan is basically buying already established business that generate money. I'm sure they would have liked to invest into Bitcoin, and maybe they did personally, and not as a company. However, its hardly a mistake for the company when they've successfully created companies which generate money on a constant basis.

To be honest, I don't think Bitcoin suits the narrative of Facebook. However, didn't they have their own coin implementation? I don't follow Facebook enough to know how that really turned out?

Depends on the country. However, you probably do have to pay some sort of tax on it. Most countries to my knowledge would require you to submit a self assessment, or country equivalent, and report it as income tax. This all depends if you are in the bracket in the first place, which requires submitting your yearly income. If you bought the coin, then you can deduct the price you paid for it, from the amount you sell it for. This doesn't matter if its in BTC or cash. You'll have to find out how much it was worth in fiat at the time.

If in doubt, you can contact an accountant, and they should be able to offer advice. Some are willing to answer these sort of questions in a consultation so you can still submit the documents yourself if you wanted too.

Are you sure? It really is a hard metric to estimate, because any data that we collect would likely be self submitted, and therefore could be fake data. For example, I must come across at least one person a month claiming they have lost big amounts of Bitcoin, and have simply "forgotten" where it is, or forgot the credentials. Now, these people could in fact be lying, or they could be misremembering, or indeed actually lost the amount of coins they lost. Also, we have to consider what people mean by "lost", and whether they've actually be lost, or simply they got scammed etc.

Now, all of the above would support your argument that we are over estimating the amount of Bitcoin that has truly been "lost". However, there's also the flipside where people inflate, and deflate the amount that they actually lost. So, there could well be people out there that's lost thousands, and are too embarrassed, or some people don't want to paint a target on their back.

I'd probably agree we are overestimating the amount, but I can't explicitly state that because we'll never really have great data to work with. The only really useful data we have is the amount of Bitcoin that is in circulation. That's really the only metric that's going to be reliable.

Maybe, it is considered one of the safest ways, but a paper wallet could even be safer due to the nature of it. However, what I would say is hardware wallets are particularly good for wallets that need to be accessed frequently, and still have good security. Ideally, the perfect setup in my opinion would be something like a paper wallet, or at the very least a wallet hosted on a offline computer which would act as your stockpile of Bitcoin, that you are holding for long periods of time. Then, a hardware wallet for moving coins about on a frequent basis.

The only improvement over this would be the have multiple wallets without it becoming confusing to store your Bitcoin that you wish to stockpile, so that if one is compromised then the others aren't, and therefore you don't lose your entire Bitcoin net worth.

Not sure how the acquisition of Whatsapp could ever be considered a mistake. Facebook not only own the most popular social medias around today, e.g Facebook, and Instagram, but they also own the most popular messaging application around. Remember, Facebook doesn't just make money by visitors they make money by selling data. Now, despite Whatsapp being encrypted on the user end, I almost guarantee that they collect certain data to better serve advertisements to their users. I don't even want to estimate how much Facebook are earning per day because of advertisements.

So, despite the flawed logic that was pointed above about not being able to buy more than is available in the market, its the fact that Whatsapp was a proven product, and wasn't that much of a risk. Bitcoin, is risky. It might be 50k today, but it can easily slide down that margin, just because of its volatile nature. Obviously, we probably have high hopes for Bitcoin, and sit on the more optimistic side of things, but Facebook is a business, and the risks they take are usually going to be calculated risks, instead of outright risks. Whatsapp was always going to make them money,  Bitcoin wasn't guaranteeing anything at the time.

So, although it might have been a good investment for them at the time, it is by no means a mistake.

There's been a constant pattern, and numerous times that people come here, thinking they've missed out because its already hit a certain value. I'll be honest, I had wild dreams of Bitcoin hitting higher than it currently is many years ago, but sometimes you just think you might be kidding yourself. Well, I definitely didn't see it hitting 50k this soon in the timeline. Its in fact many years ahead of my prediction, so quite simply.....I expect it to go higher, and actually might even break my initial prediction all those years ago.

Its quite simply insane how quick its got to the big 50k.

I don't think I've seen many boring fights with Israel. I guess, some people might consider total dominance, or keeping distance, and picking his shots as boring. However, I consider that one of the best things about him. Of course, I love a war, but Izzy's striking is just a joy to watch, and of course his kicks are fantastic too. Honestly, the way to defeat Izzy other than catching him, since he moves around so much would be to take him down. However, many have tried, and many have failed. Hes got one of the best takedown defences, but I do believe that's where Jan could take him surprise.

I think we are all expecting Jan to come in there, and go for a few big shots trying to catch him, but I think working the lead leg of Izzy, and then shooting for a takedown unexpectedly would be a way of going about to defeat him.

Despite this, and the fact I consider Jan to be very tough. I'm somewhat expecting Israel to TKO him. Just because I'm so used to him proving me wrong, whenever I start to worry about him. I honestly thought Costa would pressure him out last time, but you could almost see the hesitation in Costa, just because of those lethal leg kicks from Adesanya.

Yeah, Adesanya has had quite the career. I believe I've only seen him knocked out once in his kickboxing career, but I forget who it was against. MMA is a little different though, because if he gets knocked down, or even taken down Jan could seriously do some damage with his frame. The dude is very top heavy compared to the likes of Adesanya, and that's something Adesanya knows.

I am expecting a masterclass from Israel. I think he'll pick his moments, and basically pick Jan apart. However, I'm a Izzy fan so I'm going to be nervous during this fight just because I know how good Jan is. I actually think Jan has been underestimated for far too long. Commentators seemed quite surprised he won the last title fight, and the bookies seemed too as well, as I netted a nice bit of profit.

I'm really hoping we get to see Israel get to Khabib numbers, without taking a loss, but the dude definitely isn't sitting on his hands, and picking easier fights. This will definitely be a test, although I thought that about Costa last time, and we know how that ended.

I personally don't feel its because of many of the reasons listed above, except for being "new". Even then, I don't think people are concerned about the longevity of the currency, as its been around much longer than most people invest in. Instead, I believe its the lack of documentation, and usability that scares people away. Unfortunately, for Bitcoin to exist in the way it does, it had to step out of the comfort zone of many people, and introduce new concepts. Now, its known that the majority of people aren't particularly fond of change, which Bitcoin does a lot. Traditional currencies have always been pretty much the same, and the principles are taught at school from a young age.

Bitcoin doesn't have this luxury, and currently we are stuck between unnecessary complexity, and jargon. Even when you come to this forum, many experienced users who have great knowledge in the subject aren't particularly good at communicating in laymen terms. Of course, Bitcoin requires someone to be specific in order to be clear, and concise about what you're talking about, but this is not friendly those that are just adopting it. I'm guilty of using jargon, not because I'm trying to sound like a smart arse, but that's how it rolls off the tongue, and is specific to what I need to communicate when asked a question about Bitcoin. However, that's just going to confuse, and scare someone new away. Unfortunately, the documentation which exists online isn't that great in communicating in laymen terms either. This is not only stunting Bitcoin's growth, but its hurting the chance for someone to come back later, and be willing to learn.

The challenge that we have as a community is trying to make it accessible for anyone to adopt Bitcoin in a quick, but secure fashion while also introducing new concepts. For example, a paper wallet is actually quite complex to a new user, because they aren't used to the practice. Unfortunately, the very name "paper wallet" although seemingly self explanatory is something hard to grasp for a new user. A "seed" is also something alien to them. These are just some of the very basic issues that we have to find a solution for to make it easier to adopt. I know, the general consensus is that a willing learner can get through this, and understand. However, if we truly want mass adoption then we should be making Bitcoin as easy to use as possible.

Yeah that Anthony Hernandez fight was absolutely unreal. I think it was 1 round in which he got totally man handled, and then from there on out he dominated. For him to submit what I believe is a black bet is absolutely incredible. I'd be lying if I've watched much of Hernandez, but the guy might have a bright future basing on that fight.

What was the odds for him submitting his opponent, wasn't it incredibly long odds?

I'm expecting him to win, but I feel if he gets caught by Jan at any point, I think its game over. Jan is a big dense guy or carries some weight in his punches. Not that Adensanya doesn't throw big shots, but Jan is a dangerous man in the division. I do think Adesanya's leanness will actually pay dividends, and he'll be able to keep distant, and pick his shots.

Didn't manage to get my predictions up, was still celebrating the Welsh win in rugby. However, the main card was fun to watch, and I was gutted for burns. After that first round I thought my early prediction was going to come in. Usman looked confused, and stunned by how quick Burns came out. Then, as per his corners instructions sat behind his jab, and then basically looked as comfortable as he ever did. Got to be one of the best jabs in UFC.

Hopefully, there's not too much of a divide between Usman, and burns, I'm sure Usman understands why Burns wanted the belt. Next big named event is Adensanya, which the card is looking like a very good card, as long as there's not too many drop outs.

That's his name, Breland. I believe he's considered a well respected trainer, and was totally thrown under the bus by Wilder.

Wilder is a freak puncher. He's got that natural explosive power, and does have some technique to pull it off in the moment. However, hes not a talented boxer. I think I would be inclined to believe Breland in that he's lazy. There's nothing that tells me that Wilder is the type of boxer that spends hours on the gym working on his weaknesses, and instead just focuses on his strengths.

I personally don't think Wilder will be a big name again. The way hes reacted post fight has suggested he's just another name that's going to drift off into history. He took it the completely wrong way, and turned some of his own fans against him due to his petulant excuses. He needed to take it like a man, prepare, and get  back into the ring to prove that he's not so easily put away.

Personally, I feel everyone that's remotely interested in Bitcoin should take a look at the post history of Satoshi on the forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

It has a plethora of content right from the creator, as well as allowing you to see how Satoshi interacted with others on the forum, some key members which some are still around today. Its a lot of content to digest, and as someone new to the forum, and Bitcoin it might go over your head initially. Although, I would still say its worth slowly reading one post a day of theirs. Even if you aren't particularly interested in Satoshi themselves, it contains several discussions about features, and proposed changes which I find particularly interesting considering where we are today.

Its worth looking at who's influenced Bitcoin in the early days, and who remains involved. A lot of accounts aren't recognized accounts today.

It has to be said, Wales played awfully considering their advantage against Ireland, and Scotland has to be favorites going into their match. Wales are a country which is suffering from a hangover of a past great manager which delivered a lot of silverware, and losing key coaches to rival nations, as well as several key players, which were probably considered world class retiring.

The squad, manager, and new tactics haven't really clicked yet, and I know there's a lot of discussion between Welsh fans that Pivac the head coach isn't the man for the job. Scotland on the other hand are on the rise, after upsetting one of the favorites for the title; England, and quite convincingly at that, which the scoreboard didn't show.

Despite this, you cannot ever rule out Wales. Wales are very good at slowing the game down to their pace, and bringing other teams down to their level. For such a small country. Welsh rugby has been my guilty pleasure over the years when it comes to betting, despite how well we've done in the last few years. We are almost always the underdogs in the big matches, and the odds usually reflect this.

I can't bet against my country, but if you are to take into consideration where the teams are currently, then Scotland is probably the best bet. They are on a high from beating England, and finally starting the Six Nations off with a good result, and Wales despite winning will have a lot of doubts about how they went about it.

Deontay Wilder definitely wasn't the best fighter in the division at any point in his career, and not he's looking to hang onto his career. There was a contract setup for a trilogy fight, but it seems that Wilder might have pulled out of that. He came up with excuse after excuse after losing, and the way he threw his coach under the bus didn't sit right with me.

Its true, that hes got dynamite in his hands, but hes not a particularly good boxer. In fact, most of his fights hes actually being outboxed, and sometimes by men who are aging (Ortiz). However, it takes him one punch to turn the lights off, and that's what he continuously did. Although, he didn't particularly fight top fighters. He fought mostly journeymen, and aging once was fighters.

Wilder was exposed in the second fight. The man cannot fight off the back foot, and if you pressure him so much he can't line up for that perfect shot. In fact, you'll see his arms flapping around a lot in that fight, like he doesn't know how to deal with it. Hes used to getting outboxed, his opponent tiring, and then hoping that there's a gap for that perfect knockout.

Fury is the best, and has been for a long time in my book. He doesn't always look good though, but it really depends on who you put in front of him. I've seen him unmotivated to fight, and actually take a bit of a battering, and then I've seen the flipside where hes against a big name, and largely takes them apart. Even in the first fight against Wilder, I had him winning convincingly. He lost the round where he was knocked out of course, but what was brilliant was he got back up, and dominated the rest of the round from a nasty looking knockdown. Wilder was shook from there onwards.

Ben has been putting out some questionable sparring footage, but it seems to me that this might be an attempt to convince people hes worse than he actually is. If you look at his MMA footage, then you'll clearly see that hes not a recognized striker, however he's definitely throwing better than his recent footage shows.

Yeah, Logan Paul I believe was on record stating that there's behind the scenes "business" that needs addressing. So, I'm not actually sure what this could mean. I think there's been speculation that they are waiting for the result of Jake Paul vs Ben, and Mayweather might fancy Jake instead if he is to perform well as it would likely bring in more money.

I don't mind the white collar boxing, as its pretty good for the sport in general. However, I don't like how frequent it seems to be getting. There's also the worlds strongest men boxing event going on later in the year, which I'm particularly excited about, but it'll likely be a snooze fest, watching two big men tire quickly.

Bellator is kind of memed about where all the UFC rejects go to retire, but they can have some fun events from time to time. I'll be honest I don't particularly tune in all that often, as its usually quite the skill gap in fights, or the two fighters aren't of particularly good quality.

I'll be aiming to get my predictions up tomorrow for the Usman card. I feel a tad more confident looking at t his card being a little more familiar with the fighters. Controversially, I might see a Usman upset on the cards, what are peoples thoughts on this?