What do you mean by "there's actually no such thing as input in the Bitcoin blockchain"?
Every non-coinbase bitcoin transaction has inputs, and even Satoshi has used the word "input" in Bitcoin whitepaper.

Inputs: 0.4 BTC+0.6 BTC=1 BTC
Output to recipient : 0.8 BTC
Change back to you : 0.199 BTC

By the way, it's here on the forum that I learned several years ago that there's actually no such thing as input in the Bitcoin blockchain. There are only outputs.

[What I was driving at is that they're different factors that would affect one's transaction fees. The number of outputs is one factor. The address format is another factor. Both of them affect the transaction size differently.

This Bitcoin transaction size calculator with an option to choose different transaction types, numbers of inputs and outputs, and a given table with details of size from inputs, outputs and the transaction is very helpful.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/tools/calc-size/

I see the calculator from Bitcoinops.org is more helpful than the one from Jameson Lopp.

I'm not necessarily saying whales exist because of retail investors, but they're certainly making it easier for these whales to play the game. If retail investors develop strong hands, whales would still be around, but they'd need a much bigger capital to be influential in the market. They'd have stacked more expensive coins rather than highly discounted ones.

Yeah, I guess the weakest retail investors are the newest in the market. They're the ones who are easily affected by Bitcoin's volatility, for example. They're the ones who react easily.

Surely, we can't just guess how the casino would decide your case. Since you already communicated with their customer service, didn't you ask him/her the same question? Did you not ask him/her whether it's possible to have it credited to your balance, and if it is what you need to do?

Unfortunately, it seems it's mainly the retail investors that are feeding these whales. They're the ones who are easily affected by the ups and downs of the price. They're the ones who easily get emotional. They're the ones who can easily be manipulated by these whales.

It's most likely that the whales themselves are the ones who usually initiate a correction. Retail investors react out of fear and panic. The whales enjoy the food, coins at a bargain price. The price rebounds, retail investors react again out of FOMO, and the whales are locking in their profits.

And the cycle continues.

Funny as it may sound, I have never seen a report before from casino regulators addressing an issue that they must have discovered about a casino and give a heads up so that players can stop using that casino.

It left me with the question of whether the regulators do not bother to regularly audit a casino that they have licenced to check if those casinos are still abiding to the right policies and are not cheating players. If actually there's a regular regulatory audit on these licensed casino, they regulators can be the ones to detect it and warn players against using the casino, but I don't think they do it.

If there was a case of regulators prosecuting a casino for manipulating a game results, I have not seen one, maybe someone can show me a case like that if they have seen one.

Other than the transaction size, another factor that would affect your fees is the address format.

I guess the bigger responsibility is on regulators, on the agencies that issued the licenses. Do they even function? Do they conduct regular audit? Do they strictly implement policies that protect consumers? Do they prosecute or penalize cheating casinos? I guess they don't.

With the exchanges mentioned, I'm afraid "the most private routes" aren't private at all, "KYC: None" isn't none at all, and "NEVER" isn't never at all.

Although you mentioned about exchange partners not requiring KYC when dealing with consumers via Privata, if they're truly compliant with KYC regulations, I doubt that's a legally valid exception.

And since funds don't go through your wallet, what happens when a partner exchange freezes the funds for being flagged as having potential link to a crime? Would you just refund it right away? Or would the customer wait while you challenge your partner's decision based on your agreement, which I believe won't stand against an FBI order, for example?


Or only somewhere in the middle because they also partner with a provider that doesn't provide its own liquidity as well.

It's, therefore, possible that a user would be bound by the terms and conditions of 3 different platforms, with the addition of the hidden agreements between them.

Verification would only guarantee the player that the result of, say, a roll of a dice was already decided before the bet was placed, meaning that it isn't changed based on his/her pick or the amount of his/her bet. However, whether the roll was indeed 50:50 can't be proven by it.

I guess the bigger responsibility is on regulators, on the agencies that issued the licenses. Do they even function? Do they conduct regular audit? Do they strictly implement policies that protect consumers? Do they prosecute or penalize cheating casinos? I guess they don't.

Not everybody has gotten back their payment from these mistakes. Not everybody got compensated. Also, you also took out the ones that the exchange froze their account and seized their assets. I understand what you're trying to say, but this point doesn't mean anything.

While you encourage people to try investing in other things other than Bitcoin it is important they also have the knowledge of that they intend to invest into instead of choosing that part due to the things they heard from people and the media. If you are very familiar with Bitcoin your focus should be more on Bitcoin investment but if you think you can go into different sectors like you mentioned be ready to face the risk that comes from those other investments.  Some people are familiar with the best altcoins to go into it should be a thing of choice, if they have knowledge of it they should go ahead but they should be ready to face the risk involved too.

What I'm saying, however, is that Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, FTX, Bybit, and others have committed mistakes, lost funds, even crumbled down completely. Their users got their money back, or have received compensation, fully or in part, albeit late in some instances.

When one who is into self-custody commits a mistake and lost funds, not a tiny fraction of it will be returned to him/her.

What I'm saying, however, is that Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, FTX, Bybit, and others have committed mistakes, lost funds, even crumbled down completely. Their users got their money back, or have received compensation, fully or in part, albeit late in some instances.

When one who is into self-custody commits a mistake and lost funds, not a tiny fraction of it will be returned to him/her.

I'm not a fan of centralized exchanges. I'm simply stating facts.

Here comes another aggregator which takes pride in not holding users' funds, not requiring KYC, not requiring accounts. Why, of course, you're just an aggregator, a next to useless third party. Duh. What right do you have otherwise?

And you're funny you call yourself Privata and talks of privacy over and over again when you only onboard providers that:

• "publishes an AML, KYC and sanctions policy that is consistent with FATF Recommendations..."
• "performs on-chain transaction monitoring (Know-Your-Transaction / KYT)..."
• "screens counterparty wallets against the UN, EU, UK and US (OFAC) consolidated sanctions lists..."
• "operates suspicious-activity escalation, fund-freeze and law-enforcement cooperation procedures..."

I think that the main purpose of FlightAware lawsuit was that kalshi, was making money from their information online and they are not getting anything from it, they put all the effort to gather flight data and another company is using it for free to make money. If kalshi was using their brand name to show results of flight data they should take permission from them but I don't know if kalshi was just using only their flight information. If kalshi was only using FlightAware public information I guess they had to prove why kalshi must withdraw from using a public information for their brand. Anyway I'm glad that FlightAware has dropped the lawsuit, I guess they have reached an out if court settlement.

I don't think FlightAware was acting "truly foolishly". This was perhaps a kind of a final resort after their repeated warnings fell on deaf ears.

And while the specific markets which dragged their brand name didn't make much money, I guess the way it was used could be considered commercial purposes. Kalshi wasn't just reporting or citing data; they were selling contracts that would be settled by the official information released by FlightAware. At the very least, they should've informed FlightAware that their brand and information would be used for settling bets.

The fact that Kalshi removed FlightAware's name from their site right away is obviously an admission that they were the ones acting "truly foolishly".

But even if it's legit, in the event that they won't pay you your winnings, would you take them to court? I doubt. So, I guess reputation and track record remains the topmost basis.

Same here.

What I'm saying, however, is that Mt. Gox, Bitfinex, FTX, Bybit, and others have committed mistakes, lost funds, even crumbled down completely. Their users got their money back, or have received compensation, fully or in part, albeit late in some instances.

When one who is into self-custody commits a mistake and lost funds, not a tiny fraction of it will be returned to him/her.

I'm not a fan of centralized exchanges. I'm simply stating facts.

Since the beginning till now casinos is a place where people actually use bitcoin for the payment purpose and no one can deny the part of gambling with the adoption of bitcoin itself. But we are drifting far from that, casinos choose to hold their reserves in stable coins over bitcoin and I even read some casinos don't have bitcoin deposits while having USDT and other altcoins.

It's already a part of it, the huge contribution that gambling itself for bitcoin was noticeable for the past years. It's one of the first industries where bitcoin has been utilized.

Most of casino won't provably want to lock up their profit on Bitcoin reserves.

That's a decision that's up to casinos to make. But I doubt many crypto casinos are capable of establishing such kind of reserve.

Besides, I don't think they'd prefer the passive increase of fiat value of their Bitcoin over the active revenue flow they could get from a crypto-centered business. The former would mean money not rolled into another productive cycle.

Although there might be some crypto casinos that are making huge profits, I doubt if they're willing to convert their surplus into Bitcoin just to be hodled. Most likely, what they keep inactive are funds that could be needed anytime.

True, but neither are funds stored in centralized exchanges insured. The exchange can make a mistake that would cost their customers and they end up getting nothing. If people actually want their funds insured up to a certain amount, then they should keep them in fiat and store it in the bank. To be honest, i would rather leave my funds in fiat and keep it in the bank, than buy crypto and store it in an exchange.

One false move could mean your funds are gone. And your funds aren't insured while in self-custody.