Who knows if OP' story is true, but regardless of that, I also agree with you. Bitcoin investment is something personal. I can advise someone on what Bitcoin is and how to invest, but I would not try to persuade a complete stranger to invest in the market. Many people have gotten themselves into serious problems in the past because of this kind of good intention. Most beginners do not really understand the idea behind Bitcoin investment, and what usually attracts them is being told that they can make money from it. What they often fail to understand is that they can also lose money and success is not guaranteed from investment in the market..

Yes, I agree with you; reading your post helped me identify my own mistakes. I admit it would have been better to advise against rushing into a Bitcoin investment and instead introduce the concept gradually by sharing some basic information first. That said, if the price drops to $60,000 and he incurs a loss, it is natural that a rift might develop in our relationship. However, he also needs to understand that in the crypto world, the risk of loss is often greater than the potential for high returns. For now, I should stop him and help him gain some knowledge about Bitcoin. Thank you for such an insightful and well-explained post.

Convincing people to invest in Bitcoin normally ends as a loss, which can create enmity among people who are even related by blood. Loss of money can cause serious disagreement between relatives, and people need to be mindful when trying to convince their relatives to invest in Bitcoin. If they are eventually unable to continue with the investment, understanding won't be there, no matter how close you and the other person are.

An introduction is the best way to inform or enlighten people about Bitcoin because even if they become interested and face challenges that lead to losses, they have no one to hold responsible but themselves for the mistake. People are ready to try what they don't know, but it will be managed by the person who introduces it to them, as they will be the one to face blame when it doesn't work out in their favor.

I think suggesting is fine but convincing one is not.  For me, a suggestion to a relative about investing in Bitcoin doesn't do any harm. After all, the free will to decide is still on the person.  Just make sure that all the pros and cons are laid out and just let the person think about it.  Avoid convincing anyone, if he ever has doubts about Bitcoin, there is no reward for pushing the suggestion.




I think it is good if the person has the patience and the money to sustain his daily needs without touching that Bitcoin investment.  After all, I think the plan is to hodl Bitcoin not to do daytrade.  Besides, Bitcoin has high liquidity, if the person doesn't trust the Bitcoin investment anymore, he can easily cash out the money.  Possibly with some loss or profit depending on the price of BTC when he bought and sold his holding.

Yeah, that's a risky move. I prefer not to have a business with or give financial advice to family. Even if I'm asked to give them advice, I always state that it's based on my POV and I could be wrong about it. I just don't want to be the influential side in someone else's future life. I do not want to feel burdened if, at some point in the future, my advice does not work out as expected. They should first have an interest in Bitcoin and Bitcoin investment before I can sit together with them and discuss more serious things about it.

The same thing also applies when I am the one who becomes the subject they try to convince about something. For example, I often get invitations to join MLM where my family/friends become the upline. And I state explicitly to them that I don't want to ruin my relationship with them just for short term profit. Gladly, they understand.

---

Speaking of DCA, I vibe coded this tool to simulate and compare DCA and lump sum strategies.
https://btcdcastrat.vercel.app

Yeah, you have raised valid points with which I really agree here. Convincing someone by showing a green garden is not the right way. Rather than this, just spreading information about this asset will be enough, and if one finds anything positive after doing his own research. Then he can enter this space on his own. The best for you will be that this way your relationship won't be disturbed. What I personally used to say while discussing Bitcoin with anyone I know is that Bitcoin has great potential and a strong community.

And I used to share some historical data about it just for additional information, and the rest of that I leave to them by saying, if you want to start, you first need to learn whatever is needed to stay safe in this space. And in this if you need any such kind of assistance, and you think you are still confused, I can help with this. But keep in mind, the final decision will be yours, as the amount you are going to invest is yours, so whatever money you will make or lose will also be yours. I say this just as an example for their betterment to understand the nuance of this matter or doing DYOR. What do you think? Am I doing it the correct way or not? CMIIW!

- Are people allowed to stake money on the outcome of an event?
- Are people doing this thing on sports events that offer no predictability
- Are winning shares offering the same reward as placing a bet on it?

Meanwhile, Kalsi and Poly:
- You see, gambling platforms usually have ussualy a blue background, and ours is magenta, so we're not a gambling platform!

You put money on Trump winning, it means you bet on Trump winning, it means you gamble! End of it!


This is the same thing as a betting exchange:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/inplay
Guess what, it is classified as gambling.

Let us not forget about the house edge in gambling, the house cannot place a highest multiplayer on a platter of gold for you just because you have been trying to hit it for a couple of hours, if the game is fair it'll come when it will, we as gamblers don't control slot games. As you're chasing these multipliers so also many other gamblers are doing the same thing and if the providers are handing it down to every gamblers it wouldn't favor them, the casino will put their own profit interest before gamblers interest to win. I wouldn't say that it is only slot providers that acts like politicians in this sense because every businesses that priotize their profits also does the same, it is what will be to their profit interest first before the customer's satisfactions.

Every gambler surely hopes to win the biggest multiplier offered by the game. Indeed, it is just an offer and there may only be one winner among millions of gamblers who equally hope to win that multiplier. Playing for hours to chase the biggest multiplier is very exhausting. Even after all deposits are gone, it might still be impossible to win it. Whether like a politician or not, perhaps on social media the casino might announce that another user has won the biggest multiplier.

Turn off social media notifications, log out your social media accounts, even don't read news or read less news but the best is don't read news, and only focus on the following thing.

Bitcoin market cycle
Bitcoin halving in 2028
Bitcoin bull run will be some time in 2027 to 2029.
We are already at nearly the end of 2026 year, and we still have about one year or more to accumulate cheap bitcoins.

Who care about what happen with SEC in 2026.
They won't be able to stop Bitcoin next market cycle and bull run.

Because they want more money.


Not even they believe that themselves. That is the explanation they have given, based on a legal loophole, but they know that what they are accepting are bets. They know it, we know it, and the authorities in Ohio know it. It is only a matter of time before authorities around the world take steps in the same direction.

Let’s be honest - ostentatious and impulsive consumerism will only decrease if people’s mindset changes! This is a segment where economic rules and logic don’t apply, it’s not an economic phenomenon but a psychological one....
For most people, consumerism is generally driven by their needs, not by a simple desire to buy. They buy out of compulsion, not because they want to.
During deflation, credit will become extremely inaccessible, since you’ll have to repay not 10% but 100% (I’m exaggerating, but it makes it clearer), which means your business will only be able to repay the money if it generates massive profits - and with falling consumption (as you predicted above), these are mutually exclusive scenarios.

It sure does matter when you invested in BTC, especially if you bought in early. And i wouldn't also compare whales who have bottomless pockets, with normal retail investors. Like i already stated, the amount of money available to you would determine how large your ROI is going to be, and if we can actually talk about getting rich through it.

So, let's say BTC pumps 500% from its bear market low to its peak all time high, and since it is a cyclical network, that would take ~ 4 years. Now someone who invested $50m and another who bought for $500 in the bear low would both see their portfolio rise at the same %, but there is a huge gap in their returns in $.

This is far more relevant in the real world. In Ethereum/Tron, once an address is blacklisted, all the funds in that address are frozen, including legitimate funds sitting alongside illicit ones.

With UTXO level blacklisting, only the blacklisted UTXO is frozen while other legitimate funds in the wallet continue to operate as normal. This is a significant reduction in collateral damage even though Tether still has the ultimate power to blacklist a UTXO if they choose to.


I think its still an improvement though. Its still possible in theory but the cost of implementing it increases significantly. Instead of Tether just being able to freeze an address, they'd have to blacklist all of the outputs that could be associated with said bad actor. Which could get annoying when coin selection is taken into account.

Its an increased burden on them. Its not as simple as flipping one flag like it would be with an account based system.

I thought with how RGB works and the UTXO, technically the flagged USDT can still move freely? I hope I'm wrong but if somehow that's true and unlike blacklist on Ethereum and Tron where the USDT can't move, it's going to be another big problem for ordinary people who can easily get scammed with UTXO blacklisted USDT that no exchange going to accept.

It does feels like lesser evil to some extent, we're getting more private transactions and not complete freeze of USDT but the token still useless regardless if blacklisted.

Yeah that's my point. If you stick with the right strategy and perfect timing in the market, you will definitely maximize your profits and end up getting rich. It isn't a matter of who's early to invest and who's not, but if you know how to adopt the mindset of those whales, and be those diamond hands in the crypto market, the chances of getting rich is undeniably.

The KYC verification for exchanges is still so relaxed unlike casino. Most of the crypto exchanges I have used to move thousands of funds have never asked me for anything beyond level 2 verification (national ID and liveness check)

Money laundering is still pretty easy to pull of in a exchange even if you had to force the traders to at least make 1x trade. What would make it header is proof of source of funds for every incoming transaction before the account is credited.

It could be that the exchange in the future will apply strict rules, with the 1x requirement it is easy for them, just trade back and forth BTC to USDT to USDC it already meets the 1x requirement.

Isn't an exchange with a withdrawal above $100,000 required to pass KYC level 3?
KYC 1-basic information.
KYC 2-identity document
KYC 3-information about the source of funds and bills of the previous 6 months.

I do not know if the hackers have already gone through that with their Kucoin accounts? If suppose the Kucoin account that is bought normally has passed all of it, because in any black market there is what we need.

Look at this there's a site points out on which people could buy Kucoin verified accounts https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/top-7-site-to-buy-verified-kucoin-accounts-fully-verified-active-accounts/289274275#google_vignette

Also I'm surprised that they even reach on daily motion posting this type of services https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbdukvu

So its not surprising to see that their site is been widely used for such act. Because there are sites or people like them sold verified accounts.

Kucoin should act on this, because if more incident like this will happen. Maybe they might face another legal consequences with this situation.

They already closed down eXch for this.

It was wrong to close them, obviously, but the pressure from big exchanges to claw losses "back" from the small ones is unreal.


There are many poor people in the world, it's not too difficult for hackers to purchase their KYC from them for like $1000 or something and build an army of fake personas like that.

Imagine if this behavior were carried out by a NoKYC service. We've all heard about the importance of KYC and how it reduces fraud.

I don't think so. It's unusual for over $20,000 in deposits to pass through an account without a flag being activated that requests further information from the user. And assuming the platform allows such deposits, withdrawing over $100,000 without requesting further verification is extremely strange.

I think they already knew it was an easy route for them, based on past events. It is not a matter of confident; the hackers have absolutely no concerns. They face no risk of their true identities being exposed, and it isn't their own money.

We will likely see them implement stricter withdrawal policies for example, requiring manual review for amounts exceeding $100k. hahaa

If they do use bought accounts/KYC, I can imagine that KuCoin is slow on taking down these fake accounts compared to other exchanges, or that the number of accounts they can use is larger compared to other platforms. Things will be very messy if they stole accounts from legitimate users though. I can't imagine the stress because some scammers use your ID. Not like it's the first time something like this happened anyway. What they need to do is improve their security if they really put customer interest first tbh, but we know that's probably not the case.

The percentage of increase in inflation is very high as compared to the percentage of increase in salaries of an average class in a every society. Specifically I am talking about third world countries and developing countries and due to this reason the purchasing power has gone down.
Despite increase in salaries the lifestyles remain more or less same throughout years.

If you cut your purchases than you might save some money but still that will not change your lifestyle. To overcome this issue, you should think of having more than one income options so that you can meet your expenses easily and save some.

This is why despite of being aware that local casinos exist and actually trying a couple of them, I can't help sometimes but think that crypto casinos may still be better in terms of fairness. This is not only because they have a provably fair system, since I am only playing a slot game from a 3rd party provider. The only reason I stay at local casinos is because they don't have a deposit and withdrawal fee. Minimum for them is also low. It is a big thing as a small player. No worries as I am immune in the big prize issue, as a small player . 

But, they say that PH main lottery game is shady too. Although again, the issue must only be for the ultimate prize. There are crypto lottery in our forum I see and some of them seems legit like L0tt0.com. It may be a good idea if they can just transfer there if they want to try and win huge amounts of money, as someone that is a huge bettor.

It does now. I'd missed it, and it's a better entry than most because it came with a mechanism instead of just a mood: price falls, miners quit, blocks slow, panic, price falls further. So it can be checked against the time it was actually tested, which wasn't the 2018 bear market. It was summer 2021, when the China ban took roughly half the hash rate off the network in a few weeks. Blocks slowed, difficulty dropped by the largest amount in its history, and that was the end of it. Your framing works and I'll use it. Thanks for digging out the Spiegel column too. Even if it isn't the one you remembered, Hashgraph in the headline next to Bitcoin in 2017 does the job.

He should have had one from the start, since the rat poison line was his before it was Buffett's. Munger gets his own run of dated quotes next to Buffett's, and the two you gave with the CNBC and meeting links are the core of it. One note on how he'll be filed: "disgusting" and "contrary to the interests of civilization" are opinions, so the chapter reports them without scoring them. "Very likely to go to zero" is a prediction and gets treated as one. No rush on Medalla, and thanks for looking.

That's an important correction and I'll write it that way. The claim the chapter can support is the narrow one: when the bank accounts were frozen, the donations kept moving. It won't say bitcoin won the protest or reversed the ban.

This needs to be in there too, and thank you for saying it. A list like this can make it sound as if every ban ended the way Nigeria's did. Some haven't ended. The chapter will say plainly that "governments will ban it" was wrong about bitcoin stopping and right about plenty of people still not being allowed to use it.

Agreed on both counts, it's partly right, and there's a source older than 2010. The very first reply Satoshi got when he posted the whitepaper to the cryptography list in November 2008 was James A. Donald saying that it didn't seem to scale to the required size. So the scaling objection is as old as Bitcoin, and the base layer still doesn't handle everyday payments on its own. That goes in the partly right section with Lightning as what happened next.

I don't know that one. Do you have the link or the year? If it's Reuters and it's early I'd like it.

"It's manipulated" will be its own label. The dated version is Roubini in December 2020, saying the price was totally manipulated by a bunch of whales.

Yes that true. It's a nice initiative from the government that will serve as a  strong deterrent to the affected casinos and also make the others to seat up and learn to value human safety. That was a great move, Just hope other countries learn from this.

It would be a nice idea also, but I doubt if they will comply with it since they've already spend a lot already. Perhaps, if only the government pay more attention to that angle who are they to say no.

Most gambling sites have 1x wagering requirementsm, but only few gambling site may have higher or lower than 1x. I think the 1x wagering is not bad, but I do not think it is necessary if the gambling site is KYC.

I think Duelbits requires KYC which can make the wagering requirements lower. KYC discourage people that launder money than the 1x requirement, although there is still possibility of fake KYC.

Exactly what I had in mind, because I trust my own country people, if they don't want to pay you it's best you accept or make them atleast pa you some money and move on or else? I doubt you will enjoy the money.

With the way I see gambling money I don't think that I will want to claim massive amount of money like this, yes unless they paid me themselves after I planned to withdraw without any trouble.

Even if you win the case and make them pay, trust me, you aren't escaping for long, it can take years to get back at you even if you run from that country and go to another unless they are all good people.

In a world where almost anyones silence can be bought, I don't expect much from those who are supposed to stand up for others in situations like this. It seems easier to buy the silence of people in power than to do the right thing. And in the end, the cycle never really ends. They will probably do the same thing again when someone else wins like this, only to tell them that it was a system glitch. Gambling platforms are becoming too comfortable with doing things as they please and making players feel helpless. I mean, what can you really do when the odds are already against you?

These two belong together and I had neither. "Obsolete" gets its own entry, and so does "blockchain, not Bitcoin," with Jack Ma in 2018 and the NYT piece as the receipts. They're also the easiest kind to check, since a prediction that something will be overtaken within a few years comes with its own deadline. d5000, if the Sascha Lobo article ever turns up I'd like it, a well-informed tech writer picking Hashgraph in 2017 is a better example than another columnist who never looked.

That's the dated source the greater fool entry was missing. Somebody on the Reddit thread raised the label yesterday but with no name attached. Gates, CNBC, 7 May 2018, two days after Buffett's rat poison line at the same Berkshire weekend. If you can find the Medalla interview I'll add him too, a central bank governor saying it is worth more than another investor saying it.

Agreed, and he's moving. January 14, 2016, at about $430. He won't sit with the columnists. The chapter has a second half for claims tied to a specific event, "it can't come back from this," and Hearn goes there under the block size fight, because he wasn't wrong that there was a real problem. He was wrong that it couldn't be resolved. We covered how it was in the block size war chapter.

Good one, and it goes in the same section as Hearn. It's also the right shape for the list because the danger was real, one pool did touch a majority, and what fixed it was miners leaving. I'll check the Guardian and Bloomberg pieces against the dates you gave before they go in.

It's on the list as "boiling the oceans," with the Newsweek headline from December 2017 that had mining using all the world's energy by 2020. But d5000's split is the right way to write the entry and I'm going to use it. The general criticism is partly true and our energy chapter says so. The Greenpeace campaign is the version that was wrong, because it asked for a change that would have removed the thing the energy is buying.

He goes in with Dimon under people who reversed, with the two dates and the two quotes and no commentary. Whether any of them changed their minds or just their interests isn't something the chapter can know.

Schiff gets the same treatment as Buffett, a run of dated quotes rather than one line, because he's been at it longer than anyone. What I'm short of is the early ones. If anybody has a Schiff call from 2013 or 2014 with a link, that's what I need.

Yes, and that's a fair correction to how I wrote the first post. "Never usable for a coffee" was a reasonable thing to say in 2015. Every entry will carry its date and say what kind of claim it was, so something that was true when it was said doesn't get scored the same as a prediction that missed.

That one is small but it's probably the most common of all of them, and nobody famous said it so it never makes these lists. It'll get a line, pointing at the units chapter.

Thank you, I'll go through all of them, the Thai honey thread especially. uchegod-21, the tax evasion one is covered by a Roubini quote from 2018 that aoluain supplied, the "next Swiss bank account" line.

Same offer as before to everyone quoted here: credit by handle in the chapter unless you'd rather not.

This has turned into a very informative thread, thank you all and keep it coming!!!

Taking the settlement is the wise thing to do now that we have the most corrupt leaders of all time therefore all government agencies including PAGCOR will surely full of corruption and bribing that’s why casino like this can blatantly scam by luring gambler on huge jackpot then resort to technical glitch to getaway with the payment responsibility.

I doubt any lawyer can manage to beat the casino if the judges on the court and PAGCOR can be bribe using part of the prize money. 

This is why I rarely play on our local casino ever since deep corruption was exposed.

Same here as well. I think it is becoming a more global problem. I agree that regular pay rises alone do not guarantee financial progress. Unless there are drastic changes, we will simply remain at the same level. As the OP said, the price of everything is rising. Furthermore, various new expenses arise as we progress through life. This actually makes one think that even maintaining the same financial level is an achievement in itself. To achieve financial progress, we need to generate new sources of income or take significant risks to grow our investments, but this isn’t always the right approach. We now have expenses that we wouldn’t have even imagined 20 or 30 years ago. New things will continue to emerge in the future, bringing with them new expenses. So, I believe that whilst simply maintaining one’s financial standing and lifestyle is an achievement in itself these days, improving upon them – and indeed achieving financial freedom – are extraordinary achievements. Life is unexpected and stability and peace are key things we took for granted.

"Software glitch" has always been the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card when a payout hurts too much. If a system bug eats a player's balance, it's just bad luck, but the moment a multi-million dollar jackpot hits, the RNG was suddenly "malfunctioning."
When the cost of dragging it out in court or settling with local regulators is a tiny fraction of the $6M payout, the operator will choose the legal fight every single time.

I totally agree with your observation or opinion.

Honestly, I don't trust the local casinos in PH especially if you win big, you will just end up a loser, the most possible way to get paid if you win big is if you win in the Philippine lottery. however, if it's rigged you can still not win, those who win are their people so it's the syndicate running it, we are fooled every day of our lives.

PH casinos ❌
bitcointalk/overseas casinos.  ✅

Or the prize claimed would be similarly be lowered or got offered of a smaller claim just like what happened in the past. What you saif is right, the NBI is probably on their payroll and will clean this issue as usual.

That depends on users if they will still used the platform inspite of this issue. Sometimes the people are stubborn to keep on going while they already see that theres no winner on these platform but all losers.

Exactly. Only in the Philippines kek! So hard to love our country when your people is the one letting you suffer. At least P10m would make the guy happy if they will counter offer the law suit but Im wishing this one will be settled and winner claimed it. Will President help ouy of it for the sake of fairness? I doubt it. But if its Duterte, probably he will forced this company or he will shut it down otherwise.

Yep because those were ''restricted exchanges'' and this one is the first of its kind, a ''restricted counterparty list'', which contains not only exchanges, but private equities, custodial wallets, political and military parties, as well as wallets associated with certain darknet merchants and hacker groups.

In a sense it's not so grounbreaking as one has had to be extremely aware of what addresses they deposit on a CEX from for years now and the names in the list are mostly well known, except for smaller private equities but in case of those, the people associated with them must be well aware of the sanctions against them.

Probably the only one I was surpised and upset to see is ''Freekassa''. It is a payment service associated with a few digital goods marketplaces (i.e. possibly the largest is https://plati.market/) where you can pay with crypto.

Anyway, it's been clear that if you want to interact with the large CEX platforms you better to keep the wallet you interact from as sterile as possible. After all, it's not possible to keep track of everything that gets ''sanctioned'' these days. And you never know which CEX will get draconian about this stuff out of sudden.

It looks like they have published a list a few days ago[1]. I'm not sure what did it contain before this, but it looks like it has much more than what Kucoin and Binance has published so for anyone using the exchange, it's definitely worth looking into.

[1] https://www.bybit.com/en/legal/additional-terms-and-disclosures/Restricted-Counterparty-List