This is a good place to start. But I guess you will have to open another thread for this. It seems everybody here is only responding to your original post.

I think it's all right to ask the users of top or popular casinos what particular challenges, problems, or complaints they have with them. Or perhaps what particular improvements they wish to see in their favorite casinos.

But, to be honest, it's probably just about how much money you have. It's largely just a battle of promotion and marketing. When your casino has free and instant withdrawal, provides 24/7 instant support for players, doesn't ask for KYC, provable, has high withdrawal and deposit limits, offers generous bonuses and freebies, low house edge, has a wide array of exciting games, and so on and so forth, it's good to go. The only problem is how to reach potential gamblers. You need money for it.

This match was already floated much earlier. The date was supposed to be August 1, 2023, but there were disagreements. This might still push through on a later date nonetheless.

Anyway, I voted for Haney's victory by way of decision. He should win this. As a matter of fact, he should even knock out Prograis. Prograis is 10 years Haney's senior. Haney is at the peak of his career right now. Despite Prograis' high knockout ratio, Haney's fighting style and athleticism could very easily defend that. And with a significant reach advantage, Haney could easily keep Prograis at bay with a jab or two.

Despite Prograis' less than sterling boxing resume though, I'd still want him to win.

This is the only way for these people to be accurate. Nothing else. The signals of these so-called analysts have to be equivocal. Otherwise, they can't be right. They don't choose between a yes or a no, a black or a white, a true or a false. Somehow, they always choose the two. They are always ready with a disclaimer.

Roughly, they're like saying, "the price is about to go up, but beware because it could also go down." In Bitcoin's price history, you can always find both bullish and bearish patterns which you can use simultaneously in your prediction.

The business that immediately comes to mind is buy and sell. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to wait for tomorrow to make some profit. You can do the buying in the morning and do the selling in the afternoon. That's probably the fastest profit for you. There are many such kind of businessmen here in my locality. They are the middlemen.

Although they're the kind of businessmen that I really hate, I know that they're making good money for much lesser effort. They're just earning from their money. You can do this with fruits, vegetables, and other agricultural products. You can do this will all kinds of raw materials as well.

Uh-uh!

But, well, let's believe what we want to believe. Musk and Saylor are not completely the same, of course. Are they completely different, though? I don't think so. These huge capitalists are basically of the same feather. They have a penchant to sweet-talk people. They exaggerate things a bit for their own interest. Musk is much more a troll and tactless, though.

However, when Saylor mentioned, for example, that it would hodl its Bitcoin for 100 years, do you believe him? When he encouraged people, for example, to mortgage their houses and buy Bitcoin, do you believe him? Do you really believe that Saylor is willing to have his billions sleep with Bitcoin for several decades and do nothing about them? Do you completely trust this man?

Even among us here, how many of us so-called hodlers are truly willing to hodl our Bitcoin even after it hit $100,000?

I don't know if it's fair to say that "Elon is very harmful for Bitcoin as always." After all, he is the same Elon who also contributed to Bitcoin's rise when his company purchased more than a billion dollar in Bitcoin in 2021. He also significantly contributed to it when he announced that his company would be accepting Bitcoin payments.

The statement sounds bitter, especially because we all knew this would eventually happen. This is the reality. That's why it is actually bad for Bitcoin's price when considerable amounts are focused in the hands of a few individuals or institutions only.

Today, we're all praises to MicroStrategy, for example. What will happen when the day comes when the company finally liquidates its Bitcoin holdings? Should we also be bitter to it, to Michael Saylor? Should we blame them for taking profit? Everybody does this.

I guess we should start realizing that whatever is bought could be sold at some point. We shouldn't be fooled that these investors won't sell. What's the point of investing, after all?

Oh yeah, of course. But this impacts the price indirectly more than directly. If the regulations are mostly inimical to Bitcoin's fundamental principles, adoption, growth, and potentials, then we'd expect the investors, business establishments, users, and other supporters to think twice. Many of them might not push through with their plans to invest or buy Bitcoin or accept it as payment. But when the regulations are in support of Bitcoin, then we can expect the adoption rate of Bitcoin to increase. Supporters would feel safe.

Positive regulations boost the people's trust or perception of Bitcoin. They somehow acknowledge Bitcoin's legitimacy. They somehow assure supporters of a smooth experience. The sentiment would be bullish. That would mean money would flow in. When the regulations are negative, supporters will definitely be discouraged.

But then again, with Bitcoin being decentralized, all these regulations can't actually do anything to it. The regulated Bitcoin industry would highly be affected, though.

Yeah, I agree. Installing an app for Bitcoin and other related news is rather superfluous.

Better yet, use this forum instead. At least, here, you'd also be able to read an informative discussion about the news. One problem with many crypto news sites or crypto news publications or magazines is that comments are not allowed. As a result, wrong information and other errors can't be raised or pointed out to the author. And since many crypto news articles are not well-researched and are usually merely done to continuously create new contents, they're prone to error.

I remember I was amazed at information I gathered through a news article only to found out here that they were wrong. But that article must have already been rewritten a number of times in other news sites, thereby spreading the wrong information everywhere. This was about the imperfections of the Bitcoin logo.

Losing usually makes your gambling experience boring. This is my personal experience. That's whether you have fun playing or not. Even if you enjoy playing, the moment your losing streak grows, you'd get bored and leave.

I know of some gamblers who continue gambling even if it's not fun anymore because of their losing streaks. I'm not like this. Although there remains the urge to continue betting, I normally would just want to stop.

I sometimes bet on cockfighting with my friends. There will be times when after a winning streak a losing streak happens. I usually would just like to leave when this happens. But when my friends would like to continue, I'm compelled to stay with them. And then we'd continue to lose. We won't be talking to each other anymore. We'd stop laughing and enjoying. Sometimes the laughter would resume when there's a win streak. Sometimes we'd just go home silently, drained of our wins.

I'm afraid fiat/crypto P2P trades done online might not be able to completely do away with escrow. Where trust is required, escrow in whatever form is necessary. We simply can't trust anybody. Although this isn't the third party that we really hate considering that the escrow doesn't actually approve, reject, screen, reverse, or whatever the transactions, it's still a third-party intervention.

And then there's the ironic fact that the fiat side of fiat/crypto P2P trades oftentimes involve banks and other traditional financial institutions which can actually freeze withdrawals, suspend accounts, lock or even confiscate funds. Not only is there an intervention in the escrow system, there is also the powerful involvement of third-party decision makers. How many are actually using the Bisq software and chooses bank transfer or Western Union or MoneyGram as fiat payment methods?

So, for me, I prefer a real-life person to person exchange, in cold cash. There remains a security issue nonetheless, but escrow is unnecessary this way. How I also wish there are OTC centers where the spread is reasonable and KYC is completely non-existent. You just go there with hard cash and you can have Bitcoin sent directly to your wallet, or your Bitcoin for some cash.

Some on your list may be true, some may be not. But have you also made a list of fiat negatives? Bitcoin is an alternative. You might want to take a closer look at the main option in order to have a fairer and more balanced view. Only then could you pass the final verdict and set aside Bitcoin. You might actually end up with a much longer list. There's a reason why fiat badly needs to have an alternative.

Also, Newton's third law of motion is true not just in physics but in other aspects of our existence as well. Every time we eat, we contribute to the world's degradation. Shall we stop eating?

I've also tried trading. Many of my local Bitcoin friends also tried trading. Most of us were not really good traders. We're often just following the calls of those who are so much better than us, those who have been into all kinds of trading before getting into crypto trading. But guess what, most of us have already quit. Perhaps all as far as crypto trading is concerned. And the reason is that it wasn't easy. And it wasn't really profitable.

Perhaps the easiest way to trade is to wait for huge swings. Selling at an ATH, for example, before waiting for the correction to buy back might be profitable. But it takes a lot of patience, and newbies might not have it. When I was a newbie, I was very eager and excited.

I cannot remember having one, but I don't think that's alarming. Dreams aren't alarming. They're just dreams, after all. Whatever happened in your dreams doesn't have to happen in real life. And what's wrong with having a dream that you're playing in a casino? That must be a sweet dream.

This is probably just some kind of a withdrawal syndrome. If you are heavily into a certain activity and then you quit from it, perhaps it will haunt you in some ways, probably in your dreams sometimes.

I don't think stablecoins are being exempted from the suspecting eyes of the SEC. I don't know why you have this impression, but we have already heard of a number of statements coming from the SEC regarding stablecoins. And while I highly doubt that stablecoins are securities, the SEC is even interested to take a look at the assets which back them up. Furthermore, stablecoins are also perceived as a direct threat to the banks. They're not off the hook.

If Bitcoin were not decentralized, it wouldn't have earned the interest and trust of the people and institutions. Which means that it wouldn't have even taken off. The price of Bitcoin would have remained very low, if at all. This further means that cryptocurrency wouldn't have become a huge thing like today. There'd be no crypto market. Neither would there be a crypto industry. Every altcoin wouldn't have existed, knowing that they are all riding on the success of Bitcoin. That success is owed to its decentralization.

Sometimes, I'm torn between appreciating these spot Bitcoin ETFs and imagining that all this shouldn't even have a place in a decentralized system. Why can't we just own Bitcoin according to its fundamental principles? Why do we have to have a manager for it? Is this kind of marriage between the traditional and revolutionary approaches necessary?

Just like the sentiments of others here, I'm not sure if a spot Bitcoin ETF application would really drive up the price. Bitcoin ETF, although futures-based, was once a thing of interest in the past, for example, but how much did its approval and actual trading contribute to the appreciation of the price? How are they now?

I know that the entry of the likes of BlackRock means a lot to Bitcoin's image, but we'll see whether an approval of a spot ETF in the US would really translate to an exponential rise of Bitcoin's price, just as it seems to be implied by many.

To be fair, I acknowledge your point. The halving that will take place at block 840,000 isn't like the one that took place at block 210,000 when the reward fell from 50BTC to 25BTC. The reward that would be halved in the next several months is only 6.25BTC, not a big number.

But given that the price of Bitcoin is already almost $30,000, the next halving would mean that roughly $92,000 in Bitcoin is taken off the market every 10 minutes. That's around $552,000 every hour, $13,248,000 every day. Vis-à-vis the growing adoption and therefore demand, I don't think 3.125BTC every around 10 minutes is an insignificantly small amount.

I'm convinced it's significant enough to influence the price.

I personally don't want to include quickness in making a decision so that you'll be considered decisive. If you want to make a resolute stand on something, you take time to do due diligence. You take time to research and look for answers to your questions, so that the moment you make a decision, it is firm and solid. You can't be haphazard in trying to understand and decide about Bitcoin and the bigger crypto market.

Most of my mistakes are decisions that are uninformed, quick ones. I used to be loyal to certain shitcoins, for example, because I didn't spend a good amount of time understanding them and their true potentials. I just jumped right into them primarily because of hype and hodled them. I was wrong.

I get your point and I share it to a certain extent, but I agree with pooya87 that this is not about Bitcoin. This is not a problem about Bitcoin transaction. I'd even go as far as saying that this is not even a problem about Bitcoin conversion. Even AgoraDesk's volume alone suffices the amount that any ordinary person wants to convert. Conversion is easy. I can only speak of my local situation, though.

The big problem, however-- and I agree with you-- is when you make a withdrawal. Withdrawing money is indeed a tough one. If it's a meetup with cold cash on hand, it's not a problem. But when it involves the banks or remittance centers, you'd have to be careful not to deal with amounts large enough to trigger AML policies.

When somebody withdraws $20,000 here, for example, you better spread it across two different bank accounts at least. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin. This has everything to do with the fiat system. The moment they ask you where this money comes from, problems will begin to arise.

I think the main problem is that many of us are not wise spenders. We spend so much on things that don't matter. We are impulsive spenders. We have a distorted sense of priority. People don't care about savings for as long as they have a nice smart phone whose features they can't even maximize. People dream of a good amount of savings so that they could start a small business, but they also can't stop themselves from buying a lot of unnecessary things.

I have a friend who's always complaining about how hard life is, about how badly she wants to stop working, if only she has a small fried chicken business. But she has a couple of expensive phones, accordingly as a gift to herself. She spends much on unnecessary food and drinks. How can we develop our capital if we're like this?