This is the main point here. Even a highly skilled person can trade in the market and see losses. Just because he is a good analyst does not guarantee that he will be able to profit from all the trades he takes. This is actually not possible in reality, the market runs on its own rules, but sometimes even highly skilled analysts can be fooled by the market and make the wrong decisions. Trading knowledge and skills help a trader to predict the next movement of the market, but they do not guarantee that all decisions will be correct. Knowledge and skills are always considered effective, but they can also fail. So an analyst always wants to learn from the market, they never become overconfident and boast about their skills.

It will happen to anyone, there is no guarantee, no matter how skilled you are, no matter how well you research and make decisions, there will always be the possibility of loss. No one can ever trade completely without loss, he may be profitable most of the time but he must face losses at some point, this is a reality that we have to accept, there will be the possibility of loss but despite this we have to acquire the skills to sustain ourselves and recover.

Even a good analyst can face losses if he or she trades in the market. Even if you can analyze the market perfectly, if you are unable to make quick decisions, an unexpected incident may occur in the market, which can lead to big losses. I have seen many analysts I know who understand the market well and can make assumptions about market trends. But I have seen them make losses. They often face losses due to the market being unpredictable and due to not being able to make the right decisions at the right time despite being a good analyst.

You are right that the tool Bitcoin is a tool depends only on its user. If you use it for good, then it is definitely good and if you use it for bad, then it is bad. Bitcoin does not move or cheat on its own, it has no will of its own. One has to choose how to use it. Those who do not understand Bitcoin properly blame it. It is transparent and all transactions are recorded in the public ledger. My question to those who think Bitcoin is a tool for criminals is, was there ever a crime before Bitcoin came? Many people are spreading fear hoping to profit from the market crash. Society should implement better education and stricter laws to stop the abuse. Because you can never punish the tool, the criminal must be punished. There is no guarantee that crimes will not happen without Bitcoin, so blaming Bitcoin is nothing but foolishness.

I totally concur with your point of view. Bitcoin is merely an instrument, such as cash, credit card, or even a gun. It does not engage in crime-men do. The problem lies in human behavior and not on the technology that lies behind it. Criminality attributed to Bitcoin is just fear, lack of understanding or even manipulation as seen with those who are interested in the negative image, just to gain. The best solution is not to declare Bitcoin as a criminal but to devise more appropriate policies and mechanisms to curb bad use although not to ban its legitimate usage. The most important is education and knowledge, since the majority of Bitcoin sceptics just do not understand the work of this cryptocurrency.

People put blame on tool out of disdain. A tool is a tool and bitcoin won't spend itself. Instead of blaming tool we should've come up with solution to prevent crime not just blaming bitcoin.

Anyone who blame bitcoin and call it from criminal is just finding a way to fud bitcoin. The bitcoin haters who come to understand bitcoin most of the time become a bitcoin maxi like saylor.
People blame bitcoin because they don't understand how it works and possibly have ulterior purpose such as shorting bitcoin behind the scene.

You are absolutely right. In fact, criminals commit crimes, so there is no point in blaming anythings . If a car driver is not good, then if the car gets into an accident, then it is never right to blame the car brand . And so far, people have benefited a lot from Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is a resource like gold, no one will use it for criminal activity or normal necessary work. In the future, the number of Bitcoin holders will increase than sellers.

Neither is secure. Especially when they're not government-insured or have investor protections of any kind. When you invest in a stablecoin, you are at the expense of losing it all in the future. The issuing company can either go bankrupt, become a victim of hacks, or simply shut down its operations due to a government crackdown. Centralized stablecoins, although regulatory-compliant, are not immune from such risks. The situation is even worse with decentralized stablecoins.

You'd be best selling your crypto to Fiat and leave it on the bank for safekeeping. Why do you think "Cash is King"? Stablecoins only exist to provide a means for traders to help protect themselves against market volatility without the need to convert to Fiat (cash). They're not meant to be hoarded for the long-term. Ultimately, you decide what to do with your money. Just avoid investing more than what you can't afford to lose, and there should be nothing to worry about.

Criminals will use what's most convenient for them. While Bitcoin is profitable, it's a terrible currency for day-to-day payments. Volatility and scaling issues (not to mention the Blockchain's inherent transparency), is what "scares" criminals away from BTC. Not that all of them will avoid Bitcoin entirely. But at least, a significant portion of them. This is actually good for Bitcoin, because minimal criminal activity helps it gain the favor of mainstream governments worldwide.

With nearly every centralized exchange requiring users to comply with KYC/AML laws, it's almost impossible to avoid being undetected with Bitcoin. Privacy coins would be viewed more favorably by criminals due to the way they're designed. Bitcoin's legitimate use cases are increasing each day, so we will reach a point where haters will no longer use the "tool for criminals" stereotype against Bitcoin. The days of the "Wild West" are over. Just my opinion.

I agree with you, if analytical skills were the key to profitability then many traders would have become very rich.

Trading is not as easy as turning your palm, the market is not as good as you think, having skills in analyzing it does not mean you will always be right in predicting the market, there will always be moments where your entry misses due to market fluctuations that occur unexpectedly.

Not to mention the problem of emotions that are not easy to control, so actually there are still many things that trigger losses even though for example you feel you have enough skills in analyzing the market.

It is true that KYC information must be secure but if everyone goes to a non KYC casino, problems can arise elsewhere. Because there are other risks with non KYC sites. For example if someone loses their account or their money is frozen, they cannot get help because they cannot show proper proof. Some non KYC sites are not trustworthy at all. I think security does not just mean hiding information. Rather it is about choosing casinos that handle data responsibly and follow the rules, that is I am talking about large and reputable gambling platforms.

Yes, criminals use fiat money the most because it is very easy to hide cash money and it cannot be tracked. Many criminals still do not know how Bitcoin or other crypto coins work. Cash money is the largest money laundering method in the world. So those who now blame Bitcoin do not know the concept of Bitcoin. They only know that anonymous transactions can be made through Bitcoin, so they make such comments. Although Bitcoin can be transacted anonymously, every transaction can be tracked due to its fixed supply and open source, so not all criminals will consider Bitcoin as a potential medium.

They can be good on analyzing on each situation happening in trading, but actually it doesn't guarantee any passive profits to them.

Since as always no one can predict the flow or movement of the market that's why even if they are good analyst as what they claim we cannot assume that they are passively earning on each trades they execute.

But somehow its good that they have knowledge since they can manage everything well on each action they want to do. Also usually they can do great decision towards what they do on each situations they are facing on the market.

West Indies are 32 for 2 and still 41 runs behind so they need a big fightback. No one even scored a fifty in their first innings, so they’ll need much better batting this time. If they want a real chance, they probably need around 250-300 runs from here. Since the pitch has been tough and no team has reached 300 yet. A couple of strong partnerships could keep them in the game but another quick wicket would hand New Zealand the match.

It doesn't work that way, even if that's the expectation. It's like saying every good football analyst is a great footballer. Nah! Theory isn't the same as practical, you and I know it. In trading, analysing trades and having strategies is even less than 50% of what it takes to trade. People can be extremely good at analysing trades but can't execute that and profit from their entries because emotions will mess their analyses up. Trading is more of an emotional control thing than analyses.

Actually, there are other things that a trader must master in order to become a good trader besides good analysis. Namely, emotional management and risk management. Even an analyst can still fall into losses if he gets carried away by emotions in market trends. Such as getting carried away by hype in the market. Or he becomes greedy and deviates from the well-thought-out plan that has been carefully prepared.

Or if an analyst does not regularly update the news they need to know about the fundamental conditions of the market. Sometimes the market can suddenly reverse direction and not match the technical analysis.

So, we often see even large traders suffer losses because their positions are liquidated in the futures market, even with values of millions of dollars.

A good analyst is supposed to be a good trader because if you can analyze well you can avoid unnecessary emotions and mistakes but there is no perfect analysts because whatever they come up with is based on their predictions. To be a good analyst you need to have the knowledge of a good trader and that is deep knowledge in technical analysis and fundamental analysis. The point is that if you are good in analysis doesn't mean that you cannot lose in trading, the best professional traders experience loses because trading is risky. Unfortunately there are people who claim to be trading analysts but in actual fact they are just like every regular traders without deep understanding and that is why they are not be good traders.

usdt are regularly freezing people's assets, how it’s can be trustworthy now,
but usdt is much popular from other stable coins, it’s widely using stable coins not specific region,
considering it’s millions of users, usdt is top stable coin,
however, it’s not safe to restore in your wallet, i just swap to my altcoins to usdt and sell it.
dai is popular decentralized coin but it’s not much using stable coin.

I'm sure there are other options, including USDT and USDC. Liquidity for other options will be limited, so I don't even know about many. I split my holdings between USDT and USDC. Choosing just one doesn't feel right. I don't believe any stablecoin is completely reliable. So, for me, they're the same. There's some debate about transparency for USDT, it doesn't matter to me. I just split it in half and don't think much about it.

Stable coins as they're called are preferred by investors to use and maintain the value of their funds when they' ain't sure of the market behaviour to what direction the market would go. Hence they change their coins to stablecoin. Though stablecoins ain't that immutable, they still have their risk since they're centralized the company can fold along the process or have your funds frozen for certain unclear reasons. All am saying is this stablecoins USDT and USDC can do you dirty despite being some of the top secured stablecoins.

Among centralized stable coins, USDT and USDC seem comfortable to me. Although one is more known, popular and used than the other depending on the location in Asia, Europe and America. USDT is more popular and used in Asia, USDC is more popular and used in Europe. Since stable coins have been tested for a long time, it can be assumed that they are usable and reliable in terms of security as time has passed. However, if we talk about decentralized coins, DAI is the safest for me.

However, in my opinion, these three elements are interconnected in gambling. Strategy, skill & luck are closely intertwined. I believe that luck is impossible to achieve without a solid strategy & skill. When gambling is done haphazardly without a solid strategy & skill, the chance of getting lucky still exists, but it's very small. Therefore, the best skills & strategies are needed to maximize the chances of getting lucky in gambling.

Secure in terms of what and from whom? They are both secure enough, but these days you might have more issues changing USDT to EUR for example.
But you might want to explain what properties you need for a stablecoin, as it also could be pegged to other things then dollars.

And anything in this space is experimental and risky. If not by shady reserves, then just via 0d exploits and noobs vulnerabilities to social engineering.

Personally i trust way less to tether after they decided not to comply with EU regulations or be more transparent.

Absolutely true. It's unfair to say that Bitcoin is a haven for criminals. Even in fiat there's a lot of crime, but why is the focus solely on Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a highly transparent blockchain technology.

It's important to emphasize that every developing technology has both positive and negative sides, and this applies to all technologies, whether email, social media, crypto, or even fiat, which can be used for criminal purposes by certain individuals. So let's look at it fairly: Bitcoin offers many benefits for all of us. We can't avoid criminals exploiting Bitcoin, but what's certain is that Bitcoin provides many benefits to society.

These two stable big industry coins are not safe to hold but majority might not be aware of this. You are only holding them for the sake of shifting away from the volatility market to maintain value but they are not that safe to hold. You coin can be frozen at any time without your consent. Don't argue with me cost you can always do your finding. I am not immuned to this because I am also holding it lol.
Who is going to safe us now?

Bitcoin is a global asset, which allows criminals to easily transact with it. It can only identify the wallet but not the person, so criminals can transact anonymously. Bitcoin has become a potential source for global asset transactions. Due to the depreciation of fiat or the limitations of regional monetary systems, the demand and acceptance of this digital asset is increasing across regional boundaries.

Every positive impact will have a negative impact, so you need to learn about each issue and accept only the positive side. Anyone involved in crime can commit a crime in any way if given the opportunity. Focusing on a specific issue is purposeful.

The USDT has had enough trouble of its own for years. However, being a stablecoin linked to the crypto world, I believe it will not be affected, as it has held the number 1 spot for so long. As for USDC, it has passed virtually all government clearances and regional acceptance, so it's technically safer. What I do is hold my assets in two of them in case of unforeseen circumstances, and I do it 50:50 now.

What I won't do is hold my crypto assets in other stablecoins. I view them as riskier than the two (USDT & USDC).

To be honest, the West Indies team did not perform very well in the first Test match, getting all out for just 167 runs. Because of this, most people thought that they would not be able to bat well against New Zealand in the second innings against the target of 531 runs. But the West Indies batsmen batted very responsibly in the second innings. The West Indies batsmen batted very responsibly from the beginning against the target of 531 runs given by New Zealand. The West Indies batsmen batted very responsibly and they were able to draw the Test match against New Zealand. Shai Hope and Justin Greaves are the two batsmen who helped the West Indies team draw the match against New Zealand. New Zealand is undoubtedly a stronger team than the West Indies. But the West Indies team was able to draw the Test match because of their responsible performance in the second innings.