That's pretty much it. That's what is meant by Bitcoin adoption among institutions. But, just to clarify, when we speak of institutional adoption, we are not only speaking of those traditional financial institutions embracing Bitcoin in whatever way they prefer; we are also speaking of other institutions including those that are not really traditional in nature. Retail giants in E-Commerce, for example, are neither financial nor traditional. But they have also gotten into Bitcoin adoption.

I think I'll just do the math here. If there's money that I will easily get if I stop gambling and the amount is big enough that I can't even win it through gambling even if I master a good betting strategy, then I will quit gambling and have that money.

If we are realistic, however, we know that there isn't this method that makes us easily win in gambling, even in sports betting. In reality, even if we only bet on heavy favorites, it still doesn't guarantee us that we will be profitable overall.

Also, in real life, anybody could easily pretend that he/she is not anymore gambling even if he/she is. So, in this case, one could still get his/her inheritance without really quitting gambling.

If CZ really meant that advice, then the same also applies to Binance right now and people should be leaving the platform. But then again we shouldn't even be taking everything seriously. CZ was just trying to push his competitors down hoping it could end them when they were at their most difficult times.

CZ has this monopolistic tendency. He's this shrewd dirty businessman. When Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, Huobi, Crypto.com, Bittrex, BitMEX, and other competitors of his laid off hundreds or even thousands of workers, he quickly took the opportunity to warn the public against using platforms that lay off workers. Binance didn't lay off a single staff at that time, so those others are risky platforms and traders should avoid them. Common sense tells us that CZ was simply telling people to leave their exchange and use Binance instead.

Because of their all-in-one app. Uber provides convenience. That's basically what they offer.

Many years ago, we had a phone number for each of the major taxi company. If one doesn't answer or doesn't have an available unit near where you want to be picked up, you'd call another taxi company. This inconvenience is addressed with the kind of solution Uber provides. The same goes to hotels and resorts and other accommodations. There are now Uber-like apps for them, too. And now this kind of solution is also made available in the food services.

In general, if you quit gambling, that's for your good. It means you are out of risk of losing. However, it is also true that if you quit, you would also lose all chances of winning, of hitting the jackpot, of possibly recovering your losses. But those are mere possibilities. If you take your chances at those possibilities, it means you will also risk losing more. So it's either you can recover or your losses will grow further.

Technically, the expression is right, but not worth taking. I'd rather advise those who want to quit gambling to just do it, quit. The expression is like the gambling joke here which says if you are not lucky with the money you got from pawning your car, try your motorcycle, the luck might be there. But if you're not, try your television set, who knows it's where your lucky money is. If you're still unlucky, try pawning your refrigerator, you might be lucky there. This goes on and would include your house, your lot, and your other properties.

While the joke has logic and is correct in one way or another, there are priorities. And as reasonable people, gambling is the least of them.

I don't know where you got these data, but in the Philippines, the latest standard minimum wage is ₱570 to ₱610.^[1] There are variations, of course, like whether you belong to the agriculture sector, or you are working in a business establishment employing less than 15 or 10 persons only, or you are from a different region, and so on.

Supposing it's ₱610 and the price of BTC in PHP right now is ₱1,635,564.73, a minimum-wage worker would only be working approximately 2,681 days to achieve 1BTC. That would be more than 7 years.

---

[1] https://pia.gov.ph/news/2023/06/30/ncr-wage-board-grants-php40-hike-in-the-daily-wages-for-private-sector-workers#:~:text=NCR%2D24%20on%2026%20June,or%20less%20workers%2C%20and%20manufacturing

In fairness to TheQuin, indeed "under any circumstances" might simply be an exaggeration. They're hollow words. If worst comes to worst, they might not hold water.


Thanks for pointing this out. This is correct. And this is normally missed by many of us.

However-- I'm not a legal expert, by the way-- the difference is that those gambling sites that clearly specified in their ToS that they reserve the right to demand KYC from users whenever they deem necessary can handily demand for it. On the other hand, those that claim to be non-KYC gambling sites can't do it just like that. Until and unless there's a court order or perhaps an official order coming from a relevant agency requiring a particular user to provide his/her personal details, the site can't just lock an account or freeze funds on a whim.

It's not just now that inflation is making a mess on our savings. It happens all the time. It's just that instead of little by little there are times when inflation grows uncontrollably high. But we can understand because things have happened. There was COVID-19 and then there was that stupid invasion also.

But it's not like governments are not doing anything about it. We've heard countless of times how interest rates are being raised a number of times in many countries. That's one way of confronting high inflation.

But let's probably find alternatives in saving, especially if long term.

Plus it is clarified here that:


However, just the same, it's just fair to remove FreeBitco.in from the no-KYC category considering that it is clearly stipulated in their updated ToS that it has the right to verify your identity. Having an account there means you agree to it. So, despite a team member expressing doubt that KYC will ever be actually implemented to anybody, it isn't the agreement that gamblers agree on. It's not an assurance or a guarantee.

Anyway, to TheQuin, since you're not pushed by any agency to include KYC in your ToS or required by Costa Rica to implement it, why did you include it anyway? Is it not possible to draft a new and more professional ToS without including KYC?

I won't personally do this, but, yeah, it's probably safer this way. If somebody found the 10 of the 12 or 20 of the 24 seed words, they still can't have access to your funds. If somebody found the 2 of 10 or 4 of 24, they also can't lay their hands on your money. But this also poses certain risks. What if you can't find all of them? What if you forget the sequence of those words?

But I guess it's pretty much manageable this way rather than make a puzzle out of your backup. I also think having more than 2 copies of each is better.

As I've repeatedly said, it's not that easy to be your own bank. Having full control of your money in this digital age isn't just like storing them inside a vault in your room. It entails a lot of responsibilities. Safekeeping your money means looking for the safest wallet. And there are certain criteria for that. So, that means you need to do some research. Looking for a safe wallet is different from keeping that wallet safe. There are a number of dos and don'ts for it as well.

And then your responsibility extends outside your wallet. You will have to be careful in dealing with emails and PMs in your social media account. You need to be vigilant in downloading apps, clicking links and ads, and so on. You should also learn how to safely store backups. If possible, you should also have some knowledge on encryption. You must also familiarize yourself with sim swap attacks, dust attacks, and so on.

The answer is a big yes. A CBDC is, first of all, centralized. Which means that somebody else has control over your funds. So, just like Bitcoin in centralized exchanges, those funds are not yours to begin with. This is probably the most fundamental feature of any CBDC-- centralization.

There are other features which may differ from one CBDC to another, though. Expiration, for example, may not be found in other versions. But the point remains that users don't have complete control not just of their money but also of their transactions.

There are, of course, a number of ways to earn Bitcoin, but the easiest and fastest way is just to buy it. So, yeah, money is what we need first before Bitcoin.

I have read countless of times newbies inquiring about airdrops and faucets and other ways to earn free Sats and the usual advice is for them to go get a job. Taking advantage of these freebies is not only a very slow way to build a Bitcoin portfolio it is also risky and a total waste of time.

Having a regular salary or a stable source of income is where we should all begin. After all, the money that goes into Bitcoin you can't just spend anytime soon.

I'm actually amazed that there is such a thing as this.

There was a local community here in my country that issued its own currency. It hit the headlines. It was a big deal. Everyone was surprised. Television programs conducted interviews with central bank officials clarifying its legitimacy and even legality.

Little did I know that this isn't actually something weird, at least not in France. But I think this is superfluous.


I don't think so.


They surged at a time when Bitcoin was barely heard of.

LOL! I'm curious. Why would that be? Why would Coinmarketcap be the only source we should trust when Coinmarketcap itself is not trustworthy? Of the 621 Coinmarketcap reviews on Trustpilot, 83% of them gave the site 1 star out of 5. Overall, CMC averaged a very low 1.6 stars. 

Had Bitcorse been listed on Coinmarketcap, would you trust it? Had Coinmarketcap indicated that Bitcorse has $9 billion in 24-hour volume, would you immediately believe it?

What if Coinmarketcap registered Bitcorse but Coingecko, CoinLib, LiveCoinWatch, CoinCheckup, and others didn't?

I haven't used the new app, but I wouldn't be surprised if Meta would one day release an app like that. Meta's intention may not really be hard to guess. There's a certain kind of beauty in Twitter's design and Meta is probably aware of it and would want to have their own version. Could this be an experiment? Yes and no. Yes, because every new release is a test. You wouldn't know whether people would embrace it or not. At the same time, no, because it isn't entirely new. Part of the plan is to compete against Musk's Twitter.

It isn't an Instagram clone because you can do away with images. You can make text-only posts.

Why would Musk clone his own app? If Musk is to create a new platform, it would be similar to a competing platform like TikTok or YouTube or Instagram. Meta's Instagram team created Thread to put up a competitor against Twitter. So, Twitter team would probably not create a competitor against itself but against another app.

Indeed. There are times when people wonder why the government is not auctioning off those seized coins at a particular time when the price is high. When asked about this, Jarod Koopman, the director of the cybercrime unit of the IRS, says, "we don't try to play the market."^[1]

However, this doesn't mean they're completely indifferent to the market. It isn't like they don't care about the market at all. While they don't speculate, they're not totally oblivious of the price either. In the words of Koopman, "we don’t ever want to flood the market with a tremendous amount, which then could have an effect on the pricing component.”^[Ibid.]

---

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/19/what-the-us-government-does-with-its-secret-bitcoin-stockpile.html

Are you, by any chance, part of the Bitcorse team? Or perhaps you want to help the exchange get noticed? Or paid to do it? I can't imagine how such an unknown exchange gets recommended.

You've been around here for more than 10 years already. You were already here when Mt. Gox was still operating. You must already be aware how risky it is to deal with unknown and shady exchanges.

And you can't even claim that the exchange is fresh or "so new." Even it's official Twitter account is already more than a year old. And if it is, it would be astonishing to know that its token has already more than $9 billion in volume with USDT.

I don't allocate a specific percentage of my monthly income to gambling. I don't like the idea. Personally, I don't even think this is right. I mean, what's gambling, after all? Why do I have to regularly set aside a certain amount of money for it?

In my case, I gamble whenever I want to, or sometimes when a friend invites me. But that would depend on whether I have the extra money or not. If I don't have it, then no gambling for me. If there's an extra, then I will be betting within that amount.

The process is actually gradual, so I don't expect a sudden impact. I don't think there will be a sudden change as to Bitcoin's price or the people's perception or interest of it primarily because we've already foreseen everything right from the start. Everything is already seen on the horizon, so there'll be no surprises. It isn't a sudden fall from, say, 1BTC to zero. It's more of an airplane landing. Before the block reward finally turns to zero, the reward is actually 1 Sat. Before that, 2 Sats, and then 4 Sats, and so on.
 

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/File:Controlled_supply-block_reward_halving.png

Contrary to its price, Bitcoin is actually predictable. We all know how many halvings will there be. We all know at which particular blocks will they take place. We all know the next reward. We even know at which block the reward finally dries up.

So, the day when miners will receive zero block reward is already taken into account before it even happens. But you're wrong that "Bitcoin mining will be over one day." It will continue even after the last Satoshi is mined.