Yeah, this is not bad as those exploits that we read almost every day with tons of money that are lost. Besides, stablecoins were still a crypto and the other crypto may still benefit on them even if not totally direct. The facts that you spit there about stable coins were true but when it comes to larger amounts, we may get questioned too and potentially hold the transaction. So for this one, a lot of also prefers Bitcoin.

This is what I am talking about but freedom is also about convenience I believe. Bitcoin is decentralized but I remember now that there were also some decentralized stablecoins. Then there should be decentralized and more private alts or tokens on the side, if they still have a reason to not use bitcoin.

You are speaking very realistically. In fact, gamblers see profit in the end. Because if they do not make a profit after gambling regularly, they feel upset mentally. Since I myself bet for entertainment with a small amount, then if I lose regularly and notice that I do not make a profit at the end of the week, then I also feel bad. And those who bet with a very large amount, if they do not see a profit, their mental state becomes bad. Therefore, it does not matter how many matches they win or lose, but if they do not make a profit at the end of the day, it really has an effect in real life. I have noticed that many gamblers are losing consistently, but they are hoping for a big jackpot where they will get all the money they lost at once and will be in a profitable state.

But the question is, are many people really aware of what they are doing?

I mean, some are just running a business and putting in capital without even looking at the financial statement.

Many gamblers think like that too, and their way to justify it is, why would I check? I am just doing it for fun.

Business means being serious.
Gambling means fun.

That should (is) be their mindset.

But is this "safe bet" a real thing? ( considering you did all what you said).

Backing Fiat with Bitcoin has been an idea proposed by some governments for a while now. But for many economic experts, this would become an impossibility. Because there are only 21m BTC in existence, while Fiat's supply is much larger. For instance, the US has a $36T national debt, which greatly surpasses the current market cap of Bitcoin. Backing the USD completely with BTC seems nothing but impossible.

Instead of backing Fiat with BTC, the ideal solution would be to replace Fiat entirely with BTC. Like people relying on Bitcoin as a standard unit of account. But again, governments will never allow this to happen. At least, it's better to have something than nothing.

it is in fact a dangerous analogy to use especially for leaders who are leading people to think this way. What one will be saying if it means that for every good thing that will happen, a bad would have happened or experienced. It is an excuse tl breed corruption, maladministration and all forms of bad governance and that's why I would totally frown against it in all ramifications. Meaning everybody who is enjoying now actually passed through some evil experiences and all who are facing troubles to say they must enjoy? Life on this earth is not a script, neither is it some piece of words written on paper. It is dynamic and works how it has been written or designed to work by its creator so any thing can happen to anybody anyhow God wants it to, more reason why you've been advised on several times not to envy one and the other because it will never change anybody destiny in life.

I'm honestly not sure what to expect from this fight.  Obviously if Eddie Hall catches Tommy Fury with a big shot it is over right then and there.  Eddie Fury is pretty slow though.  In any other type of fight I think he wins easily but I'm not sure if he'll actually be able to land shots on Tommy.  I think this one will either go very quickly with Eddie getting a KO, or it will be a long painful fight to watch with Tommy winning by decision.

He will used a lot of energy early if that punch doesn't hit the target. Below is the video of the final face-off,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBpsCVv4JVQ

We can see the different in weight and height. But it looks like Fury might have gain some weight as well. Eddie Hall is a boxer, he might be big, but it can work at a disadvantage in boxing as he needs to carry that big weight all throughout and it looks like he doesn't have that cardio to last at least 2-3 rounds.

There is surely an overriding factor on why they decide to do that (sold early than expected) and I think it was mostly those negative factors you listed there. If not, then the case can be rare because we might have save enough money outside and the only reason for us to sell is if our money outside is still not enough to pay for something.

In a long-term investment, an investor can also liquidate their assets once it has matured already even if they don't need the money yet because they might miss the opportunity and then it does not make sense to just invest forever and not selling. There are still some factors that you said there that is not bad but it is only about preference and then nothing is perfect even though some already did their best.

how would you prevent the scammer from reclaiming their own escrow fund via fake victims and fake valid letter of guarantee ?

You're right about that. The core Blockchain network can't function as everyday money. That's why sidechains and L2s were invented. To help solve the "scaling problem". I mean, they're not perfect, but they at least do the job when it comes to making payments at a fraction of the cost. It's what some merchants and businesses are doing these days. Accepting BTC payments on the Lightning Network. Exchanges are also getting on-board.

If we combine multiple scaling solutions, Bitcoin can achieve the capacity to replace the existing financial system. It's just that governments won't allow something as decentralized as Bitcoin to take over the economy. The world is and will always be dependable on Fiat as the standard unit of account. I'm fine with that as long as Bitcoin stays true to its roots of decentralization and censorship-resistance.

Makes sense.

This theory of yours is perfect for betting just for fun or as a hobby, there is no loss. But if you really want to earn a lot of money in your pocket by playing this casino game seriously then keeping CLV and all the other metrics in mind will make a big difference. Expected Value is one of them.

In my personal betting life, I track both win/loss and closing line value. It support me stay honest about whether my estimation is really suitable or if I am merely conveying lucky. So, I have been keeping a close eye on whether I am beating the closing line over time and I am improving my results a lot.

On the moment that you are really that serious on tracking out on how much you are winning or losing, it doesnt mean that you are already addicted or someone whose really  that aiming for making income with gambling. There are really just that those people who are really want to tracking anything and thats not a bad thing and rather this is recommended because you would really be t hat wary on how much you are losing and winning or simply this is that part of risks management on which considering that we are dealing up with gambling then loses are inevitable. This is why its really that best that you should be wary about on how much you are spending with gambling and thats the best on having the tracking so that you would be ableto stop when you do saw yourself spending up that much or you wouldnt care up that much since you are still on the safe side?. It will really be that up to you on how you would be handling up your finances specially on dealing up with gambling.

Agreed. Whales manipulate noise, but our emotional reaction validates it. Self-control is the only true edge in this market.

Very interesting. I scanned the thread for the word "money" and none of you refer to bitcoin as money. The only times you all refer to money is when talking about fiat.


Most importantly, Bitcoin is money.
It's not censorship resistant dickbutt.jpeg.
It's not seizure-proof fake pubkets.
It's not borderless runes or rare sats.

You people can not understand the problem because you are the problem.

Guess what? The world doesn't have a borderless dickbutt.jpeg problem. The government is not after your stupid Bitcoin stamps.
If you don't honor bitcoin as money, all your retarded shitcoinery will kill bitcoin along with your useless rare sats.

I agree. Governments can regulate exchanges and businesses, but they can't change how Bitcoin itself works. The network doesn't care about borders or politics, and that's one of its biggest strengths.

You don't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. Most users wouldn't notice any difference at all. Your keys would still work, as would all of the tools you use. The blocks would be copied. The only thing that matters is the set of servers that the tools point at, and when ever major tool like the brokers, the wallets, and ETFs and the major holders all point at the US government-approve network, then most people won't even know anything changed, and they wouldn't care.

Meanwhile, the original network would be declared illegal, and anybody who offered a tool that pointed at and still called their product, "Bitcoin" would be prosecuted in the same way that they would if somebody created their own fork and called it "Bitcoin".


These companies would be faced with losing all of their money or simply complying with the new law. It's obvious what choice they would make.



Of course they wouldn't leave "Bitcoin". They would leave the now-illegal thing that can no longer be called "Bitcoin".

They would choose the network where their coins were the most valuable.

One network would have the major holders, the US president, Elon Musk, Michael Saylor, CoinBase, Binance, Robinhood, Blackrock, all of the ETFs, and basically the entire US financial system there to help keep it trading and valuable.

The old fork would have... a bunch of pissed off Bitcoin hardcores who only cared about the religion and not the money.

In other words, 99% of the money would be on the US government fork. Duh.


Um, self-custody does not protect you from a government anymore than hiding a stolen car in your garage or gold coins in your basement does.

Also, believe it or not, ~99% of Bitcoin is probably not used for criminality and tax evasion, it's simply an investment for most people.

Besides, people who want to do criminal stuff and keep their money from the government use Monero these days. Bitcoin is an open ledger and traceable--sorta lousy for doing crime.


In another thread, we discussed how the Bitcoin network could be scaled to handle everyday payments, which would make it much more useful, and probably much more valuable--but it would require dropping PoW and making the architecture much more centralized.

Anyhow, that wasn't the point of the OP. The point was that it's not "impossible" that Bitcoin be taken over by the US government. In fact, it's already been heavily regulated, and taking over the network itself would be trivial since it's the US government that enforces the trademark, "Bitcoin".



"Denounce"? They would be improving Bitcoin, at least in their own opinion.



So they wouldn't do that.


So what. Almost all of the market cap from Bitcoin comes from the US financial system. And they don't need to own it all in order to effectively blackmail everybody else into accepting their fork.


Why would China or Russia care what the US did with Bitcoin? Especially if their own holdings were perfectly safe and still tradable? If the Russian government hated it, they could just sell their Bitcoin and buy some other crypto, or gold, or whatever.

I know y'all love The Bitcoin Religion a lot, but nobody is going to go to war over it .




Gee I hadn't noticed .


That's a very good argument for why the US government would not want to do this. But that's not the point of the OP. The point was that the US absolutely could do this if they wanted to.

And that means that Bitcoin is absolutely not impervious to government control like the hardcores keep saying it is.

The US government hasn't taken over the Bitcoin network because they don't feel like it, not because it's impossible.




A Bitcoin fork using the same chain data could create a fully compatible product that would preserve everybody's coins. There have already been many projects that do this. They aren't called "Bitcoin" like the US government's would be called, but they work exactly like Bitcoin, including using the same blockchain.


The OP is not asking why they would do it, only pointing out that's its entirely possible and not even that hard for them to do. So please stop saying, "Bitcoin cannot be taken over by governments" when it absolutely can be.



No, they wouldn't have. Bitcoin has been defacto legal for at least 10 years now. There are gigantic public companies who own Bitcoin, as does the president of the United States. The reason the US government hasn't taken over the Bitcoin network is because they haven't found a reason to do so. But they easily could.






Insofar as "nobody" owns the trademark "Bitcoin", then it's a public thing, and therefore governments will define it. Today, if you came out with a fork and called it "Bitcoin" and it didn't use the network they think it should use (e.g. the one everybody uses right now for instance), then the US government would prosecute. But that definition is completely up to the US government since there is no original owner. If Bitcoin is not a trademark, then the problem is still there: the US Congress needs to define "what is Bitcoin" in order to defend against fraud. Today that definition is implicit, but it could be made explicit, and it could be anything they choose it to be, and they could change it over time as well.

Anyone who took gambling as a source of income are the people who could likely be tracking their records while gambling, it is actually good so that it wouldn’t make you gamble irresponsibly. But the important thing there is gambling for fun and maybe you don’t have something else to do at the moment one could used that to spare their time. And yes you are right, if someone places their bet on time there is higher tendency for them to have big odds and if someone places bet just few minutes to when the game starts you would see them having smaller odds unlike the first person who placed their earlier.

There is so much information around that one shouldn't make decisions without accessing them. A simple search using artificial intelligence tools would offer comprehensive information about an investment. I still wonder why people still fall victim to scams and other failed investments when they should just do their research.

We can get an idea about an investment from friends and family members, but we have the responsibility to research it.

We discussed this in another thread. Many people think the price of BTC would go down, but others think it might go up since it would have so much more utility.


Did you know that the trademark for the name "Bitcoin" and the Bitcoin symbol are protected by... the US government? That means the US government decides who can and cannot use that name to describe their fork. That doesn't sound very "impossible" to me...


LOL, Apple and every large company is in constant legal battles. That's part of being a large company. That's why they spend $billions in political contributions.


Sure, you can do whatever you want with your fork. If you call it "Bitcoin" then you'll be prosecuted by the US or its allies who join the pact (and why wouldn't they?). It would be no different than if you created a fork today and called it "Bitcoin" and used the BTC symbol to describe it.



You have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell you what: fork the Bitcoin codebase in Github and create your own coin, and call it "Bitcoin" and use the BTC symbol when you market it. Let us all know how that goes for you   .


The US doesn't own everything, but they certainly own most of Bitcoin. I'm not talking about football or Champagne here. I'm talking about an industry that lives mostly in the USA--and that's more than enough to blackmail the market into following whatever they do.


Correct: The $1 trillion+ in tradable value is Bitcoin.

Imagine somebody whose life savings is in BTC: all they are going to care about is that their investment is safe.

For almost all holders of BTC, Bitcoin is an investment. The value of that investment is based on a market price. Any entity that can massively control that market price--which the US government absolutely can do--can control almost all holders of BTC's actions insofar as they care about their money.

If you want to debate what the 0.00002% of humans who don't care about money would do, be my guest  .


Sure, and Coca Cola started off as cold medicine. Strategy used to be a software company that did web log analysis.

Things evolved into something entirely different sometimes. Bitcoin has already changed a lot since it started, and can change a lot more. (And it's actually none of those things you mentioned anymore, really, except for "borderless").


The US government determines who to send to jail who uses the word, "Bitcoin" and the BTC symbol to describe their product. Therefore if the US Congress passed a law that dubbed a certain codebase was the only thing that could be called, "Bitcoin", then it would be called Bitcoin and nothing else legally could be. Every broker, app, financial institution, Michael Saylor, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, all of the ETFs, and realistically almost every single holder of BTC would switch to the fork that was legal and wouldn't dare touch a fork that was declared illegal.

Yes, nothing will physically stop people from protesting what the US government did, and they could use the old fork, but they would be irrelevant, money-wise.

Wealthy does it because they increase the price of their own products as well. The guy who builds a toy, still gets a salary, so if he is making 1000 dollars a month, he still makes 1000 dollars a month, and most likely they will be getting once a year increase in salary.

The guy who owns that factory that makes the toys, could be selling it for 100 dollars, then to 110, then to 120, as you can see, same period, the owner made 20% more, while the salary worker is still making the same.

It's not unintentional, it's actually called the Cantillon effect, you might wanna search and read about it but basically means that those close to the money printer benefit the most from it. So, when inflation is created those closest to the money supply can borrow at low interest rates and invest in assets, whilst everyone else – mainly workers – first face rising prices and then, if they’re lucky, a pay rise, but this always comes later and is often lower than the actual rate of inflation.


That the majority of the population is becoming poorer.