1. The Russians were leasing the naval base in Crimea, so they were allowed to be there. legally. There was no occupation.
2. Crimea historically never truly belonged to Ukraine. Especially since the Crimea handover was unconstitutional.
3. If you're going to go as far back as the USSR to point fingers, then you might as well go further and tell me about the crimes of Ivan The Terrible and pin that on modern Russia as well.

As I already mentioned, the Russians were already there. What did you expect them to do? Sit back or retreat while the temporary government in Kiev would decide to use army and aviation to restore control against Pro-Russian Separatists the same way as they did in Donbass area? Or was that not what you would refer to as "bloodshed"?

The Russians decided to protect their own people. And to give them a choice. The Crimeans made their choice. After a coup d'etat the constitution validity is suspended so the referendum was a valid expression of public opinion. And if you think they are now all keeping quiet about their true thoughts because they fear Putin, then you are mistaken. Im not hearing anyone complaining. The Uyghurs in China had their mouths sown shut by the CCP. Yet we heard a lot of brave Uyghurs complaining about how they were being treated, despite being threatened with death and camps.

You seem to have swallowed the western propoganda of Putin being Hitler reincarnated, hook line and sinker.

Here is a video you should look into, if you want to inform yourself: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer
 

If you have no idea, just say so. I will gladly educate you what would have happened, had Russia not taken Crimea:


The U.S. in its part, financed the Maidan coup as well as other "democracy building programs" with 5.1 billion USD since 1991. Crimea was about to be taken over by the illegitimate regime of Poroshenko. After a drawn-out slaughter of its citizens, it would have lost its autonomous status after which Porky would have given permission to the U.S. for a Black Sea base.

What happened instead?: The Crimean Governor arranged with Russian officials to hold a referendum and put  the reunification with Russia to a vote in such a way, that Ukraine and the US could not interfere. The people voted to join Russia.

Was this legal? Yes.
Did it break international agreements? Yes. But since when has the US or any other world power ever honored their agreements?

Edit:

For anyone who hasn't heard the leaked phone call with Victoria Nuland meddling in Ukraine affairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8

The fact that the CIA is deep into cryptocurrencies is of no surprise to anyone, I would think. Crypto, especially privacy coins like Monero can easily be used to buy weapons, mercenaries and fuel coups. But I am *sure* the CIA is "officially" worried about terrorists using crypto to finance their terror attacks. It would not surprise me if the ones behind Bitcoin were actually the CIA because they needed a new way to secretly topple governments without many people noticing a paper trail.

But everyone knows what they are up to, with or without crypto.

If you cannot explain a concept in a simple fashion, then you yourself do not entirely understand it. Anything can be explained simply. As far as Bitcoin goes, there are quite number or educational and entertaining short videos on youtube that explain how Bitcoin works and why the technology behind it (Blockchain) results in Bitcoin being the better money.

The point of explaining to someone who doesn't understand Bitcoin yet is to get them interested. After that they will do the learning by themselves...

When I said that Mexico is probably one of the next countries to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, I got laughed at. Well, not really laughed at but rather scoffed at....
If a supermarket can offer Bitcoin as a payment choice, and has absolutely to face zero legal repercussions, then thats a very good sign. And I think we will be seeing a very nice spread. This might be the 100k event we have been waiting for.

That being said, 20% bonus? That seems like a bit of overkill. Can they really afford such a large rebate for their business? Well, whatever. It definitely will make more bitcoiners. Win win.

There are a few things that need to be considered. First of all, unless these Bitcoins were bought with fiat that was considered debt, then yes, that debt hole has now grown. If not, then its just an investment that has absolutely no conditions upon it as to needing to be paid back.

Furthermore, we are ignoring the mining activities which may even out the loss from the dip.

And finally, when it comes to businesses, I think the loss can be written off as business expenses (Although I am not sure on this one). So everything evens out at the end.

You know, its hard to take you seriously when your arguments become jpegs.

But, for the sake of entertaining you...




Well they were kind of forced to do that. Ukraine was not willing to let Crimea be independent, and there would have been a lot of bloodshed. And by law, the Crimean give-away was legally void. So either Russia took Crimea or would have watched Crimea turn into a bloodbath. As I said, I have yet to hear a single Crimean complain about the annexation.

We have had things too good. And whenever we have things too good, we ignore all the red flags and stopped thinking about the future. It's only when a crisis finally happens, that we get nudged awake by the discomfort of the said crisis. And then and only then do we start trying to think of a way to go back to the comfortable times. The harder the discomfort, the more we are motivated to do something.

Just wait until our environmental problems REALLY catch up to us. Thats going to be a LOT of discomfort for us.

By that logic Russia would not be a "big bully" if it illegally invaded offshore countries on false premises, like the US did to Iraq, for example? Do we need Russian bases with nuclear missles on the borders of the US because they invade [enter names of middle eastern countries here] every few years?

Lets not be hypocritical. If you see fit to surround a country with enemy bases and nuclear missles, then that country will obviously respond accordingly.

Are you referring to how Khrushchev "gave" Crimea to Ukraine without a referendum, which was illegal? And he was drunk while doing so.

"Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the USSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR."

Was taking back Crimea after all this time a dick move? yes.

But morally, I am with Russia on this one, especially because the Crimeans don't seem to be complaining about not being slaughtered by extremists after Maidan or their quality of life skyrocketing.

The US doesn't give two shits about Ukraine except for building a NATO base so they can exert more influence and pressure on Russia.
Europe pretends to care, as not to anger the US. Except for Germany who openly cares more about their gas bill not going up.

Ok, so I am thinking that your distinction between decentralization and regulation is not a very good one. What makes decentralization so lawless to you? It just means that no central place can control or manipulate the money/transactions. If your computer explodes, your money won't disappear. Furthermore, most coins are not really privacy coins, so again, they can easily be traced to said criminal. That way, the criminal can't use/sell his coins when everyone knows they are illegal.

If anything, that makes blockchain and the decentralization it offers a much better alternative to fighting criminals than the untraceable, forgeable and unregulatable pieces of recycled toilet paper (aka paper money) which you seemingly prefer  

I wholeheartedly agree with that last sentiment. If all we were to do is simply sit around and do absolutely nothing, we would be risk-free and yet we would still lose our fiat by deflation. So not having a plan for putting your money into something that counterbalances that deflation is already a very bad plan.

Life is about risks, everything entails a risk of some kind, whether small or large. So going by that, you might as well risk to make some more money with the least risky way possible.

Just know what you are staking and you will be fine.

The only way you can find something new is by building on top of something old. This is really the standard rule for everything. Science builds on old science, math builds on old math, new inventions build on old inventions. If you think that copy pasting something new is the way to go, you would be very very wrong.

Instead of chasing the new stuff and chasing the popularity crowd, you should concentrate on building something yourself. Something people might like, might not like or might not care about. If your new thing gets hyped, lucky for you. But don't demand luck if you don't get hype.

I am not sure why you would need a remote wallet for a wallet that is already decentralized. Is the remote not connected to the internet? You would still need some kind of connection then, like a phone connection?

To me it seems like this is a lot of mental gymnastics without a clear purpose. What are the use cases for this which aren't already fullfilled by the blockchain technology itself? 

Honestly, unless you explain a bit more detailled why anyone would need this, I do not see any advantages of a remote wallet currently.

Well, I can honestly say that there is no need to feel bad or embarrased about your dogecoin exploits. We have all made mistakes and some of us have had to pay a hefty price for the valuable lesson that you have learned today.

Bitcoin, in the end, provides us the best lessons. Let this be your steady path towards riches, from now on!

If you ever need advice, feel free to post away on the forum as much as you want! Posting does help you get rid of bad thoughts and strengthens your hodling game.

No KYC is a tempting offer, however I personally would still keep my distance from new exchanges, no matter what features they claim. New exchanges need to prove themselves with time and patience. Not overblown promises.

At the very least we should take a look at the team behind the exchange as well as the investors and partners who are backing this entire website. If we don't have names and trustworthy faces, then that alone would seem like a red flag to me.

I have yet to make my judgement though.

I would agree with the notation that it largely depends on the bounty manager and the reputation of said manager. Furthermore, the project needs to have some funding behind it. Some random 100-dollar-company will have an obviously small team and a cheap looking project. I would definitely avoid projects like that.

On the other hand, big teams and many partners (especially investors like Venture Capitalists) are a big green flag that the project will bring out worthwhile tokens. A lot of them demand KYC nowadays, so that may or may not discourage you, as a bounty hunter.

Do your own research. Be safe.

What is Microstrategy planning? I know that Elon Musk loves going the route of perpetually Bullish with bouts of scary FUD whenever he is planning to buy more, at least when it comes to dogecoin, which has a smaller market cap and is therefore much easier to manipulate. I would love to know how long term this bitcoin hording strategy of Microstrategy will be...

With any luck Microstrategy might even prove itself a gift for hodlers everywhere and a steady pillar against whale manipulations.

What more can he possibly do to Bitcoin except regulating entry and end points like financial services, for example, centralized cryptoexchanges (note that I did not say decentralized, because there is absolutely nothing he can do there).

All he is going to make happen is a lot of FUD that makes the weak hands shake and this will only make the whales happy, as they buy more coin...

But that dip will be superficial and Bitcoin will keep growing. So, what can he possibly do?