Rank- Legendary
Segwit BTC address- bc1q66894j3psankmwxpn0733w6zfxqcc7ylkfp05h

Your case (being banned for using a VPN, which is something that almost ) is another case that proves that bc.game will scam for any amount for any reason.

According to security.org, 29% of personal internet users use a VPN. I am sure that statistic is higher when it comes to people who use cryptocurrency, though lets say that is also 29%. That means that an average of 29% of all players who do not read the bc.game TOS will be subject to losing their bitcoin or cryptocurrency if they use bc.game.

This is added on top of the KYC scam tactic, where they allow users to play and confiscate their deposit and winnings if they do not comply with excessive KYC requirements, which sometimes people do not want to or can not complete.

As I mentioned earlier, bc.game is a serial scamming operation that finds any reason to lock accounts and balances. A new complaint is made about bc.game almost daily, and there would be many more who are incapable of defending themselves who would lose their funds to them and their tactics, or accept the verdict because they do not know what else they can do. They also have an army of users here who will do and say anything to discredit anyone who points out this fact, and try to hurt their credibility for pointing out bc.game's malpractice.

Please stick around on the forum to help raise awareness for the bc.game scam. More public action will be taken against them in the future. The only thing you can do now is fight against them by raising awareness in an effort to end the bc.game scam that has both corrupted members of this forum and gone on for too long.

The answer to your question is quite simple. Quantum computing is an effective way to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about Bitcoin, since quantum computing is a theoretical future threat that can be portrayed as a current one. It scares new investors from entering the market, and maybe even scares people into thinking the sky is about to fall, causing them to sell their btc and doubt its future. It is becoming more and more effective with time as technology evolves at a rate that people can't understand, especially now that we are in an era where evolving AI exists as well.

Why do they not think about consequences on less evolved systems? I think that because to most, Bitcoin is not a necessity, and to those that believe the quantum threat, it's an excuse to doubt Bitcoin's future. For what they perceive as necessities (like banking or online accounts), there is no choice but to trust and not to fear any consequences (until of course, it's too late and there is a need to look at alternatives).

I think the reality of the quantum threat is that it will effect traditional systems before it effects Bitcoin, and may even be a catalyst for even further adoption if something ever were to happen.

You've got it right. At some stage, casinos realized that they can not just win from losing players, but also from winning ones, through KYC...and it seems that not only has everyone on the forum let it happen, but they deny that it happens. I'd say that's a sign of some form corruption, others deny that any form of corruption exists. What do you think about the forum allowing this kind of practice by casinos?

I understand that security is stronger with bitcoin due to its consensus mechanism, I have not denied that. What I have said is that Ethereum has improved its scalability with POS, which is somewhat required for that network to survive considering its smart contract functionality and transaction frequency.

This pertains to the Blockchain trilemma, which if you properly understood it, you would not be telling me that I'm "not getting the context"

The trilemma is not how I think about it, it's about how researchers have thought about it. That's the difference between what you're concluding, and what I'm highlighting

It might be possible to retrieve/monitor data on transfer sizes (deposits and withdrawals) in labelled exchange wallets to gauge retail activity. Trading data based on size may be inaccurate given small transfers can be done at high frequency by whales, though accuracy could be improved by filtering by total wallet volume and balance size. These are all just ideas and would be valuable data but might require some work to get (especially since there are so many chains to monitor and get data from now).

Have you tried to see what data you can get from there? You'd probably need a paid plan to get meaningful on-chain data, but they're good.

There is some off-chain data that can give ideas on sentiment (like social media and google trends) though they're just to get an idea of sentiment.

You made a good post that is generally good for newbies, however I think that if this person is believing that they had Bitcoin in 2005 (4 years before Bitcoin even existed), I doubt that they will pay much attention to all of the effort you just put into this post.

They also supposedly created the account in 2005 (20 years ago), so you are technically advising them based on their actions 20 years ago and whilst they were in the 7th grade

This has the potential to age well (as all P2P creations do). My feedback is that more effort needs to be made on the ui/ux. Without looking at this thread, I'd have assumed it was a reddit-style board more than it is a marketplace. I also did not want to create an account, it would be much better to be able to see more of the functionality in action as a guest before being forced to setup an account, and generally I think that if guests can see more of the functionality before being require to setup an account, willingness to set one up increases. Just my 2 sats. Good luck with the project!

They work on the concept that bitcoin is "volatile" and USD is "stable" in terms of the value for exchange. USD is always "worth" 1 of itself, while Bitcoin fluctuates against the USD.

The trade-off of "stable"coins? Exactly what you said, the hidden cost of deteriorating purchasing power and against other assets. Though this is not commonly known. The dub "stablecoin" is something that people understand, for the same reasons that many still do not properly comprehend that money deteriorates in purchasing power over time.

Obviously the story is completely fabricated and impossible, the very first bitcoin block (the genesis block) was mined in January, 2009. Bitcoin didn't exist prior to the genesis block

Yes, a better title would be "Bitcoin developers float proposal to freeze quantum-vulnerable legacy addresses".


This says to me that we are still 5 years away from quantum technology becoming a threat to legacy addresses (otherwise, why allow 5 years to move coins, and not freeze them now and add the recovery option if the threat is already here?).

The quantum topic is almost always misinformation about something that is portrayed as here and now, though is still years away (if ever possible).

I suppose that may have been in mind when creating 8 decimals. Even if banks want to hoard and control majority of the supply, people will still be able to barter and exchange with satoshis. It would be technically impossible for them to control all of the supply. Even now, large firms and funds still control less than 15% of the supply (at least according to what is tracked and recorded).

It's not good to leave funds in an exchange though yes I know people do it. Hopefully, they will change that attitude.


Only time will tell!

It happens all of the time. There is hardly such thing as a casino giving back the deposit and confiscating just the winnings. This is just some nonsense that would only be spilled by a casino shill or a complete moron.

There is no option against these practices, except to stop using the casinos that take this approach and to speak out against those that are abusing their players the most.

Logically, this is correct. Before any bet is even placed, KYC should be required. However if this was the case, a lot less people would use casinos. So instead, the casino lets people play, lets them lose without KYC, and if they win, then ask for KYC. It's malpractice, at best.

you're welcome, thank you for the loan

Loan repaid: 3d1a318569b1e9e5644ba17776ea183f50a730780d5c1b241d0f91ae532c95b8
Thank you sword

Most popular centralized exchanges (coinbase pro, bybit, binance, and so on) allow leverage. There are also decentralized options like demex and hyperliquid.

I would be careful of KYC requirements on centralized exchanges, and on decentralized exchanges I would be extra cautious with how you manage your keys and general cybersecurity. Both have caveats.

Also, be aware of scam exchanges, or exchanges with low merit. There are a lot of them offering leveraged trading, though it can be easy to get caught in verification procedures that are intrusive and violate privacy (if that's important to you), and in worse cases, impossible to pass.

Be careful when choosing an exchange, and when trading. Good luck

I am interested to see the speed of adoption for government and corporations. It seems to be happening fast, though only 100-150 private US companies have it in their balance sheet. It will be interesting when we see major corporations joining in the buying (especially if they buy on spot market).

The price movement has been sudden which is always a cause for concern of sustainability, though similarly we have seen this kind of speed before (and really, from a percentage perspective, it's a lot slower now than it once was. It just seems fast as 10% now is nearly $12,000 in price movement. Before, this was 10 - 100% of the price, depending on time period!)


It could be the catalyst for a further push. However I did recently read about mining power consolidating, and holdings shifting. This could all happen on OTC desks, and may not effect the market too much. Though it's a new risk on the horizon that we should keep updated on. We can only see what happens from here, it's all exciting either way to see Bitcoin where it is today

I've never heard of exchanges letting deposits go, the notion that casinos give back deposits and only disqualify winnings after a player fails KYC is absolutely nonsense. Based on what I've seen on the forum, casinos take the entire balance if you can't complete KYC. They very rarely give back the deposit if you can't meet their requirements.

The answer to this thread is simple, it goes in their pocket. Players should get their deposit back if the casino isn't happy with their verification (they have a right to refuse service) but they definitely would not get their deposit back more than 95% of the time (and I'd bet 95% is a conservative statement).

To add about the answer of "if it can be changed" - for as long as the network remains secure and in tact, the supply can never be changed. If it is ever changed, that's a big fundamental shift for Bitcoin and a lot of its holders will likely divest, as its fixed supply is one of the (many) primary reasons for the value that it has today.

Technical analysis is only one form of analysis. You also have on-chain analysis, fundamental analysis and sentiment analysis. Your TA might be perfect, but an on-chain, fundamental or sentiment shift can easily invalidate it. It also depends on what pair you are trading, some pairs are flawed by default due to their tokenomics (ties into fundamentals).

Doing no research is not a better strategy than doing research, that's nonsense