Game 1:  38' 1-0 Arsenal
Game 2:  38' 1-0 São Paulo FC
Game 3:  38' 0-2 Man City

You're right that money must be spent, not stored. But the problem is that most probably don't see Bitcoin as money. They see it as an asset, as something they can invest in or at least something they can use to store their wealth. It's hard not to do that when Bitcoin is consistently growing in value over time, and when it's also attractive for traders due to its volatility. Also, spending Bitcoin directly is almost impossible for most purposes, so one usually needs to resort to selling it for fiat, one way or another, which reinforces the idea of Bitcoin not really being money. But, over time, as more options become available to spend Bitcoin, it can become viewed as money.

If you don't want to donate to the government, you can donate to foundations. If you support Ukrainian army, you can donate to Come back alive, they have an official crypto wallet. As for Ukrainian sentiments, only 22% used to support Russia a year ago, and anti-Russia sentiment obviously increased a lot because of the invasion. So now, 80% overall in Ukraine are ready to fight for Ukraine, and even in the Eastern (the most Russia-friendly) part of the country, 59% are ready to fight for Ukraine against Russia. This doesn't account for Crimea and occupied areas of Donbas, but it accounts for everything else. So there is no strong camp that supports Russia, not any more. Those who support Russia are very clearly a minority.

12. Tom Aspinall
11. Arnold Allen
10 Paddy Pimblett   
9. Gunnar Nelson
8. Molly McCann
7. Ilia Topuria
6. Mike Grundy
5. Shamil Abdurakhimov   
4. Paul Craig   
3. Jack Shore   
2. Cory McKenna
1. Cody Durden

a) 14 b) 1:58

Wow, what can I say... If economic crisis was any good, people would work so hard on preventing them or limiting them. An economic crisis leads to people not having the means to buy things, and the economy degrading. And if the interest rates rise, less people will be doing mortgage. Local things won't be cheap either because if global things are too expensive or out of reach, the demand for local things will rise and thus the prices for local things rise as well, while people can't afford to pay more. There's nothing good about the economic crisis. Some suffer less from it, some suffer more, but overall it has negative impact on the world.

Now that the bombing has been going on for a while, I can safely say that you're wrong. I knew it before, but I think now the world is ready to see it as well. Ukrainian anthem's verses are 'we'll lay our body and soul for our freedom', and it's exactly how Ukrainians feel as a nation. Bombing the cities makes most people not desperate and willing to concede, but the opposite: angrier towards Russia, even more willing to fight back because on top of everything, there's a need to avenge those who were killed so cruelly and unfairly. Putin cannot break the Ukrainian spirit also for another reason: Ukrainians are NOT afraid of him, unlike the Western people. In Ukraine, he's been mostly called 'huilo' since 2014, which is hard to explain to a non-native speaker, but it's closest to 'little f*cker', basically. So it's someone weak, small, worthless. Ukraine is not afraid, and is ready to fight till the end. Conquering a country like this is pretty much impossible. Not to mention all the Western weaponry and money Ukraine's getting, and all the isolation and sanctions Russia is getting.

Actually, another big country that's kind of neutral is India, so China is not the only one. But China is more important geopolitically, I think, so let's focus on that. The problem with China and embracing it is that it comes at a high price. China is itself a very problematic authoritarian state with basically concentration camps and lots of human rights violations. So the West doesn't want to empower China any more than it has already been empowered by deep economic ties between the US and China. Meanwhile, as a fellow dictatorship, China's more sympathetic toward Putin than Western leaders, so really joining the war on the side of the Western countries is not something China's willing to do, unless Russia does something especially stupid like annexing a part of China's territory. And as long as China doesn't help Russia too much, it's enough.

Yes, you are correct. Cryptos were kind of in the grey area: not illegal, definitely not prosecuted (unless a person is committing another crime, such as stealing electricity), but also not regulated. The roadmap of crypto adoption was actually introduced before the war, so Ukraine was working on creating a favorable regulatory framework. And yes, it's the same law, but it has to be signed by the president to be enacted. Previously, he vetoed the law over a technicality, and now he signed it.
We'll never know because Russia will never conquer all of Ukraine. It's impossible to conquer a country where civilians (around 80% of them, according to polls), are willing to defend their country against Russia using weapons, and where the essence of national identity is fighting for freedom (and, historically, it's very often been fighting for freedom from Russia).

LeGaulois, I think that, realistically, favorable regulations are the way forward for crypto adoption. Crypto exchanges operated and continue to do so in Ukraine, but they were operating in the shadows, and not they can become fully legal businesses. As for protecting the rights, I think it means going to court over falling a victim of a crypto scam, seizing official wallets of companies if they violate the law, stuff like that. I don't think it's bad when the state tries to embrace the crypto industry and make it so that the country's economy can benefit from it. And, honestly, there's this thing about dismantling the institutions, weakening the state and stuff, but here's something people who promote this and believe in this don't understand: this stuff can only work in developed, secure democratic countries which are not constantly threatened by a crazy neighboring empire. Ukraine cannot have a weak state because it'll make it easier for Russia to win, simply put. And, unfortunately for anarchists, this will become the case for many countries now because Putin has shown that apparently Hitler times are not over, and a country can just decide to invade another country. So many will (and have already begun) strengthen their militaries and rely on the state and institutions more than before.

It's an interesting story, and I do believe that the war motivated the increased usage of Bitcoin. However, this only works under fairly peaceful conditions and in places with stable Internet connection. Local fiat is currently the most handy thing to have in small towns and generally in places which are under blockade or where electricity is down because of the war. In other places, getting cash is often very challenging (because the ATMs are running out of it), but paying with card is almost always an option. I'm glad they found a way to buy a car with Bitcoin, but they said it was in central Ukraine, and central Ukraine is one of the least affected areas by the war so far.

Actually, in the current war, fiat is of high value (cash, that is). While big cities, excluding perhaps Mariupol which is being actively obliterated by Russians, have stable online connection and paying with cards is not a problem there, in small cities of various regions of Ukraine only cash is something that can buy you essential stuff because there's no electricity (and has been no electricity for many days), and supermarkets don't work any more. My father-in-law has to go to a neighbor to use his generator to charge his mobile phone, and then he has to go to the center of the town because it's the only place that currently has at least some mobile connection. Needless to say, paying with Bitcoin is out of question under such conditions. But cryptos are still useful in other places and for other purposes, as long as there's stable internet.

Congrats on this wonderful opportunity to educate people about Bitcoin! I think that given that cryptos are fairly known (I guess by now most people you'll see there have at least heard some stuff about them), perhaps it's a good idea to take a bit of time for myth-busting? I mean talking about the most popular myths, such as Bitcoin is a pyramid, Bitcoin is a scam, Bitcoin is only used by criminals, Bitcoin is an ecological disaster. Maybe even addressing them shortly can be important because when people aren't too familiar with cryptos, myths like that can be the main stuff they know about them.

Amidst the war, the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky signed the law "On virtual assets", as the minister of digital transformation of Ukraine Mykhailo Fedorov reports.
According to Fedorov, crypto assets became a powerful tool of financing the Armed forces of Ukraine since the beginning of the war, and the crypto market is one of the most dynamic markets of the digital economy, which is also actively developing in Ukraine. Fedorov says the law legalizes foreign and Ukrainian crypto exchanges, allows banks to open accounts for crypto companies, allows Ukrainians to protect their investments into virtual assets and means that the state guarantees court protection of the rights related to virtual assets.

Another step towards the future, another step toward crypto adoption in Ukraine. After the war, Ukraine will need anything it can use to boost the economy, and I don't think the state plans to miss out on the crypto industry as a way of doing that.

The op makes an... original comparison, I guess, but like others, I disagree with it. If BTC is sent from one wallet to another, the recipient is now the owner. It's even more so than when people use bank accounts, actually, because one could argue that it's technically the banks owning money and the ownership barely gets transferred. Also, SMS is technically private (at least, if I send SMS to someone I know, regular people can't just look it up), whereas Bitcoin transactions are public, one can see the transfer from one address to another all over the world.

a) 12 b) 1:49

I think that for people who know the symbol of their national currency, they wouldn't confuse it with anything else just because they've seen it a lot, and they know exactly how the lines go through it. I'm judging based on a fairly weird symbol of my own local fiat (₴), and yet I know that I wouldn't confuse it with anything similar to it. But even from the forum, it seems that they are similar enough to talk about it, yes, but not something I would confuse because it's one line striking through B versus two non-striking lines through B. So overall, I don't think it's a big issue.

Right now, even Musk is moving towards the topic of the war in Ukraine, so he doesn't have much time for full-on hype over cryptos anymore. Not to mention that the topic must be hot to reach enough people. The screenshot shows a tweet that got 38 thousand likes in 7 hours, whereas Musk's most recent tweet regarding a challenge to Putin over Ukraine got 30k likes in half an hour already.
So there's just less hype over the crypto market and over manipulations on the market, and people got used to Musk commenting cryptos, so the marginal value of such tweets of his decreased.

I think the phrase itself can be understood in different ways, leading to different answers. It seems to me that it actually means a simple truth that it's not possible to issue new BTC and lead to inflation. If it's about the impact of altcoins on Bitcoin and vice versa, I don't think it's that different from the stock market or from the market of fiat currencies, honestly. Bitcoin can go up along with other coins or down with them, just like if some stocks start failing, others often experience disturbances as well, but it's not all coordinated.

It's good that the order is about looking into the impact on climate change and financial crimes cryptos might be involved in rather than stating how cryptos are harmful. But what really matters now is how this will play out, what sort of reports will be prepared and which conclusions will be reached. So it's just a careful order to keep looking into cryptos and how to regulate them best, but it's nothing great either. Then again, if many in the US are lobbying for harsher regulations, and given that the traditional stock market can see crypto trading as a direct competitor, it's good that this order is a neutral one.

As others have mentioned, it's not something that can always be done or can easily be done. If you are not acting as an authority with a court order allowing you to proceed, it's probably not going to work, unless a person was clumsy and left info online (which, to be honest, happens quite often). If you have all court orders, access to databases and stuff like that, it's possible to work one's way to the real owner by looking at other wallets and addresses linked to the address you have and determining the exchanges that person might have used, and then demanding info about the details of accounts which sent money to this or that address. And even then, it's not always possible to find out the truth this way.