Everyone thinks skill guarantees success.But In reality,the higher the skill,the more luck decides outcomes.Investing isn’t just about being smart,it’s about surviving randomness, staying humble, and respecting the unseen forces in every market.In investing,skill is essential but it's not sufficient.Skill alone can’t protect you from volatility, but adoption and resilience do.

Exactly the endurance through multiple "Bitcoin killer" cycles proves the point, its the base layer everything else feels like an experiment or an app built on top of its ideas replacing the foundation is a fantasy when the foundation works this well.

Even if Bitcoin is not the first digital currency still it manage to became  most successful decentralized coin. Then it became the foundation of the whole crypto industry due to its huge success gotten for many years.

Its endurance and success gotten since 2009 and combination of absence of Satoshi Nakamoto make people think that this coin is not been controlled by anyone, This give a exceptional position which is hard to copy by other cryptocurrency in the market. Lots of project offer new innovation but they didn't match the decentralization, demand and cultural impact that's why most of new coins died then Bitcoin remains. I believe that Bitcoin will stay for many more decades and those attempt to replace it on top position will just remain dreaming that they can achieve that goal.

Of course, there's no difference between forum members and other gamblers using a casino. We are all equal and should be given the same priority. A good live support and fast in resolving whatever issues gamblers are facing is the best.

Ticket resolving shouldn't be a problem to a reliable casino in order to build more confidence in gambler. Discrimination will only kill the business for casinos. What I can consider is treating the VIPs more special.

Bitcoin is not a first cryptocurrency but it is a first decentralized and successful cryptocurrency which laid solid foundation for one of biggest innovation in human civilization history. Since 2009, Bitcoin is the King in cryptocurrency industry and with what has shown so far, Bitcoin will maintain this leading role for many years ahead.

Will Bitcoin be replaced by something better?
Who knows?
But I believe it won't happen soon, as it is super hard to have another decentralized project and blockchain like Bitcoin with an anonymous founder like Satoshi Nakamoto.

Bitcoin is not perfect but it has its strength and advantages which can not be found in thousands of altcoins so far.

You're right. In my own country and neighborhood, there are only a few secondhand shops. In fact, I only know of one in my neighborhood. I once wondered how they could make money like that, and after investigating, it turns out they actually resell the items to other parties on a large scale. This is determined by the store owner buying from the seller and the other party buying from the store owner. I've seen many people working as collectors in the secondhand shops I know in my neighborhood, so I think this business is indeed profitable.

This is true, those junk sites hardly relocate unless the government want to do major developments across where they operate. They would always stay in business because people kinda like the idea that what they always trash can be sold for little money. That little renumeration is what keeps the junk shops booming and constantly in business.

Don't be surprised Darker45, even those adults you knew when they were kids are still in the business (As long as they still live in that area) and have sections of their house where they keep tin cans from drinks and other steel trashes until they are plenty before taking them to junk shops. In my private office space, a neighbor who I regarded a big boy visited my shop and made away with those tin cans in my trash, urging me to always keep it for him that he invites a worker of a nearby junk shop and sell it to him.

In my place of residence, the second-hand goods shop has been around for more than a century and the shop has now been inherited by his son and until now it is still running normally, we rarely see if the second-hand goods shop suffers losses or goes bankrupt because they only spend relatively very small capital to buy second-hand goods from the community, sometimes they can even get goods without having to spend any money if there are some people who donate them for free to them so that the second-hand goods shop can get big profits with very small capital, especially since they have no business competitors so that the second-hand goods shop can survive for a very long time.

Well, does that only means that the person is making a lot of money from the business and that's why his business is still up and running? Well, maybe he is, but this could also mean that he is very good at business management, which means that maybe he is not making a lot of money from the trash business, but he is at least making enough money for himself and his family, so he kept the business alive by managing things properly, and all other shops and places that closed down weren't able to keep up and run their businesses efficiently.

When running a business, the most important thing is to know the demands of your customers, and deliver accordingly, this could be for both regular and new customers, which means that your business should be able to adapt new trends and demands that enter the market, so that you can get new customers because of that. If you keep your business old, outdated, and boring, it won't last very long, because customers always love new things and updates or upgrades, and they will only keep coming back if they get their demands fulfilled.

I have to agree, with the unpredictable price for bitcoin, merchants are discouraged to promote bitcoin used for paying goods and services because they themselves are even fearful if price suddenly drops its price, then they have to wait longer for its recovery before they can roll their sales and buy back again some stocks for their business.

Bitcoin is good and profitable, but I think bitcoin will be good as an investment for now, having it as a mode for payment may only be applicable when the real global adoption takes place. However, we can still use it for some selected merchants who are also accepting bitcoin and hold it as their investment.

It is natural to be suspicious of Bitcoin since world is full of scams but most people go through process of initially being doubtful about it and then eventually becoming its supporter once they realize that it is system that can be trusted over years.

Although those who gain out of current banking system will not have reason to switch, there are others who will be stuck in pride trap where they are too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong all along when they call Bitcoin useless. Although there is nothing wrong with people being comfortable with what they know, history tends to favor people who are able to admit their errors and use new technology.

It is amazing that you have overcome your doubts, and it is question whether those who continue to hold on to their pride will be eventually forced to use Bitcoin or they will avoid it forever.

Sometimes there's no logical reason for either of those two things.

I got my Binance account locked for paying something with their debit card and it took me more than a month to unlock it. Also, Revolut rejected my KYC 2 times for no reason, so I gave up. I retried several years later, and it went through without issus, using the same documents that for whatever reason failed the previous two times.

And it’s important that they have a representative who actually responds to accusations. Otherwise, whatever they invested in running a signature campaign would just be a waste, because their reputation will slowly get ruined as more and more newbies file scam accusations, even if those claims are baseless.

As of now, I still haven’t seen any reply from the casino in question.

I am referring to the general and ongoing risk that includes the evolution and expansion of these various platforms, and the various disinclinations that seem to exist in respect to self-custody and the use of self-custody related tools.. .and for sure, self-custody tools are likely much more difficult to monetize too, even though it is likely in the better interest of people and even the empowerment of bitcoin to have self-custodial interactions (direct to direct) or alternatively if it is also more or less easy to send and receive from self-custodial wallets to the various third party options that you listed.


That is not the same as being able to interact (send and receive with private wallets)


Surely it seems to me that restrictions are likely to increase with the passage of time rather than to just allow transactions with private wallets...and I consider that as problematic, even though it can be difficult to get people to get used to having and/or using private wallets.

Unfortunately the casino you are mentioning does not actually have scam accusation.

See this one been posted yesterday on scam accusation section BET25.COM SCAMMED ME 1874$ so seeing that we can say that almost all of casinos here have scam accusation posted against them here in forum.

Let see how they react and solve those issues.

Most scam accusations we saw on this forum are not like this, most of the time the person that is accusing the gambling site of scam would have messaged the gambling site customer care, but it can not be resolved is when they are accusing the gambling site in this forum. The probability that a slight delay in withdrawal will cause alleged scam is very low.

I feel that I need to revisit some of the ideas from my earlier responses to you, since I feel that I might have had overly focused on the rehypothecation of bitcoin as if it were the only problem with third parties, yet many of us likely recognize and appreciate that privacy and abilities to directly transact in self-sovereign ways are connected problems. 

In recent times, governments have become more friendly to bitcoin more likely as a means to try to figure out ways to get more holdings and/or transactions to be carried out through third parties rather than bitcoin's allowance of transactions to be done directly and without third parties and surely harder to trace and control bitcoin if a lot of folks are choosing to transact directly with their bitcoin and maybe not even either reporting their coins to governments or to third party custodians who are tracing coins, not transacting with others connected to third-party custodians..and surely bitcoin allows self-custody and was built around abilities to self custody and directly transact with others who have abilities to directly transact.. which not only preserves the integrity of bitcoin's supply but also makes it more difficult to either stop transactions from taking place or to involuntarily remove normies from their coins.

We should not have to fear governments since they are supposed to be acting within the interest of the public, which is all fine and dandy until they start to believe that privacy and/or self-sovereignty is not within the public interest, which frequently seems to be the case since governments seem to love control and knowing what is happening with presumptions that it is in the public interest for them to carry themselves out in such ways - so then even if it is difficult to trace governmental actions, even if private entities (or institutions) are carrying out government actions (like as if some of the private entities were either government agents or at least made to comply with government mandates) through their abilities to trace and/or freeze our transactions, then both our privacy and self-sovereignty is ongoingly put into jeopardy.

So, I think that my earlier response posts were overly focused on the integrity and provability of bitcoin's supply, yet so many of these questions of private bitcoin holdings (and abilities to directly transact) of coins versus having coins held through third parties put self-sovereignty and privacy into jeopardy, too.. .so from my point of view it remains difficult to proclaim that one aspect of bitcoin, including its being transacted through third parties, is not related to other aspects of bitcoin related to abilities to transact directly remains problematic, since bitcoin's power and perhaps its raison d'etre come from abilities of individuals (and sure governments and institutions) to transact directly and abilities to privately hold coins, even if some folks (including governments and institutions) are contracting away their rights to directly hold the coins and/or contracting away their abilities to directly transact in them.. which yeah ends up screwing up abilities to verify the integrity of bitcoin's supply, but also screwing up self-sovereignty and privacy which also seems to be rights that individuals likely have more than governments and/or institutions.


This is part of the dilemma - since of course, it is likely better for bitcoin to have channels to be able to be directly transacted and used, including likely needs that guys who are directly holding bitcoin can also choose to transact with and interact with anyone who proclaims to be accepting bitcoin rather than having to go through third-party entities - even though many times there are also desires for third-parties to want to get in the middle so that they can take their cut.. and then also in the context of the government having abilities to know and monitor transactions, which may or many not really be in the public interest to have all of our transactions channeled and/or monitored.


Of course there are variations in fees, and some third parties may incentivize using their services by reduction (or elimination) of fees... and it should be the case that systems should be able to send and receive from directly on the chain or from one system or another, yet there are likely going to be ongoing battles regarding trying to channel and control and some of it might be profit motivated and other aspects may well have more sinister goals of monitoring, controlling and even inhibiting self-sovereignty by discriminating against self-hosted wallets.


Are these systems interacting? and is it possible to send and receive into the systems with private wallets rather than having to create an account within various walled gardens?


With bitcoin, we know that there could be ways to make escrow systems and KYC is not required if the collateral is provided until the full balance is paid off... but no we would not want to think too creatively about these matters, right?  it is easier just to consider KYC as the solution, right?.. even though I get your point.. when any of us are already in certain systems like Klarna (or the other centralized services that were mentioned), we are already KYC'd... so it becomes easier to make sure that we are credit worthy if we are already in their system.. either we have enough balance to pay, or we have a long history with them or maybe our account with the loan/credit provider is connected with our bank account (and presumptively some credit history that may or may not be one of their requirements to provide the loan or the credit).