This discrepancy isn't biblical. This probably isn't what the holy scriptures meant. The reality is that this is all about power and influence, not about whatever spiritual force there is in the world.

In my country, huge corporations are getting billions and billions of loans. It is very easy for them to borrow from both government and commercial banks, receive grants, even tax incentives and exemptions, and other special treatments. On the other hand, what are called MSMEs or Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises are barely breathing. It's always a battle of survival for these small businesses. They're being preyed upon, abused, by lending sharks.

The reason? Far from biblical. It's as worldly as the lack of powerful connections and influence and grease money. They can't afford to donate millions during elections. They can't afford to give sports cars and whatnot as gifts. They can't call the president of the largest bank in the country.

And what are centralized exchanges? They're not primarily a store where you can buy Bitcoin; more than anything else, they're a trading platform. That's what they are meant for. As such, can we "fully rely on them?" If we use them as trading platforms, "for what they are," are we not going to have regrets? I don't think so.

And what choice does an active trader have but to keep his/her funds in the exchange he/she is using. Even if you're not staking, your money will still remain on exchanges if you are actively trading. You can't just pull out your funds every time your order gets filled. You're burning profit that way.

Did the victims of FTX, Mt. Gox, Cryptopia, QuadrigaCX, and many others not "use them for what they are?"

Finally, the fight every boxing fan has been waiting for is now sealed. I guess this is already 99% happening. Odds are already released as well.

Still, I think Crawford is winning this match. As a matter of fact, to be quite frank, although this is a battle of undefeated fighters, I don't see this as a 50:50 match. I agree with the odds. Spence deserves to be the underdog. The last time he fought was more than a year ago. And then he had no fight in the whole of 2021. In his last few fights, he only had a UD against the two Garcias, Danny and Mikey, and only a split against Porter, who Crawford knocked out.

I'm not following any YouTube and other social media Bitcoin influencers or traders, but I've read some posts about a handful of strong Bitcoin critics whose words are treated as a signal to buy. Peter Schiff is one. Each time he barks at Bitcoin is accordingly buy time. Is Paul Krugman also treated the same?

Anyway, is this a wise way of trading? If you are trading like this, how different are you from these speculators or influencers? I guess they should all be treated with a grain of salt. You're probably better off following your own analyses, technical or fundamental.

I'd say buy now and forget about the case of Ripple against the SEC. It will take years before a final decision is reached. But whatever happens to that case, I don't think it has so much effect to Bitcoin. That case has been ongoing for years now, it is not even newsworthy anymore.

But DCA is the way to go. The price is down at the moment but it can still go down much lower, below $25,000. There might be cheaper days ahead.

I'm sad for those who are working day and night for a meager salary. But I'm more sad of the fact that many of them have already embraced that kind of life, that they are already somehow satisfied with it. They seem to completely accept that they don't have a choice.

I don't agree, of course. Right now, I don't have a job. I earn a little from some side hustles. I don't have much money but at least I'm not a battered worker. I can sleep and wake up at any hour of the day. I can spend hours with friends everyday talking about just anything. I can travel. I can have a few bottles of cold beer every now and then.

I don't think people should drain all their energy working. In this age, we can be smart workers. Permanent employment is sometimes a huge hindrance to living.

This is precisely the reason why I now gamble with fiat. I used to heavily gamble with Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other altcoins. I lost track anymore of how much I lost in total, but whenever I look back at my betting history, I'm brought to a realization that a big amount of money was already lost. Years ago, when the price of ETH was much lower, I could easily bet 0.2, 0.5, 0.6 ETH. Today, they're already worth thousands in USD.

Fiat should be the one treated as a toy money. It's somewhat a waste playing with a currency that appreciates.

They are different networks. For Bitcoin on-chain transactions to be confirmed, you need miners to do a lot of computation. It takes a significant amount of resources for miners to operate. You have to pay the cost. For Lightning transactions to be confirmed, no miners are needed. Not much energy is utilized. But when you open and close Lightning channels, the fee is much higher. Such transactions aren't on the Lightning network anymore. They take place on the Bitcoin network and they need miners.

They're not really trusted just to keep our coins. It's just that they're the most convenient trading platforms. For anybody who trades, they've got no choice but to take the risk and send their money to exchanges.

But does it mean that these centralized exchanges can be "fully relied on?" Of course, not. Can we trust them with our money? Not really. There are risks but, again, for a trader who is looking for volumes, pairs, and others, they don't have much choice.

That's amazing. It isn't indeed a bank in the full sense because I have yet to receive a share of any of my bank's profit however huge it may be. The profit is always theirs. I'm only given the standard less than 0.1% per annum for my savings. And they're using my money to make wealth.

It seems your bank is like financial cooperatives here in my country. I also have an account in one of them and I get a nice slice of its profit every year. It depends on how much money you have in your account, but it doesn't go down lower than 10% of it per annum.

Well, Bitcoin transactions could be verified by everyone. The blockchain is transparent. You can check which address sends to which address. You can check how much is sent. You can check whether the transaction is already confirmed or not, or whether the funds is kept or spent. You can check when the transaction is done.

But if you are asking whether a Bitcoin or a Bitcoin transaction could be traced to you, I don't think there is an absolute yes or no answer to it. Although Bitcoin is only pseudonymous, anybody please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were careful enough and have valued your privacy every step of the way and you cleared yourself of any tracks every time, I guess it is possible for the likes of Ciphertrace not to complete the puzzle and finds certainty in linking a Bitcoin to a real-world identity.

This isn't a real world problem. This is a tokenomics problem. And this isn't even worth dealing with. I remember the days when tokenization was a hype. There were tokens for everything, even for a banana. All of them must have died already.

I'm curious, where are you in the world that electricity and wheat have negative prices? And with your definition of a negative price, people must be consuming as much electricity and wheat as possible because they will get paid for it. This is ridiculous!

Well, I appreciate the father for being principled. Most of us have double standards. Others would easily forget their principles once money is offered. I don't agree or disagree with the father, but I truly respect him for standing to his principles.

In general, gambling is a vice. I gamble, but I know that there a thousand better ways how to spend that money. But it's for fun. It's for entertainment. I guess we also need that once in a while.

King of all crypto? These Pepe and other meme coins? No, they aren't the king. They're the jesters of crypto. They're memes. They're complete garbage. Other than disrupting on-chain activities and making money from gullible individuals, these tokens have no other purpose.

I applaud Coinbase for this, for making an unequivocal stand. And shame on Binance, Huobi, OKX, and others for riding on this utterly worthless hype, for acting as accessories in the clogging of the network by supporting this coin which the developers themselves consider as "completely useless." These exchanges do not stand with the ideals of Bitcoin. 

This incident is funny. A funny robber who was laughed at by the owner himself because he's a moron for missing the private keys to millions in Bitcoin. But there's also the funny owner who wrote down his private keys on a piece of paper and openly display it for everyone to see. This is amusing. This is a classic story of the pot calling the kettle black. LOL!

Anyway, there are precious lessons here, both for the robber and for Mr. Beast. And for everybody else, especially those who are not as rich as Mr. Beast, there's a reason why it's called private keys.

Technically, the address will not expire, but to a centralized exchange, it may. And that's what's happening right now. Binance is putting an expiration to addresses, although leaving users the opportunity to still get their money with a few more clicks. But Binance reserves the right to disable this function anytime. And I think this is not a matter of if but when. Binance will certainly not maintain this feature forever. And when that time comes, tickets and complaints are gonna be flooding Binance's support.

And what's more controversial in the coming months or years is when despite the warning, before finally disabling this "click to credit" function, that deposits to expired addresses should be avoided and any funds deposited to them may be permanently lost, these stuck funds will surprisingly move.

I don't know with other cryptocurrencies, but, no, Bitcoin does not offer a loan service. There may be a number of Bitcoin-related companies that offer loan services, but they aren't Bitcoin. They are centralized business entities that create their own rules and run their own operations. They aren't decentralized. They aren't ruled by codes etched in stone. Unlike Bitcoin, they aren't censor-proof, immutable, trustless. They could pull the rug anytime on you, scam you, charge you with hidden and inexplicable fees, and so on.

That's why I would have preferred that gambling discussions be more specific. The NBA thread by ingiltere, for example, has been around for 8 long years. And it will stay for god knows when. For as long as there's the NBA, this mega thread would continue to grow and grow. The same goes to other sports and leagues.

The discussion is also compromised a bit because there are so many topics within the NBA, for example. There could be a number of games happening at the same time. And people are talking of different games and teams and players in a single thread. This topsy-turvy thread could be avoided if it's broken down into specifics, say, NBA Western Conference Finals: Lakers vs. Nuggets. This would result into a more focused discussion that would be closed when the series ends.

While I believe that casinos should have features that would somehow prevent a gambler from spiraling down into addiction, these gamblers aren't degenerate kids. They have full awareness. They are responsible for their actions.

Which leads me to think that it is absurd for a gambler to sue a gambling operator simply because he/she is losing big. Unless the gambling operator is found in violation of certain policies or found to come short of certain prerequisites, I don't think it is to blame.

As to the case of Stake, I haven't read much about it. It seems it isn't as simple as it may seem. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is allowed for citizens of prohibited countries to use VPN to go around it.

As a matter of fact, not only is this not applicable to all jobs, this shouldn't also be applied even to the same jobs. It doesn't mean that since my job does not require me to be physically present in an office, I could just work from home.

During the pandemic there were many call center agents that were required to work from home. Some were happy. Some were not. To those who have comfortable and quite rooms and are located in good areas, they're happy. To those who are renting small and hot rooms with noisy surroundings and where there are no restaurants or stores nearby, it's a burden.