I think it's two different reasons though, for Pacquiao he fights for his fans and not for the money or fame already it helps a lot obviously. For Floyd, it's more of to sustain his lavish lifestyle, and so he needs more money so that he can continue to promote himself as having a lot of money.

However, there are rumors that he has money problems, that's why he is making some noise again on trying to fight everyone, from Mike Tyson to Pacquiao and then some unknown boxers next to have some income going inside his bank account.

I don't know about you, but to me it does not make sense to have a fight in which one of the two boxers actually have a stake on the event as a whole, when it comes to its organization, funding, advertising and other crucial things which are in place to push it forward. 

These kind of events are supposed to be organized by a third party with no direct link with the boxers of the events, everyone gets benefited by the event and there is less likely for one of the boxers to get favoured by the administrators or organizers of the fight.

It does not make sense Paul has a say in that matter...

Yeah, we all know that's the case for the vast majority (if not all) of mixers. They would probably only refuse a service if funds came from a high-profile criminal act and if they didn't want all the extra heat (i.e. three letters agencies going after them).

---

Thanks for all the replies, but just to clarify, the purpose of this topic is not to focus on the technical aspects of things such as coin tracking and whether or not mixers know the coins are stolen, but to discuss whether mixers should be considered bad actors for not refusing to process orders from criminal proceedings.
So, for the sake of the discussion, let's assume:
- mixer operator somehow knows the coins are stolen
- they have the means to either freeze or refuse such mixing order.


Maybe you're right. Maybe it's really that simple. But personally, I find the issue more nuanced than that.
By the same logic, should we, as the Bitcoin community, be OK with, or even demand that devs/miners come together to override the protocol to reverse the hack (similar to what Ethereum devs did after DAO hack)? I know both scenarios are not a perfect analogy, but the principle is similar: we let a bad thing slide because undoing it would have much worse consequences (i.e. a complete loss of trust for Bitcoin or mixers).

Or another angle: if it's not immoral for a person to launch a decentralised, automated mixing service (like CoinJoin), would it become immoral if the same type of service had a manual, human component to it, and the operator chose to have a "no-questions-asked" policy?

I disagree. There is a dilemma.

Mixers justify their existence with the goal to keep Bitcoin fungible. This is also a moral question. For the Bitcoin community, it would be "bad" if all coins were traceable. This could for example lead to doxxing, and even to deaths -- if e.g. such "tracing" enables a wrench attack and the victim is killed, or if an opposition group in a dictatorship is discovered and executed.

And this dilemma lies here: if the mixer uses AML tools without restrictions like most traditional exchanges do, then it no longer serves this function. The ethical mixer protocol I linked to above is an idea to solve that dilemma.

Again, how do you know this? And much more: how to know this in real time, e.g. in the 10 minutes after the coins are stolen, where many thieves will try a first mixing step? You need an AML tool - and then you enter the dilemma described above.

Correct. There is no perfect method, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And that's what AML / chain analysis companies are trying to do.

In my ethical mixer protocol there is a safeguard for "normal" users: the possibility to mix up to ~$500-$1000 per day without AML check. This should cover most "retailer" users' needs, and allows them to mix slightly tainted coins too.

It's not a perfect solution of course: these $1000 may have been obtained by selling drugs or a minor theft for example (let's say someone stealing $10,000 and mixing $1000 per day). But this are things we can't prevent totally. It's like the dilemma to put cameras in all streets to prevent all street crime. The important thing is that the "big fishes" can be caught with that kind of protocol.

0 chance

Just a few months ago they raised approximately $20 million investment from Tether


Source: https://valorinternational.globo.com/markets/news/2026/07/08/tether-invests-r100m-in-mercado-bitcoin.ghtml

Tether are aiming to take over Brazil's market with their stablecoins so it may not look like a big investment, but it is a very important one.

It’s an interesting theory, but it would be difficult for them to fake a "hack" just to shut down the platform and avoid paying compensation. Let’s see what happens in the coming days. If they manage to resume withdrawals smoothly within 72 hours, then the problem is solved; otherwise, they will likely declare bankruptcy soon.

That's why the bout will merely be an exhibition bout and will be rigged in favour of the money man (Mayweather). To be sincere with us, I believe some of his fights were judged with a tint of favouritism to him. I watched his last fight with the Pacman and I shook my head in disagreement with the verdict at the end.

I don't know why most of these dudes in sports who made piles of money can't maintain discipline around their finances and family lives. As for Mayweather, I don't need to waste my sympathy on him because he openly live a lavished lifestyle. If a man doesn't care for the size of coconut he wants to swallow, why should I be bothered how he excretes it?

Well, even if he is financially stable, I think he would still think of fighting as he seems like the type who is not satisfied with the lavish kind of life he has. Actually even Manny we know he is financially stable already with lots of businesses in the Philippines but still he is doing some exhibition fights and even pro fights, so I believe they will just take the opportunity to make money as long as their popularity remains. But the problem with Mayweather, is that he has some lawsuits, so he cannot freely move.

That’s correct, it’s true especially on the small to medium tier casino that has little reputation to protect.


I doubt off shore regulators do an audit by themselves to casino they are giving license since this casino can always introduce new games right after they already acquired license.

However, it seems that license providers are already strengthening their security.

They know what they are doing. It's not incompetence.
They are trying to downplay it so it doesn't sound serious. They know how sensitive full names and emails are, not to mention ID cards. It's a way to save face. Those are the actual reasons why the hackers attempted it at all. What else could they have that would be more sensitive than users' personal information? It's not like they keep user's funds.
It's a very poor way of trying to save face. Since they have already announced it, there is no point in downplaying it. They could simply state how severe the problem is. Except they think people who would read their statements are idiots who won't know what sensitive information is.

I see your point.

Overall, even with these strict AML policies, most of these casinos just want to make easy money, legally or illegally. The system only flags a user as "suspicious" when they (the casino) needs to make a payout. They know exactly what they're doing and the licensing authorities supports that modus operandi I guess. If they really hate to deal with tainted money/coins, they should create a system to watch out--- even if the user somehow manages to sneak under the radar, their bets should be invalidated from the first, to the last.

Fixed that for you.


What he's doing is the classic move of looking for an external enemy to blame for something that is his own responsibility. What he says contains some truth, but the bottom line is that we all know prediction markets are gambling.


Yeah, it's pretty pathetic how he wants to come across as a benefactor of humanity with that message.

I also wonders how the so called original games are identified because since I've been playing I haven't learn about any indications that a casino game is fake.
I also assume that where certain games is tagged original, there should be the other to be fake. Left for me to the best of my knowledge, whether third party game provider or an insider providers, every games as long being supported by the reputable casino is original since it's not programmed in the system that'd be manipulating the game outcomes.

He pretty much coverts it. Anyway you can't even be sure that your BTC exist when they are in an ETF. So you are making an exchange where you drop the risk relating to self-custody and having to deal with security to a third party, and in exchange you lose the golden values that Bitcoin provides "don't trust, verify". But after everything that has happened this year, I really can't blame a single person that is not very good with technology in keeping their coins in a regulated ETF. When it comes to insurance and the risk of going bust, it is always going to be better to keep your Bitcoin in an ETF than some exchange.

Sounds like a reasonable amount of outflows. Usually it is the people that respond emotionally to an incident like this that get hacked or lose money in the next exchange. That is how many people lost money with FTX. They had it safe and secure in good places like Binance and Coinbase, and chasing the new exchange led to a complete disaster.

This does not need to be true, I mean, a no-KYC casino could be legal when they are operating a casino only for cryptocurrency payments and no fiat involved just in any form. So, I disagree about the fact of that either they are lying or illegally operating. Just imagine about a true decentralized believer, who will never ask you to clear KYC and also will never touch fiats. And in my opinion, we need to support such type of casinos and should not categorize them under a pre-judgement.

We are all aware of one of famous no KYC faucet cum hi-lo game provider, operated for years without any licence and paid out 1000s of bitcoin weekly but in the end they had bit the dust. So, I can understand why people are prejudging no KYC casinos still a decentralized casino will exist with same type of practice and wish such model should become famous and should stay with us for ever.

It is true, every casino ask for kyc and those that say they don't ask for kyc are actually lying and they are going to ask you for kyc once you want to withdraw your money, they may not ask you for kyc when you are opening an account with them or when you want to deposit, it is only when you want to withdraw that they will ask you for kyc, a lot of casino do this.

It is wrong for a casino to say they don't ask for kyc and when you want to withdraw they start asking you for kyc and doing some unnecessary verification, any casino that does that should not be trusted and should be avoided.

If the hacker sold the data or share the data publicly, we may able to know which company (such as crypto exchange) that use Chainanalys service.


It probably show their viewpoint about people's privacy in general .

In reality, a company that generates revenue from all its users' data—whether through legal or illegal means, and even when some of that data is inaccurate—fails to protect the information it holds, which can ultimately lead to harm for those users.
Frankly, all these attacks should serve to raise awareness regarding privacy and drive the implementation of legislation that mandates the destruction of user data, rather than allowing it to be kept indefinitely and passed on to third parties.

What’s also unfair is if a casino is concerned about an account and the betting activity on there they can also monitor any suspicious activity. Whilst I can see that sometimes you wouldn’t have to check an account until you have won either a certain amount or something out of the ordinary, it should be made clear what would cause this. It feels like the terms and conditions are only really relevant when the casino needs to pay someone out. This is where people begin to lose trust in these platforms.

A huge welcome bonus that one can't withdraw, but found it confusing whether they have won or not because of withdrawal issues.

In some countries, 1xBet exists legally under the license given to it by the government, but many of its country's citizens know it as a scam because of the numerous complaints that deposits are not credited, withdrawals are frozen after big wins, and bonus traps

To me, bitcoin dropping from 80k to 76k is not a great impact, infact, that is the type of movement that the market has been making with fundamentals.

Instead, I'll say that the market is much more matured, I learnt that in the past, only the news of binance hack without evidence would drag the market to -20%.

In the other way round, the bitcoin drop from 80k to 76k is a buy opportunity. So, not everyone is affected by binance hack.

As per reading which casino its came from its already considered a negative image. They have a bad reputation here in the community, so seems off already.

I dont know still people prefer to play with this casino even though its already a saying in their face that they never been be a winner or even less chance of getting a winner. I guess they are still holding their what if they win thoughts but seems its already decided already its always the house.


Seems their casino has a huge budget for this marketing promotion because there is a gaming company here in the Philippines promoting their casino every game stream last TI. Still I trust the feedback of the community here than their promotions with a huge welcome bonus.

What you tell us is absolutely true, when someone bets they must do it for things they know well in order to increase the possibility of winning, otherwise there isn't much point in betting at random: you bet to have the thrill of winning in my opinion, otherwise there is no fun in the act itself.
Personally, i also only bet in Italy with teams i know, every now and then.

We only need a VPN to bypass gambling restrictions and VPN is not even a new technology. Also illegalities are already there even before new technologies came in. But illegal betting platforms and their players are still going to be careful to not get caught and punished because the punishment for this is also tough. So that still can lessen gambling addiction, better than if gambling is fully legal. This is not only about earnings but the public's life is at risk here and that is more important. Remember government's role is to protect them.

This sounds like gambling is legal already but yeah, there are still illegal on here like if the casino does not have a license. Then there are illegal in a way that they do some manipulations. But we can also lessen this if gambling is not legal in a country.

Every government wants money in form of revenue, so they may not easily turn blind eyes.  Legalizing gambling makes it easy for the government to make more money, even they are aware of the consequences some other country face.

Well, if they are able to carry out there laws on the proposed restrictions, then maybe it will yield more good for the country. We know that the major negative impact of gambling is addiction. For addiction, many countries that adopted legal gambling licencing are trying to see how they can curb the menace. As much as they try, they continue to discover addiction has eaten dip into the society. Thus, contacting addiction is difficult. So, Uzbekistan should do well implementation of there restriction policies to enable them control it.

While some governments fight against gambling because of its risky and addictive nature, others continue to legalize it. Despite its negative effects on society, the gambling industry also offers some benefits to governments, especially through tax revenue and attracting foreign visitors. Some tourists may prefer countries with fewer regulations and restrictions on gambling.

 legalizing gambling should not mean allowing everyone to participate without restrictions. At least, there should be strict rules against underage gambling, which is one of the major concerns of many governments. Anyone under the age of 18 should not be allowed to gamble because of the risks involved. Gambling at such a young age can expose them to addiction, financial problems, and other consequences that could negatively affect their future.

As far as gamblers in a country that bans gambling activities can bypass their country's restrictions and gamble illegally I believe that it is best that the government should legalize and regulate the sector, except for countries who are very strict on religious matters they should allow gambling. I think that most governments that restricts gambling should focus more on strictly regulating the casinos that they allow to operate in their country rather than a complete ban, many countries are benefiting through taxations on casinos and these  countries shouldn't be left behind.

This is exactly how it is, though? You are allowed to shop from the poor section if you are rich, but there are higher-quality products out there for you too if you want. Even the higher quality is questionable; sometimes they just package it better, and you get something better in terms of how it looks, but the item is not that much better.

Just give you the simplest best example, you could buy a 100-dollar phone or even lesser maybe, but definitely 100 dollar phone, it would be some Huawei or whatever shitty brand name, and would be bad, or you could buy the new iPhone duo. Rich vs poor. Doesn't mean that the cheaper phone won't work; it does. You can still call, text; most things are the same. So as you can see, there is already a "rich option" and a "poor option" for items. The same goes for everything; there are cheap breads and expensive breads.

That’s the part most players dislike the most and that’s why we don’t believe any casino that says no KYC again. If they can say they are no KYC and later ask for KYC, that’s honestly not being transparent in any way. It is better from the onset they let players know they will need KYC, then it left for players to make decision if they want to go ahead and register or not than using trickish way just to get customers and at the end leave them disappointed. They always do this mostly during a withdrawal, it just a way of trapping players and leaving them with no choice because definitely most players will not want to leave winnings to casino without providing KYC, especially a big win.

Many things need to be changed but as users only we have less things for change than business owners and developers. We have less security concerns to take care of than business owners and developers.

The rise of machines.

The latest security incidents raise a severe alarm that we are never sure which ones are secure, which ones are not, and what will happen with our devices and funds in the future. With more uncertainty in the AI era, we will have to apply the diversification principle for our practice more. "Never put all eggs in only one basket", and with us it is "Never store all bitcoins in one wallet".

One wallet means one wallet software, one hardware wallet manufacturer and its products, and one specific wallet to store our bitcoin.

It's a tool (just like FIAT) and criminals misusing it doesn't make the asset itself responsible.

The concern isn't about blaming Bitcoin; it's about accountability and what happens to confiscated funds. Returning assets can be difficult when ownership is unclear, but that makes transparent procedures and protecting victims' rights even more important.

How this case is resolved could set a framework for future Bitcoin seizures and determine whether victims or governments ultimately benefit (I personally hope for the former to be the case).

It's very hard to answer that question mate, as the hackers or with the used of AI right now, they can find vulnerabilities very quick and they are going to take advantage of it until the services realized that they have been attack already.

For us maybe not to trust this 3rd party for now, and then create our own Bitcoin address, air gapped or paper wallet and secure it ourselves without the use of any hardware companies. But everything is on now, on how to protect and back up everything without anyone accessing it.

We fully trust the service, the problem is that they cannot keep our data, such as compromised third parties or data exposed by irresponsible people, the custodian service should keep our documents but they do not know when this will happen.

In my opinion, trust them it should be, honestly because it's one of the ones in use today, and we still use the service, right? So about contrary to the principles of bitcoin sometimes this thing they never pay attention to.