Why they need a license if bitcon is not money?

[seoincorporation]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

[1715146372]

1715146372

[1715146372]

1715146372

[1715146372]

1715146372

[1715146372]

1715146372

[1715146372]

1715146372

[famososMuertos]

Many casinos started with it  as the flag, but there are more that are already on the Caribbean island (or any other tax haven) than those that aren't, in addition to what you mentioned, SWC.

However, casinos that follow KYC rules can still use crypto bets and make deposits. They can also use different Alts and make bet sizes up to 8 decimal places.

On the specific point of why some yes and others no, it is government legislation, AML and the laws that govern internationally on money laundering, anyone who does not adhere to those rules can simply incur some of those crimes at some point.

[Nwada001]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 
For the main time, if you are starting small as a casino, you might not all need those licences and approvals as there might be little eyes on you, but after that, if you want your business to go far, you need to operate based on the laws that govern owning a casino.

[Poker Player]

I think it's a matter of appearances, not whether Bitcoin is money or not. So they have a legal facade despite doing dubious things. There are casinos that have KYC limits in their ToS to which they turn a blind eye, especially while you are still losing, or that have a list of countries from which you cannot play but if you access the casino from those countries without VPN they also turn a blind eye, especially while you are losing.

A Curacao license is not a very prestigious thing either.

[bitbollo]

"bitcoin is money or not" there is a specific classification that changes from country to country.
OP you should keep in mind that the majority of compliance arise from requests to complete KYC procedures.
I don't see casinos that have this type of license in a negative way.
There are systems that "by default" cannot be regulated or managed... I would suggest focusing on these if you don't accept this step through a centralized entity.

[virasog]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

The frustration creeps in gamblers when they see all these KYC mandatory requirements required for gambling and withdrawing money.
The regulators will feel themselves having no value if the gamblers can deposit, wager and withdraw without having the KYC or the license hurdles.
Curaçao is too much involved in the gambling industry and if casinos do not obtain thier licenses, sometimes their existence or creditability becomes questionable (when it should not be).

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Let's be honest, we need non-KYC truly decentralized services not only from the gambling sites but also on the trading platform and anywhere where bitcoin is used as a payment method. But as long as the governments are there, they won't let this happen on the mass level. Yes, most of the will not let you gamble with the KYC, whether it is because of the license requirement, or they want themselves to keep the check and balance.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Well, I am not against casinos obtaining a license to operate, but what I have always wanted to know for sure is what does the licence do exactly?
Many a times, I see some gamblers advising other gamblers against playing on casino without licence, as such casinos may likely be a scam in pending, but still on several occasions, we have witnessed casinos with license shut down and ran away with money belonging to their users, and the issuer of their license did nothing to make sure that users get their hard earned money back, what then is the use or benefit of a licenced casino to gamblers.

Some say that when a player have issues with a casino, he or she could report to the issuer of their license for such casino to be properly sanctions, but never for once have I ever heard or seen that a license issuer sanctioned a casino for their misconduct towards a gambler or gamblers, again, I asked, what exactly is the benefit of licensed casinos to gamblers?

[CODE200]

It's because you can trade that bitcoin for money and the tax man don't like the idea that they're being treated like a sucker and someone's being a wiseass when it comes to the taxes. The point of the license in my opinion is to make sure that you're under their watch and that you're paying them with taxes because gambling is the most profitable business of all, your capital in a sense will just sit there until someone wins big and the chances of someone winning is close to zero so you're basically 90% profit if you're a gambling casino operating on corrupted politician filled countries or a heaping 70% if in those countries that have fewer corrupted politicians.

[Kakmakr]

Ok, first of all... Bitcoin is money. Why would casinos accept it, if it was not money? How would they pay for their operating expenses, if Bitcoin was not money?  

The Licensing authorities might not be as affective as most people would have wanted, but they do serve a purpose. Can you imagine what casinos would have gotten away with, if there were zero oversight over their activities?

Some of these casinos would not even have been able to open it's virtual doors for business, if it was not for these licensing authorities. (Example : Australia does not allow online gambling, but Eddie (Australian) operates Stake.com which is one of the most succesful online crypto casinos out there.)

[Zoomic]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Any government that demand for licenses from Casinos before they they can carryout crypto gambling has approved Cryptocurrency already, you know the government can be proud   they just love control. Again, let us look at this way. We all know that the decentralized feature of cryptocurrency does not allow the government to see what their citizens are up to. And we will not deny the fact that lots of casinos and gamblers can hide under crypto gambling to carry out some financial crimes which might be difficult to trace the criminals involved. And as it relates to taxation,  the government would really want to be interested. A license is only an agreement between the casino and the government to operate on a fair term

[Pandu Geddon]

it doesn't matter whether Bitcoin is considered money or not in relation to the License applied to the crypto casino. This is more about the fear of misuse of crypto casinos for money laundering which will harm the government. not to mention the huge taxes imposed on the gambling industry. the government must not miss it all.
in short, Bitcoin can be exchanged for money. That's why everything related to Bitcoin and crypto will be of concern to governments and tax authorities. This doesn't only happen at crypto casinos, you can see how crypto exchanges are also closely monitored.

[Rruchi man]

Well, I am not against casinos obtaining a license to operate, but what I have always wanted to know for sure is what does the licence do exactly?
Many a times, I see some gamblers advising other gamblers against playing on casino without licence, as such casinos may likely be a scam in pending, but still on several occasions, we have witnessed casinos with license shut down and ran away with money belonging to their users, and the issuer of their license did nothing to make sure that users get their hard earned money back, what then is the use or benefit of a licenced casino to gamblers.

Just as Poker Player mentioned that it is just for appearances, A license is only serious when you do not obtain it as a casino and then decide to just start operating, the government will take you that you are trying to be involved in illegal money laundering activity, or other scams, and then move to checkmate you, if not at the start of your business, maybe sometime later.

Some say that when a player have issues with a casino, he or she could report to the issuer of their license for such casino to be properly sanctions, but never for once have I ever heard or seen that a license issuer sanctioned a casino for their misconduct towards a gambler or gamblers,

I also imagine that the licenses are a way for the government to get some revenue from these casinos, so after issuance, they are more concerned about the next casino that will come to obtain the license, not you who has obtained it already. So they do not concern themselves with misconducts from these casinos even when they are reported.

what exactly is the benefit of licensed casinos to gamblers?

Playing in a licensed casino give more assurance to a gambler that they are playing in a casino that is closer to being credible than not credible. Because a casino that wants to operate without a license will never attract some category of gamblers.

[Assface16678]

Yes, the currency or crypto currency is untouched or cannot be manipulated by the government or even put under a tax or whatever legal law, because a virtual currency is secured and cannot be controlled. But the thing is, when it comes to a casino online or establishment, or crypto casino, as they are run and owned by people, they have to comply with the laws, and one of those is a licence and also KYC. It's all part of the requirements so that they can operate their business. Of course, all things should be done with legality, or else they can't operate, but illegally.

So either you comply with it, accept it, or don't play with a crypto casino because, no matter how frustrated you are, you can't stop the government from implementing the laws. Yes, many disadvantages may come as the tax for the crypto casino will increase and be added to our expenses.

[efialtis]

You might want to read this: https://www.btcgosu.com/blog/guides/gambling/how-why-crypto-gambling-sites-get-licensed/ 

This one`s quite interesting, too: https://www.btcgosu.com/blog/guides/gambling/anjouan-gaming-a-rising-crypto-casino-regulator/

[ultrloa]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

That's should be the case since bitcoin is supposed to be for anonymity of its users but maybe the demand dictate it and some other casino owners push to get those licenses since this is the first things ask by people especially if they launch their casino here.

Many people seek for license that's why they feel that its mandatory now before they operate their businesses since they afraid that people will lose trust on them. We can excuse those casino you have mentioned since so far they are the one who earn a good reputation and they manage to operate without having a license since their reputation is well established now here.

The problem with new casino is they want to impress people by getting those licenses and show that they are a compliant casino so they can trust them.

[asyakashi]

In my opinion, the casinos that get the license and implement it in the casino may only be based on the trust of their users, and could just be a promotional medium, so it's not surprising that they use it as an attraction.

[arwin100]

Sad fact that government avoid bitcoin as form of money but here goes they are there trying to regulate some platforms and earn taxes from them. But if they could just think economically for sure it will be beneficial for them to accept this currency since there's a lot of opportunities will be created.

But for now lets talk about those licenses and its undeniable that this is not actually necessary since the owner still can scam people even if they have that. But the problem with other now is they think license casino is legit that's why a lot of new casino trying to comply those requirements so that they can look good to the eyes of people and use this piece of paper to market their casino as legitimate platform.

its undeniable that there are casino which still operating even if they don't have a license but still they are reputable until now. But we can't also deny that most of them are long time running casino and maybe they see that they don't need that already to impress people since their reputation and years or decades of existence of their businesses is enough for people to trust them.

[ryzaadit]

Perhaps, searching online will make you get some answers to the question.

Here: https://sigma.world/play/blog/online-casino-licenses/ Basically, It's not about the payment-currency they're using but their jurisdiction is the case. That's why they need license. Even they're running online casino with (FIAT)

Still, they need to license for the operation.

[efialtis]

Perhaps, searching online will make you get some answers to the question.

Here: https://sigma.world/play/blog/online-casino-licenses/ Basically, It's not about the payment-currency they're using but their jurisdiction is the case. That's why they need license. Even they're running online casino with (FIAT)

Still, they need to license for the operation.

A so called "crypto casino" wouldn`t need a license for operation. (Many crypto casinos don´t even disclose where they are based, then you have the whole offshore BS going on, it`s funny)

The topic of regulation often pops up in online gambling discussions. However, pertaining to crypto sportsbooks/casinos, many gamblers are curious if these platforms need to get licensed at all. Technically, that is unnecessary since they operate using a medium of exchange that many regions/countries do not recognize as legal tender. Hence, they are not seen as legitimate money-making businesses. Despite this, to supply users a sense of confidence that operators are not doing what they wish and that gamblers have someone to turn to, many crypto gaming/betting companies opt to get regulated.

Edit: And I mean, just look at this forum and some crypto casino brands`actions - scamming the shit out of it without any consequences (a recent example being Betnomi).

[AB de Royse777]

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

It was supposed to be that way but scammers are everywhere and without having a good background no one is going to trust a casino which does not have a license. A license at least ensures that the project is can not going to get away easily, they have a legal responsibility to response. But there are cases where many scammed even after having a license and nothing happened to them.

With a valid license the start is easy but without a valid license the start is hard. When a brand does not have a license they need to work the ground that they are trustworthy and paying. It requires more money in marketing, more promotions, more criticism to response.

[Bananington]

Sad fact that government avoid bitcoin as form of money but here goes they are there trying to regulate some platforms and earn taxes from them. But if they could just think economically for sure it will be beneficial for them to accept this currency since there's a lot of opportunities will be created.

Without order in the society, there will be chaos and I believe that the licensing that the government does is to establish a kind of order and control to the crypto gambling sector that is becoming more popular and increasing. All lands were created by God but you still need to go through the government to obtain a land, this is because the government still needs to maintain order and be able to control and know whoever owns a land. This is the same with gambling and the licensing that is required of casinos before operation, it is a formal recognition that the government is aware of the casino.

[m2017]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

True, it’s a funny observation that regulators deny the existence of bitcoin as a currency, but at the same time they seem to require gambling casinos to require the same regulatory documents as when playing for real money. But in fact, from the point of view of the law, bitcoin is just a game wrapper in this case, and not money (like money, from the game monopoly). This looks like double standards. The requirement for casinos to have a license is probably due to the fact that regulators want to get money from them, as well as to have the necessary information about casino owners in order to hold them accountable in case of violation of the law. This indirectly affects the interests of gamblers and provides them with certain protection.

[AbuBhakar]

Without order in the society, there will be chaos and I believe that the licensing that the government does is to establish a kind of order and control to the crypto gambling sector that is becoming more popular and increasing. All lands were created by God but you still need to go through the government to obtain a land, this is because the government still needs to maintain order and be able to control and know whoever owns a land. This is the same with gambling and the licensing that is required of casinos before operation, it is a formal recognition that the government is aware of the casino.

The problem which I find on this license matter is the Curacao license doesn’t even regulate thoroughly all the registered casino. Anyone can get a license by paying the fee and meeting their requirements which is not that hard.

I doubt government will cooperate to Curacao to properly regulate casino that being use by their citizens. This kind of license of Curacao will only make sense to me if they have offices on all the country which their license is applicable because it’s very hard to be in touch with them if you have a problem on a casino with their license while you have a intercontinental distance barrier.

[pakhitheboss]

I doubt government will cooperate to Curacao to properly regulate casino that being use by their citizens. This kind of license of Curacao will only make sense to me if they have offices on all the country which their license is applicable because it’s very hard to be in touch with them if you have a problem on a casino with their license while you have a intercontinental distance barrier.

If the government feels that they are losing money in the form of tax or if there are reports of too many scams then only the government would respond. Why would they have offices globally, many countries do not allow gambling as it is illegal. The next point is why would they when they are enjoying without even trying to practically implement their license law strictly? It is a win-win situation for them and I don't think they will change their policy ever. It is again a win-win situation for those casinos who want to scam their users and a win-win situation for those casinos who don't want strict regulations.

[Orpichukwu]

If the casino is going to be only a crypto base casino, then I think it can operate licence-free as there is no need for any form of registration or restriction as crypto is the only thing that is required to use, deposit, and withdraw, which was how crypto casinos were supposed to be in the first place, and they have been operating that way until now.
 
When scamming is taking over the casino industry, the only way people can still feel a little safe in the hands of those crypto casinos is if they are under a regulatory body that the people can run to in case of any misconduct or suspicious scam attempt by the casino operators. This is one of the reasons why licences have been made necessary for almost all casinos active currently. You don't know which one to trust and which one not to trust.

[Kavelj22]

There is an important point that everyone should understand about licensed casinos. We all know that the authorities' purpose in imposing obtaining licenses is first to make the casino company subject to tax, which is determined according to the number of transactions and revenue percentages. As well as imposing control on the financial activities of users, who in turn will become subject to tax according to the same principle.

But there is a point that concerns us as users, which is ensuring the reliability of the casino because obtaining licenses requires following legal procedures. This also guarantees the user’s right to file a lawsuit against the casino in the event of suspicions. Licensed casinos are subject to supervision and can be held accountable by the authorities whenever necessary. This guarantees the rights of users to sue and demand minimum rights.

[Jawhead999]

But who said license is a matter for crypto casino? I never said that, but most users did.

That's why when judging a new crypto casino, there's no need to take a look with license and ask them to get it. As long as you feel something suspicious like copy pasting other casinos, the bonus is too good to be true, and offer something not make senses, those are signs if the casino is high likely scam.

[mirakal]

I think government sees bitcoin as money. Because if they don't, the massive amount bitcoins they had confiscated before would not be up for sale or auction, they would just destroy it easily. They gain from the bitcoins they seize, right? so bitcoin is money for them.

License is important because that will minimize the scam in the crypto space, of course no gambler would risk their money without confidence on the gambling site they are betting. The game now is not just about license alone, but it's already a must that a gambling site both have good reputation and are licensed by whoever provider it is.

[Taskford]

I doubt government will cooperate to Curacao to properly regulate casino that being use by their citizens. This kind of license of Curacao will only make sense to me if they have offices on all the country which their license is applicable because it’s very hard to be in touch with them if you have a problem on a casino with their license while you have a intercontinental distance barrier.

If the government feels that they are losing money in the form of tax or if there are reports of too many scams then only the government would respond. Why would they have offices globally, many countries do not allow gambling as it is illegal. The next point is why would they when they are enjoying without even trying to practically implement their license law strictly? It is a win-win situation for them and I don't think they will change their policy ever. It is again a win-win situation for those casinos who want to scam their users and a win-win situation for those casinos who don't want strict regulations.

They will be held accountable regarding on those scam casino registered on their country but so far didn't heard any action regarding on those past scams happen and maybe they are not actually doing anything regarding on online casino scams happening since their main intention is to get revenue coming from those casino who want to get license in their country. Offices might hard to implement since for sure there's lot of things need to be done before this to happen but what's important their is they create some changes and make licensing hard to get by foreign companies. Scams is there and they just need to have strict solutions regarding on those activities so that they can avoid being question and people will still have impression that curacao license still a relevant requirements to have.

[TheUltraElite]

I would like point out that the sites that OP mentioned are also the few casinos out there who are offering the Investment schemes. No other casino not even the biggest one out there Stake.com offers a investment scheme while if they did huge number of investors would have flocked in and would be willing to lend their money to the site.

I guess KYC and government crackdown on casinos is hard and who knows when these sites will get stopped by governments and their outdated policies? After all these sites are owned by humans and they have families to take care of, none want to end up in legal troubles.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I would like point out that the sites that OP mentioned are also the few casinos out there who are offering the Investment schemes. No other casino not even the biggest one out there Stake.com offers a investment scheme while if they did huge number of investors would have flocked in and would be willing to lend their money to the site.

I guess KYC and government crackdown on casinos is hard and who knows when these sites will get stopped by governments and their outdated policies? After all these sites are owned by humans and they have families to take care of, none want to end up in legal troubles.

Well, I do not have a clear and detailed understanding of how licensing works, but my major problem with it is that, it does not benefit the common gambler out there, license was supposed to act as a prove that a casino well established and known, and have zero chances of absconding with users money, but this happens not to be the case judging from what we all have seen happen in the past.

I am particularly not against licensing though, I mean, if it allows a casinos become limitless in their operation and reach, then why not? Every casino that dreams to become very big in the future should definitely obtain a license, so they won't have to start facing sanctions here and there for not having the required license to operate on some certain jurisdictions and areas.

But if at all, casinos don't need it to become big, then I wonder why having a license have become a major criteria in running a successful gambling casino.

[sujonali1819]

It's right that there is a debate about whether Bitcoin is money or not. But in the end, Bitcoin is considered as money we know. On the other hand, Bitcoin casino requires a Licence for many reasons. For example, Player protection, Prevention of AML(Anti Money Laundering), Responsible and fair gambling, to gain player trust, etc.

[Dunamisx]

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

You should know governments not today, they try to regulate anything even if at it's best performance, this same thing ha e been what they have already wage war against bitcoin to discourage many people from using it, they would want to have control and be in charge, then determine the rate they get through regulations and people under centralized institutions can't escape them, I don't know if this same is really applicable to no KYC gambling platforms.

[leonair]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

When a crypto casino comes online it is usable globally and not all countries have bitcoin as illegal there are many countries where bitcoin is legal and the country from which a crypto casino site is operated must have crypto legal and people from that country must be gambling Play and this is why casino sites require a license. It is the private problem of the country where crypto is not legalized so rest of the countries will be in danger for that country how come. This is why casinocytes require lyases.  And the most important thing is that if you see that a site does not have a license then you yourself will not be interested in gambling there.  So it is also an important factor to attract gamblers. And sites willingly license it for that too

[abel1337]

Well, I am not against casinos obtaining a license to operate, but what I have always wanted to know for sure is what does the licence do exactly?
Many a times, I see some gamblers advising other gamblers against playing on casino without licence, as such casinos may likely be a scam in pending, but still on several occasions, we have witnessed casinos with license shut down and ran away with money belonging to their users, and the issuer of their license did nothing to make sure that users get their hard earned money back, what then is the use or benefit of a licenced casino to gamblers.

Some say that when a player have issues with a casino, he or she could report to the issuer of their license for such casino to be properly sanctions, but never for once have I ever heard or seen that a license issuer sanctioned a casino for their misconduct towards a gambler or gamblers, again, I asked, what exactly is the benefit of licensed casinos to gamblers?

I myself don't exactly know but my guess is casino who has license is the proof that the casino is under the influence of the law and they can be punished if they didn't abide the law where they got their license from. This somehow put a trust on a gamblers heart by trusting them knowing that the casino owners can be subject to jail if they didn't abide the law or for short scamming the gamblers. It is a "certificate" that the casino shows as a proof of their legitimacy, though I doubt it since there are casinos who scammed people even they posses one of these gambling license.

[fapar]

Well, I am not against casinos obtaining a license to operate, but what I have always wanted to know for sure is what does the licence do exactly?
Many a times, I see some gamblers advising other gamblers against playing on casino without licence, as such casinos may likely be a scam in pending, but still on several occasions, we have witnessed casinos with license shut down and ran away with money belonging to their users, and the issuer of their license did nothing to make sure that users get their hard earned money back, what then is the use or benefit of a licenced casino to gamblers.

Some say that when a player have issues with a casino, he or she could report to the issuer of their license for such casino to be properly sanctions, but never for once have I ever heard or seen that a license issuer sanctioned a casino for their misconduct towards a gambler or gamblers, again, I asked, what exactly is the benefit of licensed casinos to gamblers?

I myself don't exactly know but my guess is casino who has license is the proof that the casino is under the influence of the law and they can be punished if they didn't abide the law where they got their license from. This somehow put a trust on a gamblers heart by trusting them knowing that the casino owners can be subject to jail if they didn't abide the law or for short scamming the gamblers. It is a "certificate" that the casino shows as a proof of their legitimacy, though I doubt it since there are casinos who scammed people even they posses one of these gambling license.

A gambling license allows the owner of an online casino to conduct such activities. Chain: fiat currencies - casino owner - online casino - gambler. We, the players, are on the other side of this chain, and having a license only conditionally insures our funds, i.e. protects them at the user agreement level. I really expect that these casinos will soon replace Web3 gaming platforms with smart contracts.

[Agbe]

In the cryptocurrency world, it is only the smart governments make millions and billions from it and not the so call wise ones. They think they are wise do they see cryptocurrency as bad omen to their economy and citizens. And with that many place restrictions and ban them in their countries but later discovered that cryptocurrency is not what they think but to give them financial freedom. So many are coming back again but for those who were smart enough to adopt the digital currency have made enough money from it. And this Curaçao is really making money, that is cool money from gambling through their issuing of the gambling license to casinos. And almost all the casinos I have seen, their license is from Curaçao. That is a smart game they have played.

[paxmao]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

And in a perfect world you would be free to do whatever with your money, but there is to much drug and weapons dealing money around and even if it is not cash, it would be just too easy for the site, the owner and most importantly any bank they potentially use to join the list of sanctioned entities. That is something most people simply will not risk. Too life-changing.

[harapan]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Having your KYC activated its a great chance of making deposits and withdrawals,so definitely no need for a license.

Cause with this you can make deposits in casinos without stress.
The govt. thinks they are trying to make things worse,but they dont know there are multiple means to achieve the target rather than license.

[yahoo62278]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Unfortunately governments always look to step in in any way they can. It's only going to get worse and worse for the crypto user I think. Governments are going to look for more and more control and make sure they get their piece of the pie.

Could be worse man and there be no online gambling at all. How can we improve and take control away from the governments?

[coolcoinz]

I think it's a matter of appearances, not whether Bitcoin is money or not. So they have a legal facade despite doing dubious things. There are casinos that have KYC limits in their ToS to which they turn a blind eye, especially while you are still losing, or that have a list of countries from which you cannot play but if you access the casino from those countries without VPN they also turn a blind eye, especially while you are losing.

A Curacao license is not a very prestigious thing either.

That's how the world is run, by making people feel like there's laws they have to uphold, but in reality all these laws are made by people who run the show for other people who run the show.
For example, you a small gambler, have to undergo KYC when you try to withdraw $500, which is even below the minimum that can be flagged by banks. Like in the EU they will not even care about anything below 1k EUR, which is like 1.1k USD, so banks won't care, governments won't care, but a casino will. Why? Because your personal data is worth more than $500, which is why many companies will pay you for referrals, provided that the other person goes through KYC. They don't care if you make them money as long as you bring real traffic and personal data for the company because that database boosts value of the company.

I never sell my data and I never do KYC. KYC enforced on small transaction is abusive.

[iv4n]

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Well, I agree with you... Crypto should be free for all, without geo and other kind of restrictions. And I believe that some part of crypto (I am not sure how big that part can and will be) will stay like that and will represent some freedom.

I think you already answered your question from the headline. Curacao and many other governments just wish to make more money... everything is taxed and regulated, so can we expect them to let crypto alone? I don't think so... what we can do is to try to avoid some regulations as much as we can, but as it seems that becomes harder every year.

[shasan]

Licence needs to save the funds of their users too. If any gambling site has no licence and once becomes reputed or gets a good number of deposits/losers then it may stop their business easily. And on the same time they avoid paying the winnings of their users. So, licences need to protect the funds of their users.

[Crypto Library]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Your words are logical but most of the people before gambling in an online casino first check from where the casino is licensed. And people avoid gambling in those casinos that are not licensed. And if you look, all the casinos in the leading position in the gambling industry are licensed. With these three options deposit, wager, and withdraw, nothing else is really needed and none of us would have had to pay so much money to Curaçao if there were no scammers here. If we see most of the gambling sites without license are scammers. If I myself was told to gamble in a new casino without a license, I would not gamble there.
And I explored the names of the three casinos that you mentioned and found that out of these three, bustabit and Freebitco.in are licensed, especially freebitco.in is licensed by Curaçao. If you want, you can scroll down to see the picture.

[wallet4bitcoin]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Indeed the government is acting on both sides, firstly, turning their backs on the industry that has presented a different approach towards innovation and transparency, greatly contributing to the growth and development of the economy. Now they want to issue licenses, as a disguise, to extort money from the same people who they claim not to approve of their underlying technology.

[efialtis]

Seriously guys... crypto casinos going with Curacao licenses, this doesn`t have anything to do with governments... you don`t seem to be getting the point.

Unfortunately, this seems to become yet another spam thread.

[Volgastallion]

I think in some cases the money is accesory and not the main thing. Let me explain, the lincese and the regulation is more like a judge in case of some problem between you and the gambling house, is like you think X gambling site doesnt make the things right well someone has to be the judge right? and that judge has to be a third party and preferabily a specialized one.

And CANT be a enterprises because you know..... maybe that enterprise is also the owner of some gambling site, so its gonna be necesary to be a state owned.

I think that is the main point anda lso is to avoid some other problems from other big countries by the owners of the sites.

I support your point about the crypto gambling needs to be more desentralized, but is hard to do.

[AmoreJaz]

I think in some cases the money is accesory and not the main thing. Let me explain, the lincese and the regulation is more like a judge in case of some problem between you and the gambling house, is like you think X gambling site doesnt make the things right well someone has to be the judge right? and that judge has to be a third party and preferabily a specialized one.

And CANT be a enterprises because you know..... maybe that enterprise is also the owner of some gambling site, so its gonna be necesary to be a state owned.

I think that is the main point anda lso is to avoid some other problems from other big countries by the owners of the sites.

I support your point about the crypto gambling needs to be more desentralized, but is hard to do.

but in reality, how many complaints really did go thru the licensing authority? i bet it is almost none, as going thru the process of lawsuit and all is a headache and will incur a lot of expenses. so the use of of these curacao license logo or any other gambling license logo is just a front that you are doing legal business. but they are not really important if your business is already doing legit activities. however, as there are so many fraudulent activities happening around, people are changing their stance regarding decentralised casinos. they feel they have more confidence if the casino has a valid gambling license.
by the way, the OP forgot to mention the bitvest casino, under LL. they have their share of ups and downs but still surviving up until now. they have no gambling license to boast of, but is one of the long-running casino in the forum.

[Kemarit]

And just like what I post before, getting a license is very cheap and it's no way a good measurement if the casino are not going to scam us. Perhaps we gamblers take it just as a face value as it become a so called norm to have licenses and then show it to everyone, look we are legit, go play with us as Curacao has given us licenses.

LOL, and then gamblers fall for it, and then later realized that it was a scam site, bitch around the community that they have been scammed by thousands of dollars. And I don't see any benefits as well for online platforms for getting it, they are just being milk by Curacao to go and apply for licenses that no gamblers are going to look at.

[PX-Z]

"Crypto casinos" are not yet regulated anywhere, the one being regulated is running the "casino" itself, whether it is a accepting cryptocurrency or not. That's why there are options to pay via fiat in other ways. And who else doesn't wants to run a "licensed" casinos when getting them is very cheap.

[Odusko]

Many comments have negate from the government point of views about kyc and what they own demands are about it, for a gamblers, licenses means trust and authentication of the business, so it very obvious that more gamblers will trust a casino that have license compare to the ones that doesn't have such license.
For the sake of trust, casinos will prefer to go along with all liceseing demands, so as to gain the trust of those gamblers around instead of not having licenses but needing to build all the reputations which have to take a lot of time to achieve.
So liceseing to s very important key for a casino at all time and most unlicensed casinos doesn't have that trust from the community.

[joniboini]

licenses means trust and authentication of the business, so it very obvious that more gamblers will trust a casino that have license compare to the ones that doesn't have such license.

Eh, doesn't it seem otherwise judging from the above discussion? I don't think most of us trust those licenses, considering how cheap and easy it is to get them. Are you sure you can just trust a new casino with a license without doing any research at all? If anything, reputation and forum presence are probably more valuable for Bitcointalk members. I'd argue that if any business can provide the basics on how their games work and others can verify there is no malicious code involved, that should be good enough as a basis to 'trust' the service or not. Don't trust, but verify is more valuable than some random license that anyone can buy with a fake ID. CMIIW.

[Lida93]

Not long I raised a topic titled License: is it a guarantee?, in it I was questioning the assurance of a licence casino not to scam or in anyway trample on its customers and most of the replies made in that thread emphasized on the possibility of licensed casinos to still scam their customers despite having a license that puts them on regulatory watch, and it got me thinking.

It really got me thinking, as in, why then does license matter matter so much to gamblers about a casino instead of it's reputation over the years. In as much as a casino has been up and doing over length of year reputably rendering unquestionable gambling services to their customers without even obtaining a license then such casino ought to be encouraged by those of us that are in support of decentralization of bitcoin by massively make use of their service, because such a casino is invariable leaning and promoting the ethos of decentralization against KYC requirements that licensed owned casinos are mainly known for as a result of the regulatory policies binding them through the license.

[Slow death]

I confess that I have also spent many hours trying to understand what the purpose of the casino license was, given that crypto casinos do not have physical headquarters and that in many European countries, America has been a country on the list of countries banned by casinos. . It's funny that even Curacao, which is the country that issues licenses, is also on the list of countries restricted by casinos. When a casino goes scam and people complain to the Curacao government how they are responsible for issuing many licenses, they do nothing. I've never seen any news talking about what the Curacao government did to arrest scammers

Probably the fact that the Curacao government is on the list of restricted countries in casinos means that the Curacao government is not responsible and they do not even spend time investigating and punishing the scammers. for there to be many people who create casinos with licenses in Curacao and steal people's money and disappear, so I suppose that when dealing with the license in Curacao, people don't go in person, when I talk about people I'm referring to the casino owners, they don't go personally dealing with the license, it is just my suspicion or assumption. Another thing I see is that I have never seen any casino say that Curacao regulators carried out inspections at the casino. So why the hell do they keep asking casinos to have licenses?

governments talk a lot about money laundering, which is why they force casinos to ask for kyc. So far it makes perfect sense, of course it is necessary for casinos to set wagering requirements so that people avoid using the casino to launder money. kyc makes sense, but the license makes no sense since there are many countries with a good reputation that do not accept giving such licenses. Honestly, it's difficult to understand governments when it comes to this licensing issue.

[Coin_trader]

licenses means trust and authentication of the business, so it very obvious that more gamblers will trust a casino that have license compare to the ones that doesn't have such license.

Eh, doesn't it seem otherwise judging from the above discussion? I don't think most of us trust those licenses, considering how cheap and easy it is to get them. Are you sure you can just trust a new casino with a license without doing any research at all? If anything, reputation and forum presence are probably more valuable for Bitcointalk members. I'd argue that if any business can provide the basics on how their games work and others can verify there is no malicious code involved, that should be good enough as a basis to 'trust' the service or not. Don't trust, but verify is more valuable than some random license that anyone can buy with a fake ID. CMIIW.

Sadly, Most of the gambler in crypto think like what the user that you quoted probably because there’s a lot scam casino before that can easily setup their website and offer games. Due to the popularity of Curacao license, this scam casino is moderately reduced or being avoided by players since not all scammer can acquire license from Curacao since it requires additional money unlike before that they will just need to setup a online casino.

License doesn’t guarantee trust but somehow it gives crypto user more confidence to play on this casino because they knew that the casino is registered and regulated even though the license provider is not that reliable. 

For me, Playing with licensed casino will give me a little but of peace of mind rather than those casino that operating on their own because they have nothing to lose aside from their website is very easy to setup again.

[Z_MBFM]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

When a crypto casino comes online it is usable globally and not all countries have bitcoin as illegal there are many countries where bitcoin is legal and the country from which a crypto casino site is operated must have crypto legal and people from that country must be gambling Play and this is why casino sites require a license. It is the private problem of the country where crypto is not legalized so rest of the countries will be in danger for that country how come. This is why casinocytes require lyases.  And the most important thing is that if you see that a site does not have a license then you yourself will not be interested in gambling there.  So it is also an important factor to attract gamblers. And sites willingly license it for that too

Yes your points are quite logical as we always want to be safe.  It doesn't hurt us much when we lose gambling but it hurts us a lot when we see that a casino site has scammed us and we lost the money we had there. So we think that sites that are licensed won't scam so easily because when they got a license they submitted their personal information there.  So these things give us some courage to use that site.  And casino sites also use this opportunity to attract gamblers

[Botnake]

"Crypto casinos" are not yet regulated anywhere, the one being regulated is running the "casino" itself, whether it is a accepting cryptocurrency or not. That's why there are options to pay via fiat in other ways. And who else doesn't wants to run a "licensed" casinos when getting them is very cheap.

Casino is no different from exchanges. If exchanges are regulated, therefore Casinos needs to be regulated too.

Exchanges deals with crypto, casino deals with crypto, there's no difference. So it doesn't make sense to question why Casinos need a license.

[Porfirii]

-snip-

When a crypto casino comes online it is usable globally and not all countries have bitcoin as illegal there are many countries where bitcoin is legal and the country from which a crypto casino site is operated must have crypto legal and people from that country must be gambling Play and this is why casino sites require a license. It is the private problem of the country where crypto is not legalized so rest of the countries will be in danger for that country how come. This is why casinocytes require lyases.  And the most important thing is that if you see that a site does not have a license then you yourself will not be interested in gambling there.  So it is also an important factor to attract gamblers. And sites willingly license it for that too

Yes your points are quite logical as we always want to be safe.  It doesn't hurt us much when we lose gambling but it hurts us a lot when we see that a casino site has scammed us and we lost the money we had there. So we think that sites that are licensed won't scam so easily because when they got a license they submitted their personal information there.  So these things give us some courage to use that site.  And casino sites also use this opportunity to attract gamblers

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin which is now more topical than ever. Unfortunately, it is also true that there are many bad actors out there and, specially in our crypto industry, the exit scam cases are utterly frequent.

Would we be voluntarily willing to give up our liberty in our communications, for instance? I don't think so. But, as long as these online casinos are not decentralised and therefore we have to TRUST them (the very problem Satoshi tried to solve), I don't see licensing such a big attack to our freedom. My two sats.

[EarnOnVictor]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Don't get this wrong, I do not think the government can be so dumb as to say Bitcoin is not money when they know it is an asset, a tradeable one for that matter, you may only misquote them. Except that they fear Bitcoin is not supported by any physical asset, but they are wrong there as people's money is enough to support it.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

You have a good point here, most of these casinos are just overbearing, and the Curacao license is not that strong to warrant what they are trying to pretend. Still, they should be prepared in case they are the subject of investigation one way or another. And this time, cryptocurrency will not save them as they must reveal all their financial flows crypto or not.

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

This is because regulation of crypto usage is still weak, with time, cryptocurrency users will be more accountable, and the time is near. No casinos will be able to operate over time as if they are not in the world bound by any law. For those casinos that are operating in sane environments, they have to be more accountable due to regulations and internal inventigations. You are not an insider, a lot is there for them to be answerable to as government officials and law enforcers will always be on their neck.

[MJSO22]

The casino licenses the site.  Because they are here to do real business.  If they don't have a license they can't operate it legally.  Deposits can be made not only through bitcoins or bank cards, but also through crypto casinos.So if casino sites do scam then legal action will be taken against them.  Because they have to main the right documents while licensing.  So if they scam it will be easy to find them.

[Hispo]

It is a clear contradiction, sure. In terms if functionality, Bitcoin is indeed money, because money is supposed to be a vehicle to transfer value between parties in a decentralized way. The thing is that governments do not want to openly admit Bitcoin and other alternative coins are equivalent to money, because that would imply they are given much recognition and platforming Bitcoin in the most important economies of the planet, which would put Bitcoin to the same level of their FIATs.
On the other hand, the licences are put in place by some government, because of the implications of the volume of wealth going through casinos and could facilitate crimes like money laundering, tax evasion...

Is it possible to finance terrorism with something which is not money? Is it possible to launder money using something which is not even money? Those are question which one was supposed to try to answer before lashing against regulators and their agents.

Bitcoin is money, the establishment won't admitting but in my meantime they will regulate Bitcoin as money in casinos and exchanges. The typical hypocrisy of governments and those in the top of them. Nothing new under the sun, my friends.

[Ojima-ojo]

For me I believe that licensing is far more better than none licensing in casinos today reason is that, with licensing, there will be more trust and confidence that at least the platform is real and legit with a physical office because, in some countries, one of the criteria for approving a license for a casino is to have a physical office so with that at least gambler's who patronize them will have a place to direct they enquiries and complains to and getting a one on one to receive direct attention.


Also, another advantage of a licensed casino is the fact that one can easily sue them in court if they violate any of the set agreements, this kind of redress can't be gotten from an anonymous casino.

[seoincorporation]

Seriously guys... crypto casinos going with Curacao licenses, this doesn`t have anything to do with governments... you don`t seem to be getting the point.

Unfortunately, this seems to become yet another spam thread.

I have been reading all the answers from the community, and your comment is the only one that doesn't have sense at all... If Curacao licenses doesn't have anything to do with governments, then why people don't get a license from their own country?

The point here is simple, there are a bunch of business who find a gap in the legal system. Decide to play it smart and put the rules on the table about how crypto gambling should work on a legal way. And from my point of view is a bad joke that someone who lives in Australia have their servers on India and their Gambling license from Curacao.

I mean, i can open a casino and say it will operate under the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", where there is no jurisdiction.

This is not a spam thread, is a good discussion, and i enjoy reading all your points of view.

[coin-investor]

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

I hope that's the case and that the casino platforms will and can exist without regulation, but so many online casinos got their domain and are hosted on platforms that are regulated by the government they can easily ask the registrar and the host to stop registration and hosting platforms casinos that do not adhere to international laws on AMLAC.
And worse they can mark these platforms as part of money laundering as they did in many mixers, online casinos are legit profit-making business ventures so they have no choice but to be compliant and go in the direction of what legit online companies should do and that is by getting licenses.

Very good discussion glad OP created this kind of discussion you might want to open a poll on what the community thinks

[Shamm]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 
For the main time, if you are starting small as a casino, you might not all need those licences and approvals as there might be little eyes on you, but after that, if you want your business to go far, you need to operate based on the laws that govern owning a casino.

agree with this mate everyone of us have different perspective and way of looking in Bitcoin and some of us are already know that Bitcoin is not a scam and Bitcoin is very good to invest but there are many people around the globe that they will not accept Bitcoin and the best example of these are governments which they didn't accept Bitcoin in their country and we don't know the main reason why they don't accept Bitcoin. But nowadys there some countries that they are now accepting bitcoins than before .

[shasan]

I think in some cases the money is accesory and not the main thing. Let me explain, the lincese and the regulation is more like a judge in case of some problem between you and the gambling house, is like you think X gambling site doesnt make the things right well someone has to be the judge right? and that judge has to be a third party and preferabily a specialized one.

And CANT be a enterprises because you know..... maybe that enterprise is also the owner of some gambling site, so its gonna be necesary to be a state owned.

I think that is the main point anda lso is to avoid some other problems from other big countries by the owners of the sites.

I support your point about the crypto gambling needs to be more desentralized, but is hard to do.

I agree with you that if any problem happens with the gambling sited as well as the gambler then the problem need to make a solutions. And if the gambling site has no regulations then the site may go away and there might have no way to resolve the issue. So licence is helpful for the gambler mainly.

[kuriboh]

Although Bitcoin is called a "digital currency," some people and businesses need licences to use it legally and compliantly.

• Digital currencies like Bitcoin are government-controlled. These groups enforce AML and KYC laws when people buy and sell cryptocurrencies. Obtaining a licence shows that some groups take these rules seriously.
• Licencing protects consumers by requiring cryptocurrency businesses to follow rules. Stopping fraud, protecting customer funds, and resolving disputes can help the cryptocurrency industry gain trust.
• Licencing bodies require cryptocurrency businesses to take security measures to prevent theft, fraud, and hacking. These standards help businesses protect their clients' assets and operate safely. They can implement strong security and conduct regular audits.
• A cryptocurrency licence can help a business gain recognition. This recognition can attract investors, make partnerships easier, and provide financial services to licenced businesses.

Remember that cryptocurrency laws vary by location. Some countries have licencing systems, while others are still creating them. Individuals and businesses should consult lawyers to determine local business rules.

[bettercrypto]

You know, first of all, that I don't believe that Bitcoin is money; most people know that. It's not because it can't be touched; it's not really money anymore, but almost all casinos accept it when it comes to the category of deposit to gamble. Isn't it like cheating when they do that?

Although, until now, there are still countries that do not recognize Bitcoin in their countries, we know the reason why: they know they have no ability to really control it because what they want is for them to have an advantage, of course.

[letteredhub]

What makes casinos using bitcoin endeavor to get a license for operation is due to the mentality of the gamblers that make use of these casino's, hardly you see gamblers get so comfortable making use of casinos that are not registered and licensed under government as they fear that they can be easily scammed and there's no channel that they can go register their grievance that could compel the casino to do the needful. Despite this, there are still casinos that operates without license and they have been with a recommendable reputation.

[decodx]

Seriously guys... crypto casinos going with Curacao licenses, this doesn`t have anything to do with governments... you don`t seem to be getting the point.

Unfortunately, this seems to become yet another spam thread.

I have been reading all the answers from the community, and your comment is the only one that doesn't have sense at all... If Curacao licenses doesn't have anything to do with governments, then why people don't get a license from their own country?

The main point here seems to be that licenses from Curacao don't actually carry much weight legally in most places around the world.  Any online gambling sites operating with just a license from Curacao are likely breaking the law across a lot of different countries.  These kinds of licenses mostly just provide a sort of fake sense of legitimacy for players on shady sites.  But we all know if issues ever come up with one of these gambling operations, that slip of paper from Curacao won't be getting anyone's money back or resolving problems.

I mean, i can open a casino and say it will operate under the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", where there is no jurisdiction.

Yes. You could. And such a license would have the same value for me personally as a license from Curacao. Both casinos are equally illegal in my part of the world as they are not licensed under the legislation I am subject to. I'm from the EU. But the same is true for, for example, the US, and most other countries in the world. For the people running the sites it allows them to technically claim to meet licensing requirements.  But for users it's more illusion than reality when you scratch beneath the surface.

[shasan]

Although Bitcoin is called a "digital currency," some people and businesses need licences to use it legally and compliantly.

• Digital currencies like Bitcoin are government-controlled. These groups enforce AML and KYC laws when people buy and sell cryptocurrencies. Obtaining a licence shows that some groups take these rules seriously.
• Licencing protects consumers by requiring cryptocurrency businesses to follow rules. Stopping fraud, protecting customer funds, and resolving disputes can help the cryptocurrency industry gain trust.
• Licencing bodies require cryptocurrency businesses to take security measures to prevent theft, fraud, and hacking. These standards help businesses protect their clients' assets and operate safely. They can implement strong security and conduct regular audits.
• A cryptocurrency licence can help a business gain recognition. This recognition can attract investors, make partnerships easier, and provide financial services to licenced businesses.

Remember that cryptocurrency laws vary by location. Some countries have licencing systems, while others are still creating them. Individuals and businesses should consult lawyers to determine local business rules.

Governments of several countries trying to control KYC policy to maintain taxes for the people of those countries. If there is no rule and anywhere they perform the buy/sell/exchange the the government will not be able to take taxes from them. So to ensure the tax they have to specific terms to their people.

[Oilacris]

Although Bitcoin is called a "digital currency," some people and businesses need licences to use it legally and compliantly.

• Digital currencies like Bitcoin are government-controlled. These groups enforce AML and KYC laws when people buy and sell cryptocurrencies. Obtaining a licence shows that some groups take these rules seriously.
• Licencing protects consumers by requiring cryptocurrency businesses to follow rules. Stopping fraud, protecting customer funds, and resolving disputes can help the cryptocurrency industry gain trust.
• Licencing bodies require cryptocurrency businesses to take security measures to prevent theft, fraud, and hacking. These standards help businesses protect their clients' assets and operate safely. They can implement strong security and conduct regular audits.
• A cryptocurrency licence can help a business gain recognition. This recognition can attract investors, make partnerships easier, and provide financial services to licenced businesses.

Remember that cryptocurrency laws vary by location. Some countries have licencing systems, while others are still creating them. Individuals and businesses should consult lawyers to determine local business rules.

Governments of several countries trying to control KYC policy to maintain taxes for the people of those countries. If there is no rule and anywhere they perform the buy/sell/exchange the the government will not be able to take taxes from them. So to ensure the tax they have to specific terms to their people.

Not really that shocking not really that surprising on that government would really be always loving on trying out to control or to take grasps on everything on which it wont really be something
that new that as long they could possibly be able to integrate those regulations and those laws then there would really be no other ways to escape since you would really be obliged
on paying up those taxes or being that snipped out with those things. Yes, it is really that for the better good when it comes to economical aspect.
It is really just that they cant really be able to skip out into those things which something that could be beneficial.

[khaled0111]

Who said bitcoin isn't money? Before depositing bitcoin on a certain casino, you have to buy those bitcoins with.. what! Yes, you have to buy it with real money. When you win and make some profit, when you cash out your bitcoins, how are you going to spend it!! Sure, you will convert it to another form of money which is your local currency. So, what!  Is bitcoin money or not? Or at least, does it have the same value as your local currency or not? Sure it has.
When you play on any of the casinos you've mentioned above you are spending money too.

[Hirose UK]

~snip~

Bitcoin is money, the establishment won't admitting but in my meantime they will regulate Bitcoin as money in casinos and exchanges. The typical hypocrisy of governments and those in the top of them. Nothing new under the sun, my friends.

You are right, Bitcoin is money and of course it is very valuable and it is only digital asset but from its high value it is clear that it will really need license for all companies that use it.
Every country that has legality regarding crypto will definitely emphasize the obligation to have official permits or licenses which are useful for protecting all users from experiencing bad things such as scams, the government and also certain authorities will emphasize security for all users.
Gambling platforms or trading exchanges must have an official license, although this does not guarantee it, at least there is protection that can still be relied on to maintain the security of everyone who uses it.
We use crypto, especially Bitcoin, and of course we also don't want to have problems that could be detrimental and cause number of valuable assets to be lost, so we will always use platform that has clearly been registered and has an official license.
Moreover, there is no need to worry about licensing just because of freedom, I will still accept all of that to be able to get decent place and can be trusted to look after the valuable assets that I own.

[Bushdark]

Who said bitcoin isn't money? Before depositing bitcoin on a certain casino, you have to buy those bitcoins with.. what! Yes, you have to buy it with real money. When you win and make some profit, when you cash out your bitcoins, how are you going to spend it!! Sure, you will convert it to another form of money which is your local currency. So, what!  Is bitcoin money or not? Or at least, does it have the same value as your local currency or not? Sure it has.
When you play on any of the casinos you've mentioned above you are spending money too.

The ideas from different people stating that Bitcoin is not a real money is one of the things that made op skeptical of the situation.
We all have our own interests and what we so much care about. Bitcoin had been serving as a digital money for a very long time and we need to know what we are doing so that we don't allow people to brainwash us on some certain things that are not true.
Bitcoin is digital money that's why we had been seeing the big people going for it and wants to control it.

[Crypt0Gore]

Ok, first of all... Bitcoin is money. Why would casinos accept it, if it was not money? How would they pay for their operating expenses, if Bitcoin was not money?  

The Licensing authorities might not be as affective as most people would have wanted, but they do serve a purpose. Can you imagine what casinos would have gotten away with, if there were zero oversight over their activities?

Some of these casinos would not even have been able to open it's virtual doors for business, if it was not for these licensing authorities. (Example : Australia does not allow online gambling, but Eddie (Australian) operates Stake.com which is one of the most succesful online crypto casinos out there.)

I accept, Bitcoin is indeed money, I haven't seen where every thing that's not crypto is been accepted in a casino before, you can't use diamond or gold because they are precious stones kinda but bItcoin is digital and yes it fits to be money than anything except fiat itself.

Casinos having licenses do serve it's purpose and it has nothing to do with what currencies the casinos choose to accept or not, I believe this is not the part of the license they are trying to acquire, it does not concern the license office, casinos are the ones to say a yes or no to a currency.

Bitcoin is digital money and this have been the same in the past years, we made it this far and today the ETF is even approved, it means we can use crypto to pay for what we want if the sellers are willing to accept them as payment option, this is non of the authorities business.

[efialtis]

Seriously guys... crypto casinos going with Curacao licenses, this doesn`t have anything to do with governments... you don`t seem to be getting the point.

Unfortunately, this seems to become yet another spam thread.

I have been reading all the answers from the community, and your comment is the only one that doesn't have sense at all... If Curacao licenses doesn't have anything to do with governments, then why people don't get a license from their own country?

The point here is simple, there are a bunch of business who find a gap in the legal system. Decide to play it smart and put the rules on the table about how crypto gambling should work on a legal way. And from my point of view is a bad joke that someone who lives in Australia have their servers on India and their Gambling license from Curacao.

I mean, i can open a casino and say it will operate under the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", where there is no jurisdiction.

This is not a spam thread, is a good discussion, and i enjoy reading all your points of view.

This is funny - no offense.

You are not going for a freaking Curacao license because your government requires you to do so when you are running a crypto gambling operation - a crypto gambling operation is illegal pretty much anywhere in the world, in the first place. Your government would not allow you to offer gambling if/when you are not licensed in the US, EU, or anywhere - based on your location. Let`s take Germany for example - there are very few German licenses given and if you aren`t holding any of these, your gambling operation is illegal - it`s as simple as that. The reason for that is that you would not be granted a German gambling license for a crypto gambling business.

I have stated this before: There are dozens of unlicensed operators being sued in Germany and forced to refund €€€€ to players whose money they took without holding a valid license.

[EarnOnVictor]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 
For the main time, if you are starting small as a casino, you might not all need those licences and approvals as there might be little eyes on you, but after that, if you want your business to go far, you need to operate based on the laws that govern owning a casino.

agree with this mate everyone of us have different perspective and way of looking in Bitcoin and some of us are already know that Bitcoin is not a scam and Bitcoin is very good to invest but there are many people around the globe that they will not accept Bitcoin and the best example of these are governments which they didn't accept Bitcoin in their country and we don't know the main reason why they don't accept Bitcoin. But nowadys there some countries that they are now accepting bitcoins than before .

Acceptance of Bitcoin or not, the government is still saddled with the responsibility to keep a sane environment, not that illicit financial flows will be moving up and down in the name of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency and they will not be able to do anything about it. Only that people do not want to accept the fact, and they want a world of no regulation and control. But are they thinking about the bad effects of that as well? A lot of victims of illicit flows are out there, who knows the next victim of terrorism and trafficking? We should not be selfish but even pray for more regulations as the decentralization of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is making it easier to move illicit money, easier than fiat. Although I know before now, yet recently, all the movies I watched that involved illicit flows, it was all about Bitcoin transfer means, just because of the easiness. So it can't be comfortable for the government to fold their arms, and it will be very reasonable to make the company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptos in their domains to at least be accountable for their transactions and I see nothing wrong about this.

Registration, licencing and regulation are important and I will always support it. We should even thank the countries' governments that are still allowing cryptocurrency in their domain, if they don't, there is nothing anyone can do. Also, for the reason why some countries ban cryptocurrency, well, it is obvious and it is to encourage illicit financial flows since the government cannot oversee it. Even the illicit flows will be meant for so many illegal activities that could be so devastating to the country. But some governments are only protecting their economy, crypto is also a devil in disguise as your country's money might not be recorded for the country but stay in crypto (cross-border payments), how can it add FX to your nation even if it is gotten from another country? The government will never know of such a transaction unless you call their attention to it. Nevertheless, the government that banned crypto went too far, they should have regulated it just like the US and the Western nations are doing. This would have served the same purpose or almost the same purpose as the banning but with the government gaining more from it. This is even as the supposed banning is not always effective as people use other means to move cryptos behind the back of the government.

[Rabata]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 
For the main time, if you are starting small as a casino, you might not all need those licences and approvals as there might be little eyes on you, but after that, if you want your business to go far, you need to operate based on the laws that govern owning a casino.

agree with this mate everyone of us have different perspective and way of looking in Bitcoin and some of us are already know that Bitcoin is not a scam and Bitcoin is very good to invest but there are many people around the globe that they will not accept Bitcoin and the best example of these are governments which they didn't accept Bitcoin in their country and we don't know the main reason why they don't accept Bitcoin. But nowadys there some countries that they are now accepting bitcoins than before .

There was a time when Bitcoin was outright ignored by the government but with the change of time their attitude towards Bitcoin has also changed. It is now very easy to compare Bitcoin to money today. Things that can be done with money can also be done with Bitcoin. This fact is now known to the whole world. But even after knowing, they will have hostile behaviour. They will never admit that Bitcoin is money. Institutionally they will always oppose Bitcoin. However, their behaviour does not stop the expansion of Bitcoin. If they don't accept Bitcoin as money, why do they need license? Some governments want to work against the purpose that cryptocurrencies were created for. Their efforts to centralise the decentralised system are not feasible. But they are trying to do that.

[Rufsilf]

For me I believe that licensing is far more better than none licensing in casinos today reason is that, with licensing, there will be more trust and confidence that at least the platform is real and legit with a physical office because, in some countries, one of the criteria for approving a license for a casino is to have a physical office so with that at least gambler's who patronize them will have a place to direct they enquiries and complains to and getting a one on one to receive direct attention.

I agree; by getting a license, we can make sure the casino runs in accordance with the rules set forth by authorities in charge of regulations. For this reason, regardless of the kind of money involved, many licensing agencies would mandate that casinos employ AML and KYC procedures. Since the goal of this move is to stop illegal acts like money laundering, financing of terrorism, and, of course, fraud, I believe it is a wonderful idea. I believed that since bitcoin is a kind of money, casinos that used it as payment had to abide by certain rules. Given that taxes have become common in our society, it stands to reason that casinos that accept bitcoin will eventually have to pay taxes. and a license requires a thorough financial examination to make sure the casino has the money to run and pay out wins. Well, I think, this improves financial transparency and aids in transaction monitoring.
 
Additionally, a license would, in my opinion, provide a casino with a sense of legality and credibility, both of which are crucial for drawing in customers. In my opinion, it gives players more confidence, even if they have doubts about the safety and impartiality of transactions using cryptocurrency.

[bakasabo]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

[noormcs5]

For me I believe that licensing is far more better than none licensing in casinos today reason is that, with licensing, there will be more trust and confidence that at least the platform is real and legit with a physical office because, in some countries, one of the criteria for approving a license for a casino is to have a physical office so with that at least gambler's who patronize them will have a place to direct they enquiries and complains to and getting a one on one to receive direct attention.

In that case, the licensing authority should be globally recognized and has a value as most of the online casinos are accessed globally and it is not that easy to file a case on any casino, if you are not physically present in that country. Most gamblers even do not know about gambling licensing companies and how to access them in case of any dispute with the gambling site.

Also, another advantage of a licensed casino is the fact that one can easily sue them in court if they violate any of the set agreements, this kind of redress can't be gotten from an anonymous casino.

Well, again this knowledge needs to be spread among the gamblers as to how they can seek help from these licensed companies who have authorized the casino to provide gambling services.
By the way, some casinos may say they have the license when they do not have it. We should also know how to verify if the site has the verified license or not. 

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

If casinos getting a license was all about legality, that is, to prove to their users that they are legally backed and have zero chances of scamming, then I would say that the licensing body have failed woefully in their duty, judging from the number of incidents and times we have seen some casinos that appeared to be legal due to their license, abscond with money belonging to their customers.

Personally, what I did say is that, licenses this days looks more like formality, that is, they make casinos appear more formal and professional business wise.
And like you said, maybe it also have something to do with casinos paying taxes and other governmental renumeration, for I believe that a casino without a licence may likely not be a tax paying casino.

[Beparanf]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

I believe what’s the main point here is if Bitcoin is not regulated which means not considered money then what’s the point of paying taxes for the casino? License is not for the employees but rather for their customers to legally play their games on the country which their license is accepted.

License is now a must because Bitcoin is already started to be regulated. It’s not like before which Bitcoin is just like a play money which regulators can turn a blind eye. Billion of dollars is flowing into crypto right now so Bitcoin is definitely considered as money these days for them to regulate.

[Hispo]

~snip~

Bitcoin is money, the establishment won't admitting but in my meantime they will regulate Bitcoin as money in casinos and exchanges. The typical hypocrisy of governments and those in the top of them. Nothing new under the sun, my friends.

You are right, Bitcoin is money and of course it is very valuable and it is only digital asset but from its high value it is clear that it will really need license for all companies that use it.
Every country that has legality regarding crypto will definitely emphasize the obligation to have official permits or licenses which are useful for protecting all users from experiencing bad things such as scams, the government and also certain authorities will emphasize security for all users.
Gambling platforms or trading exchanges must have an official license, although this does not guarantee it, at least there is protection that can still be relied on to maintain the security of everyone who uses it.
We use crypto, especially Bitcoin, and of course we also don't want to have problems that could be detrimental and cause number of valuable assets to be lost, so we will always use platform that has clearly been registered and has an official license.
Moreover, there is no need to worry about licensing just because of freedom, I will still accept all of that to be able to get decent place and can be trusted to look after the valuable assets that I own.

I believe the licensing part of cryptocurrency casinos and other kinds of services are rest are situational on the level of centralization behind the system which run the system itself.
It is true that having a license and all the legal papers in order may help for users not to fall victims of scams, but being properly registered in some serious jurisdiction like the United States or the European Union is not a warranty of the integrity of the service. For example, one needs to take a look at the big scam pulled off by Bernie Madoff. He was one of the most important and influential figures in the stock market of New York, he and his business were all properly registered before the SEC, and yet, it turned to be one of the biggest scams in the history of human kind.

In the case of decentralized casinos and exchanges, I do not think there is a necessity for them to get licensed, as long as their code is open and it can be easily verified by any developer interested in doing so. Centralized services, on the other hand, indeed need to have a license and audits, so we all can be sure they are not scamming or slowly exiting their scam.

[Fortify]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

You don't get to decide "what is money" nor does anyone except the government of countries that we live in. However even you are trying to manipulate wording when most people around here would put the cryptocurrency label on these assets that we trade it. People try to play word games to avoid regulators because they stand to make a lot of money if they can avoid certain laws. "Mixers" are a perfect example of this and just recently got banned on these forums because of the heat they bring, as the definition many of them use is identical to money laundering - which is highly illegal. I don't think you have a clue how casinos or licensing works if you think that these small licensing operations are actually receiving or passing money through anywhere, the licensing they offer is totally detached from the financial operations of these casinos.

[Orpichukwu]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

If casinos getting a license was all about legality, that is, to prove to their users that they are legally backed and have zero chances of scamming, then I would say that the licensing body have failed woefully in their duty, judging from the number of incidents and times we have seen some casinos that appeared to be legal due to their license, abscond with money belonging to their customers.

One thing that we will also have to ask is: how legit is all this online casino that is parading their licence around? Are they truly registered with the body that they are claiming to be under? Because many scam casinos just use some backyard means to acquire licences and put some random number that, if searched upon, will show some error rather than invalid.
 
Then again, most of this regulatory body is just so concerned about how much is going to be paid to them by the casino in order for them to maintain their licence, and citizens protection is no longer their valid concern unless the allegations are serious enough to call their attention, if not they pay debt ears to all of that.

[uneng]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

To operate legally always give the companies wider access to the gambling industry. It allows them to take advantage of the full potential of the industry, as legalized casinos can legally work in more territories around the world, so gamblers feel encouraged to play on them, since there is a considerable portion of players who avoid unregulated casinos not exactly due to reputation reasons, but to avoid issues with their local regulators.

Legal casinos can advertise themselves freely without fear of retaliation, and gamblers can play on them without fear of retaliation as well. If licenses weren't important, there wouldn't be so many crypto casinos going for them. For people in this forum it doesn't look good, but the reality is that we aren't on the shoes of the people who run casinos. We don't know their necessities, obstacles, struggles and why they do this or that, but I guess if it were possible to remain unregulated on this niche of the market, they would be until nowadays.

Unfortunatelly, crypto industry has been changing along the years, becoming more and more regulated each new day, and that is a reality we have to cope with.

[Odusko]

In some place, casino can not operate without a license and that is what have made it very hard for you to see an existence of a casino without having certificate to operate as an entity,  although we have a pocket lf few of other casinos that operates without a license but all the same, it wont take long before authorities will close in on them and making it a end games by all means or being forced to get a license for the business.
So the reason why casinos seek after license is to gain legitimacy from their players and the society at large, and also being able to gain the recognition from the government also since the licenses are issued by the government.

[Yogee]

In my opinion, the casinos that get the license and implement it in the casino may only be based on the trust of their users, and could just be a promotional medium, so it's not surprising that they use it as an attraction.

This is more valid now than before. It used to be that nobody cares about license as long as the casino was able to build a good reputation in the forum or other gambling community. It has changed since then and most of the newer casinos are constantly asked if they have one or not. Even the older ones are like forced to get a license for regulatory purposes only.

[Wiwo]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

Secondly also because the casino is not only designed for bitcoin usage only because at some point the casino have alot of other currencies within their system which are traditional currency and requeir license to operate them, this is what is at stake at all time and the reason why casinos thrive to get license before any other thing in the cost of their operations, most likely we have seen some of them making much attempts to operates outside license but at the end it will not end well and also will result into some other issues for the casino if the authorities fines out that they without any license.

[davis196]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

I agree that Curacao gambling licenses are useless. Having a useless gambling license creates the fake sense of legitimacy, but the casino can still find ways to scam the gamblers.
Decentralized gambling should become the future. Betting directly from your cold wallet and receiving the profits directly to your cold wallet (minus a certain fee)should become the new normal. If decentralized gambling becomes a thing, why the hell would you trust a third party, by depositing your precious coins there and conducting useless KYC.
The problem is that nobody wants to invest in truly decentralized gambling projects.

[Marvelman]

I agree that Curacao gambling licenses are useless. Having a useless gambling license creates the fake sense of legitimacy, but the casino can still find ways to scam the gamblers.
Decentralized gambling should become the future. Betting directly from your cold wallet and receiving the profits directly to your cold wallet (minus a certain fee)should become the new normal. If decentralized gambling becomes a thing, why the hell would you trust a third party, by depositing your precious coins there and conducting useless KYC.
The problem is that nobody wants to invest in truly decentralized gambling projects.

I definitely think decentralized gambling has potential to shake things up.  Putting more control into players' hands about their money and personal info makes sense.  And it'd be tougher for shady casinos to take advantage. 

but the issue is that big, traditional gambling outfits still have all the power.  Theyve got the cash and sway to lobby against decentralized gambling.  Plus they know how to aggressively market their own products. 

So, they face an uphill battle against the entrenched gambling industry giants.  These big dogs won't go down without a fight.

[abel1337]

I agree that Curacao gambling licenses are useless. Having a useless gambling license creates the fake sense of legitimacy, but the casino can still find ways to scam the gamblers.
Decentralized gambling should become the future. Betting directly from your cold wallet and receiving the profits directly to your cold wallet (minus a certain fee)should become the new normal. If decentralized gambling becomes a thing, why the hell would you trust a third party, by depositing your precious coins there and conducting useless KYC.
The problem is that nobody wants to invest in truly decentralized gambling projects.

I definitely think decentralized gambling has potential to shake things up.  Putting more control into players' hands about their money and personal info makes sense.  And it'd be tougher for shady casinos to take advantage. 

but the issue is that big, traditional gambling outfits still have all the power.  Theyve got the cash and sway to lobby against decentralized gambling.  Plus they know how to aggressively market their own products. 

So, they face an uphill battle against the entrenched gambling industry giants.  These big dogs won't go down without a fight.

I'm sure that there will be a time where gamblers will prefer decentralize more over the widely known centralized casino. There's a pros and cons with decentralized and centralized casino but on our current state, gamblers still like playing on centralized casino because on how easy to engage on gambling even there's a KYC requirement on centralized casino.

Sooner or later, decentralized casino will find a way to make gamblers switch on their gambling site, one idea I'm thinking is incentivizing them with airdrops. This can replace the deposit bonuses of centralized casino if ever it happened.

[Jaycoinz]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

I think to license the casino is all part of the gaming regulations and process and if not anything atleast it shows that the casino is for a steady ready and mean business because I know you have to pay a lot of money before your company get licensed, let's all think of it this way, imagine now that licensed isn't mandatory and important it would have been so easy for any company to come start offering such service and can easily discharge with the public money that have all been sent to the casino or website.

[dothebeats]

Those that operate til now without licenses are in the game for years, and basically they don't need any piece of paper from any governments to appear legitimate. These new casinos getting licenses on Caribbean tax havens are doing so because they want to appear 'legally compliant' and make it look like they are not going to run with your funds because they are licensed. At the end of the day though, it's still a matter of choice on whether to play on unlicensed casinos or not.

There are a lot of licensed casinos out there that can't still serve lots of countries.

[dezoel]

In some place, casino can not operate without a license and that is what have made it very hard for you to see an existence of a casino without having certificate to operate as an entity,  although we have a pocket lf few of other casinos that operates without a license but all the same, it wont take long before authorities will close in on them and making it a end games by all means or being forced to get a license for the business.
So the reason why casinos seek after license is to gain legitimacy from their players and the society at large, and also being able to gain the recognition from the government also since the licenses are issued by the government.

Those are already the problem of a casino operator. But for us players, we still can see lots of casinos online even they are not licensed. They are still safe and other functions are still there like on what we saw on a licensed casino.

I don't know if it's true that governments can be after them and shut them down one by one but I think that is mostly applicable to the fiat casinos. While for the crypto ones, I doubt that because cryptos are decentralized right? But if you are talking about the offline casinos, then you are right about that . It will be a headache for us. There are underground casinos but they are illegal and it is risky to engage on them.

[blockman]

It makes sense but standards from users and governments are changing that fast. Even if we as a community, don't actually need to rely on these licenses and things for compliance. A casino needs to secure it for themselves and not for us so that they'll be legally operating. As much as they want it to be, I guess that it's also a preference on their end. While for us, whichever we prefer as long as those basics you've mentioned are being met then that doesn't play a big deal at all. But when someone who's known and reputed prefers to go into a casino saying things that they should be licensed, I think that makes an impact to the audience that follows those people and will make that opinion as if it's the standard.

[rhomelmabini]

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Or have a real crypto gambling firm that could offer licenses just for crypto, to make it more regulated. It doesn't mean it's not important but for those gamblers who wants it, it sure is important. To be honest, people still have that narrative to ask, "do you have a license somewhere?" even in this very forum. And, hands down to those crypto casinos that get huge without it, totally fascinating.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Why are you listing 'em casinos?? Isn't this just a way to create an awareness about them to everyone else?  Including the gambling operational services like ...GCB, NLRC etc? Just asking anyways.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

The governs are just exercising their sovereignty and there's little to what you can do in this situation... maybe apart from protesting?? Lol.. all they need is full accessibility into people's wallet, acc balances, transaction history etc... I don't know why but something tells them that monitoring individual funds is a way to mop out inflation...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Yes, ... That should make you understand why we've got grades and classes between other citizens..

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

[AmoreJaz]

It makes sense but standards from users and governments are changing that fast. Even if we as a community, don't actually need to rely on these licenses and things for compliance. A casino needs to secure it for themselves and not for us so that they'll be legally operating. As much as they want it to be, I guess that it's also a preference on their end. While for us, whichever we prefer as long as those basics you've mentioned are being met then that doesn't play a big deal at all. But when someone who's known and reputed prefers to go into a casino saying things that they should be licensed, I think that makes an impact to the audience that follows those people and will make that opinion as if it's the standard.

the sentiment over crypto-related businesses is changing. as users are trying not to get duped by fraudsters, they are looking for options on not to get wrecked by these scammers. hence, one way is to check if the casino is licensed or not. but if you happen to know the site long time or has proven good history even if they are not licensed, you can also play with them. after all, how many cases have you seen that someone is truly suing a casino because of not releasing their funds?

Those that operate til now without licenses are in the game for years, and basically they don't need any piece of paper from any governments to appear legitimate. These new casinos getting licenses on Caribbean tax havens are doing so because they want to appear 'legally compliant' and make it look like they are not going to run with your funds because they are licensed. At the end of the day though, it's still a matter of choice on whether to play on unlicensed casinos or not.

There are a lot of licensed casinos out there that can't still serve lots of countries.

in this forum alone, you can already see several unlicensed casinos and yet, they are still doing their business. at the end of the day, one important factor to consider is the reputation built throughout the years. so if they don't have existing valid complaints, usually, they can gain loyal patrons on their site.

[blockman]

It makes sense but standards from users and governments are changing that fast. Even if we as a community, don't actually need to rely on these licenses and things for compliance. A casino needs to secure it for themselves and not for us so that they'll be legally operating. As much as they want it to be, I guess that it's also a preference on their end. While for us, whichever we prefer as long as those basics you've mentioned are being met then that doesn't play a big deal at all. But when someone who's known and reputed prefers to go into a casino saying things that they should be licensed, I think that makes an impact to the audience that follows those people and will make that opinion as if it's the standard.

the sentiment over crypto-related businesses is changing. as users are trying not to get duped by fraudsters, they are looking for options on not to get wrecked by these scammers. hence, one way is to check if the casino is licensed or not. but if you happen to know the site long time or has proven good history even if they are not licensed, you can also play with them. after all, how many cases have you seen that someone is truly suing a casino because of not releasing their funds?

Yeah, it becomes a measure for many of us not to get scammed and having a license is like being registered and serious with the business. Because for them to acquire it, there are certain requirements and they have to spend money for it. But, that doesn't mean as well that the unregistered ones are likely scams as mentioned by OP, many of the known and reputable casinos in the crypto gambling community don't have a license. And it also doesn't mean that a licensed casino won't play bad behavior or won't be a scam casino.

[Dunamisx]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

[Z_MBFM]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

Bitcoin is an alternative to money but many governments are afraid to legalize it in their country even if they believe in it.  This is why the op expressed such anger. And site licenses carry the identity of a site's team. And when a casino site gets a status that they are licensed, the casino business is one step ahead of the competition. Because gamblers are attracted to sites that are reputable and licensed. Some governments do not accept Bitcoin as money, but gamblers trust crypto as money. So gamblers must look for licensed sites for their own safety

[mak013]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Let`s be honest, you don`t get Bitcoin for free. The gold is not money too, but it has some cost. As the result we use for gambling something that costs money, they need to control it.
PS. I don`t believe in license. I think that license for casino is a fake - i`m sure that license can`t help gamblers when they have some problems with casino. But Bitcoin costs money.

[pawanjain]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Well said, although these sites may not provide as many games to gamble as other sites yet they are truly non KYC sites.
It's good to have such non KYC gambling sites. On the other hand, while bitcoin may not have been accepted by many governments yet but they are starting to.

[goldkingcoiner]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Because the government only wants control and taxes. They absolutely cannot handle the fact that they cannot control cryptocurrencies so they go after the centralized parties (in this case; gambling casinos). Their methods of scaring the centralized parties into obeying their every word are two-faced and unjust. At some point, the government will have to give up and give back control to the people. Everything else is just temporary mental gymnastics.

I agree that gambling needs freedom. But that requires decentralized platforms. Ones that are truly decentralized and cannot be touched by the government. I am not sure if the current state of development of web3 casinos can hold a candle to traditional web2 casinos. If they even exist. From my experience, many casinos claiming to be decentralized are not actually so. And they just call themselves decentralized for marketing reasons.

[Wiwo]

Why casinos have license even though bitcoin is not money? Because the casinos pay taxes, have employees that work legally. Imho these are two main reasons why there is a license. There might be a possibility, that license is only needed for reputation, for casino to show users they are not going to scam.

Well what most persons falls to note is that, casino is not all about bitcoin, or cryptocurrency who does not need license to be used, but casinos are business entities that operates under the guidelines of the law and will always act inline with that to secure their own business so for that, when the authorities comes for them, they will have to put everything in place to act accordingly and also being able make everything available to meet up with the demands of the law, this is why we have seen many of them that act according to regulations and it inputs on them, when we have chances to separate the fact and true nature of decentralisation Vs centralisation and in this regards, we have to note the place of the law and licensing for the casino.

So for a centralised casino, there most be a need to present an operational guidelines and procedures that give them the chance to act within the law and and also according to the outline in the licensing of the casino and what the tend and stand to gain and lose at the same time this is very important for the casino to be able to meet legal requirements.

[bettercrypto]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

That's right, that's what I think sometimes. If it's true what others say, that Bitcoin is not money, I hope there are no exchanges that appear in the crypto exchange or even in the stock exchange market that recognize and accept Bitcoin for trading activities.

So, it just means that others who think that bitcoin is not money are people who don't know anything about it, and if a license is needed, it also helps for the security of the communities that enter regulated businesses. .

[peter0425]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

That's right, that's what I think sometimes. If it's true what others say, that Bitcoin is not money, I hope there are no exchanges that appear in the crypto exchange or even in the stock exchange market that recognize and accept Bitcoin for trading activities.

why so? why not let Bitcoin recognized as trading material  mate are you against crypto adoption? because the way you posted this sounds that you are not supporting this to be a trading use.

So, it just means that others who think that bitcoin is not money are people who don't know anything about it, and if a license is needed, it also helps for the security of the communities that enter regulated businesses. .

Bitcoin isn't money but a  digital currency because when you call Money it should be physical and since this is digitally use I believe it may be called currency.

[Hirose UK]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

That's right, that's what I think sometimes. If it's true what others say, that Bitcoin is not money, I hope there are no exchanges that appear in the crypto exchange or even in the stock exchange market that recognize and accept Bitcoin for trading activities.

Bitcoin is not money because Bitcoin does not have an original form in the real world and Bitcoin cannot yet become legal medium of exchange throughout the world like money.
But Bitcoin is technological innovation asset that is very valuable and Bitcoin has become one of the digital currency assets with the best value.
If you equate Bitcoin with money it will clearly be different but the value of Bitcoin will be much greater than fiat currency, the trading exchange is the place to carry out every trading transaction.
This will be the same as traditional market with cryptocurrency market, both are places where each currency can be spent.
It just that in crypto we cannot produce goods that can clearly be seen in general because this is digital asset which is quite supported by technological developments.

So, it just means that others who think that bitcoin is not money are people who don't know anything about it, and if a license is needed, it also helps for the security of the communities that enter regulated businesses. .

It is clear that license is really needed because Bitcoin is not of small value, Bitcoin and cryptocurrency have involved many users with very large value turnover.
This will guarantee the security and comfort of every crypto user, especially Bitcoin, we exchange money into digital assets and we will need security to protect it so we will only use exchanges or platforms that are officially registered.

[blckhawk]

For me, it's probably the appeal of legitimacy in the eyes of the government because if you look clean and legitimate and the government recognizes you then the people would be easy on you and they're comfortable because they know that you're a casino that's not going to cheat their players and that you'll not hold back on your word. Another reason is probably the crypto laws in the countries that the casinos originated from or they still probably convert their profits in fiat so they end up having to pay the tax department of their country, also it's unfair to build a uncertified casino because it's all going to be profit for you and the gap of the profit to your monthly expenditures is just so wide that the government can't just ignore them without having a piece of their pie.

[Reatim]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

bitcoin is a money in digital form and that is what I do believe and learn over the years so yeah it is not that to made confusions .
and you are also correct that if this is not a money so why are we talking about this still now so stop of the complain about this.
and Licensing is jus a form of government to make money so its given already.

[Russlenat]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

bitcoin is a money in digital form and that is what I do believe and learn over the years so yeah it is not that to made confusions .
and you are also correct that if this is not a money so why are we talking about this still now so stop of the complain about this.
and Licensing is jus a form of government to make money so its given already.

I think the take that "bitcoin is not money" from the government happened a long time ago. They are freezing bitcoins and keep it. Now they are encouraging operators to get a license, or will pay the hefty penalty. In short, they are treating it like a fiat casino business as major rules are applied in crypto casino as well. There's no argument in this thing, the world evolve, crypto grow and therefore changes happened.

[arwin100]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

bitcoin is a money in digital form and that is what I do believe and learn over the years so yeah it is not that to made confusions .
and you are also correct that if this is not a money so why are we talking about this still now so stop of the complain about this.
and Licensing is jus a form of government to make money so its given already.

I think the take that "bitcoin is not money" from the government happened a long time ago. They are freezing bitcoins and keep it. Now they are encouraging operators to get a license, or will pay the hefty penalty. In short, they are treating it like a fiat casino business as major rules are applied in crypto casino as well. There's no argument in this thing, the world evolve, crypto grow and therefore changes happened.

Somehow we can expect this to happen since aside from taking money from those operators they also want to minimize the money laundering happening using crypto that's why they urge those operators to get a license so that they can possibly control these event track those possible criminals still using these casino to wash their money. This happen before so I guess there are still like this happening even though there are other methods exist. Overall government still have control on what we want to do on crypto space so if they want to regulate something this shows that nothing can stop them since they have the power to stop or to regulate those businesses exist in that industry.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

Well, I think that bitcoin not being money, and bitcoin existing or not existing are completely two different things, so, in essence, if bitcoin  was not money, but it existed, then there is stil the possiblity that we or many of us will be here for whatever purpose bitcoin serves, for if it was not serving the money purpose, then there must be another purpose to which it exists or was created, and if the creator builds a community platform like this for bitcoin, as many of us that share or are interested in that purpose will definitely be here.

For example, it's like, different brands of mobile phones, different brands of personal computers, other gadgets like headphones, earpods, television, home theater and so on, all this things plus many more, I do not consider them to be money, and I am sure you do not see them as money too, but if you search the internet properly you will discover they all have their different communities where they discuss the features and abilities of different versions, models, and updates of those products respectively.

So, if bitcoin was not money, and bitcointalk as a forum exists, hell yeah people who are interested in the purpose or product behind bitcoin, will be here for sure.

[Hispo]

For me, it's probably the appeal of legitimacy in the eyes of the government because if you look clean and legitimate and the government recognizes you then the people would be easy on you and they're comfortable because they know that you're a casino that's not going to cheat their players and that you'll not hold back on your word. Another reason is probably the crypto laws in the countries that the casinos originated from or they still probably convert their profits in fiat so they end up having to pay the tax department of their country, also it's unfair to build a uncertified casino because it's all going to be profit for you and the gap of the profit to your monthly expenditures is just so wide that the government can't just ignore them without having a piece of their pie.

We all get the regulation, the legitimacy and the taxation part of the licensing when comes to casinos, specially those who deal with FIAT and have physical establishments/headquarters in the real world. But the point of OP is trying to do is how Bitcoin is not considered money by many governments and yet those same governments demand licensing and regulation from the same casinos (which only deal with volume of Bitcoin).
Let us out it this way: what about if you opened a casino but in your casino people do not gamble using neither cryptocurrency nor FiAT, but something which is not considered to be money, like peanuts, people first laugh at you but with time your casino is a success and you start to win millions of dollars in peanuts (or whatever commodity/good you want to apply to this example). Since those earnings you are betting are not money according to the government. Is that some government in their right by asking you to get a license and audit your casino?
It sounds like a contradiction, but to me it is pride from not waiting to admit they were wrong from the beginning about Bitcoin and the Blockchain technology as a medium to transmit value.

[EarnOnVictor]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

I often call Bitcoin money because it is and can do whatever fiat money can do, unless for the physical cash which I believe we are still getting to with time where one can just scan it to know the authenticity of it and the value therein. Bitcoin has done enough for humanity, especially for the less privileged countries, it did more than what fiat could do, so it is money and has all those characteristics that money has.

Still, you seem not to understand what the OP is trying to drive out here. He only believes that since Bitcoin is not structured like the usual fiat money such should be excluded from all the government palavers like registering, licencing and regulations that are attributed to the companies that are dealing with fiats. But he forgot that even if the companies dealing with Bitcoin can do anything hidden with Bitcoin online, they can't operate hidden when they are in a country and offering their services to at least the citizens of that country.

[Mastost]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

The convergence of cryptocurrency and playing does enhance provocative questions about the want for licensing in the cryptogambling zone. While it is tempting to endorse general independence on this area, issues of government regulation and KYC compliance can't be ignored. Some casinos operating from tax havens together with Curaçao emphasize the regulations. The obviousness versus real debate provides some other layer, thinking the credibility of a few licensing regimes.

Trust emerges as a imperative subject matter, with installed casinos working without licenses indicating reputational energy. For new entrants, but, obtaining a license is seen as a manner to advantage person agree with. This balancing act among compliance and user privacy is a subtle assignment.

The position of bitcoin as a form of currency is vital in those discussions. While regular with traditional economic inclinations, the question of whether or not it need to be deregulated is a complex one. Balancing the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies with the want for regulatory oversight to ensure fair play and prevent illicit sports is a challenge that must be cautiously taken into consideration

As the cryptogambling enterprise grows, there's a want to interact in thoughtful discourse around regulation, licensing, and renovation of fundamental cryptocurrency concepts This discussion board is an area to explore perspectives at the evolving cryptogambling panorama at the snow.

[Haunebu]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

[seoincorporation]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

[Haunebu]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

Agreed. I found this particular thread by @Mahdirakib which states which sites have Caribbean licenses and which sites don't along with whether they have any particular KYC requirements or not.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5381143.0

Seems like most of them have those licenses while almost every one of them have certain KYC requirements.

[EarnOnVictor]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

I've worked with enough establishments long enough to know that regulation is a sham in most cases, and even in a country where they are strict with other things, gambling and trading regulations are not so strong. I've heard of companies cheating customers in these countries and nothing was done about it by the government even if they report them. To even report requires money, and it takes time before they will start an investigation in rare cases. As for Curacao, many reasons are making casinos move there and that has never been for the strict regulation but a light one. Most of these casinos are offshore which even makes it worse for the regulator to oversee their activities with the little money they are paying them, that's if they will make an effort at all.

However, regulation or not, some casinos are doing so well, and this is due to personal reputation and integrity. They will pay you your money if you are a fair player and will abide by their core terms and conditions. This is happening even without regulations, so it's all about the casino itself, the brains behind it and the conscience which will determine what will mainly be meted to their customers. Many exist that are well-regulated and still cheat their customers, so the most important thing is for us to find the right casinos before putting our money into their hands.

[Reatim]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having alternative to it.

bitcoin is a money in digital form and that is what I do believe and learn over the years so yeah it is not that to made confusions .
and you are also correct that if this is not a money so why are we talking about this still now so stop of the complain about this.
and Licensing is jus a form of government to make money so its given already.

I think the take that "bitcoin is not money" from the government happened a long time ago. They are freezing bitcoins and keep it. Now they are encouraging operators to get a license, or will pay the hefty penalty. In short, they are treating it like a fiat casino business as major rules are applied in crypto casino as well. There's no argument in this thing, the world evolve, crypto grow and therefore changes happened.

I also think so , Indeed that back in the days they are trying to push bitcoin away but now that they see the potential of having milking cow or bread and butter they are trying to ack about their legalities to make the market looks like illegal while they looks like a generous agencies trying to help circulation act legal. and also you are correct , World evolves and the crypto world will grow no matter what they acting and tries to do.

[passwordnow]

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence.

Both are true and there are a lot of new sets of gamblers and that's their preference on how they're going to trust a casino. Whether it's new or not, what's important to them is that they have a license and that's hard to remove from those gamblers. Whilst the older gamblers, we are basing our confidence on the trust that we've got based on the experience that we've got from trying each of them.

But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

This is true as well.
That doesn't give assurance that they're legitimate but it's like a secondary factor for someone who's looking for a legitimate casino. Not all that have a curacao license are to be trusted and not all that don't have license are untrusted.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

And I agree as you've said, many of the reputable ones don't have it. But it's just like another set of factor for many gamblers that a casino should have a license. In the end, everyone can check what they want to check as per casinos whether they have a license or not. Your trust what matters to all of them.

[leonair]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

Not just crypto casinos. Crypto is completely dependent on trust. We don't know who is the creator of Bitcoin and who created it but we believe in Bitcoin very much and we feel free to invest millions of dollars in it. So in this case it can be said that crypto survives entirely on trust.This is because we use crypto casinos for fun and to make deposits and withdrawals very quickly, and another reason is that even if gambling is illegal in our country, we can gamble with confidence because the government cannot trace anyone's identity through crypto payments. Who is gambling despite not having legalized gambling in his country?  So we have to use crypto casino sites with trust. licence is not a big deal it is just a formalities

[Odusko]

If Bitcoin is not money, what would have been the fate of the exchanges, how either will the gambling platforms accept bitcoin for use or crypto, I don't even think we would have been all here making discussions like this and lastly, having an avenue to participate online gambling platforms would have been so tiring and frustrating to many of us if we are not having an alternative to it.

The thought behind this thread and the message pf Bitcoin not being money is so mischievous and out of content because Bitcoin is money and exchange is the cryptocurrency banks, so for that, I believe anyone saying otherwise may be out of context and not having the basic knowledge and understanding of what a currency is and how it functions.
So many people believe that a currency is only what is used for the exchange of goods and services without noting other facts about exchange and currencies and how the dynamism works, so is because of the valuable nature of Bitcoin that made it one of the number one choice of casinos as payment methods.

[Dunamisx]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

[Mahanton]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

Not just crypto casinos. Crypto is completely dependent on trust. We don't know who is the creator of Bitcoin and who created it but we believe in Bitcoin very much and we feel free to invest millions of dollars in it. So in this case it can be said that crypto survives entirely on trust.This is because we use crypto casinos for fun and to make deposits and withdrawals very quickly, and another reason is that even if gambling is illegal in our country, we can gamble with confidence because the government cannot trace anyone's identity through crypto payments. Who is gambling despite not having legalized gambling in his country?  So we have to use crypto casino sites with trust. licence is not a big deal it is just a formalities

We know that government does really love on involving on things and they dont really like on missing something specially on taxes or they dont really like on getting blinded. This is why they would really be focusing
on trying out on regulating on everything on their way but its true that once this crypto market did exist then it did really give out that kind of gateway on which gamblers could really be able to play up gambling
without any issues or problems on getting that detected or get caught specially if gambling is really that been prohibited or banned then you could still that able to play because of crypto
on which this is the main reason on why it did really become that popular because of this feature.

Licenses are really that indeed a formality but in general sense it doesnt really  give out that assurance that you are really that dealing with the legit platform or service.
Plus you are really that being monitored if ever big funds would flow in.

[qwertyup23]

This really depends on the law of the countries if they accept BTC or not in the form of gambling.

In the Philippines, gambling is heavily regulated by the Government to the point that they only accept establishments that have the necessary gambling license to operate. Since revenue generated in gambling in this country is responsible for yielding the highest budget, gambling is somehow allowable if the company follows the certain mandates set by the law.

Unfortunately, our local exchange (coins.ph) has strict regulations when it comes to gambling. They do not allow any BTCs to be received on their exchange if the proceeds came from an online gambling website which makes cryptocurrency a grey area to begin with.

With the introduction of KYC, most gambling companies have required its users to submit various documents in order to comply with the strict mandates given by the laws and regulations of each country. But the most simple answer to this question falls on the value of BTC since it can easily be converted to your local currency in an exchange.

[leonair]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

Yes licence proved a casilo site as a real. many casino site are coming regularly on the casino market so which site you can trust? because every new site offer high bonus and many facilities so if that new casino is take a licence for there site and show the proof then we can interested and enjoy the bonus without any worrying and we can use that site confidencely. so licence is needed for a casino site to proved them as a trusted site and proved they are coming here for real business

[the rise]

There are quite a lot of reasons why casinos need a license, perhaps the first is to gain the trust of their users, so this license is like an attraction for trust, while some of the casinos you mentioned don't need a license like frebitcoin, I think they have been operating for quite a long time and user trust is built in so why do they do it, I want to ask you, if there was a new casino site that didn't have a license would you dare to make a deposit?

[BenCodie]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

It's a license...a license to scam legally

A platform with no license can not ask for KYC and profit this way. A platform without a license also can not use a false director as the leader of the platform to protect the identity of the real operator, and run a gambling platform with no liability. That's why elites in Curacao (usually bankers) provide these licenses for huge fees, because it's beneficial and a privilege for the license holder to own it...it isn't a legal requirement for crypto-only casinos.

Non-licensed casinos have a much bigger burden on their hands to maintain their reputation, stay compliant enough and remain transparent enough to be left alone. I think this is a healthier burden than the unlimited reign a license holder has over its customers and in the industry.

[EarnOnVictor]

There are quite a lot of reasons why casinos need a license, perhaps the first is to gain the trust of their users, so this license is like an attraction for trust, while some of the casinos you mentioned don't need a license like frebitcoin, I think they have been operating for quite a long time and user trust is built in so why do they do it, I want to ask you, if there was a new casino site that didn't have a license would you dare to make a deposit?

You have good points my friend, and of course, trust is important in business, just like the casinos that you can trace their root and know that they are duly registered, and perhaps being regulated. At least, you will have some kind of level of belief that they know what they are doing and their activities are being monitored by government agents, that's even if they are strongly regulated. By that, many people will have the feeling that they are in the right place where they can deposit their money and withdraw securely without fear, and not also work for money launderers as we see it growing daily. However, as we think towards that angle, we have to believe that some people also do not care about this trust or regulation of a thing.

All they need is their privacy and so they would rather risk the companies that are not asking anything from them and probably even know that they are not registered or regulated under any entity. As dangerous as that might sound, they do it and some companies are serving better than those who even asked for the KYC and are regulated. So, it depends on the integrity of the owners of the casinos at times and the risk the gamblers are willing to take with them. They could disappear with your money like nothing happened and no one will ask them. Is it not the person you see you can be asking questions? So let's act wisely.

Nonetheless, if a casino is not under any country and regulator, they can do and undo, and since cryptocurrency is even abating that, it is easier for them. But if they are registered and perhaps are regulated, there is nothing they can do but to be thorough in their operation as required by the extant law of where they operate or where they secure their license from.

[Z390]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

Come to think of it, trust is also very dangerous, to fool a lot of people, you need to build trust and make them believe your company, serve every customers right and let everything look normal for a long period of time, until it's time to pull the plug, how do you like this OP? And if any online casino manage to pull this on how will some justice will be served if they are not licensed?

I am right in between centralized and decentralized way of gambling, I can't choose a side as my final answer because they both have advantages and disadvantages, I don't want to trust just like that without anything backing it up, just in case is the biggest strategy I believe in, and trust alone can't do this for me.
If trust can be built it can also be ruined, I know the authorities are making money from casinos getting licensed but it's far way better than letting unlicensed casinos to run, it's even more dangerous, people only care about themselves I get it, but the damages can be big and there won't be anything to hunt them down with.

I choose to go with KYC requirement and a licensed casino, the other way around is not safer because we can never see the inside of a human mind, those who give you services of no KYC and unregulated casinos can have a bad plan behind the scene, this is not non-custodial vs custodial.

[seoincorporation]

I want to ask you, if there was a new casino site that didn't have a license would you dare to make a deposit?

I would deposit if their games are provably fair and i can verify each bet, that's the right way for a casino to earn the trust of the customers.

If trust can be built it can also be ruined, I know the authorities are making money from casinos getting licensed but it's far way better than letting unlicensed casinos to run, it's even more dangerous, people only care about themselves I get it, but the damages can be big and there won't be anything to hunt them down with.

I choose to go with KYC requirement and a licensed casino, the other way around is not safer because we can never see the inside of a human mind, those who give you services of no KYC and unregulated casinos can have a bad plan behind the scene, this is not non-custodial vs custodial.

I agree with you, trust can be ruined fast, but i prefer to get scammed from a casino without KYC and License than getting scammed from a casino who have all my personal data and sensitive information. I mean, in both scenarios we lose the money, but the fact that one of them can sell our personal data is cruel.

[Wiwo]

Personally, I never care whether a crypto gambling site has a license from some random place or not since what matters more to me is the site's reputation within this forum and elsewhere along with crypto deposit + withdrawal fees.

I truly hate how most of the crypto gambling world has essentially become centralised these days.

You have a good point here, crypto casinos are about trust. And the gambling industry nowadays thinks the users will trust on them because they have a valid lisence. But a curacao lisence doesn't mean the casino can't be an exit scam or they cant close when they want without anouce it to the users.

Casinos need to build trust more than having a lisense, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

We have have seen allot of them that took away players money unauthorized and even with their licence, they are not being caught or punished in any ways,take 1xbit fpr example, despite being a known scam casino, they still run around with load ls of scam accusations and yet are still operating with that licenced that have dented amd nothing have been done about it, so having a license doesn't change the fact about them being a scam.

Cryptocurrency landscape give alot of hands to teams who thought that, they can operates on the gullibility of the user since most times those casino doesn't have a physical office that law enforcement agency could work on so they have some air of freedom to scam players and still walk around for a while.

[mindrust]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao

I share the same opinion.

Freebitco.in is a casino which never offered any USDT or USD deposit/withdrawal options and they also recently put KYC in their ToS. (even though they say they don't use it, it is still in their ToS now. It wasn't there not long ago)

The way I see it, these business owners don't want to move from their comfort zones. They are making money why fight the government and make everything complicated?

It is the players should demand no-KYC services. If they force you to hand over your private information, like you said, just tell them to fuck off.

[Asuspawer09]

I mean there are some points on it since we use Bitcoin as digital money, and we use it to gamble Bitcoin is not the issue since the license is for the website to operate in certain countries because it was taking money from their people. For sure there are going to be a lot of complications when it comes to the government and for sure when it comes to the government or license it is just all about money right there, so we wouldn't probably need any kind of license for casino but government for sure are taking advantage of this businesses since this is going to be a huge amount of money for them if they are going to implement something like it. They for sure going to avoid Bitcoin as a form of money at some point since it wasn't going to be a thing that they can control or they can regulate like fiat money, for sure we all know that government inflation is just cause because they have the power to keep printing money, but they cant do it on Bitcoin because of its limited supply.

Also, the regulations still would depend on the country that you are in, but if you say so then let's just play on the gambling websites that you mention, The only annoying thing on gambling websites is mandatory KYC is probably a big red flag already if it is required on a gambling website.

[Ludmilla_rose1995]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

In fact, I see that currently the Curacao license is one of the reasons for gambling players to choose a gambling site, well players will feel safe playing on a gambling site when they see that the site has received a license from Curacao

If you compare it with FreeBitco and Bustadice, I don't think it will ever be the same, because there are many other big gambling sites currently registering their sites with a Curacao license, but back to each person's view, from what I see, it's not a big problem with curacao license

[Dunamisx]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

Yes licence proved a casilo site as a real. many casino site are coming regularly on the casino market so which site you can trust? because every new site offer high bonus and many facilities so if that new casino is take a licence for there site and show the proof then we can interested and enjoy the bonus without any worrying and we can use that site confidencely. so licence is needed for a casino site to proved them as a trusted site and proved they are coming here for real business

If a gambling casino fulfilled all the requirements for taking the grant for license and they were approved doesn't mean we are completely safe by them, the whole thing is just like someone who wouldn't mind loosing something to achieve another thing, so therefore, we must only take the risk we can afford to bear while gambling and research properly about any crypto online gambling platforms.

[arwin100]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

Yes licence proved a casilo site as a real. many casino site are coming regularly on the casino market so which site you can trust? because every new site offer high bonus and many facilities so if that new casino is take a licence for there site and show the proof then we can interested and enjoy the bonus without any worrying and we can use that site confidencely. so licence is needed for a casino site to proved them as a trusted site and proved they are coming here for real business

If a gambling casino fulfilled all the requirements for taking the grant for license and they were approved doesn't mean we are completely safe by them, the whole thing is just like someone who wouldn't mind loosing something to achieve another thing, so therefore, we must only take the risk we can afford to bear while gambling and research properly about any crypto online gambling platforms.

If you mean safe from scam yes nothing is guaranteed there especially that any casino can pull off their biggest scam to happen that's why even if they have license still there are still a chance that they can compromise their clients. That's why its important to look for the signs that they are starting to act weird so that we will not get experience any huge upset especially if the casino starting to missed out those withdrawals asked by their clients.

Those licenses is just a marketing tool for new casino to attract new user but this will never guarantee their safety since we don't know the real long term intention of these casino and we can see some license casino became scam that's the reason we can agree to those people saying that there's still a risk of losing money even if they have those legal documents.

[mak013]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

In fact, I see that currently the Curacao license is one of the reasons for gambling players to choose a gambling site, well players will feel safe playing on a gambling site when they see that the site has received a license from Curacao

If you compare it with FreeBitco and Bustadice, I don't think it will ever be the same, because there are many other big gambling sites currently registering their sites with a Curacao license, but back to each person's view, from what I see, it's not a big problem with curacao license

As for me - the ANN thread here means much more than Curacao license. I can`t same something good or bad about license, but as a gambler i don`t see any difference for me. KYC is everywhere, win percent - about the same. UI - often looks like brothers. If i read here positive feedback and the casino solve problems - it is more positive information for me than license.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

In fact, I see that currently the Curacao license is one of the reasons for gambling players to choose a gambling site, well players will feel safe playing on a gambling site when they see that the site has received a license from Curacao

If you compare it with FreeBitco and Bustadice, I don't think it will ever be the same, because there are many other big gambling sites currently registering their sites with a Curacao license, but back to each person's view, from what I see, it's not a big problem with curacao license

As for me - the ANN thread here means much more than Curacao license. I can`t same something good or bad about license, but as a gambler i don`t see any difference for me. KYC is everywhere, win percent - about the same. UI - often looks like brothers. If i read here positive feedback and the casino solve problems - it is more positive information for me than license.

You are right, this is exactly same thing I preached in my previous comments on this thread, license is nothing but a decoration on online gambling casinos this days, for the ordinary gamblers out there, license means nothing, because license have never saved gamblers from losing their money to a scam or bankrupt casino,  if there have ever been any, then I have seen or heard of it.

Any casino can decide to be genuine and faithful to their customers without a license, and for gamblers, there is no other way to trust a casino outside reviews from other gamblers who have used that same casino, any one or gambler trusting a casino because they have a license, and fails completely to look at what other people or gamblers are saying about that same casino, such gambler is indeed a professional gambler, because he or she is gambling two times at a time, he or she is gambling with his funds, and this is before the actual gambling begins  .

[Danydee]

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  

Allright, but let suppose that tomorrow you can't withdraw your funds and tha casino shutdown after that.. So then dealing with a Registered(licensed) entity give you some hope/insurance or a way for claiming your rights !  No?

[leonair]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

Yes licence proved a casilo site as a real. many casino site are coming regularly on the casino market so which site you can trust? because every new site offer high bonus and many facilities so if that new casino is take a licence for there site and show the proof then we can interested and enjoy the bonus without any worrying and we can use that site confidencely. so licence is needed for a casino site to proved them as a trusted site and proved they are coming here for real business

If a gambling casino fulfilled all the requirements for taking the grant for license and they were approved doesn't mean we are completely safe by them, the whole thing is just like someone who wouldn't mind loosing something to achieve another thing, so therefore, we must only take the risk we can afford to bear while gambling and research properly about any crypto online gambling platforms.

We always gamble with the amount we can afford to lose but we go there to have fun. If we lose the gamble and lose money, it doesn't bother us too much because we're just there to enjoy it. But if a casino site is a scam and we lose our money unfairly without enjoying any kind of bets then they will give us a lot of trouble. And that's why we need a licensed casino site so that we don't lose money without gambling at least

[shield132]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

To my mind, freebitco.in and bustabit.com can still work without a license because they don't have games that require the permission and support of the third party, b2b casino suppliers like Live Blackjack and slots. Curacao license doesn't make any sense for me too, I don't feel protected when I gamble on a casino that has Curacao license, I think they acquire it because they need to offer you many casino product. For example, when casinos offer you games like Live Blackjack, they need a casino license to legally offer you Evolution Gaming's products. Slots also require that from my experience. Crypto casinos are forced to get a license to offer you those products.

[Sanitough]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

To my mind, freebitco.in and bustabit.com can still work without a license because they don't have games that require the permission and support of the third party, b2b casino suppliers like Live Blackjack and slots. Curacao license doesn't make any sense for me too, I don't feel protected when I gamble on a casino that has Curacao license, I think they acquire it because they need to offer you many casino product. For example, when casinos offer you games like Live Blackjack, they need a casino license to legally offer you Evolution Gaming's products. Slots also require that from my experience. Crypto casinos are forced to get a license to offer you those products.

I think that is not the basic principle about licensing. For me, if a gambling site operates and accept money, that means they need a license in order for them to be regulated. The government can't tax a gambling site if they aren't regulated because they'll be unknown to them, so it doesn't make sense that there's no exemption on a gambling site and will be given a freedom to operate without a license.

[kotajikikox]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

To my mind, freebitco.in and bustabit.com can still work without a license because they don't have games that require the permission and support of the third party, b2b casino suppliers like Live Blackjack and slots. Curacao license doesn't make any sense for me too, I don't feel protected when I gamble on a casino that has Curacao license, I think they acquire it because they need to offer you many casino product. For example, when casinos offer you games like Live Blackjack, they need a casino license to legally offer you Evolution Gaming's products. Slots also require that from my experience. Crypto casinos are forced to get a license to offer you those products.

I think that is not the basic principle about licensing. For me, if a gambling site operates and accept money, that means they need a license in order for them to be regulated. The government can't tax a gambling site if they aren't regulated because they'll be unknown to them, so it doesn't make sense that there's no exemption on a gambling site and will be given a freedom to operate without a license.

The government needs to take their part in every profiteering in the world so it is correct that they need to be recognized and this to happen needs regulations and their accreditation and in this Licensing will enter.
Taxation is a must for everything that involves money this is also the reason why some casino operates as decentralized for not allow the government take anything from them.

[Sanitough]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

To my mind, freebitco.in and bustabit.com can still work without a license because they don't have games that require the permission and support of the third party, b2b casino suppliers like Live Blackjack and slots. Curacao license doesn't make any sense for me too, I don't feel protected when I gamble on a casino that has Curacao license, I think they acquire it because they need to offer you many casino product. For example, when casinos offer you games like Live Blackjack, they need a casino license to legally offer you Evolution Gaming's products. Slots also require that from my experience. Crypto casinos are forced to get a license to offer you those products.

I think that is not the basic principle about licensing. For me, if a gambling site operates and accept money, that means they need a license in order for them to be regulated. The government can't tax a gambling site if they aren't regulated because they'll be unknown to them, so it doesn't make sense that there's no exemption on a gambling site and will be given a freedom to operate without a license.

The government needs to take their part in every profiteering in the world so it is correct that they need to be recognized and this to happen needs regulations and their accreditation and in this Licensing will enter.
Taxation is a must for everything that involves money this is also the reason why some casino operates as decentralized for not allow the government take anything from them.

Profit isn't really the main purpose, it's to serve the interest of the people and that already includes making money from the gambling sites to increase the government's collection through taxes. When a gambling site isn't regulated, it will be easy for them to scam people, they will not be punished and more and more gambling sites will operate doing the same pattern of scam. The government don't want them, it's either you operate and pay taxes, or you will be considered illegal and you can be seize anytime.

Does anybody here expereince getting scam from a non license gambling site? If so, were you able to recovere your money? what measures do you do to be able to recover it?

[EarnOnVictor]

Casinos need to build trust more than having a license, and for that they need time and be nice with the customers.

They needed to have the two and this must not be something that one will be made more of being priority over the other, we the trust is there, the license will endorse for the trust to be real and genuine, also, we can get more about them on their online reviews also to add to other informations we have received, trust and license is what will make the complement if it all together and we must not forget the risk also involved.

Yes licence proved a casilo site as a real. many casino site are coming regularly on the casino market so which site you can trust? because every new site offer high bonus and many facilities so if that new casino is take a licence for there site and show the proof then we can interested and enjoy the bonus without any worrying and we can use that site confidencely. so licence is needed for a casino site to proved them as a trusted site and proved they are coming here for real business

If a gambling casino fulfilled all the requirements for taking the grant for license and they were approved doesn't mean we are completely safe by them, the whole thing is just like someone who wouldn't mind loosing something to achieve another thing, so therefore, we must only take the risk we can afford to bear while gambling and research properly about any crypto online gambling platforms.

You are on point, we do not trust casinos based on how many licences they acquire or the country they are operating from, we trust them based on personal and people's reviews and experiences with them. Fine, the licencing and regulation are good, it is a way to make them accountable if they are truly registered and regulated, but still, they are not the main thing as the duly registered casinos could still cheat you and nothing will happen. This is even as a casino that is not even registered may choose not to cheat you, so what? But no matter what you tell some people they will still believe that it is the licencing that is their point of attraction to casinos, so it is a good thing for casinos to seek such so that it will be one of their main points of marketing, and as you can see all the time, it works.

And personally, I can't open with a casino that is not regulated, and that doesn't mean that it is because I trust them based on that. But because they deem it fit to do the right thing, and that makes them good ambassadors against the campaign for anti-money laundering. Whether it is a weak licence/regulation or not, I am not bothered, all I know is that they can be accountable too since their details would have been registered as well. This is unlike those that are not registered at all, they can just disappear into thin air untraceable. Such is happening.

[freedomgo]

And personally, I can't open with a casino that is not regulated, and that doesn't mean that it is because I trust them based on that. But because they deem it fit to do the right thing, and that makes them good ambassadors against the campaign for anti-money laundering. Whether it is a weak licence/regulation or not, I am not bothered, all I know is that they can be accountable too since their details would have been registered as well. This is unlike those that are not registered at all, they can just disappear into thin air untraceable. Such is happening.

That's right, regardless on how bad their regulators are, as long as they are regulated, it's always better than not regulated at all. The only beauty on non regulated casinos is when it's decentralized, but the sad reality is there are only few decentralized casinos now and they aren't as popular as regulated casinos. At the start we are campaigning that crypto should be seperate and should not be regulated, but at the end of the say crypto is still not accepted anywhere and we still rely on fiat in order to spend it on things we want, so that's where the government came in.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

And personally, I can't open with a casino that is not regulated, and that doesn't mean that it is because I trust them based on that. But because they deem it fit to do the right thing, and that makes them good ambassadors against the campaign for anti-money laundering. Whether it is a weak licence/regulation or not, I am not bothered, all I know is that they can be accountable too since their details would have been registered as well. This is unlike those that are not registered at all, they can just disappear into thin air untraceable. Such is happening.

That's right, regardless on how bad their regulators are, as long as they are regulated, it's always better than not regulated at all. The only beauty on non regulated casinos is when it's decentralized, but the sad reality is there are only few decentralized casinos now and they aren't as popular as regulated casinos. At the start we are campaigning that crypto should be seperate and should not be regulated, but at the end of the say crypto is still not accepted anywhere and we still rely on fiat in order to spend it on things we want, so that's where the government came in.

You are wrong, we actually have alot of decentralized gambling casino, but most are dead due to lack of activity, as most people still prefer to play on centralized casinos instead of the decentralized version, and the reason for this best known to me is that, on decentralized casinos, every single game you play will require a blockchain fee and blockchain confirmation, imagine playing slot game on a decentralized casino, you clicked the spin button 150 times, you will also have to pay for blockchain fee and wait for transaction confirmation a 150 times, this not only is a waste of money, it is also a waste of time and a good source of demotivation, and what could even make matters worst is that, if at the end of the day, spending on bets on the game, and spending on blockchain fees as well, you still did not win a dime, but rather lost money, then it's a double loss.

In my honest opinion, it is important we understand that online gambling is not like online trading, Decentralized exchanges have better chances of becoming big with a lot of people using it, but it is not so with online gambling, I do not think or see a time when decentralized casinos will come to beat their centralized counterpart, the only game I think will suit decentralized casinos is sports betting and PVP games, but when it come to games like slot, casino in-house games, it's a no no..

[mak013]

As for me - the ANN thread here means much more than Curacao license. I can`t same something good or bad about license, but as a gambler i don`t see any difference for me. KYC is everywhere, win percent - about the same. UI - often looks like brothers. If i read here positive feedback and the casino solve problems - it is more positive information for me than license.

You are right, this is exactly same thing I preached in my previous comments on this thread, license is nothing but a decoration on online gambling casinos this days, for the ordinary gamblers out there, license means nothing, because license have never saved gamblers from losing their money to a scam or bankrupt casino,  if there have ever been any, then I have seen or heard of it.

Any casino can decide to be genuine and faithful to their customers without a license, and for gamblers, there is no other way to trust a casino outside reviews from other gamblers who have used that same casino, any one or gambler trusting a casino because they have a license, and fails completely to look at what other people or gamblers are saying about that same casino, such gambler is indeed a professional gambler, because he or she is gambling two times at a time, he or she is gambling with his funds, and this is before the actual gambling begins  .

No one common gambler will travel to Curacao. Also, we are talking about online crypto casino. No one court will hear about bitcoin and some site with casino.
Here we can find real stories about casino, real problems. I don`t believe reviews but some research of the threads give much more information we need. Just spend two hours and gamble without fear.

[Shamm]

As for me - the ANN thread here means much more than Curacao license. I can`t same something good or bad about license, but as a gambler i don`t see any difference for me. KYC is everywhere, win percent - about the same. UI - often looks like brothers. If i read here positive feedback and the casino solve problems - it is more positive information for me than license.

You are right, this is exactly same thing I preached in my previous comments on this thread, license is nothing but a decoration on online gambling casinos this days, for the ordinary gamblers out there, license means nothing, because license have never saved gamblers from losing their money to a scam or bankrupt casino,  if there have ever been any, then I have seen or heard of it.

Any casino can decide to be genuine and faithful to their customers without a license, and for gamblers, there is no other way to trust a casino outside reviews from other gamblers who have used that same casino, any one or gambler trusting a casino because they have a license, and fails completely to look at what other people or gamblers are saying about that same casino, such gambler is indeed a professional gambler, because he or she is gambling two times at a time, he or she is gambling with his funds, and this is before the actual gambling begins  .

No one common gambler will travel to Curacao. Also, we are talking about online crypto casino. No one court will hear about bitcoin and some site with casino.
Here we can find real stories about casino, real problems. I don`t believe reviews but some research of the threads give much more information we need. Just spend two hours and gamble without fear.

Maybe some reviews are not reliable  and that's the reason why other gamblers like you didn't believe easily in reviews. And yes you are right everytime we want to play in a new casino then we must do some research inorder to prevent such loss. Cause through searching we can get more information a reliable informations about the specific casino. And then once we got an a good feedback then we can try betting with them and if their customers services is good and responsible and their withdrawal don't have problems then we can bet higher and deposit a good amount.

[KosmoKisa]

I am a player of cryptocurrency casinos. I think regulation of cryptocurrency casinos should be more flexible than regulation of traditional casinos.
On one hand, I understand that governments need to protect players from fraud and money laundering. However, I believe that licenses are not the only way to achieve this goal.
Casinos that operate without a license can still be safe and secure. They can use advanced security technologies such as encryption and blockchain to protect players' personal data and transactions.
In addition, licenses do not always guarantee player protection.
I believe that regulation of cryptocurrency casinos should focus on protecting players rather than collecting taxes and fees. Governments should develop security standards that all casinos must meet, whether they have a license or not.
I also believe that governments should work with the cryptocurrency casino industry to develop effective anti-fraud and anti-money laundering measures. This will help create a safer and more transparent environment for all industry participants.

[Wiwo]

In fact, I see that currently the Curacao license is one of the reasons for gambling players choose a gambling site, well players will feel safe playing on a gambling site when they see that the site has received a license from Curacao

If you compare it with FreeBitco and Bustadice, I don't think it will ever be the same, because there are many other big gambling sites currently registering their sites with a Curacao license, but back to each person's view, from what I see, it's not a big problem with curacao license

I agreed with you to some extent though because most of the casinos that we have around are all carrying Curacao licenses and to me, I believe the reason why they have popularity around casinos is the ease of obtaining the license at first, because when you talk about casino obtaining licensing you should also talk about the government policies towards issuing of licence to casinos, and that is one of the most important aspects and the reason why Curacao became a safe haven for most casinos looking forward to obtaining a license.

So for sure many of them have failed to meet up with the reputational demands of operating a license casinos because they have violated the role that guides such licenses.

[Antotena]

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

I know for sure that in US, if you must operate as a money operator then you must be dully registered. This is why casinos must recognize of their activities if they want to operate along with the US citizens because it's involve deposit, withdrawals and gambling with it. This law is what protect other countries too that you must be fully recognized by them but I think is because of tax, they want to Tax these casino badly that's why they want to have license before they are allow.


These casino sometimes include Bitcoin and crypto among their deposit because they want to compete with others, they don't want to do only fiat not to be rule out of the market, it's when they compete some ot them run into problems and we know the government hasn't be friendly with crypto, it will be  a total waste of time.

[Ojima-ojo]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.


Most of the time, we have to agree with some facts that can help us to make the best of decisions and also help the casino to avoid many troubles that may come along the way.

[EarnOnVictor]

And personally, I can't open with a casino that is not regulated, and that doesn't mean that it is because I trust them based on that. But because they deem it fit to do the right thing, and that makes them good ambassadors against the campaign for anti-money laundering. Whether it is a weak licence/regulation or not, I am not bothered, all I know is that they can be accountable too since their details would have been registered as well. This is unlike those that are not registered at all, they can just disappear into thin air untraceable. Such is happening.

That's right, regardless on how bad their regulators are, as long as they are regulated, it's always better than not regulated at all. The only beauty on non regulated casinos is when it's decentralized, but the sad reality is there are only few decentralized casinos now and they aren't as popular as regulated casinos. At the start we are campaigning that crypto should be seperate and should not be regulated, but at the end of the say crypto is still not accepted anywhere and we still rely on fiat in order to spend it on things we want, so that's where the government came in.

You are wrong, we actually have alot of decentralized gambling casino, but most are dead due to lack of activity, as most people still prefer to play on centralized casinos instead of the decentralized version, and the reason for this best known to me is that, on decentralized casinos, every single game you play will require a blockchain fee and blockchain confirmation, imagine playing slot game on a decentralized casino, you clicked the spin button 150 times, you will also have to pay for blockchain fee and wait for transaction confirmation a 150 times, this not only is a waste of money, it is also a waste of time and a good source of demotivation, and what could even make matters worst is that, if at the end of the day, spending on bets on the game, and spending on blockchain fees as well, you still did not win a dime, but rather lost money, then it's a double loss.

I am wrong or you merely disagree with me? I think you misused the phrase there, you actually disagreed with me because I am not wrong, and my points are still holding as that is my view, you can have yours. This is not about centralised and decentralised issues, it is about what people want, convenience and what they see as right and worth it. Or do you think people do not know that decentralised exchange exists and that they still prefer centralised exchange even with the possibility of cheating them? Do you think the defence of the fees you are talking about is valid, won't the depositor pay fees when depositing to centralised crypto casinos?

If at all there are additional fees while depositing, it will still be minimal as my experience with the decentralized exchanges can't be so much different with decentralised casinos when the money is being sent. This could be well planned if it is that deserving by judging by what people want as the money to be charged can't be quantified with the safety it provides against the tyranny of many centralised casinos. Yet, people prefer the centralised version for many reasons you do not want to admit. The fees can never be the core reason, you should reason this well as this can't quantify for the self-control attributes of the decentralised casino, yet people do not care about that.

[3kpk3]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

There is nothing wrong indeed, but it's pointless if you think about it since these are licenses from some random islands across the world with little credibility due to which they aren't exactly reliable.

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

[mak013]

No one common gambler will travel to Curacao. Also, we are talking about online crypto casino. No one court will hear about bitcoin and some site with casino.
Here we can find real stories about casino, real problems. I don`t believe reviews but some research of the threads give much more information we need. Just spend two hours and gamble without fear.

Maybe some reviews are not reliable  and that's the reason why other gamblers like you didn't believe easily in reviews. And yes you are right everytime we want to play in a new casino then we must do some research inorder to prevent such loss. Cause through searching we can get more information a reliable informations about the specific casino. And then once we got an a good feedback then we can try betting with them and if their customers services is good and responsible and their withdrawal don't have problems then we can bet higher and deposit a good amount.

The problem with reviews is that it is created mostly with one purpose - to get some money from it. And it doesn`t matter in which way - referral link or casino will pay for review. The casino with good referral payback will get positive review. In such situation the only information we can get - is what games we can see in some casino and website.

[arwin100]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

There is nothing wrong indeed, but it's pointless if you think about it since these are licenses from some random islands across the world with little credibility due to which they aren't exactly reliable.

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

Several cases around that license casino still used as tool for money laundering that's why its never became effective for stopping this activities since criminals could find ways to bypass the system and continue what they are doing.

That's why I agree that wager requirements can do the trick since it can make those people doubt to fulfill the requirements since there's huge balance will be taken out for them if they decide to use a casino which have rules like that. Also they might get questioned on the activities they do especially if they are dealing with large amount of money there. That's why I really think license is not really important especially if it comes to random countries since for me it doesn't mean anything. This will just add up some requirements which we don't like to submit.

[Bushdark]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

There is nothing wrong indeed, but it's pointless if you think about it since these are licenses from some random islands across the world with little credibility due to which they aren't exactly reliable.

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

License can be required due to regulations and the plan of the government to have power above all firms and companies.
This is not a new thing even the mixers we have are licensed for them to work and if they don't connect with the government for a certain data, they could be ban and there site shortdown. Even the decentralized exchanges are license and soon the government might want to license us for buying crypto. This might be funny but maybe we should wait for that time.

[paxmao]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

There is nothing wrong indeed, but it's pointless if you think about it since these are licenses from some random islands across the world with little credibility due to which they aren't exactly reliable.

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

Several cases around that license casino still used as tool for money laundering that's why its never became effective for stopping this activities since criminals could find ways to bypass the system and continue what they are doing.

That's why I agree that wager requirements can do the trick since it can make those people doubt to fulfill the requirements since there's huge balance will be taken out for them if they decide to use a casino which have rules like that. Also they might get questioned on the activities they do especially if they are dealing with large amount of money there. That's why I really think license is not really important especially if it comes to random countries since for me it doesn't mean anything. This will just add up some requirements which we don't like to submit.

The question still remains. If it is not money then you would not require a licence, that is, whoever is later on changing the crypto into money would need to have that licence and check that the original funds are from legitimate sources. You see, they are putting the burden of proof where it does not belong in this case just to make it easier for themselves to have more control.

[Danydee]

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

Not so I think.. just placing opposite sports bets from two different accounts (betting on both issues) can show to be cheaper and easier than laundering money the traditional ways !!

[livingfree]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

It's more of being compliant to the regulators and that's why they're doing the necessary actions to fill that requirement to have the license. Most of them like to operate with a license and if there are casinos that have managed to gain the trust and built their own community without having the license, that had made them exerted a lot of effort.

Most of the time, we have to agree with some facts that can help us to make the best of decisions and also help the casino to avoid many troubles that may come along the way.

And it's just simple, if you don't like to gamble to a certain casino for having a license you stop visiting and playing there. But if it's not really an issue to you then you're free to gamble whenever and however you want.

People basically just looking for a very reliable casino and that's why this becomes a required thing to them. Each of us has the set of requirements that we want to get into before trusting one.

[3kpk3]

Not so I think.. just placing opposite sports bets from two different accounts (betting on both issues) can show to be cheaper and easier than laundering money the traditional ways !!

This is a bad strategy to try and launder money without the books catching on. Why? Because betting on both sides with 1 or 2 accounts would lead to a guaranteed loss thanks to the juice charged by the books.

It could work if they were arbing, but it is also risky to a certain extent especially when dealing with big money.

[Peanutswar]

The same with business anything related or involved with the money that is operating must provide a license and of course, to operate before making a casino you know that your target audience is not only with your community only and its worldwide if that country is one of your largest pool of asset and the government of them want to stop the operation with your casino they can easily banned your domain to their ISP, and also today there's a law implemented which is the AMLA and of course if you want to operate you must need to comply.

[Synchronice]

And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

Freebitco.in is a licensed acsino. When you visit their freebitco.in/signup/ page, scroll down and you'll see licensed by Curaçao image. That's very blurry to be honest but here is the link of their license: Official/Trade name - FBC B.V
The fact that they are licensed is not bad either. For me, being licensed is not a problem, if casino doesn't abuse KYC request and plays fair game, then I like them. Freebitco was operating without a license as far as I know and they got it recently. That probably happened because freebitco offers some more games than just-dice and bustabit. I speculate that it's okay to operate without a license if you only offer in-house games. When you try to add games from providers, like slots, live blackjack and so on, you have to get license to partner with them.

[AprilioMP]

Everything has been arranged and cannot be avoided because freedom has been drowned out by a sense of addiction which has made people lose their consciousness and will rebel consciously when everything is realized as the emphasis you want.

Should I laugh and say welcome to a world full of ambition to create profits for a group of parties at the expense of something that could unmask them in making profits through channels that have been well packaged to look perfect in a system.

[SamReomo]

Not so I think.. just placing opposite sports bets from two different accounts (betting on both issues) can show to be cheaper and easier than laundering money the traditional ways !!

If I'm wrong then that's called sports arbitraging and when a casino finds out about that then they will freeze the funds of both accounts and the one who's operating those accounts will end up with no money.

I don't know that do money launderers use sports arbitrage or not but a few people seem to use that to take advantage of casinos in order to earn fast profits.

Money launderers are much smart these days and they know dozen of ways to clean out the laundered money. And, there's a chance that they might use casinos also for that but I'm not fully sure.

[tbterryboy]

The same with business anything related or involved with the money that is operating must provide a license and of course, to operate before making a casino you know that your target audience is not only with your community only and its worldwide if that country is one of your largest pool of asset and the government of them want to stop the operation with your casino they can easily banned your domain to their ISP, and also today there's a law implemented which is the AMLA and of course if you want to operate you must need to comply.

I believe a casino license usually works in certain jurisdictions and it depends on the licensing firm providing the license about in which regions their license is acceptable. Based on this, a casino or any platform would require to have multiple licenses if they wish to operate worldwide because you can't operate in the USA while having a license that is only for Europe, and the same applies for other continents as well.

Any business willing to work in any part of the world will need to acquire a license that will allow them to operate legally within that jurisdiction. This is the reason why multinational companies have such a good reputation because if a company is operational in multiple nations, it means it's a good company.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

        -   Until now, most governments in the world are still against Bitcoin, and most governments even prefer to regulate most of the casinos under their power and regulation because they benefit more from it than Bitcoin.

Anyway, as you said, mate, I am also interested in casinos that are under decentralization and do not have to follow the regulations set by the government. But there are also others who are somehow still helped by regulated casinos.

[shield132]

I think that is not the basic principle about licensing. For me, if a gambling site operates and accept money, that means they need a license in order for them to be regulated. The government can't tax a gambling site if they aren't regulated because they'll be unknown to them, so it doesn't make sense that there's no exemption on a gambling site and will be given a freedom to operate without a license.

Look at the title - Why do they need a license if Bitcoin is not money?. The government says that Bitcoin is not money, so technically if a gambling casino accepts Bitcoin payments, that doesn't mean they are accepting money, that's why OP asks, why they need to acquire a license if Bitcoin is not money.
I think that casinos need to acquire licenses because they offer slots, live blackjack, live roulette and other games that are provided by 3rd parties. For example, when you run a bitcoin casino and have Evolution Live Blackjack, a user plays with cash on that table, so you need a license. If a casino offers only in-house games, like bustabit and freebitco.in, then I think you don't need a license, that's why they are without a license and have never had a problem with authorities.

[Wiwo]

"bitcoin is money or not" there is a specific classification that changes from country to country.
OP you should keep in mind that the majority of compliance arise from requests to complete KYC procedures.
I don't see casinos that have this type of license in a negative way.
There are systems that "by default" cannot be regulated or managed... I would suggest focusing on these if you don't accept this step through a centralized entity.

The subject of Bitcoin and casinos or KYC to me is unrelated,  because casinos must implement KYC regardless of whether they accept Bitcoin or not because even with fiat casinos also demand for kyc at some point, so you are very right to say that, it right to say that countries are who make the laws and also put kyc requirements and regardless of the nature of the casino so long it is a centralized casino.

So the thing has to go along with the perception and location of the casino and the community and what the government policy said about KYC.

[EarnOnVictor]

If centralized exchange and banks could need licenses then I do not think anything is wrong with casinos having a license even though they accept Bitcoin deposits, this is very important since to avoid casinos becoming used for mixing money and laundering the same.

There is nothing wrong indeed, but it's pointless if you think about it since these are licenses from some random islands across the world with little credibility due to which they aren't exactly reliable.

Also, you don't need licenses to avoid money laundering and mixing. Proper wagering requirements solves those issues effectively.

I align with you on this and I've known this during my initial trading days, they overrate the registering nad regulations but it doesn't matter, it doesn't have to be what to sue to know the best companies, it is tehri deeds that will speak of them, and not licencing. Even these days, you see many of them registering at an island, and they are rushing there for a reason, and that reason can only mena a weak regulautions, they just wnat to eb soemwhat free vene though they are bearing the sttaus of bieg lincens and regulated, but in prctiae, it is not so. Stil, registeration oir not, there are good nad bad caisnos all ariund you, let your thourough resercah choose cleverl for you and not the licnecing, that's what I am trying to say.

Alos, I think what @Ojima-ojo is trying to say is beyound what you replied to, Btcoin can't hide us, it can be decentralised but thsoe companies that are attrcting customers nad collecting tehri money for gmabling purpose are not decnetralised, so this calls for tehir regulations. It is now left to them how they manouvere their way to do other shaddy deals (that's if they do it at all), all that matters is that they obey the law of the land where they operate from, at least in the surfce eve if they are paying only a "eye service."

[Fivestar4everMVP]

"bitcoin is money or not" there is a specific classification that changes from country to country.
OP you should keep in mind that the majority of compliance arise from requests to complete KYC procedures.
I don't see casinos that have this type of license in a negative way.
There are systems that "by default" cannot be regulated or managed... I would suggest focusing on these if you don't accept this step through a centralized entity.

The subject of Bitcoin and casinos or KYC to me is unrelated,  because casinos must implement KYC regardless of whether they accept Bitcoin or not because even with fiat casinos also demand for kyc at some point, so you are very right to say that, it right to say that countries are who make the laws and also put kyc requirements and regardless of the nature of the casino so long it is a centralized casino.

So the thing has to go along with the perception and location of the casino and the community and what the government policy said about KYC.

Fiat casinos are the first casinos that implement kyc, in some fiat only casinos today, we may likely find some casinos where after registration, you will be immediately required to submit your kyc documents, and pass the verification before you will be able to make a deposit and start playing on the casino, without passing the kyc verification, you won't be allowed to do anything on the casino.

Crypto currency casinos used to be the ones where gamblers are not required to submit their personal information or pass kyc verification, Infact, there used to be no kyc feature implemented on crypto casinos.
But unfortunately, this days, things have completely changed, with some countries starting to regulate cryptocurrencies, kyc verification have become mandatory for gamblers using crypto currency casinos.
And you are right, kyc has nothing to do with whether a casino accepts bitcoin or not, both crypto and non crypto casinos all now require their customers to pass kyc verification.

[seoincorporation]

I think that is not the basic principle about licensing. For me, if a gambling site operates and accept money, that means they need a license in order for them to be regulated. The government can't tax a gambling site if they aren't regulated because they'll be unknown to them, so it doesn't make sense that there's no exemption on a gambling site and will be given a freedom to operate without a license.

Look at the title - Why do they need a license if Bitcoin is not money?. The government says that Bitcoin is not money, so technically if a gambling casino accepts Bitcoin payments, that doesn't mean they are accepting money, that's why OP asks, why they need to acquire a license if Bitcoin is not money.
I think that casinos need to acquire licenses because they offer slots, live blackjack, live roulette and other games that are provided by 3rd parties. For example, when you run a bitcoin casino and have Evolution Live Blackjack, a user plays with cash on that table, so you need a license. If a casino offers only in-house games, like bustabit and freebitco.in, then I think you don't need a license, that's why they are without a license and have never had a problem with authorities.

That's a great answer, the license is a part of the 3rd party games, and is the way to trust those non-provably fair games. Some users like to play those fancy slots even if they can't verify the rolls, but they feel the game was fair for the simple fact that the site has a license.

Just to conclude the topic, a license is not a warranty for the users. We have seen a lot of licensed casinos who has a terrible reputation, but their marketing strategies is so strong that they keep getting new users, and more than 50% of those new users will end up having a bad experience.

[Wiwo]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

[delfastTions]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

[paxmao]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

[delfastTions]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

This is the reality of our world and the reality of developments in the field of cryptopayments.  Of course we must admit this if we want to be objective.

 But one big question remains, which is that millions of gamblers around the world, for various reasons, simply cannot afford to provide casinos with their personal data.  And games using cryptocurrencies are obviously well suited for them.  But at the same time, they will not undergo KYC in any case, since for them it immediately means the loss of their anonymity.  So, in order to still satisfy the needs of such players, I think there will still be casinos that will not require KYC from the player, and the player, in turn, will be sure that if he wins, he will receive his winnings guaranteed and without KYC verification. 
This niche in the crypto casino business must be occupied by some casino or a whole group of competing casinos.  And the reason for this is obviously due to the fact that there are still a huge number of gammbling people in the world who are ready to gamble, but only on condition of anonymity.

[betswift]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

This is the reality of our world and the reality of developments in the field of cryptopayments.  Of course we must admit this if we want to be objective.

 But one big question remains, which is that millions of gamblers around the world, for various reasons, simply cannot afford to provide casinos with their personal data.  And games using cryptocurrencies are obviously well suited for them.  But at the same time, they will not undergo KYC in any case, since for them it immediately means the loss of their anonymity.  So, in order to still satisfy the needs of such players, I think there will still be casinos that will not require KYC from the player, and the player, in turn, will be sure that if he wins, he will receive his winnings guaranteed and without KYC verification. 
This niche in the crypto casino business must be occupied by some casino or a whole group of competing casinos.  And the reason for this is obviously due to the fact that there are still a huge number of gammbling people in the world who are ready to gamble, but only on condition of anonymity.

It's important to note that while privacy is a valued aspect of cryptocurrencies, completely anonymous participation in crypto casinos might not be possible or legal in all jurisdictions, especially with licensed and regulated platforms.
So I think it depends on the goal. If crypto-casinos are based on legal compliance, operational integrity, and the need to protect users, then a license will be required (even if Bitcoin is not officially recognized as "money").
If it is only about the type of currency used for transactions, licenses mayby not be used. But in this case in our reality, players in such casinos can play not only with their bets, but also with the safety of their funds and personal information. Of course, if the market demands, then there will be such casinos, but very niche. The general mass will obey the law.

[Gormicsta]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

I believe it's also important to take into account the influence of blockchain technology on the casino business because blockchain could make it simpler for players to monitor and confirm the fairness of games, potentially making regulation more unnecessary, and I think what you're saying about casinos like FreeBitco.in and Just-Dice.com operating without a license is valid. They've been around for a long and have earned a reputation for being reliable and fair. So, I believe a balance must be achieved between regulating the business and allowing for creative thinking and rivalry. So, I believe it's crucial to remember that gaming is heavily controlled for a reason.

[KiaKia]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

I believe it's also important to take into account the influence of blockchain technology on the casino business because blockchain could make it simpler for players to monitor and confirm the fairness of games, potentially making regulation more unnecessary, and I think what you're saying about casinos like FreeBitco.in and Just-Dice.com operating without a license is valid. They've been around for a long and have earned a reputation for being reliable and fair. So, I believe a balance must be achieved between regulating the business and allowing for creative thinking and rivalry. So, I believe it's crucial to remember that gaming is heavily controlled for a reason.

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

           -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

[EarnOnVictor]

That is it,  so for that, we shouldn't have so much mixed up as to what Bitcoin have to do with KYC implementation because have no linking point, and at some point,  those that are speaking of such are just trying to create unnecessary arguments and not really being so much with indept knowledge or ability to differentiate both from each other.

Bitcoin is money,  because bitcoican be use for exchange of good and services and at rhat we need to take it that way,  and not be overly concern about Bitcoin interferences with kyc or what make casino to demand for KYC from Bitcoin users.

Now Bitcoin is gradually beginning to acquire the function of money and, accordingly, the attitude towards payments in Bitcoin is changing.  First of all, the attitude of the authorities of many countries is changing.  KYC requirements are being introduced everywhere, including for services such as casino gambling.  Overall, I believe that this is the wrong course of events and Bitcoin payments should be anonymous, as was intended by the founder of Bitcoin himself.  But the authorities of many countries simply do not care about such a property of cryptocurrency and blockchain as anonymity. 
Licensing, in my opinion, is also an element of how the authorities are trying to limit the freedom of anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies when playing in a casino.  But I don’t know for sure how and in what words the obligation to require crypto casino users to undergo KYC is written in the very rules for granting a casino license from Curacao or Malta. 
But I know for sure that in any case, the legally approved rules for working with personal information are the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as enacted by the European Commission.  clearly establish the third principle (out of six principles), which states that a casino can only collect necessary personal information about an individual to provide the service.  And under no circumstances should it collect more unnecessary personal data.  This provision must be included in any license.  So sometimes wave casino only needs to know your email address and nothing more.  And their requirement to send a photo of your face and documents may be completely illegal and excessive.  Sometimes it can even be the subject of a legal dispute. 

But in any case, if possible, KYC in a casino should be avoided in my opinion

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

Although Bitcoin is not money per se since it has no commodity backings and is still young for a time-tested store of value. But notwithstanding, it can still be used for what money is used for because it can easily be exchanged for fiat currencies and even be used to purchase goods and services directly. Besides, what is making Bitcoin look more centralised is where licencing and KYC are being applied due to regulation and the cooperation of the companies dealing with it. They have to obey the authorities of the countries they operate or get their licence from, which will in turn require and expose a lot of the crypto dealings by the company and their customers.

This has so much influence on Bitcoin transactions as many details could be revealed, but not the Bitcoin system itself. It is just a way for it to still preserve its decentralisation characteristic but without hidden benefits again. For this, it is not the Bitcoin system and operation that is affected but where you use your Bitcoin and what you use it for.

[freedomgo]

          -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

The government cannot tax bitcoin directly but they can tax the platforms that are using bitcoin, most popular ones are casinos and exchanges. If a country does not like bitcoin, of course they'll ban anything that uses bitcoin, including gambling sites.

Since you explained that there's a country that doesn't like bitcoin and yet they tax or regulate a casino that is accepting bitcoin, can you name a specific casino you are referring?

Or we can use china as an example, we know that they ban bitcoin, so the question  is, do they regulate a casino that accepts bitcoin?

[angrybirdy]

           -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

The government cannot tax bitcoin directly but they can tax the platforms that are using bitcoin, most popular ones are casinos and exchanges. If a country does not like bitcoin, of course they'll ban anything that uses bitcoin, including gambling sites.

Since you explained that there's a country that doesn't like bitcoin and yet they tax or regulate a casino that is accepting bitcoin, can you name a specific casino you are referring?

Or we can china as an exchange, we know that they ban bitcoin, so the question  is, do they regulate a casino that accepts bitcoin?

Well said, that's how the government is, because they can't move or interfere with crypto especially bitcoin but they will find any loopholes to make a way for them to get money from crypto users so when they found out that other casino houses accept bitcoin as a means of payment, then they will take action and voila! Hello tax was their solution. Believe it or not, most of the government employees are aware of the movement of crypto so some of them have an idea of ​​what to do so that they can milk the citizens pocker who are crypto users, but to think of it, they themselves are crypto users as well.

[freedomgo]

           -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

The government cannot tax bitcoin directly but they can tax the platforms that are using bitcoin, most popular ones are casinos and exchanges. If a country does not like bitcoin, of course they'll ban anything that uses bitcoin, including gambling sites.

Since you explained that there's a country that doesn't like bitcoin and yet they tax or regulate a casino that is accepting bitcoin, can you name a specific casino you are referring?

Or we can china as an exchange, we know that they ban bitcoin, so the question  is, do they regulate a casino that accepts bitcoin?

Well said, that's how the government is, because they can't move or interfere with crypto especially bitcoin but they will find any loopholes to make a way for them to get money from crypto users so when they found out that other casino houses accept bitcoin as a means of payment, then they will take action and voila! Hello tax was their solution. Believe it or not, most of the government employees are aware of the movement of crypto so some of them have an idea of ​​what to do so that they can milk the citizens pocker who are crypto users, but to think of it, they themselves are crypto users as well.

That's the rule of the government, they take taxes on anything that is making money, they don't tax bitcoin outright since by definition it's only currency or an alternative currency, what they will tax are those platforms that are running to make transactions possible, like the casino and exchanges, and there are also countries that taxes people, you know, when a gambler wins, they are obliged to pay taxes from it.

So it's either they'll ban it, or accept it to gain tax... if they will ban, it's not good for us as what we will do is illegal, so it's better to get tax that face consequences on our illegal actions.

[paxmao]

           -   Yes, I thought about the title of this topic that you made. There are other countries that don't like bitcoin, and yet when there is a casino that applies under their regulation to legally operate in their country, they are given a license, even though the casino itself accepts bitcoin or cryptocurrency as one of the things that will be used. match the casino platform.

This really makes sense to me. Maybe that's because the government has as much interest in the casino itself and doesn't care about the system that the gambling platform has. Because the tax that the casino will pay is also taken from the gamblers who play on their gambling platforms, right?

The government cannot tax bitcoin directly but they can tax the platforms that are using bitcoin, most popular ones are casinos and exchanges. If a country does not like bitcoin, of course they'll ban anything that uses bitcoin, including gambling sites.

Since you explained that there's a country that doesn't like bitcoin and yet they tax or regulate a casino that is accepting bitcoin, can you name a specific casino you are referring?

Or we can china as an exchange, we know that they ban bitcoin, so the question  is, do they regulate a casino that accepts bitcoin?

Well said, that's how the government is, because they can't move or interfere with crypto especially bitcoin but they will find any loopholes to make a way for them to get money from crypto users so when they found out that other casino houses accept bitcoin as a means of payment, then they will take action and voila! Hello tax was their solution. Believe it or not, most of the government employees are aware of the movement of crypto so some of them have an idea of ​​what to do so that they can milk the citizens pocker who are crypto users, but to think of it, they themselves are crypto users as well.

That's the rule of the government, they take taxes on anything that is making money, they don't tax bitcoin outright since by definition it's only currency or an alternative currency, what they will tax are those platforms that are running to make transactions possible, like the casino and exchanges, and there are also countries that taxes people, you know, when a gambler wins, they are obliged to pay taxes from it.

So it's either they'll ban it, or accept it to gain tax... if they will ban, it's not good for us as what we will do is illegal, so it's better to get tax that face consequences on our illegal actions.

I would go even a bit further. If the governments are ok to approve a bitcoin based ETF, that is regulated by the financial authorities and is gaining lot of momentum in the traditional financial forums as alternative investment, how can we still consider that Bitcoin is not some form of money. It is like gold in the sense that you can bet with gold and it is no fiscally different from money.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

[freedomgo]

I would go even a bit further. If the governments are ok to approve a bitcoin based ETF, that is regulated by the financial authorities and is gaining lot of momentum in the traditional financial forums as alternative investment, how can we still consider that Bitcoin is not some form of money. It is like gold in the sense that you can bet with gold and it is no fiscally different from money.

That's true because the most valuable online currency now is bitcoin, 1 btc for over $70k, as the adoption increases it has become more liable and the fact that it's regulated by the government, that only mean one thing, bitcoin is here to stay.

IMO, it's time to change our belief that bitcoin is not money because it is, we are not in the early stage where we still doubt the future of bitcoin, now it seems like the world already know it and thanks to regulation as it strenghten its value.

[Shamm]

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

Maybe you are right that mate that we can compare Bitcoin and gold for a reason but in reality Bitcoin is a Digital Currency so it means it is a type of money but Digital not Like fiat that we can see,feel and touch while Bitcoin is in online wallet's to be stored. Also we can not say that Bitcoin is not a money cause we can change from Bitcoin to fiat it means from Digital to a touchable money. And also the best thing we can say that Bitcoin is Money is that  nowadays we can buy something and pay using Bitcoin.

[seoincorporation]

That's true because the most valuable online currency now is bitcoin, 1 btc for over $70k, as the adoption increases it has become more liable and the fact that it's regulated by the government, that only mean one thing, bitcoin is here to stay.

I totally agree with you, bitcoin is here to stay, and new regulations and new improvements will come with time, bitcoin will not be the same in the next 50 years.

IMO, it's time to change our belief that bitcoin is not money because it is, we are not in the early stage where we still doubt the future of bitcoin, now it seems like the world already know it and thanks to regulation as it strenghten its value.

We are not the ones who decide if bitcoin is money or not, governments are the ones who make that decision, just look at El Salvador, for them bitcoin is money, but for most of the countries bitcoin is just a digital asset. And that's the problem how can you regulate casinos where the users don't bet money?

[EarnOnVictor]

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

Maybe you are right that mate that we can compare Bitcoin and gold for a reason but in reality Bitcoin is a Digital Currency so it means it is a type of money but Digital not Like fiat that we can see,feel and touch while Bitcoin is in online wallet's to be stored. Also we can not say that Bitcoin is not a money cause we can change from Bitcoin to fiat it means from Digital to a touchable money. And also the best thing we can say that Bitcoin is Money is that  nowadays we can buy something and pay using Bitcoin.

The issue of Bitcoin as money is so complicated having carefully read people's stances after my last post here. But so long as it is a medium at which a financial transaction is concluded/settled and can be exchanged for the actual money/fiat, it is arguably money. But it is more than that, the fact that there is no commodity to back Bitcoin is an issue here, and the test of Bitcoin as money is still at the early stage, what if it later fails? What I just mentioned are points that are casting doubts on Bitcoin as money which makes many support Bitcoin as money and others do not support it as money.

Above all, the definition of money itself still considers it as anything that is an asset and exchangeable for its worth. Since Bitcoin is an asset and is exchangeable for its worth, it's money in my conclusive view. But for it to be thoroughly fitting, I guess that there should be some kind of modification to the definition of money. They never considered an advanced situation like we now see in cryptocurrency when they actually tabled down the definition of money.

[Hispo]

....

...

...

Above all, the definition of money itself still considers it as anything that is an asset and exchangeable for its worth. Since Bitcoin is an asset and is exchangeable for its worth, it's money in my conclusive view. But for it to be thoroughly fitting, I guess that there should be some kind of modification to the definition of money. They never considered an advanced situation like we now see in cryptocurrency when they actually tabled down the definition of money.

The issue with the definition of money is that there are other characteristics which are supposed to be held by an assets to be considered to be money, not only the fact there is an existing and big liquidity for that asset. Otherwise, we could argue gold is money, because of its high liquidity and market. Account the the most conservative definition, for an asset to be money it would need to keep it's relative value through time, be accepted as unit of account and accepted for the exchange of good and services.
In the case of Bitcoin, it lacks the capability to keep it's value stable through time, hence why is a very good vehicle for speculation.
So, I could easily argue Bitcoin (as stands today) behaves more like an asset or commodity than actual money.
Though, volatility is not an imposible obstacle to avoid if a jurisdiction actually wants or desires to use Satoshis as a official currency. El Salvador is an example of it being possible.

All the problem with casinos and Bitcoin as money actually comes for the digital and decentralized properties of the Blockchain, which the governments and the authoritarian ones are scare of, thrus they need to push as much regulation as possible to slow down money laundering and other criminal activities, in detriment of the positive experience of legitimate gamblers who just want to have fun and try their luck.  

[freedomgo]

IMO, it's time to change our belief that bitcoin is not money because it is, we are not in the early stage where we still doubt the future of bitcoin, now it seems like the world already know it and thanks to regulation as it strenghten its value.

We are not the ones who decide if bitcoin is money or not, governments are the ones who make that decision, just look at El Salvador, for them bitcoin is money, but for most of the countries bitcoin is just a digital asset. And that's the problem how can you regulate casinos where the users don't bet money?

Some countries might not adopt yet but big countries are already considering or have considered bitcoin as money, or not yet totally but widespread adoption will make it as money.

As definition on money.

Money is any object that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally, a standard of deferred payment.

Right now it's not yet generally accepted, but like I mentioned, onces widespread adoption happen which is only possible with the help of the government, it will become money that we can use to pay for products and services, well gambling belonged to the services I guess.

The government has to regulate a casino because even if bitcoin is use or any other currency, but no one had inquire that by not using money. You need money (dollar for ex) to buy bitcoin, and then you can use bitcoin to gamble, when you win, you'll exchange it to money to enjoy it, in this case bitcoin act just like a payment system or sort but at the end of the day, the beginning and end of transaction always falls to money.

[Wiwo]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

[promise444c5]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself ....

[bitterguy28]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself ....

if the government is truly concern about the casino and the players itself then lets thank them completely 

But I doubt that this is the main reason why government is acting such but for me? they are acting for themselves because We knew how much money is flowing in every casinos and indeed  they might be checking if how much they can gather having all these regulations and requirements .

[arwin100]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself ....

if the government is truly concern about the casino and the players itself then lets thank them completely 

But I doubt that this is the main reason why government is acting such but for me? they are acting for themselves because We knew how much money is flowing in every casinos and indeed  they might be checking if how much they can gather having all these regulations and requirements .

Maybe some of them are just concern on what happen to their citizens but there are also part that they are thinking that there's a lot of money involve in that industry that's why they try to regulate it so that maybe they can gain something in return. That's why there's KYC happening since maybe they want to know who are those people participating on those casino and to get something once they want to impose some taxation or anything that can possibly force those people to provide something for the government. But for me as long as there's no banning happen I am fine with this since we can still decide what to do but we just need to do something so that we can completely do whatever we want without getting any issue to legal side.

[Wiwo]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

[Russlenat]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

Of course, the government will see it once the business gets bigger and they'll require them to get a license or ban them.

However, what can you say about the growing popularity of Web3 Dapp games or gambling? I saw a lot of platforms being promoted in the forum already and they are getting a lot of bets, can they disrupt the gambling world? How would the government regulate it then if it's decentralized?

I see some decentralized casino before to be not worth playing but it has become competitive now with this web3 Dapp, so it's easier for the gambler to trust it since they are using a non custodial wallet, we link our wallets and we can withdraw anytime.

[CryptSafe]

Government is just a funny body that think they can do anything and whatever the want. Well for the fact that they are issuing licence to casinos, means that they want money but not just money anyways for documentation purposes but however, casinos are business ventures and as such the government would want to take task from them because her citizens patronise them for services which means the casino too are making huge revenue from them coupled with the fact that most do not win the games rather they lose their money and are not compensated because they are gambling.
Possibly these are amongst the reasons why government are hell bent on taking tax from casinos and issuing them operational license because they too want their own share of the cake the casino take from gamblers.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

On the norm, a business that is operating on a global scale should have a license to operate, most especially if the business of one where money possibly leaves a country into another country through the gamblers that are gambling on the casino from different parts of the world, and government know gambling casinos to be money magnet, since everyone wants to make money easily and quickly, most usually turn to gambling as the only means through which that desire can be fulfilled, and casinos are programmed to always be in profit in the long run, regardless of how much gambler win or won.

And speaking on kyc, I think the major issue here is that, government believe that bad eggs can use casinos to launder money if that casino is one without a license, and as such, does not subject their users to any form of kyc, governments want to make sure they catch any one who is laundering money out of their country through illegal means, and as such, this is why it's mandatory for all money transmitters, which gambling casinos are also part of, to obtain and an operational license which automatically gives that casino the legal right to request kyc verification from any user for what ever reason, or even without a reason, but as a mandatory requirement before the user can be granted access to the casino's services.

[paxmao]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself ....

if the government is truly concern about the casino and the players itself then lets thank them completely 

But I doubt that this is the main reason why government is acting such but for me? they are acting for themselves because We knew how much money is flowing in every casinos and indeed  they might be checking if how much they can gather having all these regulations and requirements .

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

[promise444c5]

Maybe some of them are just concern on what happen to their citizens but there are also part that they are thinking that there's a lot of money involve in that industry that's why they try to regulate it so that maybe they can gain something in return. That's why there's KYC happening since maybe they want to know who are those people participating on those casino and to get something once they want to impose some taxation or anything that can possibly force those people to provide something for the government. But for me as long as there's no banning happen I am fine with this since we can still decide what to do but we just need to do something so that we can completely do whatever we want without getting any issue to legal side.

Casinos are hot cake to government in my opinion because casinos  make and control alot of monetary  funds and some  even use this casinos  for money laundering  so far it's  not obvious  and cash is been spent so there's no way government won't  be after them and truly if we are to consider  anything  legal  in a country or statethen it must be licensed , legalised  and backed up by the government itself, either way government wins no matter what

[rodskee]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Freebitco.in may not be as big as Stake but they are big enough to really ask for KYC but
they choose not to meaning that they are a bit better than those who continues to ask for KYC.

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

Casino is the money making machine of government meaning they will keep asking
for portion of profit from casino owners in which the owners will take those funds from players.

[bitterguy28]

I hope they keep to it, most online casinos also wanted to be like freebitco but along the line they join other popular online casinos that ask for KYC, I have been using freebitco since many years ago and they have never asked me for KYC before, I am impressed, but what if freebitco become as big as Stake some day? Won't that bring attention?

Online casinos can survive and still become successful under the radar without being  noticed, but when the attention gets bigger they might come looking for them, and they can be forced to go same route like big online casinos have done too.

The thing is that, why most of them don't survive when they have kyc in place is because the authorities always look at they activities as illegal and against the law since they are not paying any tax if their are not regulated in the first place and most who don't want to expose themselves are always looked for and sectioned that is the reason most of the new casinos always make sure that they uptain license before they begin they operations.

We have seen many cases of those no kyc casinos becoming victims of government sanctioned which at most time leads to their closer in the long run, this have taught most some lessons.

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself ....

if the government is truly concern about the casino and the players itself then lets thank them completely 

But I doubt that this is the main reason why government is acting such but for me? they are acting for themselves because We knew how much money is flowing in every casinos and indeed  they might be checking if how much they can gather having all these regulations and requirements .

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

Nice point there mate and yeah I think i get that completely and indeed that I missed this part part when I am analyzing this concept of topic , or maybe I lived  in the country where corruption is really in place so i have a little respect when in terms of money making.

[shield132]

That's a great answer, the license is a part of the 3rd party games, and is the way to trust those non-provably fair games. Some users like to play those fancy slots even if they can't verify the rolls, but they feel the game was fair for the simple fact that the site has a license.

Just to conclude the topic, a license is not a warranty for the users. We have seen a lot of licensed casinos who has a terrible reputation, but their marketing strategies is so strong that they keep getting new users, and more than 50% of those new users will end up having a bad experience.

Thank you. Yeah, a license means nothing because there have been many websites with a license but still scammed. In crypto casinos, the license is not a guarantee of a casino being honest and 100% payable. There is 1xbit with Curacao license that has always been scamming people, they still scam and because of the marketing, they are able to still attract new customers. They are licensed but it doesn't help, as far as I know, no customer has taken their deserved money from them.
As far as I remember, freebitco.in and bustabit.com didn't have a license but to this day they have not scammed anyone. Now both of them have a license but they were as trustworthy before acquiring a license as they are today.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

That's a great answer, the license is a part of the 3rd party games, and is the way to trust those non-provably fair games. Some users like to play those fancy slots even if they can't verify the rolls, but they feel the game was fair for the simple fact that the site has a license.

Just to conclude the topic, a license is not a warranty for the users. We have seen a lot of licensed casinos who has a terrible reputation, but their marketing strategies is so strong that they keep getting new users, and more than 50% of those new users will end up having a bad experience.

Thank you. Yeah, a license means nothing because there have been many websites with a license but still scammed. In crypto casinos, the license is not a guarantee of a casino being honest and 100% payable. There is 1xbit with Curacao license that has always been scamming people, they still scam and because of the marketing, they are able to still attract new customers. They are licensed but it doesn't help, as far as I know, no customer has taken their deserved money from them.
As far as I remember, freebitco.in and bustabit.com didn't have a license but to this day they have not scammed anyone. Now both of them have a license but they were as trustworthy before acquiring a license as they are today.

Well, you are right, this is same thing I said about casino and their operational licenses like several weeks ago.
License is never a guarantee that an online gambling casino can be trusted, I can say or tell you that most of the casinos who obtained this licenses only do so for probably two reasons...

1. To be recognized as a business by the government issuing the license, this possibly enables the casino to pay taxes as a business, to avoid harassment and possible sanctions in the future, for tax evation and other related offences.
2. To appear as a well recognized and legitimate business in the eyes of users, you will agree with me that, even though having a license is no longer a guarantee that a casino can be trusted, most have gamblers, especially those with big bags of money, may like choose a licensed casino over an unlicensed one, as they feel some level of security when playing on a government recognized casino.

This is my thought.

[topbitcoin]

That's a great answer, the license is a part of the 3rd party games, and is the way to trust those non-provably fair games. Some users like to play those fancy slots even if they can't verify the rolls, but they feel the game was fair for the simple fact that the site has a license.

Just to conclude the topic, a license is not a warranty for the users. We have seen a lot of licensed casinos who has a terrible reputation, but their marketing strategies is so strong that they keep getting new users, and more than 50% of those new users will end up having a bad experience.

Thank you. Yeah, a license means nothing because there have been many websites with a license but still scammed. In crypto casinos, the license is not a guarantee of a casino being honest and 100% payable. There is 1xbit with Curacao license that has always been scamming people, they still scam and because of the marketing, they are able to still attract new customers. They are licensed but it doesn't help, as far as I know, no customer has taken their deserved money from them.
As far as I remember, freebitco.in and bustabit.com didn't have a license but to this day they have not scammed anyone. Now both of them have a license but they were as trustworthy before acquiring a license as they are today.

I agree that a license is not a guarantee for a casino to behave fairly to its customers in terms of games, because there are many gambling platforms that have a license but they cheat, it is not a few who do that, yes it can be said to be a third party game to make people believe that they have a license that they do everything fairly.
Yes, we may be able to see that those who used to have no license but were able to operate the casino fairly are not a doubt that when they get a license they will do the same, it should increase their confidence that they are doing it fairly in running their services. But in any case we should not be too sure because something could happen someday, I don't mean to do FUD but being more careful is a better attitude than being too fanatical.

And all the governments that require every casino to have a license means that they assume that bitcoin and others are currencies, roughly speaking, can you say that?

[Dunamisx]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

[promise444c5]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

[dansus021]

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Free tax I believe hahahha it same with the big companies that have Overseas companies with million or billion of worth asset in Cayman Island Bahamas and Cyprus these are island in the middle of nowhere but If we could count all the asset maybe it can hit trillion of dollar hahhahah.

In the gambling world, I see a bunch of Curaçao registered companies maybe it is because it is very easy to get a license there and I believe there maybe no official office there only a plain address with a virtual office that hosts a bunch of other companies in it. The reason they registered their companies here because maybe first is tax and second they can operate with "Legal" documents and so make the site is more trusted. Tho you don't need to worry fren because gambling site like u mention before always there and cannot be killed. Long live freedom

[joniboini]

but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I believe some already mentioned this, but provably fair platforms are not rare, so those are your options. Obviously, you need to have some degree of knowledge to check whether the match is correct or not, but you can also wait for community members to test the platform for you. I believe some websites will also review such platforms if the needs arise, not to mention websites with KYC don't mean they are not scammers. I believe it is not hard to do so, even if you use some basic common sense you can avoid scam websites. Just look for the signals. If they are new, claim to have operated for years, offer a provably fair system but provide no details, and no community ever heard about them, then stay put and wait for reviews or look for other websites asap. You don't need to rely on the government for that.

[Julien_Olynpic]

But it is a cryptocurrency that is nonetheless highly liquid and favored by many reputable institutions. Of course, governments want to take control of both cryptocurrency and gambling companies. But in general, the idea is interesting: if we play for fake money, then why do we need a license? Instead of Bitcoin, you can use some other cryptocurrency. The best one is one that is less serious. For example, some little-known dog token. Or an in-game NFT. After all, a casino can operate on in-game NFTs? It's definitely not money. It’s generally difficult to say what it is).

[delfastTions]

~ snip ~

~ snip ~

~ snip ~

It seems that they are making it less and less possible, for the reasons you have stated above. In the end this long trend of becoming mainstream little by little increases liquidity to the point that bitcoin becomes effectively money-like. I guess that if casinos accepted deposits in copper certificates, then they would ask for KYC for any copper backed transaction

This is the reality of our world and the reality of developments in the field of cryptopayments.  Of course we must admit this if we want to be objective.

 But one big question remains, which is that millions of gamblers around the world, for various reasons, simply cannot afford to provide casinos with their personal data.  And games using cryptocurrencies are obviously well suited for them.  But at the same time, they will not undergo KYC in any case, since for them it immediately means the loss of their anonymity.  So, in order to still satisfy the needs of such players, I think there will still be casinos that will not require KYC from the player, and the player, in turn, will be sure that if he wins, he will receive his winnings guaranteed and without KYC verification.  
This niche in the crypto casino business must be occupied by some casino or a whole group of competing casinos.  And the reason for this is obviously due to the fact that there are still a huge number of gammbling people in the world who are ready to gamble, but only on condition of anonymity.

It's important to note that while privacy is a valued aspect of cryptocurrencies, completely anonymous participation in crypto casinos might not be possible or legal in all jurisdictions, especially with licensed and regulated platforms.
So I think it depends on the goal. If crypto-casinos are based on legal compliance, operational integrity, and the need to protect users, then a license will be required (even if Bitcoin is not officially recognized as "money").
If it is only about the type of currency used for transactions, licenses mayby not be used. But in this case in our reality, players in such casinos can play not only with their bets, but also with the safety of their funds and personal information. Of course, if the market demands, then there will be such casinos, but very niche. The general mass will obey the law.

This is where the question arises that the right to anonymity in such an area as the gambling industry (where this is obviously an essential factor for the comfortable play of millions of clients of the global gambling industry) must be protected in a certain way by current legislation.  And then the casino will fulfill these requirements.  
However, as I understand it, legislators in the USA and other countries generally ignore such legislative initiatives completely.  Nothing has even been heard about them and no one is working on them.  And legislators are only doing the opposite with laws on the de-anonymization of crypto payments under the far-fetched and essentially false label of “anti-money laundering.”  In my opinion, too much priority and preferences are given to this area of ​​legislation.  But this is of little use because almost all illegal and criminal money circulation occurs through fiat and cash.  
All this, in turn, creates a legal vacuum in the rights of players to anonymity when using crypto casinos.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Whatever, bitcoin is something valuable that can be measured in its countervalue in fiat money, that's what matters to the authorities.

But it is a cryptocurrency that is nonetheless highly liquid and favored by many reputable institutions. Of course, governments want to take control of both cryptocurrency and gambling companies. But in general, the idea is interesting: if we play for fake money, then why do we need a license?

If you wanted to set up a casino where you could only bet on gold, the same thing would happen, and gold is not legal tender today.

It is like the people who thought that because there was no explicit regulation on bitcoin in their country they were going to get out of the obligation to pay by obtaining a capital gain by selling it. Your government doesn't care, if you buy a dog shit at $100 and sell it for $1,000 the treasury will want to charge you for the $900 difference.

[EarnOnVictor]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

I must say that I am happy to read from you about the fairness between the government's actions and the clamouring for the privacy of people. Most people thought this was wrong before and it was as if I was the only one who supported more regulation for a sane society. Privacy/anonymity as we see it will harbour more evil than good, fine, we want to be on our own and do everything as we like without anyone knowing and questioning, but have we thought about giving those rights to the bad and wicked fellas in that sense? That will make the world to be in grave danger.

The heart of a lot of people are wickedly wicked, so letting their wishes happen in terms of privacy and anonymity will make their bad intention escape undetected and unchallenged and cause irreparable danger in some cases. The government can't fold their arm to allow that to happen and I believe that the responsible world citizen should support the government in this area for the good of all. It's good that we already have cryptocurrency and it has come with its benefits as well which the government cannot take from us anymore. But letting the users of cryptocurrency be accountable is not too much to ask for in my opinion, and whether we like it or not, there would have to be enough stricter regulation in the coming years.

As for the m!xers, I still wish the government could be thorough about this to abolish it entirely. It is a menace in our society and you can see the evil they've used some to perpetrate. This is currently happening even as the government are doing their best to limit the illicit flows and the negative effect on the society.

[kotajikikox]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

Actually I was thinking is what do really the license stands ? because even those licensed casinos that turns scammers seems to be not putting behind bars and the issues was just being forgotten like it is never happened .
so for me either the casino is not licensed as long as it is serving gamblers here? then I see no problem trusting them at all.

[michellee]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

If a business can provide the government with the opportunity to collect taxes, the government will enforce the regulations. The government will ask business owners to carry out KYC on business members. Apart from taxes, the government must also check the flow of funds from the business.

This is to ensure that no one violates the regulations implemented by the government. And now, as crypto gambling grows in popularity, governments are getting curious. The government wants to know how much money there is in this crypto gambling business. That's also what made the government regulate KYC in crypto casinos.

There may be other reasons we don't know because we are not part of that government. Even if we are government members, we can not explain in more detail.

[sompitonov]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

If a business can provide the government with the opportunity to collect taxes, the government will enforce the regulations. The government will ask business owners to carry out KYC on business members. Apart from taxes, the government must also check the flow of funds from the business.

This is to ensure that no one violates the regulations implemented by the government. And now, as crypto gambling grows in popularity, governments are getting curious. The government wants to know how much money there is in this crypto gambling business. That's also what made the government regulate KYC in crypto casinos.

There may be other reasons we don't know because we are not part of that government. Even if we are government members, we can not explain in more detail.

When this has reached a critical mass in dollar terms, then of course the government will become interested in this issue. Another thing is that each country has its own regulation and some do not have clear rules, so this business will either choose where these rules exist and pay taxes, or register in a country where there is no clear regulation and will be at risk of closure. To be honest, I don’t like the 2nd option, but there are also quite a lot of such casinos, but it’s better for them not to scale because if there is a fall, it will be very loud.

If I were asked this question about a license, I would answer that it has the characteristics of money, but is not money. The casino functions very well and works with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it turns out that everything works here like clockwork, except taxes. We come to the conclusion that this needs to be regulated in some special way.

[bitterguy28]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government

we all hates KYC specially when dealing in new casinos but when it comes to our trusted one then we should not feel bad at all because we can generate trust in them that our KYC will be safe.

since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

[joniboini]

we all hates KYC specially when dealing in new casinos but when it comes to our trusted one then we should not feel bad at all because we can generate trust in them that our KYC will be safe.

I think it is better to be cautious and always assume the worst so we're prepared for the worst. There have been many database leaks from famous companies, and while they are not necessarily related to the casino or crypt business, there is enough evidence to doubt how companies store users' data. Especially if they regularly ask for your KYC info even though nothing changed. One of my commonly used platforms just asked for an update on KYC because they claim there is a change in regulation/license that they operate with, but they failed to give me an explanation on that, so I stopped using them.

Whether they have a license or not, being careful with your private data should be mandatory even if you use a platform that's been around for years. Who knows what they do with the info they collect from their customers.

[mak013]

       -    Overall, for me, Bitcoin is money, not directly money, but it can be exchanged for money. Why? because it has the same value as gold. It's not even touched, but it can still be exchanged for fiat, so how can we say that it's not money? The logic is very simple: if he is not money, that means he is fake money, right? And fake money has no value, right?

Now tell me, is it true that Bitcoin is not money? because if others say that it is not money, it means that Bitcoin has no value, but in reality, a Bitcoin plays at 69 000 to 70 000 dollars. Is this the fake money with value that they say is not money? This is just my point.

Technically it is not money. The stocks and the bonds not money too, the gold is the same. You can`t but bread for BTC, so it is not money. But you can exchange it for the money and you can get profit from it, so you have to pay taxes for profit. It is fair as for me. I don`t like it but it is fair.

[freedomgo]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

You know what, the game in the gambling industry is not about license only. The most important thing to consider is its reputation and license is just to solidify it. Now, let me ask you, would you play to a casino that only have a license but its reputation is not yet refine, or play with a casino with good reputation but does not acquire a license yet?

Me personallly I would not choose between the two as I believe that both factors are very important for a casino to gain trust from gamblers.

Basis formula it is when finding a good casino ... reputation + license... without those two, skip it or you'll regret later.

[rodskee]

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

[arwin100]

In theory, the government is actually everyone in the sense that money evaded from the governments does not get spent in the general interest of people so governments tend to prevent anything that escapes their financial control so dealing with crypto or casinos is the same: make sure you get money while making sure there is enough incentive to keep the business going.

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

That's why somehow they need to comply since there business will be affected on regulations set by government if they didn't obey what required them to do. So at the end it will force their clients to submit their KYC since this is what has been asked to them.

Government always have a say on this that's why people should not be surprised if something like requirements like this has been asked especially on their favorite casino since that means they are just following the orders of government since and they want to run a good business. Although some gamblers might really get affected but its up for them to decide if they want to proceed or not.

[michellee]

When this has reached a critical mass in dollar terms, then of course the government will become interested in this issue. Another thing is that each country has its own regulation and some do not have clear rules, so this business will either choose where these rules exist and pay taxes, or register in a country where there is no clear regulation and will be at risk of closure. To be honest, I don’t like the 2nd option, but there are also quite a lot of such casinos, but it’s better for them not to scale because if there is a fall, it will be very loud.

If I were asked this question about a license, I would answer that it has the characteristics of money, but is not money. The casino functions very well and works with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, it turns out that everything works here like clockwork, except taxes. We come to the conclusion that this needs to be regulated in some special way.

Like now, Bitcoin has become more famous than it was a few years ago. The government has become increasingly interested in this, and this has been proven by the creation of laws that control crypto users. Many countries have created laws to regulate crypto.

Some governments have also implemented taxes on their citizens who use crypto. This will be further enhanced as crypto becomes more popular in the future. If the government doesn't do it now, they will lose their source of income from crypto.

Later, we will look at other regulations regarding crypto, including Bitcoin. So let's just enjoy this journey while we gamble using crypto

[Dunamisx]

Yeah! Casinos without KYCs for government to have part in the running  are always main target for sanction as they would tag all their activities  to be an illegal  one NMW and there's  no way they can just themselves
Governments are just concerned with the both the gamblers  and the casinos itself .

The majority of the casinos without licences only run for a few months or years but doesn't have the capacity to run the operation for a long time since at anytime the government get through to them it will definitely become the end of their operations.

So for contemporary casinos that have long term in views it will be very necessary to get the license needed to operate as legal company and at that will implement KYC to comply with government demands.

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

Actually I was thinking is what do really the license stands ? because even those licensed casinos that turns scammers seems to be not putting behind bars and the issues was just being forgotten like it is never happened .
so for me either the casino is not licensed as long as it is serving gamblers here? then I see no problem trusting them at all.

As I've already pointed out from previous posts, license is not a complete measure to identify a gambling casino as to be a trusted one, we have to make our own research on them and risk using their platform on our own, there are casinos not having license and are operating well and you could as well find some with license registrations and are not to be trusted from what they do, many of their likes have already failed and disappointed many gamblers in the past. 

[FortuneFollower]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

I think government play a very big role in the trusting aspect  as a non licenced casino  shouldn't  require. kyc registration  for it users( the gamblers) or maybe we could just have this registered casinos without  having  to undergo the kyc process leaving almost all gamblers as anonymous  (although not too anonymous) as they aren't going deep into kyc but with these some might still want to  do some illegal stuffs  so I think government  is actually  monitoring  the inflow of the money just like they wanted to monitor mixers

I must say that I am happy to read from you about the fairness between the government's actions and the clamouring for the privacy of people. Most people thought this was wrong before and it was as if I was the only one who supported more regulation for a sane society. Privacy/anonymity as we see it will harbour more evil than good, fine, we want to be on our own and do everything as we like without anyone knowing and questioning, but have we thought about giving those rights to the bad and wicked fellas in that sense? That will make the world to be in grave danger.

The heart of a lot of people are wickedly wicked, so letting their wishes happen in terms of privacy and anonymity will make their bad intention escape undetected and unchallenged and cause irreparable danger in some cases. The government can't fold their arm to allow that to happen and I believe that the responsible world citizen should support the government in this area for the good of all. It's good that we already have cryptocurrency and it has come with its benefits as well which the government cannot take from us anymore. But letting the users of cryptocurrency be accountable is not too much to ask for in my opinion, and whether we like it or not, there would have to be enough stricter regulation in the coming years.

As for the m!xers, I still wish the government could be thorough about this to abolish it entirely. It is a menace in our society and you can see the evil they've used some to perpetrate. This is currently happening even as the government are doing their best to limit the illicit flows and the negative effect on the society.

I agree that some balance is needed between keeping things safe and respecting privacy. Full anonymity might sound good, but it could also cover up bad activities. It's like you're saying, too much freedom without any checks can be dangerous. I've always thought more rules could help make things safer, and it sounds like you're on the same page. Sure, we all love the freedom and benefits that come with cryptocurrency, but making sure everyone plays fair isn't asking too much.
The goal is to keep the bad stuff in check while enjoying the good things crypto brings to our lives.

[pinggoki]

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

Exactly and that's a crazy thing to be honest, you comply or we make you bend to comply, government when it comes to this kind of thing, it's mostly bullying but I can understand why the need for a license when it comes to casinos, the money that's getting in it is too obscene to be ignored by the government and you know how much they love their taxes right? Ain't no way that they're going to let it slip that easy, another thing that's making all of this is the reason that casinos are a good place to start your money laundering operations, it's for the safety of both parties since you will have a rights for illegal searches as a casino while at the same time money laundering won't ever be a problem because they're prevented from using your casino as their laundering hub or whatever they may call it. I don't know about the part that gamblers would be affected because you're not really involved in the business side of things. I guess all that we can do is comply, we're the minority in the world so it's not really our call to be boasting or breaking the law.

[dezoel]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

When cryptocurrency casinos were first introduced, there was no KYC or anything like that, no one had to verify their identity before they could access certain features in a platform such as making large deposits or withdrawals or participating in certain events. You could deposit any amount you wished or withdraw any amount no matter how large, and it would get processed in a matter of minutes. However, over time, due to regulatory pressure, rules such as KYC and AML started popping up. Casinos were asked to acquire licenses to operate.

The licensing part isn't very bad in my opinion, because platforms that are registered with authorities would have a lower possibility of scamming its customers and run away with their funds, which isn't the case with unregistered and unregulated casinos these days.

[red4slash]

but in the end it is the casino that keeps following the government requirements or else they
will be bugged and that means Government will  always succeed and will benefits from everything about this .
and in the end the gamblers will be the affected party in this situation.

A casino that wants to be licensed and considered legitimate by the government then indeed they inevitably have to follow what the government regulates and one of them is KYC and actually I don't think it will be a loss for gamblers because in the end it is a choice that can be taken whether to continue to stay at the casino with a note of having to do KYC as one of the conditions of their stay or go looking for a new casino that does not impose KYC.
At this time I think it all depends on ourselves in the end whether we decide to leave or not because the fact is that there are still sites that until now do not require KYC as a condition for gambling so in this case I personally do not feel disadvantaged because in the end it all depends on our own choices.

[Fortify]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

It seems like you don't really have a clue what countries like Curacao are offering and for whatever reason - guessing you lost a lot of money - you are bitter towards them. Gambling is often heavily regulated around the world, in places like the USA or Europe, but as the internet has global reach you will always have some enterprising people who want companies outside the reach of these laws. These small countries often have few sources of income, but allowing companies to virtually base themselves there and acting as a regulator brings in a huge source of income for them. There are some small countries that have better reputations than others at investigating or upholding complaints, but they effectively allow crypto casinos to exist in a roundabout way. That being said, a lot of the huge ones now will often navigate the harder laws in places like the EU.

[nakamura12]

Let's say that bitcoin is not money as we can read on the thread title, this is my opinion or what I think the reason is. I think the reason why casino needs license is because it is a requirement when you want to run a casino and also bitcoin can be sold for fiat. So, if I deposit bitcoin to the casino then it should be like this btc - casino, btc to fiat - your casino account even though you it's bitcoin. Anyway, that's how I think why they need license which is also ti avoid people use their casino as a platform to launder money.

[EarnOnVictor]

The gambling without license could have been the best because most of them would have been non KYC gambling casinos and they won't require KYC informations from us as well as seing them not regulated by the government since they are not having any license to back that up,  but can we have the required trust in some of these sites, how reliable could they be in such a way that you will not see them taking their users fund away at anytime when they cease operations.

When cryptocurrency casinos were first introduced, there was no KYC or anything like that, no one had to verify their identity before they could access certain features in a platform such as making large deposits or withdrawals or participating in certain events. You could deposit any amount you wished or withdraw any amount no matter how large, and it would get processed in a matter of minutes. However, over time, due to regulatory pressure, rules such as KYC and AML started popping up. Casinos were asked to acquire licenses to operate.

The licensing part isn't very bad in my opinion, because platforms that are registered with authorities would have a lower possibility of scamming its customers and run away with their funds, which isn't the case with unregistered and unregulated casinos these days.

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

However, when they came up with their regulation, they changed the narrative, and crypto on its own can keep the necessary privacy and other characteristics, but once a company or regulated/licenced entity uses it, the same can't happen for the parties involved anymore. This is the rule unless they are not registered in any country, which can make them do as they like and even encourage their customers not to complete KYC. In the absence of that, due process must be followed. This has never stopped the true capability of cryptocurrency itself but just makes those using it more accountable. We should all respect that in this present dispensation.

[Wiwo]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

However, when they came up with their regulation, they changed the narrative, and crypto on its own can keep the necessary privacy and other characteristics, but once a company or regulated/licenced entity uses it, the same can't happen for the parties involved anymore. This is the rule unless they are not registered in any country, which can make them do as they like and even encourage their customers not to complete KYC. In the absence of that, due process must be followed. This has never stopped the true capability of cryptocurrency itself but just makes those using it more accountable. We should all respect that in this present dispensation.

The issue with privacy and kyc and how those centralized platform handle users data's is more or less a deep subject that requires an entire thread dedicated to that discussion,  but sure the more regulations the more sane the gambling industry will become and gamblers will also have more security while using casinos.

[EarnOnVictor]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

[delfastTions]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

A real gambler often has such circumstances in his life that he simply cannot play these games and provide the casino with his personal data. 
For many millions of people around the world, this could have a significant impact simply on the quality of their life.  For example, a player hides his passion for gambling from his employer, and he, if this contradicts the employer’s position, may be fired.  Sometimes people hide their gambling habits from their immediate family, such as their wives.  If she finds out, there will be a scandal and such a player will no longer be able to continue playing calmly.  You can also add such a limitation as social attitudes in the society to which the player belongs, for example, religious attitudes and condemnations of gambling.  In general, there can be many such factors.  But the person wants to play.  So such a player has to maintain anonymity.
 And accordingly, he has to ignore the casino that necessarily requires KYC.  And this has become more and more difficult lately.

[avp2306]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

So for those issues raised maybe its better for people to decide whether its still worth it to risk their identity or not on those casino implement this requirement. Although we know that its really hard to provide what they ask due to security issue but these big casino cannot do anything since it will be bad for their business if they are not compliant to the law and they operate legally. So if people can't accept those KYC implementation then maybe its time for time to decide stop their activities on those casino who asked KYC.

And if they don't want to get scam since usually as we know that it happens on non-KYC or small time casino then better they should not go here. For sure there's a land base casino on their area or city so maybe they can enjoy their gambling experience without worrying about their identity.

[Reatim]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients. In a way, regulation also protects gamblers from fraudulent and unjust gambling practices.

Well anyway I think it is just up to a gambler’s preference.

[Shamm]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients. In a way, regulation also protects gamblers from fraudulent and unjust gambling practices.

Well anyway I think it is just up to a gambler’s preference.

absolutely mate you are  right and  having a license is a previllage by the owner. Cause it will identify their legitimacy cause we are all know that  once a casino have a license then their customers have some security cause that casino having a license they cant do some untrusted moves or let say scamming cause they will caught easier cause they give some of their private information and once they act suspicious then one thing for sure their casino will face some circumstances.. anyways as a gambler we need to choice a good casino to play with.

[redsun114]

a license is not a guarantee for a casino to behave fairly to its customers in terms of games, because there are many gambling platforms that have a license but they cheat, it is not a few who do that, yes it can be said to be a third party game to make people believe that they have a license that they do everything fairly.
Yes, we may be able to see that those who used to have no license but were able to operate the casino fairly are not a doubt that when they get a license they will do the same, it should increase their confidence that they are doing it fairly in running their services. But in any case we should not be too sure because something could happen someday, I don't mean to do FUD but being more careful is a better attitude than being too fanatical.

And all the governments that require every casino to have a license means that they assume that bitcoin and others are currencies, roughly speaking, can you say that?

Maybe getting a license is only their way to attract users before they show their true face, so that it will be more worth it but there might be some who are genuine at the start and only changed later on. Most casinos can start with no license because they don't have a budget yet and then a license is mainly required when the size of the casino have grown a lot.

We don't need something like a license only to increase our confidence of becoming fair but it should come within our selves. Bitcoin and other cryptos are currencies but it's not the main reason on why the government requires a license to a casino but it might have to do with the tax.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients. In a way, regulation also protects gamblers from fraudulent and unjust gambling practices.

Well anyway I think it is just up to a gambler’s preference.

       -    I also understand what you are saying: that there are other gamblers who, if we look at it, don't even care if the casinos they enter are illegal because they can gamble and win money. Because most of the gamblers—I don't know all of them—are greedy for money.

and they become greedy because usually they also look at gambling as their hope that they can get rich, even if we say that there is truth in what they think, but it rarely happens.

[passwordnow]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients.

A license makes them not illegally operating. There are some casinos started out without having a license but don't have intention to engage with illegal activities thus, they became operational and eventually got their license. But also, you're right that it's a way to protect the users that the casino won't get into illegal activities but we don't even know nowadays. There are casinos and exchanges that are having some inside activities that aren't involving their customers but could be involved in money laundering.

In a way, regulation also protects gamblers from fraudulent and unjust gambling practices.

Well anyway I think it is just up to a gambler’s preference.

As long as we know the reputation of the casino that we're gambling with, there's no problem with that. What's wrong is that we know that the casino is already bad, we've read some reviews that justify how bad they are. Coming from the support, withdrawals, bugs, refunds, etc. and yet you still proceeded to that casino despite learning that it can happen to you.

[Beparanf]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients.

A license makes them not illegally operating. There are some casinos started out without having a license but don't have intention to engage with illegal activities thus, they became operational and eventually got their license. But also, you're right that it's a way to protect the users that the casino won't get into illegal activities but we don't even know nowadays. There are casinos and exchanges that are having some inside activities that aren't involving their customers but could be involved in money laundering.

Actually, Casino that accepts only cryptocurrency is not breaking any law if they don’t have any license to operate since cryptocurrency is not considered as money on most country.

The requirements of license will enter if they will allow fiat deposit through bank transfer or credit cards since fiat always need to be regulated. But a casino that offers pure crypto is not required to get license. Most of the casino just acquired license because they offer fiat deposit and at the same time to gain trust of players since license is one of the feature which players always looking forward before they play.

[ultrloa]

I do understand how other gamblers could feel as though their privacy is being sacrificed because of regulations implemented by having a license from the government but I think it also has some pros.

A license prevents a casino to suddenly do illegal activities that could harm their clients.

A license makes them not illegally operating. There are some casinos started out without having a license but don't have intention to engage with illegal activities thus, they became operational and eventually got their license. But also, you're right that it's a way to protect the users that the casino won't get into illegal activities but we don't even know nowadays. There are casinos and exchanges that are having some inside activities that aren't involving their customers but could be involved in money laundering.

Actually, Casino that accepts only cryptocurrency is not breaking any law if they don’t have any license to operate since cryptocurrency is not considered as money on most country.

The requirements of license will enter if they will allow fiat deposit through bank transfer or credit cards since fiat always need to be regulated. But a casino that offers pure crypto is not required to get license. Most of the casino just acquired license because they offer fiat deposit and at the same time to gain trust of players since license is one of the feature which players always looking forward before they play.

Its just they want to display something to show that their casino is compliant to the law so that people will be confident to trust the service they provide. That's why we are been oblige to submit this requirements since they are mandatory been asked to required this by government so they can successfully give all the requirements and get those documents. But in reality you have point regarding on your statement regarding about fiat since they will really be regulated with that.

I know to many people don't really like to proceed on a KYC process but if this will be required by a reputable casino then we will be forced to provide since if we don't do it then maybe we will get an issue or totally we can't gamble unless we can provide what they asked to us.

[passwordnow]

A license makes them not illegally operating. There are some casinos started out without having a license but don't have intention to engage with illegal activities thus, they became operational and eventually got their license. But also, you're right that it's a way to protect the users that the casino won't get into illegal activities but we don't even know nowadays. There are casinos and exchanges that are having some inside activities that aren't involving their customers but could be involved in money laundering.

Actually, Casino that accepts only cryptocurrency is not breaking any law if they don’t have any license to operate since cryptocurrency is not considered as money on most country.

The requirements of license will enter if they will allow fiat deposit through bank transfer or credit cards since fiat always need to be regulated.

You're right since the government can just classify cryptocurrencies as not real money depending on how acceptable they are from those casinos where they are operating. They have no obligation to register but since most casinos do support crypto to fiat withdrawals and deposits, the obligation and responsibility is there.

But a casino that offers pure crypto is not required to get license. Most of the casino just acquired license because they offer fiat deposit and at the same time to gain trust of players since license is one of the feature which players always looking forward before they play.

While before we're seeing a lot of pure crypto casinos but with the continuous growth of the industry and as the demand is asking for that. Most of them have also the support in fiat and various currencies that can be found in many countries. And for that reason, most of them that do have that feature have to get themselves registered.

[Casdinyard]

AFAIK, the license is for them to be allowed to operate, not for them to handle crypto money, that they are cryptocurrency casinos are not a pass for them to not take up the licenses and give their people a little bit of peace of mind, although nowadays, I do share the same sentiments as you, I don't think Curacao's doing its thing anymore. In the past they've been very strict and comprehensive with the licenses they give, they do background checks and and make sure that the casinos they give licenses to, deserve it wholly, nowadays it seems like they'd just give it to any casino who'd spare them money and pass it off as "licensing fee" this directly shatters the transparency and integrity that they are supposed to hold up, it's fucking stupid cause now you can't even tell the good casinos from the bad ones from the licensing alone, you'd have to dig deeper than the grand canyon to figure out if the casino you choose to play with is going to pay you your wins or not.

At the end of the day, it's just whichever casino you're most comfortable at, you can't be trusting too many casinos at a time anymore, and it's probably best that you pick a favorite if you don't want to lose your money over some casino who bought their licenses.

[Wiwo]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

The thing is clear, because when a casino call themselves a decentralised casinos, it becomes 100% free from kyc and by that it means, that casinos have no right to ask players for kyc verification and anytime their so is either their have become centralized to avoid crack down by regulators.


Or their have become outrightly scam being that only when a decentralised casino want to scam someone that their come up with what is not and that way the make it impossible for the gambler to pass through their verification process.

[shasan]

Maybe getting a license is only their way to attract users before they show their true face, so that it will be more worth it but there might be some who are genuine at the start and only changed later on. Most casinos can start with no license because they don't have a budget yet and then a license is mainly required when the size of the casino have grown a lot.

We don't need something like a license only to increase our confidence of becoming fair but it should come within our selves. Bitcoin and other cryptos are currencies but it's not the main reason on why the government requires a license to a casino but it might have to do with the tax.

Getting a license makes more trustworthy them than gamblers though we play with such money which is the opposite of this theory. We are using crypto to hide our identity but we are disclosing our identity by the name of taking a license.

[EarnOnVictor]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

The thing is clear, because when a casino call themselves a decentralised casinos, it becomes 100% free from kyc and by that it means, that casinos have no right to ask players for kyc verification and anytime their so is either their have become centralized to avoid crack down by regulators.


Or their have become outrightly scam being that only when a decentralised casino want to scam someone that their come up with what is not and that way the make it impossible for the gambler to pass through their verification process.

This is a true practice of scammers, they must have intended it from the beginning and they are using the cryptocurrency system to get their evil perpetrated. This is why I always tell people that I will never join them in signing up for the no-KYC casino. And even if I had to sign up for a decentralised casino, I would have thought it through for a long time and would even resolve to choose the old ones only. This will also be happening if my trusted casinos fail me, which I do not see coming for now.

With the way I see it, it is easy for the so-called decentralised casinos to scam if they are not truly decentralised. And these days, I wonder if their Dapps are open-source to make people truly know that they are capable of the independence preached for all parties. In the absence of this, they can do unspeakable evil in the guide of the decentralised system.

That aside, don't you think that judging by the level at which the government is controlling the centralised businesses linked to the crypto space, soon or later, they will start clamping down on decentralised ones?

[shasan]

This is a true practice of scammers, they must have intended it from the beginning and they are using the cryptocurrency system to get their evil perpetrated. This is why I always tell people that I will never join them in signing up for the no-KYC casino. And even if I had to sign up for a decentralised casino, I would have thought it through for a long time and would even resolve to choose the old ones only. This will also be happening if my trusted casinos fail me, which I do not see coming for now.

I know one thing and that is scammer has no country, no community, no nation, and no religion. They are just scammer nothing else. I want to say that a lot of gambling sites who take kyc documents but they are a scammer. Think about 1xbit, 1xbet and many more.

[paxmao]

This is a true practice of scammers, they must have intended it from the beginning and they are using the cryptocurrency system to get their evil perpetrated. This is why I always tell people that I will never join them in signing up for the no-KYC casino. And even if I had to sign up for a decentralised casino, I would have thought it through for a long time and would even resolve to choose the old ones only. This will also be happening if my trusted casinos fail me, which I do not see coming for now.

I know one thing and that is scammer has no country, no community, no nation, and no religion. They are just scammer nothing else. I want to say that a lot of gambling sites who take kyc documents but they are a scammer. Think about 1xbit, 1xbet and many more.

Scammers kind of have countries, because it is easier to scam in countries where there is a weak law or it is no really enforced or where the government do not have the means to locate and prosecute people doing illicit activities on-line. In other words, scammers do not have contries, but there are some countries that tend to have scammers. It is just like that.

[boyptc]

I agree, that's how crypto gambling should be. But with the standards of the majority increasing thinking that having a license is safety, we can't blame everyone for that because whoever set that standard, they're successful in changing the minds of everybody.

As for those casinos that have been known and still operating without having a license and able to build their reputation, they're the examples of crypto gambling.

But I guess every casino is an enterprise that governments have to determine their path as legal through requiring them a license.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

The grievance of people buttress towards the way and manner cryptocurrency was introduced. Cryptocurrency mostly promised decentralization, privacy and anonymity, but the situation now is beyond that. Despite most of them still retaining those characteristics/attributes, the government has found ways to limit them by regulations through the companies and individuals transacting with them. This is a brilliant idea and I will always support it. Cryptocurrency cannot just be operating the way people want unchallenged, not when there are still working governments in the land. Fine, when it first came on board, the government would certainly be unaware or taking time to know how to deal with the situation. Those are the times you mention.

I use to think that way in the past that reasons why many gamblers are against regulations birth kyc is because of how casino handle the subject of kyc and how their go about their marketing,  quite alright some casinos promised to be decentralised and none kyc by along the li e their get it introduced into the system,  although this casinos should be classified in the class of scam casinos because most of the casinos that involve in such schemes always do so with the intended motive to scam the gamblers.

Because no legit casino will ask for kyc when the terms and conditions states their decentralised.

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

A real gambler often has such circumstances in his life that he simply cannot play these games and provide the casino with his personal data. 
For many millions of people around the world, this could have a significant impact simply on the quality of their life.  For example, a player hides his passion for gambling from his employer, and he, if this contradicts the employer’s position, may be fired.  Sometimes people hide their gambling habits from their immediate family, such as their wives.  If she finds out, there will be a scandal and such a player will no longer be able to continue playing calmly.  You can also add such a limitation as social attitudes in the society to which the player belongs, for example, religious attitudes and condemnations of gambling.  In general, there can be many such factors.  But the person wants to play.  So such a player has to maintain anonymity.
 And accordingly, he has to ignore the casino that necessarily requires KYC.  And this has become more and more difficult lately.

        -     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I agree, that's how crypto gambling should be. But with the standards of the majority increasing thinking that having a license is safety, we can't blame everyone for that because whoever set that standard, they're successful in changing the minds of everybody.

As for those casinos that have been known and still operating without having a license and able to build their reputation, they're the examples of crypto gambling.

But I guess every casino is an enterprise that governments have to determine their path as legal through requiring them a license.

I can actually bet that, there are no casinos that are well known, well trusted due to their high level of reputation, that doesn't have a license, almost every online casinos today require some level of kyc from their customers, requiring that users of a casino platform pass kyc verification sometimes is an evidence that such casino is operating under a license.

In this modern age, the only way a casino can exists and operate without a license is if the casino is still very new to the gambling industry, for as soon as that casino is getting popular, thereby their user base increasing, the government will surely come after such casino if they fail to obtain an operational license.

And I've also discovered that most gamblers try as much as possible to stay away from unlicensed casinos, because most believe that they are likely operated scammers who may take down the casino and vanish with customers funds at any time without any form of notice.

The only casino I personally believe requires no license to operate are decentralized casino.

[Albarq]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

[bitterguy28]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

yeah , that is correct because those casinos even licensed are sometimes scamming players this is why I said entrusting each site is important but better to dig deep about which site are we engaging and depositing our money.
keep safer and look for much decent and responsible site than those scammers.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is a true practice of scammers, they must have intended it from the beginning and they are using the cryptocurrency system to get their evil perpetrated. This is why I always tell people that I will never join them in signing up for the no-KYC casino. And even if I had to sign up for a decentralised casino, I would have thought it through for a long time and would even resolve to choose the old ones only. This will also be happening if my trusted casinos fail me, which I do not see coming for now.

I know one thing and that is scammer has no country, no community, no nation, and no religion. They are just scammer nothing else. I want to say that a lot of gambling sites who take kyc documents but they are a scammer. Think about 1xbit, 1xbet and many more.

The two casinos you pointed out here don't even have the characteristics of such scammers I pointed to above, they might have scammed a lot of people but still they are operating. Those I pictured are worse, and are true scammers, they are are practically no where, and they can't have that high scamming intention from the beginning and still be able to function to this level of the casinos you called. These scammers are big-term scammers, they are faceless, have no address, phone number, or nothing, they are just anonymous in everything and have planned it from the begining. But still, they come as a casino and people are gullibly registering, sending their details/data and sending their money to them.

Who won't know such are there all for the money they want to steal/scam? This is also what I fear most with the no-KYC casinos, they can easily hide under this to steal people's money and even data. Also, I've always said that asking for KYC is not a certain means to trust you, one should still do the thorough investigations. Howveer, the risk of dealing with a no-KYC casino is higher than that of dealing with the KYC casinos, because all what the no-KYC casinos claims it is may not be true since they are answerable to no one. But for the KYC casino that means business, it will easily get them exposed if they falsify their infomation.

[bitbunnny]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

yeah , that is correct because those casinos even licensed are sometimes scamming players this is why I said entrusting each site is important but better to dig deep about which site are we engaging and depositing our money.
keep safer and look for much decent and responsible site than those scammers.

Well, I agree that licence is no guarantee that casino could be trusted. However, it's some kind of guarantee that is paft of system or regulator that has certain mechanisms to monitor its business and even protect players so that you know that you can report irregularities, scam or similar. So I always feel more secure and protected with licensed casino and at least I don't have the feeling that  I'm part of something illegal.

[Fortify]

It's fun guys, govs hardly avoid accepting Bitcoin is money, but when it comes to gambling then users are risking money, so, casinos need a license.

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process...

Just want to say Fuck Curaçao, the island in the middle of nowhere who decide to take the crypto gambling industry in their hands and make billions of dollars with it. Who the fuck they are to wash money this way?

Crypto gambling needs freedom, and i insist in this point. If you can Deposit, Wager and Widrawal, then you don't need anything else.  And a big shout out to those casinos who still working until now without a license, freebitco.in, Just-Dice.com, bustabit.com... They are big examples of how crypto gambling should be.

You seem completely clueless about how the industry works and who is actually making billions of dollars. Curacao is just selling licenses and probably making in the tens of thousands a year per casino, they are not involved in channeling the casino money in any way and that is an entirely distinct part of the operation that they have zero influence over. None of the casinos are sending money through this tiny island in any format and the government there does not wash money as you strangely think. The license is way for these casinos to claim jurisdiction in one location so they are not susceptible to certain regulators in other countries, but your anger is certainly misguided and you should do more research before making bizarre claims like that.

[Odusko]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

Well bitcoin as a decentralised currency does not need the third party arrangement so for sure even though government may have a role to play in the usage of currency internally, that doesn't stop citizen's to hold bitcoin as an asset ls and exchangeble through p2p, this way bitcoin users remain anonymous.
Government acceptance only aid further regulations and taxations and also limitations which is what most bitcoin users are not cool with since they value they freedom.

[boyptc]

I agree, that's how crypto gambling should be. But with the standards of the majority increasing thinking that having a license is safety, we can't blame everyone for that because whoever set that standard, they're successful in changing the minds of everybody.

As for those casinos that have been known and still operating without having a license and able to build their reputation, they're the examples of crypto gambling.

But I guess every casino is an enterprise that governments have to determine their path as legal through requiring them a license.

I can actually bet that, there are no casinos that are well known, well trusted due to their high level of reputation, that doesn't have a license, almost every online casinos today require some level of kyc from their customers, requiring that users of a casino platform pass kyc verification sometimes is an evidence that such casino is operating under a license.

Actually, the few has been mentioned, justdice, freebitco and bustadice.

In this modern age, the only way a casino can exists and operate without a license is if the casino is still very new to the gambling industry, for as soon as that casino is getting popular, thereby their user base increasing, the government will surely come after such casino if they fail to obtain an operational license.

Yeah, that's like how the business model of most that are just starting out. If they happen to get the success that they want for their start, they should get it.

And I've also discovered that most gamblers try as much as possible to stay away from unlicensed casinos, because most believe that they are likely operated scammers who may take down the casino and vanish with customers funds at any time without any form of notice.

It's because of the sense of safety that everyone think about having a license but it's not all about that at all when we dig deeper.

The only casino I personally believe requires no license to operate are decentralized casino.

Hmm, sort of but I can compare them with dexes that needs to be regulated too.

[samuraijin]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

It's nonsense to talk about a country that doesn't allow things that can benefit that country, because many developed countries get their financial supplies from gambling or dirty things even though they can test all tax sources according to their wishes, there was a lot of opposition regarding Bitcoin at that time, but as time goes by  When the government actually imposes taxes on users who work as Bitcoin workers or the like, it doesn't seem fair, but they have an unreasonable rule, initially rejecting it, but instead turning to support the growth of Bitcoin when it has a very fantastic price, everything takes time, in any case, sometimes  many dramas are owned by the government without having to require a license if all of this is ignored by the regulators themselves.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is a true practice of scammers, they must have intended it from the beginning and they are using the cryptocurrency system to get their evil perpetrated. This is why I always tell people that I will never join them in signing up for the no-KYC casino. And even if I had to sign up for a decentralised casino, I would have thought it through for a long time and would even resolve to choose the old ones only. This will also be happening if my trusted casinos fail me, which I do not see coming for now.

I know one thing and that is scammer has no country, no community, no nation, and no religion. They are just scammer nothing else. I want to say that a lot of gambling sites who take kyc documents but they are a scammer. Think about 1xbit, 1xbet and many more.

Scammers kind of have countries, because it is easier to scam in countries where there is a weak law or it is no really enforced or where the government do not have the means to locate and prosecute people doing illicit activities on-line. In other words, scammers do not have contries, but there are some countries that tend to have scammers. It is just like that.

Lol...I was just laughing reading your post. Scammers are everywhere and I do not think there is a country of the world that doesn't have scammers. The only difference is that the level, reason and expertise of scammers there vary. For me, real scammers are faceless people, they do not just want you to see or know them because their intentions are bad from the very start of their doing. You can take a hint from the crypto projects these days where some people would plan projects like developing cryptocurrency but all to scam people, and would disappear into thin air with time. The same thing goes for some m!xing services and other exchanges where their sole intention is to scam. They will just try to gain the attention of some customers and disappear after some success. We can also say of a few in casinos, many have been swindled by these scammers, and their intention to have created the business was just to scam people by disappearing with their money after a while.

Mind you, contrary to your opinion, these scammers could reside in the most lawful countries of the world like the US and EU, it doesn't matter. All they need to do is to conceal their identities, and even if you believe you know them or where they are, you are only deceiving yourself because all that they are identified with are FAKE. But some countries with weak laws may have enough cheaters that people often called scammers, that is why it is good we know the companies we deal with. Better still, the reputation of the company matters most and this is more reason why I love true licensing apart whether weak or not, after all, they (the company) made that move out of responsibility.

[Kakmakr]

Yes, it is actually amazing that governments do not see Bitcoin (Crypto currencies) as legal tender, but they still allow casinos to operate. They know their own citizens are gambling on sites that are not licensed in their own country, but they still allow it.

In most countries, governments define Bitcoin (Crypto currencies) as a commodity, so it is not seen as a currency... but people still use it at a casino as a currency. (Someone is getting something to look the other way... right?)

[bitterguy28]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

yeah , that is correct because those casinos even licensed are sometimes scamming players this is why I said entrusting each site is important but better to dig deep about which site are we engaging and depositing our money.
keep safer and look for much decent and responsible site than those scammers.

Well, I agree that licence is no guarantee that casino could be trusted. However, it's some kind of guarantee that is paft of system or regulator that has certain mechanisms to monitor its business and even protect players so that you know that you can report irregularities, scam or similar. So I always feel more secure and protected with licensed casino and at least I don't have the feeling that  I'm part of something illegal.

In thiswe are different mate because I am more on trusting those site either licensed or not? but those who
has vouches here in forum, I mean there re lots of recommendation and  has an active representative in bitcoin talk
in which at least we have assurances that out issues will be adressed in rightful manner.

[zarintasnim]

Nowadays digital payment systems are very popular and also cryptocurrency is used for digital payment. Different countries make different decisions about cryptocurrency. Although Bitcoin does not accept legal money so many countries. But it has exchange value and is used also as an online casino platform. It is a very complex question Who uses Cryptocurrency should be licensed or not. Bitcoin licenses have good and bad effects carefully considering this topic. Regardless of the decision, it is important for individuals and businesses to stay informed about any applicable legal requirements and to use cryptocurrencies safely and legally. The license ensures trust and belief for its users.

[joniboini]

Yes, it is actually amazing that governments do not see Bitcoin (Crypto currencies) as legal tender, but they still allow casinos to operate. They know their own citizens are gambling on sites that are not licensed in their own country, but they still allow it.

I don't think they necessarily allow it, but they have yet to find the time and effort to actually block them. In my country, a lot of overseas platforms related to illegal activity based on our national law are blocked, and the list is getting bigger. I don't think it is efficient nor it will stop people from finding or launching new services though, but the government definitely wants to stop such things from happening. Not sure how other countries tackle this issue, I don't think having a license from Curacao or other offshore countries will help their cases anyway.

The license ensures trust and belief for its users.

I don't think that's the general sentiment on this forum though. IIRC, some people shared articles about existing casino licenses and how the users can verify the license themselves. I think that's what this license offers, not necessarily ensuring they don't scam you or something similar. I don't think a crypto-based business should rely on blind trust tbh.

[rodskee]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

yet ?licensed or not? Bitcoin is needed to gamble though the title should be changed in CRYPTO instead of
gambling itself because online gambling now has tons of altcoins accepted than just bitcoin because for us? the
problem in this matter is that when bitcoin and ethereum had congestions and the fees are really increasing so high.

[Dunamisx]

The problem here is that government cannot regulate bitcoin, though they have the control to regulate other crypto but not with bitcoin being inclusive, gambling is accepted in many countries, likewise bitcoin is legal for use in many countries as well, the lack of control is what makes government to always fight against bitcoin, but time will make the difference, they will soon accept that they are the same working for and kicking against their take as well concerning bitcoin and gambling acceptability.

[Poker Player]

Yes, it is actually amazing that governments do not see Bitcoin (Crypto currencies) as legal tender, but they still allow casinos to operate. They know their own citizens are gambling on sites that are not licensed in their own country, but they still allow it.

I don't think they necessarily allow it, but they have yet to find the time and effort to actually block them. In my country, a lot of overseas platforms related to illegal activity based on our national law are blocked, and the list is getting bigger.

What he said is bullshit. As you said, countries often block access to these types of rooms, especially those that require a specific license to operate in the country. What happens is that they do not have control of all the rooms, and if a new one comes out today, it will take some time before they have news and block it. On the other hand, the blocking can be skipped. And the people who gamble in those cryptocurrency casinos with respect to the total who play in licensed casinos in the country are a tiny minority.

[lienfaye]

The license ensures trust and belief for its users.

I don't think that's the general sentiment on this forum though. IIRC, some people shared articles about existing casino licenses and how the users can verify the license themselves. I think that's what this license offers, not necessarily ensuring they don't scam you or something similar. I don't think a crypto-based business should rely on blind trust tbh.

You might be right. However we can't deny that nowadays having a license is one of the few factors to say that the casino is legit. Although it doesn't necessarily mean they're not going to be a shady platform that can scam their players.

Anyway, even here the Government is not really into Bitcoin and still warned the citizens to be careful since it's an speculative asset. But they're requiring these crypto casinos to have a license. They just can't admit that crypto or Bitcoin to be a specific also works as fiat though it doesn't have a physical feature.

[EarnOnVictor]

even those licensed casino , all we need is trust because we are entrusting our details to them.

Definitely, but not every license casino can be trusted.

yeah , that is correct because those casinos even licensed are sometimes scamming players this is why I said entrusting each site is important but better to dig deep about which site are we engaging and depositing our money.
keep safer and look for much decent and responsible site than those scammers.

Well, I agree that licence is no guarantee that casino could be trusted. However, it's some kind of guarantee that is paft of system or regulator that has certain mechanisms to monitor its business and even protect players so that you know that you can report irregularities, scam or similar. So I always feel more secure and protected with licensed casino and at least I don't have the feeling that  I'm part of something illegal.

In thiswe are different mate because I am more on trusting those site either licensed or not? but those who
has vouches here in forum, I mean there re lots of recommendation and  has an active representative in bitcoin talk
in which at least we have assurances that out issues will be adressed in rightful manner.

I didn't get you correctly due to the poor English, or perhaps you forgot to read and make corrections. Notwithstanding, did you mean you support the licenced ones or what? If yes, you've made the right bargain, but it is not an automatic endorsement of sincerity or serving you right. You might do yourself a better favour to actually verify them well if you can go through the stress, though it is not necessary. Some do this because many of these so-called licenced casinos are not actually licensed, it is a pure lie, and since they are using the pretended licenced numbers of weak regulators, that will continue to go unabated since those regulators will not even search for sanctions or to issue public warning.

Also, I love the remark that you eventually made here in relation to Bitcoin talk. Though, they can't entirely be trusted, but some of the casinos that are not licenced but advertised and vouched for here delivered so well since there were little or no complaints at least from Bitcointalk members. But like I said, it is not all of them and there are a few of them that people were unable to get their money from. So, serious care is needed here to avoid issues as well.

[Dunamisx]

And I've also discovered that most gamblers try as much as possible to stay away from unlicensed casinos, because most believe that they are likely operated scammers who may take down the casino and vanish with customers funds at any time without any form of notice.

I don't think i can also make use of a casino gambling platform that is not licensed, this means that they are operating under no regulation atmosphere and there is nothing that one can use in tracing them in case of anything happens and they take away our money or the website remain inaccessible, nevertheless, we should also not conclude that having license is a means of proof that we should rely and trust in any random gambling website, we need to further more on making research about them.

[mak013]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

[Wapfika]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I’m not sure if other countries have this law but we have a license dedicated for Cryptocurrencies services, either exchange, casino or anything that involved crypto services needs this specific license before they operate.

So even if Bitcoin is not considered as money, the giver is not blind to not see that cryptocurrency is backed by fiat currency which is money that’s why they have special license or bill that dedicated to regulate crypto services.

[dezoel]

And I've also discovered that most gamblers try as much as possible to stay away from unlicensed casinos, because most believe that they are likely operated scammers who may take down the casino and vanish with customers funds at any time without any form of notice.

I don't think i can also make use of a casino gambling platform that is not licensed, this means that they are operating under no regulation atmosphere and there is nothing that one can use in tracing them in case of anything happens and they take away our money or the website remain inaccessible, nevertheless, we should also not conclude that having license is a means of proof that we should rely and trust in any random gambling website, we need to further more on making research about them.

That sounds pretty bad outside cryptos but since we are here in crypto, I think it is only fine. If cryptos has advantages, it also has disadvantages and one of it is like that you said above. You are right about casinos with licenses and even if we say that most of them are trusted, they still can be weak in terms of other features. The decision of choosing a casino will only depend on us and we must take the consequences because not all casinos can have it all.

For me, I prefer the unlicensed one and I'm lucky that my experiences are all smooth. The good thing about playing in an unlicensed casino is it forces me to be extra careful, so I will only play with smaller amounts. That means, I can also lose less if I'm unlucky and I'm less prone to addictions.

[Hispo]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

It depends on what you definition of "acceptance" is, I think.
If we call about recognition and free circulation, then I would say most countries in the planet won't have any problems on recognizing Bitcoin as an asset. Even strange and undemocratic countries like mine (Venezuela) give some recognition to Bitcoin and it is legal here to use, mine and store Bitcoin as individuals.
On the other hand, there are countries which go further beyond like El Salvador, where they have started to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender. So you are implying El Salvador is not a serious country? I would disagree with it.

Keep in mind El Salvador before the wide adoption of Bitcoin had free circulation of United States dollars in the country, so we cannot argue they had only a weak Fiat, like we did in Venezuela.
When a country starts to accepts Bitcoin and recognize it as an assets which one could use as wager, it does not mean anything about the serious of such country, it only gives us an idea on the willingness of collecting taxes and regularizing an industry.

[EarnOnVictor]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I don't see any reason for serious countries not to accept Bitcoin contrary to what you said. Like I always say, they should stop denying themselves the money due to them due to ignorance and excesses that are not being thought through. They should rather regulate and not castigate. If the US and the top-rated countries of the world could allow Bitcoin, I don't think we need more seriousness anymore because these countries are indeed serious. Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

This is to avoid issues like cheating, illegal flows and tax evasion. My country turned a deaf ear to this and has missed billions of dollars in a few years even as the citizens continue to give free money to those companies. This is foolishness in my opinion, and in all good sense of thinking, if the countries can reason it through, they would know that regulation and strict enforcement would have taken care of the involvement of their citizens and the companies dealing with Bitcoin by making them accountable for transparency. They will have access to the inflow and outflows, now tell me, what else do they need to be serious countries?

[Hatchy]

Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

That's the way we Bitcoiners sees it. Bitcoin causes no harm and I believe that these so called oppressors are also partakers of Bitcoins freedom of decentralization but in the dark. In reality they claim to be haters and tries everything as possible to stop any business that deal more with Bitcoin. To be sincere, if they so much dont see Bitcoin as a form of money but as a form where criminal activities are carried out, then they shouldn't tax casinos who uses Bitcoin as a currency and stop imposing kyc on them. I believe countries that hasn't yet accepted Bitcoin and keeps chasing it away will never be able to understand what and how valuable Bitcoin is till it's too late. They might claim to have good reasons but I do think they are scared of what Bitcoin can do.

[Ojima-ojo]

Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

That's the way we Bitcoiners sees it. Bitcoin causes no harm and I believe that these so called oppressors are also partakers of Bitcoins freedom of decentralization but in the dark. In reality they claim to be haters and tries everything as possible to stop any business that deal more with Bitcoin. To be sincere, if they so much dont see Bitcoin as a form of money but as a form where criminal activities are carried out, then they shouldn't tax casinos who uses Bitcoin as a currency and stop imposing kyc on them. I believe countries that hasn't yet accepted Bitcoin and keeps chasing it away will never be able to understand what and how valuable Bitcoin is till it's too late. They might claim to have good reasons but I do think they are scared of what Bitcoin can do.

For me, anyone or institutions that view bitcoin on the negative light is doing so based on their inability to understand what bitcoin is and the role bitcoin perform in the global financial system, and at to what extent have it effects becomes on those that adopted bitcoin both in the early time and currently timing.


If you checked bitcoin have hard a significant milestone a d at the same time bitcoin have always impacted it investor's positively more than the ratio of whatever negativity may be.

[coinerer]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

[mak013]

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

I’m not sure if other countries have this law but we have a license dedicated for Cryptocurrencies services, either exchange, casino or anything that involved crypto services needs this specific license before they operate.

So even if Bitcoin is not considered as money, the giver is not blind to not see that cryptocurrency is backed by fiat currency which is money that’s why they have special license or bill that dedicated to regulate crypto services.

I don`t know how it works, but i think that such kind of license means, that casino must have enough fiat money to pay cryptousers. I don`t know how it is written, but the idea is about it.

It depends on what you definition of "acceptance" is, I think.
If we call about recognition and free circulation, then I would say most countries in the planet won't have any problems on recognizing Bitcoin as an asset. Even strange and undemocratic countries like mine (Venezuela) give some recognition to Bitcoin and it is legal here to use, mine and store Bitcoin as individuals.
On the other hand, there are countries which go further beyond like El Salvador, where they have started to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender. So you are implying El Salvador is not a serious country? I would disagree with it.

Keep in mind El Salvador before the wide adoption of Bitcoin had free circulation of United States dollars in the country, so we cannot argue they had only a weak Fiat, like we did in Venezuela.
When a country starts to accepts Bitcoin and recognize it as an assets which one could use as wager, it does not mean anything about the serious of such country, it only gives us an idea on the willingness of collecting taxes and regularizing an industry.

Cmmon... Today we know that the democracy is the rule of the democrats.
El Salvador, Venezuela - these countries hasn`t their own currency. I mean serious currency. And about El Salvador - it doesn`t matter what currency they use, USD or BTC - they have no own currency and as result they have nothing to defend. Any country with their own money will never allow any concurrent.

I don't see any reason for serious countries not to accept Bitcoin contrary to what you said. Like I always say, they should stop denying themselves the money due to them due to ignorance and excesses that are not being thought through. They should rather regulate and not castigate. If the US and the top-rated countries of the world could allow Bitcoin, I don't think we need more seriousness anymore because these countries are indeed serious. Bitcoin is not a necessary evil, it is just a means of transacting that is decentralised and that could call for some privacy and anonymity in some cases. Notwithstanding, the government can still make the casinos or any company dealing with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies accountable in their country with strict regulations that should have been well laid down.

This is to avoid issues like cheating, illegal flows and tax evasion. My country turned a deaf ear to this and has missed billions of dollars in a few years even as the citizens continue to give free money to those companies. This is foolishness in my opinion, and in all good sense of thinking, if the countries can reason it through, they would know that regulation and strict enforcement would have taken care of the involvement of their citizens and the companies dealing with Bitcoin by making them accountable for transparency. They will have access to the inflow and outflows, now tell me, what else do they need to be serious countries?

If you have the only well in the village, will you be happy if someone else will has another? You print money. Will you allow someone else print money too? Why serious countries have to allow BTC?

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

In what country the main part of BTC is? Who crushed Binance? In what country main mining pools are located? Answer these questions first.
Where BTC more powerful? What it can do, that we can`t do using fiat? If i have $100 i can buy some food anywhere. If i have 100 USDT(or $100 in BTC) i must find internet and some freak who needs it.

[irhact]

Many governments were all against bitcoin from the start, but we can all see that the story is gradually changing. They are right now either seeing bitcoin in a good way or in a bad way, like some see bitcoin as a means for criminals to launder money, while others are already seeing it as an asset, whatever that means. We can't deny the fact that for bitcoin to fall under any of these categories, it has already been seen as a currency (money).
 
Which makes it now a legal currency in most countries, which means it could be used to go into a legal agreement that will be bind by law, so unless the casino is not ready to operate under any government and serve the citizens of a particular country, then they will need some licence to operate.
 

The government have tried to hinder the growth and future of Bitcoin due to the fact that they can't control or influence it as much as they can. What suprises them is that bitcoin has developed into a very valuable asset an since they sewn it's benefit sooner or later they'll have no choice than to adopt it just like El Salvador has done. Others can think what they want but just like gold and fiat Bitcoin is money (Digital currency).

 We've seen how it's now playing a big role in different industries and companies, thereby spending up transactions and used as an alternative to fiat currency especially in the gambling industry. And with time other countries that's failed to make it a legal currency would be forced on the long run. We've seen how many individuals who gamble are now turning to casinos and online sites that accepts bitcoin as a mode of transaction. With time many online gambling sites would adopt it also.

[delfastTions]

~ snip ~

~ snip ~

People have really suffered at the hands of those casinos and it could be worse elsewhere. Imagine, decentralisation means that there is no central authority or oversights, so why demand KYC? Who is deceiving whom? Well, a lot of people will still fall victim to this, that's the extent of how gullible they can be. This issue of running away from KYC casinos to find solace in the no-KYC casino has made many become a victim of scams as easily as possible. What baffles me is that many of these people only have a small amount of money to gamble and they got the money through a legit means as well.

So why are they so particular about privacy and no-KYC casinos to the point of abandoning the respectable casinos that would not scam to try those they knew little or nothing about to the point that they lose all the money to them? To make it worse, for those of the casinos who would stay, the No-KYC casino over time may switch to KYC casino, is that not using their heads?

A real gambler often has such circumstances in his life that he simply cannot play these games and provide the casino with his personal data. 
For many millions of people around the world, this could have a significant impact simply on the quality of their life.  For example, a player hides his passion for gambling from his employer, and he, if this contradicts the employer’s position, may be fired.  Sometimes people hide their gambling habits from their immediate family, such as their wives.  If she finds out, there will be a scandal and such a player will no longer be able to continue playing calmly.  You can also add such a limitation as social attitudes in the society to which the player belongs, for example, religious attitudes and condemnations of gambling.  In general, there can be many such factors.  But the person wants to play.  So such a player has to maintain anonymity.
 And accordingly, he has to ignore the casino that necessarily requires KYC.  And this has become more and more difficult lately.

        -     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.

Yeah!  Of course, players come to provide their personal data when they are going to play at the casino without problems and in the event that the casino begins to require verification under the KYC procedure. 

But remember for yourself how unpleasant it was for you to take pictures with documents and send them to an almost unknown person, who in this casino is collecting Personal Data of clients, this is your data.  For example, it was very unpleasant for me to do this.  And I know for sure that this does not give clients any overly serious guarantees.  And leakage of personal data into the network is quite real and possible.  Thus, any KYC procedure disrupts your comfortable life.  And for some players who, for some reason, hide their passion for gambling, all this KYC is simply unacceptable.  But they also want to play comfortably and without problms. 
And this must be taken into account since we are talking about casinos with payments in cryptocurrency.

[shasan]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

[seoincorporation]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

Is the hose who decide the rules, but is the users who decide where to gamble, if the rules are absurd then the user shouldn't play on that site, a good example of this is the sites that only let you withdraw a min of $1000/day, or those sites who limit the max win but doesn't limit the max bet. And that's why is so important to read the terms of service before deciding to pen an account on any casino. And the main problem with the ToS is those clauses that let the house change the rules at any time, that way is a losing game for the gambler.

[EarnOnVictor]

-     We know that when a casino is regulated, it is normal for them to ask for KYC from their players or gamblers. And if there are other gamblers who don't like KYC, there's no problem;
if they want to gamble illegally, that's up to them, or the Dex casino platform is still their choice, to be honest.

Meaning, the casino is not obligated to those who want to try gambling on their platform. But once you play, there is no choice but to follow their rules; if they need KYC, you have to give it.
   

You are right and I agree with you that when anyone gambling on any site the person must follow their terms and there is no alternative whether that is regarding the KYC issue or something else. If the rules are impossible to follow then the person should avoid the site.

Is the hose who decide the rules, but is the users who decide where to gamble, if the rules are absurd then the user shouldn't play on that site, a good example of this is the sites that only let you withdraw a min of $1000/day, or those sites who limit the max win but doesn't limit the max bet. And that's why is so important to read the terms of service before deciding to pen an account on any casino. And the main problem with the ToS is those clauses that let the house change the rules at any time, that way is a losing game for the gambler.

Absurdity is the only word I can think of that fits the examples you cited, are you even for real? Because I've never come across casinos that are so selfish to this level. It will be awful for people to be playing there unless they are wagering so small to the point that they will never know, and if they know, they will never be affected because they are so low in margin compared to this limit. So, a casino can limit my withdrawal to $1,000 per day, but they can take as much of my deposit no matter how big it is. Think of it, if I wager $50,000 in such a casino, and I placed a bet that delivered $150,000 into my account in aggregates, how many years would I complete the withdrawal of my entire money? It's only a fool who has big money can play there because they offer you nothing but selfishness.

About the maximum win, it is still okay since they are using that to manage their portfolio and internal risk. How would you feel if you wager too much to the point that your withdrawal can't be paid? And this will always be commensurate to the money you wager, so there is no issue here.

Also, the terms and conditions are one of the issues here, and they are doing this because the government is playing uncared attitude, otherwise, they would have stopped them. Fine, they have the right to update their terms and conditions, but they must always alert the customer and send a copy to them and also highlight the exact portions that were updated to avoid reading the whole epistle over again. Any casino that did less can't have any right on the customer in a court of law if sued.

[STT]

Laundering is probably the main concern rather then anything else, all the sites mentioned are probably keen not to be seen as mixers and follow similar rules to avoid being used for any possible criminal activity.   To not do so would only cause more trouble then its worth, from what Ive read where asked by authorities they would provide information so as to avoid any unnecessary association with any illegal money movements etc.  

I agree on the main point that BTC is not classed as money but that might not be as relevant as it would seem; Ive even seen computer game items almost anything online that's exchangeable, any tradable tokens treated in a similar way.
  They are apprehensive about movements of value especially large amounts even if its not really a currency, its just some virtual token and games are usually centralized not related to decentralized blockchains  but digitally I see them treated similarly over many years.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Laundering is probably the main concern rather then anything else, all the sites mentioned are probably keen not to be seen as mixers and follow similar rules to avoid being used for any possible criminal activity.   To not do so would only cause more trouble then its worth, from what Ive read where asked by authorities they would provide information so as to avoid any unnecessary association with any illegal money movements etc.  

I agree on the main point that BTC is not classed as money but that might not be as relevant as it would seem; Ive even seen computer game items almost anything online that's exchangeable, any tradable tokens treated in a similar way.
  They are apprehensive about movements of value especially large amounts even if its not really a currency, its just some virtual token and games are usually centralized not related to decentralized blockchains  but digitally I see them treated similarly over many years.

Well, with more and more eyes on bitcoin, and the it's acceptance increasing heavily around different parts of the world judging from how valuable bitcoin has become, it would be total ignorance on the part of the government to just overlook it due to them believe that bitcoin is not money.
From all that we have seen so far, it is clear that narratives have changed and that the government are beginning to see and consider bitcoin as money, which is why the talks about regulation is increasingly talked about as each day breaks and age?

But then again, seeing this from an online gambling casino context, it's a business and every business requires a license as law demands, and I think this has nothing to do with how  or through what means that business generates money, they have  to have license to be allowed to operate in places and jurisdictions where a license is a must have.

[Shamm]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

Agree with this mate Bitcoin is not just ordinary money but a digital  money that can be used to buy something we need and want.  And also nowadays there are many Bitcoin holder so in short  we can see Bitcoin where ever we go in some countries. Not all country  accept Bitcoin and if we have Bitcoins then we need to convert it in to fiat so that we can buy something we need  that's the reason why we say that Bitcoin is my money cause we can convert it into fiat. But for me someday it's okay to adopt Bitcoin as a Currencies used to buy something.

[mak013]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

Agree with this mate Bitcoin is not just ordinary money but a digital  money that can be used to buy something we need and want.  And also nowadays there are many Bitcoin holder so in short  we can see Bitcoin where ever we go in some countries. Not all country  accept Bitcoin and if we have Bitcoins then we need to convert it in to fiat so that we can buy something we need  that's the reason why we say that Bitcoin is my money cause we can convert it into fiat. But for me someday it's okay to adopt Bitcoin as a Currencies used to buy something.

If you can print money, would you give someone a piece of this cake? Cryptocurrencies help to avoid sanctions and avoid taxes. We can use it in different ways, but in any large country that has its own serious currency, we officially cannot buy anything with BTC. Nobody wants a competitor if they can be eliminated.

[EarnOnVictor]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No one can control Bitcoin which is why no government in any country will use it as the primary currency in their country instead of FIAT money. However, there is a possibility of using money as an alternative in the future. But who says that Bitcoin is not money? Bitcoin is much more powerful than FIAT money. So there is no chance to neglect it.  We are currently unable to use bitcoins directly for payment in every country, so we have to sell bitcoins and convert them to FIAT.  In this case, the government can make our FIAT transition truck. So how are we using bitcoin tax free?

Agree with this mate Bitcoin is not just ordinary money but a digital  money that can be used to buy something we need and want.  And also nowadays there are many Bitcoin holder so in short  we can see Bitcoin where ever we go in some countries. Not all country  accept Bitcoin and if we have Bitcoins then we need to convert it in to fiat so that we can buy something we need  that's the reason why we say that Bitcoin is my money cause we can convert it into fiat. But for me someday it's okay to adopt Bitcoin as a Currencies used to buy something.

If you can print money, would you give someone a piece of this cake? Cryptocurrencies help to avoid sanctions and avoid taxes. We can use it in different ways, but in any large country that has its own serious currency, we officially cannot buy anything with BTC. Nobody wants a competitor if they can be eliminated.

Let me start by saying it is a misconception that we can't buy anything with Bitcoin, as a matter of fact, we can buy anything with it, it only depends on the buyers and the sellers. In the worst-case scenario, the seller could be in a country where Bitcoin is mostly restricted in parts of the world and the seller still agrees to offer the product/service in exchange for Bitcoin. This is because Bitcoin has a whole lot of arrangements and when the person leaves his country, he can convert it to whatever he wants. This is technically a P2P approach in a private way that no one will even know what you guys ever transacted if that is the purpose and it is rampantly happening these days.

But let me condemn this, it is not a good and wise decision to evade tax, though cryptocurrency allowed that, but do you think it's right? This is one of the evils that the government is trying to prevent and no one can blame them for doing so because people's mind is so selfish. This is also one of the reasons why the government is trying as much as possible for all the companies dealing with cryptocurrencies in their jurisdiction to be made accountable. If they can make them register and regulate them, they will have a say over them, and whether Bitcoin is private and decentralised or not, they will still know how monies are flowing in and out between the parties involved. And this is cool to me.

[darkangel11]

Recently in the case against Samourai Wallet the funders were arrested for money transmitting without a license and the wallet did not exchange bitcoin to fiat money, which means USA recognizes bitcoin as money. IMO something doesn't have to be literally called money by the government to be money. I'd say that bitcoin is money because it's being used as payment for goods and services and that's what money is. The problem is that in the last interpretation, the US gov. claimed that bitcoin is property. So which is it?

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Colorado accepts bitcoin for payments, allowing you to pay state tax in bitcoin. I'd say they're being pretty serious about it

[paxmao]

Recently in the case against Samourai Wallet the funders were arrested for money transmitting without a license and the wallet did not exchange bitcoin to fiat money, which means USA recognizes bitcoin as money. IMO something doesn't have to be literally called money by the government to be money. I'd say that bitcoin is money because it's being used as payment for goods and services and that's what money is. The problem is that in the last interpretation, the US gov. claimed that bitcoin is property. So which is it?

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Colorado accepts bitcoin for payments, allowing you to pay state tax in bitcoin. I'd say they're being pretty serious about it

In the US there are always some states that tend to take the initiative, but that happens with everything, from social rights to pretty much the opposite. However the problem is that is has become quite unpredictable so it is ok to use the service, but base your company there or make significant decisions. It is the same in international politics, US swings too much.

[Z_MBFM]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and has value.  There is an opportunity to convert it to fiat money and that too in just a few minutes. And it is the top number 1 cryptocurrency in the market with trillion dollars. so why can't it be considered money? It is stronger than money because it is a form of money as well as an investment asset. And casino sites require license because they are operated from different countries and have to be licensed according to the policy of that country.  Because while crypto is a currency, running a casino is a business.  And business needs license

[Taskford]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and has value.  There is an opportunity to convert it to fiat money and that too in just a few minutes. And it is the top number 1 cryptocurrency in the market with trillion dollars. so why can't it be considered money? It is stronger than money because it is a form of money as well as an investment asset. And casino sites require license because they are operated from different countries and have to be licensed according to the policy of that country.  Because while crypto is a currency, running a casino is a business.  And business needs license

Maybe they are just confused regarding on its regulations that's why some maybe can't imagine how government will accept bitcoin as currency that's why some think that fiat is always superior on everything they want to use it. While in fact they can use bitcoin as currency if they just think about using it to pay some people away from you or in online. Some people forget about the fact that its not hard to exchange our bitcoins to any currency that we want and they should stop about thinking that this is for investment only since they cannot widen up their mind and get a lot of ideas about there's a lot of things they can use for their bitcoin. Also they must know that every legit business need to process a license that's why the government ask this to those online casino since this is the part of their regulation of some businesses running under their jurisdictions.

[coinerer]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and has value.  There is an opportunity to convert it to fiat money and that too in just a few minutes. And it is the top number 1 cryptocurrency in the market with trillion dollars. so why can't it be considered money? It is stronger than money because it is a form of money as well as an investment asset. And casino sites require license because they are operated from different countries and have to be licensed according to the policy of that country.  Because while crypto is a currency, running a casino is a business.  And business needs license

Yes I agree with you that running a casino is basically a business and license is very important for any type of business. no matter the payment method. Bitcoin is now used as a legal currency in many countries so I don't believe in the concept that Bitcoin is not money.  Bitcoin is a very potential currency in the future that has a rare chance of being used globally like paypal. The use of Bitcoin is increasing day by day and it is a very popular deposit and withdrawal method in casinos.  Because it does not have any kind of limitation in transactions and can deposit and withdraw very quickly.

[stadus]

Yes I agree with you that running a casino is basically a business and license is very important for any type of business. no matter the payment method. Bitcoin is now used as a legal currency in many countries so I don't believe in the concept that Bitcoin is not money.  Bitcoin is a very potential currency in the future that has a rare chance of being used globally like paypal. The use of Bitcoin is increasing day by day and it is a very popular deposit and withdrawal method in casinos.  Because it does not have any kind of limitation in transactions and can deposit and withdraw very quickly.

Bitcoin has value so it's money. If we look at CMC it's value is always measure by USD, and it's acceptable in most countries, and even on countries that bitcoin is ban there are still people accepting and investing on it. We have to be realistic here, bitcoin is already regulated, so it's basically money but in the form of bitcoin. Maybe the government will not intervene if we would not encash our bitcoin but we cannot deny that most of us encash our bitcoin into fiat.

[Apocollapse]

Because the government always like anything that make them able to earn profit even though it's double standard. You know right, no one has a power except the government.

Bitcoin has value so it's money. If we look at CMC it's value is always measure by USD, and it's acceptable in most countries, and even on countries that bitcoin is ban there are still people accepting and investing on it. We have to be realistic here, bitcoin is already regulated, so it's basically money but in the form of bitcoin. Maybe the government will not intervene if we would not encash our bitcoin but we cannot deny that most of us encash our bitcoin into fiat.

Actually, US consider Bitcoin as a property, not currency. Obviously property has a value, but it's not money.

In 2014, the IRS issued Notice 2014-21, 2014-16 I.R.B. 938, explaining that virtual currency is treated as property for Federal income tax purposes and providing examples of how longstanding tax principles applicable to transactions involving property apply to virtual currency.  The frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) below expand upon the examples provided in Notice 2014-21 and apply those same longstanding tax principles to additional situations.

Bitcoin is now used as a legal currency in many countries so I don't believe in the concept that Bitcoin is not money. 

Only El Salvador accept Bitcoin as a legal currency until now, Central African Republic have withdrew their Bitcoin acceptance, while the rest countries didn't even have legalized Bitcoin.

[AmoreJaz]

Initially, not all countries avoided accepting Bitcoin as money, but in this case they are slowly starting to accept it, so like gambling, you need a license or individual approval, but if it continues to develop, you have to comply with the applicable rules governing the ownership of something related to Bitcoin or Crypto will be of concern to the state and taxation will be continuously monitored until they get the results they want.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and has value.  There is an opportunity to convert it to fiat money and that too in just a few minutes. And it is the top number 1 cryptocurrency in the market with trillion dollars. so why can't it be considered money? It is stronger than money because it is a form of money as well as an investment asset. And casino sites require license because they are operated from different countries and have to be licensed according to the policy of that country.  Because while crypto is a currency, running a casino is a business.  And business needs license

In today's set-up, to be considered legit gambling business, you should acquire your gambling license for you to compete with others. It may not be a strict requirement for online crypto gambling sites but definitely, it adds credibility for a casino business. Crypto business has already evolved its existence from being nonregulated to regulated ones. It is treated as just any legal business which needs to comply with legal requirements.  

Bitcoin has value so it's money. If we look at CMC it's value is always measure by USD, and it's acceptable in most countries, and even on countries that bitcoin is ban there are still people accepting and investing on it. We have to be realistic here, bitcoin is already regulated, so it's basically money but in the form of bitcoin. Maybe the government will not intervene if we would not encash our bitcoin but we cannot deny that most of us encash our bitcoin into fiat.

I don't understand why some people are still not understanding that btc can easily be traded now to exchange it for fiat. Most trading platforms are now licensed and so they are under the jurisdiction of the government's central bank.

[Dunamisx]

Yes I agree with you that running a casino is basically a business and license is very important for any type of business. no matter the payment method. Bitcoin is now used as a legal currency in many countries so I don't believe in the concept that Bitcoin is not money.  Bitcoin is a very potential currency in the future that has a rare chance of being used globally like paypal. The use of Bitcoin is increasing day by day and it is a very popular deposit and withdrawal method in casinos.  Because it does not have any kind of limitation in transactions and can deposit and withdraw very quickly.

Bitcoin has value so it's money. If we look at CMC it's value is always measure by USD, and it's acceptable in most countries, and even on countries that bitcoin is ban there are still people accepting and investing on it. We have to be realistic here, bitcoin is already regulated, so it's basically money but in the form of bitcoin. Maybe the government will not intervene if we would not encash our bitcoin but we cannot deny that most of us encash our bitcoin into fiat.

Your right, we have many advantages we receives from the use of bitcoin which the fiat cannot offer, government themselves understand the need to why we have to accept bitcoin as an alternative currency of making payment, but they are not the ones in control of how its been regulated and that aloe is a major concern to them, knowing that they should be able to get over the control of every economical affairs happening under their control, that is why bitcoin has a multi facet applications for its uses.

[Webetcoins]

Bitcoin is not just ordinary money but a digital  money that can be used to buy something we need and want.  And also nowadays there are many Bitcoin holder so in short  we can see Bitcoin where ever we go in some countries. Not all country  accept Bitcoin and if we have Bitcoins then we need to convert it in to fiat so that we can buy something we need  that's the reason why we say that Bitcoin is my money cause we can convert it into fiat. But for me someday it's okay to adopt Bitcoin as a Currencies used to buy something.

Bitcoin is accepted only in limited places around the internet at the moment, so we can't use Bitcoin to buy a lot of things but yes, there are some platforms or websites that accept Bitcoin for goods and services they are offering and it's a good thing, and hopefully this adoption can increase over time and it wouldn't just be accepted digitally but also in physical places and stores around the world which is now very much limited to just a few countries.

What makes Bitcoin different from ordinary money is not the fact that it is digital but it is the technology behind it and most importantly its decentralized nature is what makes it different from traditional financial systems of the world.

P.S: It seems like we are in the Bitcoin Discussion board. Let's not get carried away, guys .

[shasan]

Is the hose who decide the rules, but is the users who decide where to gamble, if the rules are absurd then the user shouldn't play on that site, a good example of this is the sites that only let you withdraw a min of $1000/day, or those sites who limit the max win but doesn't limit the max bet. And that's why is so important to read the terms of service before deciding to pen an account on any casino. And the main problem with the ToS is those clauses that let the house change the rules at any time, that way is a losing game for the gambler.

When any gambling site changes any rule then they infirm about the changes to their users. If any site can't do that then they should stop their service. Another part is about 1000$ per day! is it any good sign for the so-called gambling site??

[wallet4bitcoin]

I think the idea of casinos needing a license is much more than just wanting to consider the fact that bitcoin is being used, its for the protection of the gamblers and everyone who patronizes a casino.

There are regulatory bodies that regulate operations of casinos and I don't consider it a negative step or approach to mitigating risks for gamblers.

[mak013]

If you can print money, would you give someone a piece of this cake? Cryptocurrencies help to avoid sanctions and avoid taxes. We can use it in different ways, but in any large country that has its own serious currency, we officially cannot buy anything with BTC. Nobody wants a competitor if they can be eliminated.

Let me start by saying it is a misconception that we can't buy anything with Bitcoin, as a matter of fact, we can buy anything with it, it only depends on the buyers and the sellers. In the worst-case scenario, the seller could be in a country where Bitcoin is mostly restricted in parts of the world and the seller still agrees to offer the product/service in exchange for Bitcoin. This is because Bitcoin has a whole lot of arrangements and when the person leaves his country, he can convert it to whatever he wants. This is technically a P2P approach in a private way that no one will even know what you guys ever transacted if that is the purpose and it is rampantly happening these days.

But let me condemn this, it is not a good and wise decision to evade tax, though cryptocurrency allowed that, but do you think it's right? This is one of the evils that the government is trying to prevent and no one can blame them for doing so because people's mind is so selfish. This is also one of the reasons why the government is trying as much as possible for all the companies dealing with cryptocurrencies in their jurisdiction to be made accountable. If they can make them register and regulate them, they will have a say over them, and whether Bitcoin is private and decentralised or not, they will still know how monies are flowing in and out between the parties involved. And this is cool to me.

I understand that we can buy everything with BTC, if we ready to change country, or wait a lot. But i mean that we can`t but anything(ok, the main part of everyday things) right now. I can`t buy bread or meat using BTC or some other cryptocurrency.
About regulation i have to match that regulated cryptocurrencies becomes fiat money. Someone allow you to print money and control the process. Not printing but every transaction will be under control. It is the last thing we want to cryptocurrencies.

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

Colorado accepts bitcoin for payments, allowing you to pay state tax in bitcoin. I'd say they're being pretty serious about it

If i remember correct, the Colorado, just a part of the US? Seriously, i don`t understand such system, when a part of country can has their own taxes and laws. It can be used for political struggle may be.
I don`t know really, but anyway it is good for BTC. If it doesn`t mean that it is regulated in Colorado.

[shield132]

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No, in some countries and states, you can pay with Bitcoin. You won't receive bills calculated in Bitcoins but can pay fiat equivalent with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has value so it's money. If we look at CMC it's value is always measure by USD, and it's acceptable in most countries, and even on countries that bitcoin is ban there are still people accepting and investing on it. We have to be realistic here, bitcoin is already regulated, so it's basically money but in the form of bitcoin. Maybe the government will not intervene if we would not encash our bitcoin but we cannot deny that most of us encash our bitcoin into fiat.

Bitcoin has value but that doesn't mean that it's money. Real estates have value, is my house money? Is my car money? No, money is paper and coins that we use daily, that are accepted as payments for goods, services, taxes and etc. There are many arguments against why Bitcoin is not money and also there are arguments on the other hand that proves that Bitcoin is money. The government thinks that Bitcoin is not money, I have heard that directly from my lecturer who also graduated from Harvard University and had a very good position in the government sector. When the government sees the possibility of taxing you, they'll tax you even if they have to disagree with their previously said statement. They saw that Bitcoin is getting very popular and they saw the opportunity of making money from it, so they'll tax for this reason.

[YOSHIE]

Let's be honest, If you can deposit, wager, and withdraw. I don't see where the license is in the process.

The fact is, deposits, bets or withdrawals are not included in the licensing process, because some of these factors are not part of the ownership of the online casino, these features do not fall under copyright because they run on a network system, such as banks, Bitcoin etc.

Of course, if you examine it from the actual purpose of a gambling license.

The license protects casino owners from plagiarism practices with Intellectual Property Rights. This license functions to protect an online casino, so that it is not produced by anyone other than the official brand owner. Apart from that, the license also aims to guarantee the practice of an official casino profession.

Here it is quite clear that the license has nothing to do with the three related things. It is clear that a license is needed as explained in the quote above, Other parties may take or imitate the withdrawal/deposit feature with Bitcoin or bet on the same game, but not with the casino brand or website, of course a license is required in the gambling industry.

[EarnOnVictor]

If you can print money, would you give someone a piece of this cake? Cryptocurrencies help to avoid sanctions and avoid taxes. We can use it in different ways, but in any large country that has its own serious currency, we officially cannot buy anything with BTC. Nobody wants a competitor if they can be eliminated.

Let me start by saying it is a misconception that we can't buy anything with Bitcoin, as a matter of fact, we can buy anything with it, it only depends on the buyers and the sellers. In the worst-case scenario, the seller could be in a country where Bitcoin is mostly restricted in parts of the world and the seller still agrees to offer the product/service in exchange for Bitcoin. This is because Bitcoin has a whole lot of arrangements and when the person leaves his country, he can convert it to whatever he wants. This is technically a P2P approach in a private way that no one will even know what you guys ever transacted if that is the purpose and it is rampantly happening these days.

But let me condemn this, it is not a good and wise decision to evade tax, though cryptocurrency allowed that, but do you think it's right? This is one of the evils that the government is trying to prevent and no one can blame them for doing so because people's mind is so selfish. This is also one of the reasons why the government is trying as much as possible for all the companies dealing with cryptocurrencies in their jurisdiction to be made accountable. If they can make them register and regulate them, they will have a say over them, and whether Bitcoin is private and decentralised or not, they will still know how monies are flowing in and out between the parties involved. And this is cool to me.

I understand that we can buy everything with BTC, if we ready to change country, or wait a lot. But i mean that we can`t but anything(ok, the main part of everyday things) right now. I can`t buy bread or meat using BTC or some other cryptocurrency.
About regulation i have to match that regulated cryptocurrencies becomes fiat money. Someone allow you to print money and control the process. Not printing but every transaction will be under control. It is the last thing we want to cryptocurrencies.

I understand you better now, and truly, there are limitations to what we can buy with Bitcoin, especially in impromptu scope. Even in countries where Bitcoin is a legal tender, there will be many that are unwilling to accept Bitcoin as the mode of payment for obvious reasons. You can imagine the merchant who knows how to speculate the Bitcoin price very well, no one should force such a merchant to accept Bitcoin as a mode of payment when he is very sure that the price would drop in a matter of minutes and extend to days or weeks. This is the risk of Bitcoin aside from the security concerns. That's by the way, many countries are still not accepting Bitcoin even if some merchants in the country can still risk it which makes it minimal. If the overall acceptance of the coin is to be roughly viewed in terms of buying and selling of the daily needs (good and services), I do not think it's still up to 0.001% fr the enter world. This is not about the business transaction but the real use of it like fiat currencies.

[mak013]

I don`t think that serious countries will accept BTC. They have their fiat money and it is enough for all purposes.
Taxes we get on the profit. And i don`t think that someone get a bill with BTC in it. No, we got taxes in fiat money. I don`t like it but it is correct - when you get any profit - you pay taxes.

No, in some countries and states, you can pay with Bitcoin. You won't receive bills calculated in Bitcoins but can pay fiat equivalent with Bitcoin.

I don`t remember serious country, where you can pay with BTC. I`ve read about Colorado here, but it is not country. US states are strange for me. I can`t imagine country, where city has it`s own rules and laws.

I understand that we can buy everything with BTC, if we ready to change country, or wait a lot. But i mean that we can`t but anything(ok, the main part of everyday things) right now. I can`t buy bread or meat using BTC or some other cryptocurrency.
About regulation i have to match that regulated cryptocurrencies becomes fiat money. Someone allow you to print money and control the process. Not printing but every transaction will be under control. It is the last thing we want to cryptocurrencies.

I understand you better now, and truly, there are limitations to what we can buy with Bitcoin, especially in impromptu scope. Even in countries where Bitcoin is a legal tender, there will be many that are unwilling to accept Bitcoin as the mode of payment for obvious reasons. You can imagine the merchant who knows how to speculate the Bitcoin price very well, no one should force such a merchant to accept Bitcoin as a mode of payment when he is very sure that the price would drop in a matter of minutes and extend to days or weeks. This is the risk of Bitcoin aside from the security concerns. That's by the way, many countries are still not accepting Bitcoin even if some merchants in the country can still risk it which makes it minimal. If the overall acceptance of the coin is to be roughly viewed in terms of buying and selling of the daily needs (good and services), I do not think it's still up to 0.001% fr the enter world. This is not about the business transaction but the real use of it like fiat currencies.

I was in one country, where BTC is legal. I saw lots of cryptocurrency exchanges there. One of them was near my hotel, i saw it in the window. Several times i spent about an hour watching on it. No one men visited this exchange. Of course it doesn`t mean, that no one use it, but local currency exchange near - got lots of visitors the same time.

[Slow death]

In every country in the world there are rules in each country, the governments of each country create their laws thinking that with these laws each citizen of that country will have appropriate behavior that respects those laws created by the government. Therefore, governments create certain requirements that each citizen must comply with when they want to run a business. For example, in the case of casinos, governments can make it a requirement that all casinos must have a minimum capital of $100,000 and must have a manager with academic training in the areas of economics, finance and business administration. must have a physical office where they have a lawyer, a support attendant

they must have a telephone number, they must have promotions that have a maximum limit of x amounts, so when people have all these requirements then the government will give them the license to have the casino. A license issued by the government means that the casino complies with the laws and rules of the government of the country in which the casino applied for a license. It has nothing to do with whether bitcoin is an accepted currency in that country or not. I say this because I see in my country how things work when it comes to opening companies and licensing

[EarnOnVictor]

I understand that we can buy everything with BTC, if we ready to change country, or wait a lot. But i mean that we can`t but anything(ok, the main part of everyday things) right now. I can`t buy bread or meat using BTC or some other cryptocurrency.
About regulation i have to match that regulated cryptocurrencies becomes fiat money. Someone allow you to print money and control the process. Not printing but every transaction will be under control. It is the last thing we want to cryptocurrencies.

I understand you better now, and truly, there are limitations to what we can buy with Bitcoin, especially in impromptu scope. Even in countries where Bitcoin is a legal tender, there will be many that are unwilling to accept Bitcoin as the mode of payment for obvious reasons. You can imagine the merchant who knows how to speculate the Bitcoin price very well, no one should force such a merchant to accept Bitcoin as a mode of payment when he is very sure that the price would drop in a matter of minutes and extend to days or weeks. This is the risk of Bitcoin aside from the security concerns. That's by the way, many countries are still not accepting Bitcoin even if some merchants in the country can still risk it which makes it minimal. If the overall acceptance of the coin is to be roughly viewed in terms of buying and selling of the daily needs (good and services), I do not think it's still up to 0.001% fr the enter world. This is not about the business transaction but the real use of it like fiat currencies.

I was in one country, where BTC is legal. I saw lots of cryptocurrency exchanges there. One of them was near my hotel, i saw it in the window. Several times i spent about an hour watching on it. No one men visited this exchange. Of course it doesn`t mean, that no one use it, but local currency exchange near - got lots of visitors the same time.

Well, let me say that we should not assume that way, there are many exchanges in my country as well, and you do not expect them to be receiving customer visitors as much unless they have issues they want them to solve for them. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are online-based, and so are the operations of these exchanges, so I do not expect them to receive the huge visitors you expected of them. Since cryptocurrency is not like fiat which is controlled by a centralised system where the central bank of the country will have power over, there is a limitation to the help that exchanges will offer except for the ones that are directly related to their own platform issues in case of short payment, unreceived transactions and many more.

I dealt with some exchanges in my country for over 15 years, and it was even on fiat currencies, but never had any reason to go to their offices for once, for what? This is not like the BDC and parallel market operators but is purely online-based. Many times too, the issues can be resolved online instead of the customers coming down to their offices, that's the way I see this.

Also, you don't have to sell or buy your Bitcoin physically when all arrangements have been made online.

[mak013]

I was in one country, where BTC is legal. I saw lots of cryptocurrency exchanges there. One of them was near my hotel, i saw it in the window. Several times i spent about an hour watching on it. No one men visited this exchange. Of course it doesn`t mean, that no one use it, but local currency exchange near - got lots of visitors the same time.

Well, let me say that we should not assume that way, there are many exchanges in my country as well, and you do not expect them to be receiving customer visitors as much unless they have issues they want them to solve for them. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are online-based, and so are the operations of these exchanges, so I do not expect them to receive the huge visitors you expected of them. Since cryptocurrency is not like fiat which is controlled by a centralised system where the central bank of the country will have power over, there is a limitation to the help that exchanges will offer except for the ones that are directly related to their own platform issues in case of short payment, unreceived transactions and many more.

I dealt with some exchanges in my country for over 15 years, and it was even on fiat currencies, but never had any reason to go to their offices for once, for what? This is not like the BDC and parallel market operators but is purely online-based. Many times too, the issues can be resolved online instead of the customers coming down to their offices, that's the way I see this.

Also, you don't have to sell or buy your Bitcoin physically when all arrangements have been made online.

There are two main problems when we want to buy something using BTC. First of all it must be allowed in the country/state, where we are. And the second problem is the problems with the pay process. We must find somebody, who can use BTC, he can have an possibility to make a bill, it must be internet around. And something else, that i possible forgot. It is about real life. In the internet we can buy much more using cryptocurrencies of course.

[joniboini]

I think the discussion about problems with BTC for offline transactions is getting a bit off-topic for this thread, it would be better to start a discussion in another thread IMO. Whether Bitcoin is easy to use for everyday transactions has little relevance to the government regulating cryptocurrency casinos, especially when most of them are online. Even if there are offline casinos that accept Bitcoin as a payment to buy chips, the law likely considers Bitcoin as a legal means of payment even if they don't lump it together with fiat. CMIIW.

[Shamm]

I was in one country, where BTC is legal. I saw lots of cryptocurrency exchanges there. One of them was near my hotel, i saw it in the window. Several times i spent about an hour watching on it. No one men visited this exchange. Of course it doesn`t mean, that no one use it, but local currency exchange near - got lots of visitors the same time.

Well, let me say that we should not assume that way, there are many exchanges in my country as well, and you do not expect them to be receiving customer visitors as much unless they have issues they want them to solve for them. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are online-based, and so are the operations of these exchanges, so I do not expect them to receive the huge visitors you expected of them. Since cryptocurrency is not like fiat which is controlled by a centralised system where the central bank of the country will have power over, there is a limitation to the help that exchanges will offer except for the ones that are directly related to their own platform issues in case of short payment, unreceived transactions and many more.

I dealt with some exchanges in my country for over 15 years, and it was even on fiat currencies, but never had any reason to go to their offices for once, for what? This is not like the BDC and parallel market operators but is purely online-based. Many times too, the issues can be resolved online instead of the customers coming down to their offices, that's the way I see this.

Also, you don't have to sell or buy your Bitcoin physically when all arrangements have been made online.

There are two main problems when we want to buy something using BTC. First of all it must be allowed in the country/state, where we are. And the second problem is the problems with the pay process. We must find somebody, who can use BTC, he can have an possibility to make a bill, it must be internet around. And something else, that i possible forgot. It is about real life. In the internet we can buy much more using cryptocurrencies of course.

If we are in the country that  Bitcoin is allowed then this is a good one we can buy what we want to buy using bitcoins and pay our crypto currency to the vendor as long as the vendor have a wallet that they can store the Bitcoin or crypto that we used to pay . Every now and then some convenience store start accepting Bitcoin or other crypto currency which is pretty good enough if we have some crypto then we want to buy in thier products then it's good to have a transactions.

[mak013]

I think the discussion about problems with BTC for offline transactions is getting a bit off-topic for this thread, it would be better to start a discussion in another thread IMO. Whether Bitcoin is easy to use for everyday transactions has little relevance to the government regulating cryptocurrency casinos, especially when most of them are online. Even if there are offline casinos that accept Bitcoin as a payment to buy chips, the law likely considers Bitcoin as a legal means of payment even if they don't lump it together with fiat. CMIIW.

It may be so, but the same time it shows the difference between BTC and money. I think that it is important enough and discussion about such problems help us to get an answer to the OPs question.

There are two main problems when we want to buy something using BTC. First of all it must be allowed in the country/state, where we are. And the second problem is the problems with the pay process. We must find somebody, who can use BTC, he can have an possibility to make a bill, it must be internet around. And something else, that i possible forgot. It is about real life. In the internet we can buy much more using cryptocurrencies of course.

If we are in the country that  Bitcoin is allowed then this is a good one we can buy what we want to buy using bitcoins and pay our crypto currency to the vendor as long as the vendor have a wallet that they can store the Bitcoin or crypto that we used to pay . Every now and then some convenience store start accepting Bitcoin or other crypto currency which is pretty good enough if we have some crypto then we want to buy in thier products then it's good to have a transactions.

Of course it is so. As BTC user, i can only applaud new opportunities of it usage. But anyway we see that BTC can be only additional paying method and can`t become higher than fiat money.

[joniboini]

It may be so, but the same time it shows the difference between BTC and money. I think that it is important enough and discussion about such problems help us to get an answer to the OPs question.

Well, I don't think knowing how difficult it is to spend Bitcoin on a coffee shop will help us know why the government requires crypto casinos to have a license. You can argue that these difficulties are why Bitcoin is not a good choice as a means of transaction, hence why the government doesn't think of it as money, but it would bring more questions instead. You can use that to argue why casino licenses should not be mandatory instead. CMIIW.