If I remember correctly, Bitcoin once had a streak of 7 consecutive green candles during the bull market in 2025. Therefore, we should not be surprised if it has 7 consecutive red candles in a bear market



There was a time when bitcoin fell below $73k and if the ATH is $126k, bitcoin has fallen by about 40%. However, I agree that the bear market has only just begun and there is still plenty of room for decline.  And this is clearly an opportunity we should seize because it only happens once every 4 year. So instead of panicking, take advantage of this rare opportunity.

And you're waiting for governments to start buying bitcoin. You're making me laugh. As I've said many times before, they don't need to buy it, because they'll take it by force and for free. At first, the hunt is for the "big fish", but later, the "small fish" will get their turn. So, talk more about your bitcoin holdings and show who you are with your KYCs on centralized exchanges.

That's right.

No, it's not funny. Those are the rules of the game. Get used to it. The "strongest" one dictates the rules and ensures they are followed.


This is just robbery, but there is nothing "noble" about it like Robin Hood - the "sheriff" will take all the money taken from Robin Hood.

How about this: one guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Zhong) withdrew bitcoins (over 50,000) from "silk road" (the so-called villains) using the "magic" of 2nd click, after which the government confiscated his bitcoins?

By law, these bitcoins should have been returned to their owners, right?

I was addicted to gambling before, I know all the stages. I will let you know that the feature can not help, who is going to later become addicted to gambling will later become addicted to gambling. The person can go for self-exclusion but he will be the one that will make use of another gambling site. This will only make him use more gambling sites instead.

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.