Well, first, I guess they're all crazy. You wouldn't claim to be somebody else if you are completely sane. That's something that's unreasonable.

Second, I can compare them with those who claim to be Jesus or some deity. A crazy person won't just claim to be his/her unknown neighbor. He/she will certainly claim to be somebody who is great and respected. In the case of CSW and this group, they're somehow exposed to the idea of Bitcoin and they're completely fascinated. It's not a wonder, therefore, when of all people they chose to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Third, it also helps, of course, that Satoshi Nakamoto is anonymous. The real identity/identities behind the name is still unknown until now. In other words, it's available. Hence, their claim. They can't claim to be Hal or Nick or Wei Dei.

Why should the gambling platform return the money? The money was used to gamble and lost. Whether that money was supposed to be paid for school fees or for food or for bills or for medicine is immaterial. That doesn't matter.

But here's the twist which I think could happen even on top gambling sites. Had the money won and the gambling company learned that the gambler was a minor, they could have declared all games null and void, and they wouldn't pay him at all. He violated the terms. He lied. He shouldn't have been playing in the first place. Worse, the platform could have locked the account along with the money deposited.

Not yet forever I guess. Have they completely given up all hope? In the first case, there are still two last attempts. In the second case, last I heard the man was still looking for ways to locate that multimillion-dollar hard drive.

If in the end they both lost all those coins, I thank them for the donations. That's more than 15,000BTC. A big donation for everybody.


On the same thread where Satoshi mentioned this, Gavin Andresen, the man to whom Satoshi entrusted his/her/their creation before he/she/they left, had this prophetic thing to say:


It's unfortunate both men got those coins much earlier. Mr. Thomas wouldn't have lost that password; Mr. Howells wouldn't have accidentally thrown away that hard drive had those coins were already worth millions.

Of course, that's expected, just like some of us here are thinking, considering especially that there are certain circumstances surrounding this decision that seem interesting to the curious mind. This denial of CZ having some power over CommEX is somehow similar to his friend Justin Sun's denial of his ownership of Huobi which has recently just rebranded to HTX, a decision which could be attributed to Justin himself.

Anyway, if I may add additional curious information.

• CZ himself admitted that some CommEX team members are formerly team members of Binance itself.
• The design of CommEX, APIs, and others are "similar to Binance."
• CommEX users who are BNB holders will continue to be given 25% discount on trading fees.

At least one username sticks in my mind. The avatar of another username which I already forgot is still in my memory also.

Sometimes, their presence is needed especially when everybody is unreasonably bullish. For as long as they are also bringing with them some logic, or at least some sense, in their arguments, it doesn't hurt the forum to have them in certain discussions. It provides some good balance, although some of them are probably not really naysayers like Proudhon. He/she certainly owns Bitcoin and is pro-Bitcoin. He/she's just chilling.

They're probably a lot better than many influencers who are always mega-bullish in their TAs as if Bitcoin will just take a straight line to the moon. Many newbies must have been carried away by how they present chart patterns as if something big is always about to come. These FOMO-inciters are probably more damaging to Bitcoin's reputation than some naysayers.

There's nothing strange about it for me either. Repeated results happen. It's not surprising. The exact amount of payout is basically the result of an exact amount of bet. It's probably on auto mode and the amount of bet is constant. That the payouts sometimes happen at the exact time is because the time shown doesn't include the seconds, and spins or rolls happen every second or even split of a second. So in a minute, several spins could already be done.

He probably had an inkling. Hence, Noones and the fact that Paxful log in details could be used for Noones. And this announcement of a new platform was already included in the announcement of the suspension of Paxful.

Stab in the back could be what happened. He tried to fight for Paxful but he was also ready with his own life boat at the same time, in case the ship sinks. And when his co-founder took over Paxful, he attacked it.

Yeah, this is all in the past, but Paxful was never the same Paxful after all the drama. It came back but scathed.

That's another thing. Even if your CBDC wallet balance doesn't just turn to zero when you cross borders, a feature that disables functions once you're detected outside the country's jurisdiction can easily be implemented. If banks can do it, how much more can a powerful government?

Bitcoin doesn't just address this problem, it also guarantees that wherever you're going your Bitcoin will be acceptable because it is the same Bitcoin that everybody has.

I agree. I'm not a fan of Donald Trump but meaningful words will remain to be meaningful regardless of which mouth they are uttered from.

However, I think this should be more focused on the happiness side rather than the economic side. Therefore, the last line is unnecessary or false. If what you are doing right now makes you excited; if you love what you're doing right now; if it makes you want to get up each morning, I think you're already successful.

If we attach money to it, it's going to be a lot different. Many people, including myself, would oftentimes forget about what we love and makes us excited mainly for the reason that they don't provide us the money that pays our bills or sends the children to school or keeps our landlord from kicking us out.

If there was much hope when Bitcoin was in its earliest days, there's much more now when Bitcoin has already earned the trust of many across the world. Bitcoin is so much stronger now. If all those efforts to kill Bitcoin were all big failures in the past when Bitcoin was still unknown, further efforts against it when it has already grown much more formidable will all be nothing. If we go back to what Bitcoin has gone through in the past to arrive at what it is today, I don't think somebody reasonable would worry about its future.

It seems you haven't been updated with the latest development on this. Or is there something I'm clueless about?

What I know is that Ray has already left Paxful several months ago. When he issued this message in April, he was still the CEO of Paxful. Although it was already apparent even this early, with his recommendation of Noones, that he'll be leaving the platform soon.

Apparently, the legal battle that he fought against Paxful's co-founder Artur Schaback, which he kicked out earlier, isn't turning in his favor. As early as May, Paxful has already resumed its operation. However, this was already under Schaback, if I'm not mistaken. Ray has already left and is even making bad statements against it.

I agree that Bitcoin would grow more precious when CBDCs become the main form of currency. The level of privacy and freedom that is afforded to us by cold cash would be gone when a digital fiat replaces it. The government's ability to monitor and control and seize hard cash is limited. The people are left with enough elbow room. They can more or less freely use it even in most illegal transactions. With a CBDC, the government could easily freeze funds, reject transactions, seize wallet balances, and so on.

I don't think this has something to do with the US government or the SEC. The headline is a little misleading. If I'm not mistaken, this isn't a policy that covers all Chase banks. This is only implemented by Chase UK. The ban, therefore, is exclusive to its British customers.

I think there isn't a general order to all Chase bank branches all over the 100 countries in the world where the bank has a presence that their customers will be prohibited from making transactions related to crypto.

On another note, it's ironic that the bank's tagline is "Helping you make the most of your money." How about you give your clients a little freedom over their own money?

While Bitcoin's correlation with the traditional financial market rises and falls, it has more or less been established that influential macroeconomic trends can certainly affect Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't anymore the isolated independent island that it may have been perceived. Although there's still a considerably amount of fluidity or unpredictability in Bitcoin's relationship with the traditional financial market, I don't think it won't be affected by such a huge economic crisis as a market crash in no less than the US. And considering how institutions are already part of the game, there will certainly be a significant sell off.

LOL! There are no effective betting tips for consistent profits. This is nothing but a myth. There are betting tips like OP mentioned, but they are not for consistent profits. It's simply because there are no consistent profits in gambling. If consistent profits were true following certain tips or strategies, NitroBetting itself would have already gone bankrupt. The idea of consistent profits is not true either in casinos or in sports betting. It isn't true at all.

I'm not sure if this is worth celebrating. After all, this doesn't in any way change the policy of China as far as Bitcoin is concerned. And this isn't the first time that a Chinese court acknowledges Bitcoin in one way or another. But nothing has changed as regards Bitcoin policy. The courts, after all, don't craft state policies. Bitcoin remains illegal in the red state.

This is just a guide as to how courts treat cases which involve Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. There was a legal dilemma before as far as ownership of cryptocurrencies are concerned. I remember there was a case in which the court ruled that the stolen cryptocurrencies are not to be seized and returned to the owner because they weren't under the protection provided for by the laws on properties.

This recent recognition makes it clear that Bitcoin and other digital currencies are properties that are acquired and owned. So, such recognition is merely for the purpose of proper court disposal of cases involving cryptocurrencies.  

Whatever your point is, forget about versions of Bitcoin in bank notes or paper bills. Bitcoin is an electronic cash. It's a digital money. Why do we have to convert it into paper bills that could easily be overprinted, counterfeited, seized, destroyed, and so forth?

There are physical Bitcoin like coins and notes, but these are mostly collectible items. They are certainly not created to serve as a fiat alternative. And there are risks involved with its creation. Somebody else knows the private keys. There's so much trust involved.

It could also happen, but Binance.us has a different set of circumstances. It's also facing a lot of pressure, but it's probably more of regulatory pressure-- and probably discriminatory, too-- although it must have also been held hostage in one way or another because it is still Binance and Binance has a presence in Russia. So, this game of CZ leaving Russia is both a way to please the powers that be and to make money more conveniently.  

Anyway, I don't think our speculation is "overextended and exaggerated." It's probably true that the reality is sometimes more unimaginable than conspiracy theories.


The irony! Something couldn't be more centralized than having someone in control of its future.

The same is my speculation. If Binance was able to abide with western sanctions on Russia while continuously holding on to the Russian market when the invasion was at its peak, there's really no reason why it would let it go now. Binance earns a lot from the Russian market. If CZ risked operating in many countries illegally for the sake of money, why should he leave Russia when Moscow didn't even order him to?

Yes, there's pressure, but I think the more valid reason why Binance is to exit Russia is that its operation is already significantly crippled by the sanctions as far as serving the Russian market is concerned. It would be much better to find an alternative by which it could fully operate and make the most of Russian customers. CommEx is the way to go.

Binance has already been setting this event up. It has already floated the idea for months. I guess those were all preparatory PR moves so that once the exit finally happens, they won't look suspicious. However, the announcement having to emphasize that it is a full exit and that it doesn't have revenue split and that it doesn't even have the option to buy back shares sounds suspiciously defensive to me.

Yeah, I understand we need to test the seed phrase somehow. But is Ian Coleman's BIP39 tool not sufficient for this? Or, I'm curious, has there been a case involving at least the most trusted hardware wallets in which the seed phrase generated is wrong?

Also, I understand the principle behind testing the receive and send functions, but, again, has there been a case involving hardware wallets in which an address is the correct one but it cannot receive nor send coins? I know this case is common among centralized platforms, but hardware wallets?