I think it's the right choice. Instead of choosing one, I prefer both. Stocks can provide more stable returns, but Bitcoin is the future, and I think it can generate greater profits. I own several stocks, and honestly, I like the dividends they offer, but as I said, dividends can't provide the same returns as Bitcoin. If you were to ask me which I prefer, my answer would definitely be Bitcoin. Despite its sharp decline to below $80,000, I believe Bitcoin still has greater potential in the future.

I think it is a strategic choice to allow and legalize certain activities that were once considered illegal in order to boost economic and financial conditions of a country.

Like what you mentioned OP, the best example here would be Russia allowing gambling to be played inside their country. This would not only entail a guarantee of revenue on their part but also ensure that the welfare and interest of its citizens are met.

We all know the devastating effects of war- death, poverty, and destruction. Allowing gambling to be utilized as a means of earning revenue for its country can be beneficial to both their country and the welfare of its citizens.


I definitely agree with you.

Even if some activities are considered illegal, you cannot absolutely prohibit its utilization in a given country. I do agree that taxing it would be the less means of damage that would be beneficial to both parties concerned here.

Its wrong, which you pointed it out but that doesn't mean other people will give it a try because what work or profit others, might profit the other person, as it might turn out to be a huge mistakes that can cause damage to their achievements or plans.
That is why its good to know the difference between recklessness and risk, as it will help one to know the right to do at the right time. Which is why understanding and knowledge is important and it play a crucial role in their investment and also to minimize the loses in the future.

Your "solution" goes in the wrong direction: the right solution would be if ads stop being misleading

Being honest would force them to stop doing questionable things.

The service in question has not yet been verified. When you mark only verified services, it does not show up in the listings.

Secondly, the whole point of the comment/review section is for one to be able to read about user experiences with the service. On seeing such comments made there, they would have to proceed with caution when trying to use the service.

I am certain once the KYC claims are verified, the score will be updated, as it has happened with other services in the past.

I was feeling inferior to Buffet, but since I read this, I am feeling bit better. Thank you for sharing this.


IMO healthy brain is more important than body (I understand brain is technically also part of the body but I don't mean that way).


Rip me. I am feeling inferior again   

OK, thanks for the clarification--when I see 'right' I don't see the same word as 'smart' which is what you meant.  But I'm being a pedantic, semantic picker of nits and I absolutely agree with you in any case.

And yeah....people just buying gold/silver now are probably the kind of speculators who wind up buying high and selling low.  It's true that nobody can predict the market but just looking at the 6-month price chart for both of those metals tells me that at the very least it's super risky to be buying.  I tried to explain this mentality to a friend the other day, where in asset markets people want to buy when prices are rising whereas if you were out buying a washing machine you wouldn't be rushing out to buy at the highest price.  It's nutty if you think about it.

“Provable” isn’t just some random word they throw in there, when they say provably fair they usually explain it as something that can be verified, which is basically the same idea anyway, just different wording. I’m just sharing how I usually see it explained. Provable fairness is one thing, but the house edge is still there, and even if the game is legit and verifiable, it doesn’t mean we’re suddenly going to beat the system in the long run.

I never liked slots, I find 'em boring. I only play 'em when I am given free spins to exhaust on 'em.


Lol, that manipulation thingy is more about casino and says nothing about game itself. If it's legit casino, you can bet on either without worrying about manipulation.


Whichever works for you, my guy.


Wow! So concise, so perfect; you taught me meaning of 'Provably fair' today.

Which is exactly why you should check BitMixList for xmr exchange sites.

I don't score services, I only group the ones that don't use KYC together in a group.

Yes, most likely that's what keeping Ryan still in the business of boxing. He is marketable at to this point. He knows how to create hype on his fight because of his loud and trash talking mouth. But at the end of the day, if he is going to lose again, maybe fans aren't going to buy his next fight regardless on how he promote it. Although there could still be plan B for him as what you have said, fighting the likes of the Paul brothers for another great paycheck.

It's really up to him to make that decision in his chosen career. If his mentality is to become a great boxer or at least a good one, then he should take this fight seriously and win by like a knockout to bring more hype on his name and probably had a rematch with Haney to be the biggest fight and for the money.

The example you chose to use it very light weight, because losing a dinner is nothing comparable to losing a house if something bad happened, I can gladly choose to lose a dinner for lottery ticket than losing a house even if I can make insane amount of money, I choose the lesser risks.

I accept that part that all this is wrong, too much of risk is not good but people only thinks about what they could get but not what they would lose, as a gambler that I am, I don't even care about changing my life through gambling like many others, I am always fine turning $1 to $5.

As good as desires can be they are also as dangerous, what you choose to run after or chase can bring you down easily.

While I agree with your opinion, I have to ask:  who are 'we'?  The way you've worded your post makes it sound like you're speaking for more people than yourself.  It actually comes off like you're part of a financial advisory firm....that's not the case, is it?


Do you mean morally wrong or some other kind of wrong?  If the guy had or has a family and was refinancing their home to speculate in anything, I'd have to say that's the former (depending on other factors, including who owns the house, what their general financial situation is, etc.).  But in general I think doing what he did to buy an asset as speculative as BTC was just straight-up gambling and at the very best it was stupid.  Yep, it might have turned out well--or it might not have--but getting caught up in a speculative fever of any sort that would cause you to potentially lose the kind of money involved in this case is a bad move.

But you know what?  Right now I'm guessing there are people taking out loans to buy gold and silver since both have been off the charts these past few months.  They aren't posting about it here, but it's hard to imagine none of that is happening.

It's a way out of frustration and painful lessons.

Everything is presented to us properly as it is, we just need to use it

The key issue is the proportion, not the absolute dollar amount. For example, current transaction fees of only 0.01–0.05 BTC per block translate to about 525.6–2,628 BTC per year, just 0.0025%–0.0125% of Bitcoin’s total supply. If only such a tiny fraction of fees were used to incentivize miners, Bitcoin would already have collapsed.

Fortunately, the miners still receive a reward of 3.125 BTC per block, preventing them from surrendering and encouraging them to continue contributing significant hash power to maintain network security.

Competition can bring variable solutions to demands which is positive in general sence of reasoning, every one would want to move forward, bring new ideas, sophisticated, efficient and what have you, if anyone can be comfortable being stagnated then such person is likely to be left behind because new ages of things will keep evolving from time to time till the end of time, there is more positivity than negativity competition can bring about, and the question is who wouldn't want to up their standard for quality and efficiency?

We didn't know it at the time, so we shouldn't bother and regret it now.

It's the past. The present awaits

Yeah she's smart and she's chosen the right thing to testify against Sam. But it could also be that she's washing her face.

You're right. She's saved herself for that. My timeline and mentioning of how long she's served might not be clear as I've generalized it but you're right, she's served 14 months in federal prison.

She might try to play the good girl in there after being released, might redeem herself but those who had known her role with that fraud will always remember her.

That's how the law works, you drop one big man and they're going to give the incentive to the one who exposed them and point their fingers to.

Yes, that's what the reward is and that freedom cannot be replaced by any amount.

Competition between two businesses offering same products and services could either be healthy or unhealthy. That is there is good competition allowing for growth and alternatives for consumers and there is the bad competition that makes such business produce failed products or services that aren't sustainable and cause more harm than good to both the economy and society at large.

Any competition that sees a similar business as a rival often focus their energy on our besting them and this reduces the drive for quality and better improved service.
In order to avoid unhealthy competitions that don't add profitable returns, a business can diversify into other arms and focus their energy and resources there and when the supposed competition sees this, they have no option than to find another competition or become clueless as to what their initial goals and vision of operations is and this is detrimental to the survival of such a business.