It is not wrong to take a temporary break from gambling, it is up to you to decide what you want to do, you can even request self-exclusion if that is what you want, though that route is mostly for people with addiction issue or people who feel they are spending too much money gambling.

If you win some money, you can withdraw some of it and leave some of it to continue gambling, taking a percent of your winnings gives you a good feeling and you can try again with the funds still left in your account.

Why? Nobody should store their funds in an exchange, but i can understand why traders do it, as for non-traders, i really cannot, when there are a lot of self custodial wallets out there to use. I am not really concerned about the kind of people who lost funds, i just hope the learn a lesson from this.

$14m from 9 users is a crazy stat, i don't know what people think. Centralized exchanges hold a huge amount of money, they ought to know that they would constantly be under attack from hackers, they should be investing more money into security of funds and data too.

It's been a long time i used instant exchanges, eXch was my go-to, but we know how their service ended due to pressure from law enforcement. Instant exchanges are centralized and custodial, so you have to be careful with the ones you trust and the amount you deposit, i won't mention the largest amount i have swapped, but because it is a custodial service, not so much, and yeah it was smooth and successful.

I completely agree with you here, what were they thinking would happen when they stole fiat from the victims bank account, considering how easy it is to trace and block mobile/online bank transactions. Sometimes i wonder what goes through people's head when they do certain things, however, it would benefit us all if we had more stupid criminals like this bunch of idiots.

What do you mean by he stopped his job in real life to focus on BTC, is he a BTC day trader? Because if he is just an investor, he can buy and hold faster than the snap of the finger. And if he left his job in real life to becomes a full time trader, then he is making a mistake. Trading is risky, but that's not even what i am talking about, he can trade if he wants to and if he has the skills to, but not full time, so that he can be able to keep his real life job, this is basic logic.

It is not a bad decision, and it is better than not buying it that's for sure.

Would i do it? No, that us because i prefer to hold my BTC in my self custodial wallet and i also spend a few BTC sometimes, so i would rather buy BTC than buying shares of a BTC etf. Each to their own, because at the end of the day we would individually choose what works for us.

That is an unfortunate one for the investors, i am sure most of them know nothing about cryptocurrency, neither did they even do the smallest of research regarding this scam INDXcoin. They were only investing in this because of the faith and trust they had in this pastor, too bad that in the crypto network you shouldn't trust, but verify.

Imagine if these people had invested all these money in BTC, they would have made good returns now. But people are mostly only moved when you sell them the promise of quick wealth.

That is a crazy and funny story, but what is not so funny is how $5 wrench attacks are now so popular, there has been a lot of crypto kidnappings lately and it is starting to be very uncomfortable. I don't know why this barber would lie that he had a fortune in crypto, but what this story teaches is that a lot of people are watching what you post on social media, so for people who are into it, they better be careful and not attract assailants.

It is hard to conclude on what will make people gamble more, there are third world countries with a high rate of gambling, and i don't believe gambling addiction has anything to do with the economy or a 'solid framework'.

Gambling is an individual decision, and it is mostly as a result of tradition, there are people who gamble today because they were exposed to it when their parents gambled. There are also cultures were gambling is popular, and if you happen to grow around such a place, there is a high chance you will enjoy gambling.

Same here too, i also play most of my sports bets on Whale, though i also add a bit of slots, in the past i tried to avoid slots, but since the first time i tried it, i now like to mix sports betting with slots, though it can run down my bankroll very fast, lol.

The story of Whale in this forum simply shows that if you run a legit business, giving players almost no problems at all and giving back immensely to the community, then there is a high chance of success. And Whale is a testament to that.

You are right that it is not a threat to cryptographic systems anytime soon, but since it is a possible threat in the future, i would not call it fud, because if it were, developers would have have started research on quantum resistant algorithms. However, from the little research i have done about QC, i don't think the threat is 50 years away, i believe it is at least half of that or even less.

Yeah they should be investing more in security, both in funds and data, but many of them don't do that; that is why there are so many events of data breaches and hacks were people lose their money.
Everyone should be worried about kyc, because of how dangerous it is, but sadly only a few people are.

I can lose money to gambling and still say i enjoy the game because i am not gambling more than i can afford to lose. I enjoy football gambling because i enjoy football, hope that makes sense and answers the question, to add a little more, it makes the football game more interesting when i have a chance to win something at the end.

However, if you are gambling more than you can afford to lose, then it is hard to say you are having fun that is for sure, except you win, which you won't most times, lol.

Quantum computers have not been fully developed to the extent of posing a threat to cryptographic systems, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future. The development of quantum computers will continue and in the future it will surely be a threat, so i would not call it a rumor or anything like that. If it were a rumor, BTC developers would not be thinking of developing quantum resistant algorithm that would be resistant to the threat of QC's.

Sounds like someone has decided on what they want to do, and they are looking for financial advice to give them that one final push. Your coins, your BTC's, if you want to sell it and buy it back or whichever strategy you decide is up to you.

However, as regards my own portfolio, i am not selling anything right now, if anything i would accumulate more. The problem with people who want to sell and buy back, is that you could sell right now and BTC starts pumping and you may have to wait for the next bear season to buy.

No. You are wrong. The threat of quantum computers is real and just so you know, it doesn't only pose a risk to BTC, but any cryptographic system; the good part is we are at least 20 years behind the reality of this threat. Securing your coins offline or in self custodial wallets does not protect you from the threat of quantum computers, except if you have not spend from the address that holds your funds, meaning the public key is unknown, so QC cannot derive the private key from the public key.

Quantum resistant algorithms are going to be tested and implemented as we progress and before this threat becomes real, we should have migrated over to those algorithms.

Since you do not have the resources to develop the game, what you need to do is approach game manufacturers with the idea you have in mind, if they are interested, you would be able to get a fair deal.

However, don't forget to protect your idea before sharing it, follow all legal procedures regarding patent and all related stuffs; if you indeed have an idea that will compete in the market, you would be able to cut a fair deal with the manufacturers, but like i said, don't forget to seek all the legal advice necessary from your lawyer.

Just check the feedbacks!

I believe you are talking about the Ledger recover service, which is an optional and also a paid service, yeah it requires ID verification, but it is also an opt-in service, and i don't even recommend anyone to pay for such a service that puts their funds at risk.
Okay, that is a valid point to report to the authorities. My point is that nobody should be using any kyc self custodial wallet, it is risky enough to submit kyc in custodial and centralized platforms.

When you submit kyc in any custodial service, it is that service that holds the kyc information and if anyone is going to lose it, it is the service and if they do, which they have on many occasions, it will be recorded that there was a data breach and the customers whose data has been exposed.