It's an interesting statement, but a very bold one. I mean the one by Daniel Batten. After all, nobody would argue that sun isn't warm, whereas saying that BTC mining is good for environment is the sort of thing even pro-Bitcoin people normally wouldn't say. I went to read his thread, and he's somewhat right that Bitcoin miners can drive eco-friendliness because they are not dependent of the time of day, location or energy time. However, that doesn't really work unless miners do choose environmentally friendly energy sources for their electricity. Also, miners care about the cost of electricity, naturally, because it's a business, so if eco-friendly energy is more expensive, miners, as any other businesses, are less likely to go for it.

India has been quite hostile and yet very confusing towards cryptos for years. They kept introducing bills, first banning some activities with cryptos, then allowing them back, and also bills that never passed but were largely negative. And there were different statements made by different officials, which makes me think that there's no consensus, no united governmental crypto attitude, but overall it's wary if not negative, even though there might be some proponents.
This concern is as old as cryptos are, and it's been discussed many times how nobody suggests banning any sort of fiat, even though each of them is used to some extent for illegal purposes, and how cash is more untraceable than cryptos, and yet there are very mild regulations of it.

Some countries impose regulations but don't actually prosecute if people don't follow them. Perhaps the situation is similar in Nigeria, where one can use p2p exchanges just fine and not really fear facing persecution? I see that they fined some banks, but it's a separate thing, I'm talking about individual traders. Strict regulations are still bad, of course, because while those who were already into cryptos might stay in the industry if there's no harsh punishment, new people will be more reluctant to explore cryptos if it's illegal to transact into banks. And they mean people can't be operating legally and thus no taxes are getting into the budget and no big businesses can start.

Op, I like your idea, but I have another thought. I do agree that ecology is important, and that fighting climate change is a legit task that should be taken seriously. At the same time, I think that all businesses should face similar regulations in that regard. Why are miners blamed for using not eco-friendly energy, but others are not? So I think the regulations should target all large eneergy consumers, and set some limits and requirements based on, say, a certain amount of terrawatt hours or something, after which requirements to demonstrate carbon neutrality should come in place. Then, maybe, there can be some exceptions if there are truly critical industries of ensuring the basic needs of citizens are met. But all other businesses, including miner farms, should follow environmental regulations, the burden should not fall only on crypto miners. This would both be fair and more efficient to fight climate change.

It is claimed sometimes to be an obstacle, but it's not a very fair concern. For example, cash is not being tracked, people can largely use it with providing zero ID, and sometimes in significant amounts. Moreover, if the matter is IDs, one could try to legalize BTC but demand custodial wallets for it to be used as legal tender, of example. And yet it's not happening, not causing widespread adoption. I think there isn't enough interest in adopting Bitcoin, both in political circles and in populations, often. Also, volatility and scaling are sometimes major issues as well.

If by the party you mean gaining 20x or more returns on one's long-term investment, then yes, I'd say you're late. It's not hard to see that over the years the price increased by fewer points than before. The distance between ATHs is getting smaller, and it's no surprise with a huge marketcap. I think a 10x long-term profit is still real, but nobody knows how many years it'll take. So it's not too late, of course, but the profits won't be the way they used to be in the early days. I think Bitcoin can hit a million at some point, but I don't think it'll hit a hundred million because there's a certain global economic limit to it (how much global economy is worth at a certain point in time).

There's a saying that the worst sanctions are those Russia imposes upon itself. It might be far-fetched, but it's funny how Russia is basically following Western sanctions, strengthening them by those of its own. Russia banned Instagram, and it was a huge hit for many Russian users. Russia limited withdrawals of foreign currencies, and reserves in foreign currencies. And while crypto exchanges (foreign major ones) follow sanctions, Russia is possibly about to ban people from keeping money outside exchanges, so is potentially throwing them under the hit of the sanctions.
The war is not in Russia, by the way, it's in Ukraine but conducted by Russia. And I think that this news falls in line with other measures Russia introduced which were related to the war.
You're saying it's the end of privacy, but it's no surprise. Russians, in their vast majority, support their president and support the war, so both internal isolation and tendency toward a totalitarian regime and external pressure of sanctions affect it, and yet the majority clearly won't care. Russians demonstrated very well that freedom isn't a big value for them.

You can hold your money on an exchange if it's a highly reputable exchange and if you trust it. Also, it should include you being ready to get your funds out of it if some new regulations arrive (like those for some Russians arrived from Binance today), willing to send documents that confirm your identity and address, and be sure you're not doing anything illegal (and technically, not paying taxes is illegal in places where cryptos are regulated). These are centralized services, so they can do a lot of stuff. If it's a very good exchange like Binance, it likely won't perform an exit scam, and will likely compensate losses in an even of a hack, but something can still happen. Overall, your money is just much safer in your personal wallet.

I'm happy that Ireland supports Ukraine during the ongoing war, but I wonder if crypto donations to parties is the right ban to introduce. After all, there are surely many workarounds to it, such an making a "charity" which is actually controlled to politicians and get donations there. Or creating a business and getting investments. It can also affect many people who are not related to Russia in any way. I'm not sure it's an efficient strategy because it affects many, and yet Russians will probably find a way if they want anyway.
But I don't think Bitcoin is getting a lot of negative exposure. It's getting some, but it's certainly balanced out by all those crypto donations flowing into Ukraine.

The website looks okay, but why create a new topic if, as NeuroticFish pointed out, you've made one and got feedback in February? I can see that topic was locked, though, so perhaps if a moderator locked it, you needed a new one. I have a weird feeling like I've seen something extremely similar before, though, and not in February. Maybe it was this website, maybe it was some other alternative to coinmarketcap that looked similar, but the design just certainly rings a bell... Did you create it this year, or has it been out there for a while?

Hey everyone! Given that this is a discussion about Binance and its actions regarding the Russian war against Ukraine, I decided to share here the most recent news in this direction, instead of making a new thread. Today, Binance published changes concerning Russian users: those who have more than 10,000 EUR in their accounts will be restricted, given 90 days to close out positions. Others can trade as usual. The report is available here: https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/4887e569afdf4b1e89e024371d3a49b9.
I think it's a very sensible decision, that both limits big flows of money and thus the risk of this money being used to finance the government which, in turn, finances war crimes, but also allows casual traders in Russia, who are probably just regular citizens, to carry on.

It's an okay design, but I wouldn't call these facts fun because there's not a single humorous one. Also, these facts can be useful to complete newbies who barely know the word Bitcoin, but everyone else surely knows about Satoshi, pizzas, and hash power (also, that it's no longer the case), at least. As for the most memorable fact, I think it's two pizzas. The exact sum can be forgotten, but the story itself is amazing and isn't something easy to forget. That being said, this story can be followed on Bitcointalk, I believe (I think I read that thread years ago), so the way the story is written is misleading, as was pointed out by stompix.

It's no surprise that the war will have effect on global economy. It's a generally destabilizing factor for the Western world to the very least, and under the feelings of not being sure in the future, people tend to invest less in it and be more cautious. Also, Ukraine is a breadbasket of many countries, a large agrarian industry. Russia always exports a big bulk of that. Then there are sanctions, which, while aimed at Russia, also of course affect other countries which used to have big economic ties.
Bitcoin does seem to be doing well, and it can help with savings as well as financial transfers, but it can't fix the economy.

Actually, they disagreed to block all Russians not as much out of sympathy, but out of legislative considerations. Early on, it was explained by Binance CEO that they are not sure if it's even legal to freeze accounts of all Russians, and that they will do it if sanctions recommend it. And it's not racism at all, it's just called collective responsibility. If you're a citizen of a certain country, and this country, using your taxpayer's money, is committing terrible crimes, you are supposed to do something about it. Also, you're saying 'no one wants war' but did you look at Putin's approval ratings? They're very high, at around 80%, and this data comes both from independent researchers and from state ones, so it's most likely true. That being said, even though I'm Ukrainian, I wouldn't insist on blocking all Russian accounts.

11. Jessica Andrade
10. Clay Guida
9. Lando Vannata
8. Maycee Barber
7. Manel Kape
6. Marc-André Barriault
5. Dwight Grant
4. Tyson Pedro
3. Qileng Aori
2. Philipe Lins
1. Dean Barry

Game 1:  23'  2-0 Chelsea
Game 2:  23'  2-0 São Paulo FC
Game 3:  23'  1-1 Draw

1.  Tyson Fury
2.  Over 9.5 Rounds
3.  Round 10

I don't think anything is final, that's how progress works. So crypto is a revolutionary idea, yes, and an idea like this can remain relevant for a long time (from decades to centuries, I guess), but eventually, the world will change, the economy will change, and something new will be created. It's impossible to imagine what that can be, just like imagining the Internet wasn't possible in the 19th century and imagining smartphones - even in the 20th century. So I think that it can't be final, because the world goes on and new ideas appear. But the significance of this invention is yet to be determined.

I'm skeptical regarding the "floor" hypothesis. I've heard of the variant that basically says that mining must be covered, and the price can't be beyond its costs. But it's as if the assumption here is that mining can't be unprofitable. I find this assumption not based on anything because there are plenty of unprofitable businesses, and I don't see how mining can't hypothetically become one of them. The price isn't a sentient empathic being that will adjust itself to make sure miners aren't losing money, after all. And the variant with some miners leaving the market if mining gets unprofitable is based on the assumption of perfectly rational financial behavior, and it's not humanity's strong suit, to be honest. So of course, some will keep doing it despite losing money, just hoping that one day it'll all be worth it.

I'm sorry that some countries aren't coping well and can't pay their debt obligations. I wish that under current conditions okay countries got postponements and perhaps reduction, even, of their debt. It's unfair that Russia can spend money on the war and yet argue against being declared a country that's under default, and some countries are struggling with ensuring their citizens have the basics... And in such cases, the already vulnerable and financially unstable people suffer most. I hope Sri Lanka will get better and figure out a way toward economic prosperity.