Well, it could have been childish negligence on the part of Bitfinex. If the reports were true, there were fundamental security failures found like keeping 2 of 3 security keys in a single device such that having access to that device could mean having access to the entire operating system, among others.

However, that it was like a weekend project, didn't occur to me. What I can remember is that when I used it many years ago as a newbie, it was a giant in the industry, competing against the popular Bittrex. The assumption, albeit naïve, was that the larger the exchange is, the better security it has. Bitfinex was at the top of the food chain. Much was expected from them.

Yeah, it was only around $80 million, but the market was also much smaller at that time. Compared today when Bitcoin is worth hundreds of billions, it was probably just a single-digit billion at that time. That it happened to a powerhouse in the industry actually sent shockwaves to the entire market causing the price to plunge. 

It's always this that's the more interesting part in a gambling game that you know very well is tilted toward the house. Exploring and experimenting different strategies are the fun side in dice games. It's always fun trying to beat the house. At the end of the day, however, we know very well that strategies can't defeat the house edge. It will always prevail in the end. It's math. 

As to your strategy, it's my understanding that the lower the winning probability is, the bigger the bet. Will this not bankrupt your bankroll faster?

Everything seemed to have turned awry after the hack. The hack appeared brilliantly planned and executed, something that remained a puzzle for years for investigators. And then all of a sudden there was a cloud storage with a spreadsheet of addresses and passwords. It seemed off, kind of out of the script.

Although the laundering part was quite detailed, has there been a detailed account presented by the government as to the actual hack? Which vulnerabilities were actually exploited? Was it Bitfinex's? BitGo's? Or the system that was implemented by the two platforms?

I don't know if the Netflix documentary on this incident is already out, but I hope it is heavier on the hacking part rather than on the laundering part.

This! I can only hope that everybody here in my country will soon be digitally literate that they will finally eschew keeping savings account in brick-and-mortar banks and shift to digital banks. Savings in traditional banks earn interests that are much lower than the inflation rate. In other words, you're saving money to die, slowly but surely.

In this digital age, traditional banking is biting the dust. Popular GCash here in my country offers 2.6% annual interest. PayMaya, on the other hand, offers a base interest of 3.5%. There are others. They all offer much higher interest rates per annum. Fintech is fast developing. It's about time we ditch these old banking style.

My opinion is that countries are not meant to keep their wealth in the manner of hodling in relation to Bitcoin. Especially developing countries, they are meant to make the most of their money. Government money should be spent. They should be using the money in the education of their youth, in excellent healthcare, in providing other social services, in building reliable infrastructure, and so on. Governments aren't investors. They are spenders. Underspending or budget surplus at the end of each fiscal year could mean the deprivation of certain people or sectors in the society.

It doesn't sound familiar to me. I can't quite understand the mechanics. What do you mean there are prizes given for small groups? Do you mean to say that there are certain prizes that can be won only by group bettors, but with a certain number of tickets, and not by individual bettors?

If this is what you mean, I think this is kind of unique. Surely, this kind of setup is not offered in the local lottery here. All bets are considered individual bets.

Perhaps the first reason why Armstrong didn't heed the SEC was that it was all just told to him. It didn't seem like an official order. Can it be legitimate that way? If I were Armstrong myself, I would just dismiss it right away, even if it were relayed in the form of a veiled threat. If it were an official communication from the SEC, then perhaps the CEO of Coinbase could have dignified it a bit.

Other than this, of course, Coinbase can afford lawyers. They can wait for official steps by the SEC and challenge them in court if need be.

To begin with, inflation is not a discrepancy. Inflation is an integral part of the current economic system. Echoing franky1, it's there by design. It's intentional. It's there on purpose. It isn't something that takes place because of incompetence or failure on the part of the government or because of something beyond the control of economic managers. That the prices of goods and services will continuously increase and that the purchasing power of money will continuously weaken-- albeit in a moderate and controlled manner-- are part and parcel of what is considered a great economic design.

Yeah, I can't deny that, although that is fast changing. When you enter a casino today, at least from what I experienced here in my country, it's not anymore unusual to see women gamblers. Before, women gambling is frowned upon. That's the traditional view. Perhaps that's in relation to the traditional division of labor in the family in which women are usually assigned the house chores and of taking care of the children. Women seen gambling connotes they neglect their responsibilities. That was unfair. Everybody should be free to gamble.

I can't think of any name to replace centralized P2P. But I share your interest in having it changed. Centralized and P2P can't go together. As a matter of fact, I sense the urgency for this. I've read and heard a number of times how people are recommending Binance, for example, when somebody asks for a good P2P platform. It has sort of become common that when inquired where one usually does peer-to-peer trades, many would cluelessly respond with a centralized platform. I think this should somehow be rectified. A new name might indeed help.

I haven't read or heard the full announcement relating to this but I don't think this is what the SEC is saying. Did the SEC say Bitcoin is not crypto? Or did it only say Bitcoin is not a security?

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. I guess that is obvious. I know there are many Bitcoin supporters, especially those who shun other cryptocurrencies, who avoid calling Bitcoin a cryptocurrency probably because they don't want it to be categorized with the rest of what they generally label as shitcoins or scam.

I don't agree with them. Bitcoin is a digital currency which uses cryptography for secured transactions. If there are others who created other cryptocurrencies that are of poor quality, it doesn't follow that Bitcoin ceases to be a cryptocurrency.

I'm not a fan of any kind of wagering.

I've just signed up on a new betting site a few months ago, I didn't take advantage of the deposit bonus primarily because of this wagering requirement. It had a x5 wagering requirement. I don't care about it. I don't want to chase it.

There is also this wagering contest. I'm not a fan of it either. It's designed to make you compete against each other as to who has the biggest amount wagered. It's basically just pushing you to bet more.

I also don't care much about my rank. The more you care about it, the more you wager because that's the way to get there.

In other words, this wagering feature or promo or contest is primarily designed to increase the revenue of the casino or betting site. More than anything else, it's for them to make more money. What you get in exchange are more less just baits.

If you borrow money for the purpose of Bitcoin investment, it presupposes that you don't have an extra money, that which you can afford to lose. So that's basically it. The advice has always been to invest only what you can afford to lose so that whatever happens you're not left with nothing and you can still move on with your life. So, notwithstanding Bitcoin's track record, since it remains risky and that it does not have any guarantee whatsoever that it will rise in the following year or years, you better just use extra savings.

Your source should be the link to the specific article you took information from, not the home page of the site.

It seems you got it a bit wrong, especially as to your understanding of security. The order of the SEC is actually in favor of Bitcoin. It didn't label Bitcoin as unsafe. It doesn't consider it as a security as well. The SEC considers Bitcoin as a commodity.

Security in this sense doesn't refer to "the state of being free from danger or threat" or risk, as you probably misconstrued.^[1] It is meant as an "investment contract."^[1] So, not classifying Bitcoin as a security doesn't mean it lacks security and Bitcoin supporters are not secured in having it.

This order is against the rest of the cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin. However, taking into consideration the court decision on the SEC vs. Ripple, it seems Coinbase has now a more solid reason not to delist altcoins. The court ruling, after all, doesn't consider coins sold on exchanges as investment contract or security.

---

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=security+meaning&oq=security+meaning&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.9367j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-makes-crypto-asset-security-us-2023-06-07/

Yes, of course. This has considerable effects to the country's economy. However, it could either be a boon or a bane.

It matters a lot whether the country has abundant resources or not. If a country sufficiently provides free basic education and healthcare; if parents could find work easily because good-paying jobs are abundant, and so on, then couples having plenty of children is a good thing.

However, to a poor country like mine where decent jobs are scarce, where poverty rules, where families usually find it a seemingly insurmountable challenge to send their children to college, then it must be a bad thing.

MicroStrategy was already a multi-billion company even before it started purchasing Bitcoin. 

It seems Saylor's MicroStrategy has a total of 152,333BTC. That's around 0.73% of the entire Bitcoin supply, which makes MicroStrategy the largest company owner of Bitcoin. However, if I'm not mistaken, this doesn't even count those coins that its owner, Michael Saylor, personally owns. There were news in the past that Saylor has his own personal Bitcoin stash, of course much smaller than his company's.

I'm not particularly excited nor looking forward to this fight, but it seems the impression is that Tommy Fury knows a little boxing when he gave Jake Paul his first loss, albeit in an unconvincing SD. This and the stats of both men are probably the reasons why Tommy is the favorite at 1.40 while KSI is the underdog at 2.75. But despite the considerable age difference and height advantage which all favor the younger brother of Tyson, it seems KSI is athletic enough to give Fury a run for his money. And KSI has boxing background, too.

If you will use an exchange, it must be for the reason that you want to trade. In which case, you will have to consider the volume. Volume means liquidity. You wouldn't want your orders to remain unfilled for long hours. Aside from that, I also consider, of course, the usual UI and UX, certain terms like KYC, trading pairs, and so on.

When I tried trading years ago, proof of reserve wasn't a big thing, if at all. That your funds are also somehow insured was also not that of a big deal. Binance's SAFU was the first popular approach of its kind.

All in all, I guess the standard is that the exchange should have a solid track record or reputation, not necessarily a long one. I tried Binance perhaps months or a year at most after it was launched. It seemed to have earned the trust of traders rather quickly.

Luck must have been there somewhere all along, but this isn't solely about luck. Certainly, I'm not merely lucky that despite those old ATHs and those freezing cold winters, I kept hodling. In the same manner that those who easily let go of their coins when the most ferocious of bears took control of the market weren't simply unlucky.

Props to everybody who somehow became tools in my relative success, but let's not take responsibility, maturity, perseverance, determination, courage, and discernment away from ourselves. We, too, deserve the credit!

OP, we cannot grasp what you're trying to say here. We cannot make a proper response when your topic is like a secret code we have to decipher.

But if you mean to say that production potentials are not met because there are certain limitations and restrictions. I agree. But the thing is it's a bit complicated. There are so many factors to consider. The issue of production is multi-pronged. It touches a lot of areas, from concerns regarding raw materials to policies and whatnot.