I think that at this moment only this bold part is important, because it turned out that most of the help in the first days of the war came through cryptocurrencies. As world bureaucrats negotiated and sat in their comfortable armchairs, ordinary people provided their support to people in need. All this without any approval and risk that someone will intercept their donations, and also completely anonymously. With or without this law, nothing significant will change in terms of what is happening on the ground.

I start from the assumption that most of the members who visit this local board still live in Russia, although it is quite logical that they can be in any country in the world.


I will not excuse anyone, but we need to take into account that people who are exposed to the sufferings of war and fear for themselves and the lives of their loved ones often react in a way that everyone on the other side is equally to blame.

The question you ask exists not perhaps from the first day or the genesis block, but from the moment when Bitcoin became known to a wider circle of people and when, in addition to the technological aspect, they began to speculate on possible monetary benefits. Today, most of the discussion is exclusively about price, while few are still working on the development and improvement of Bitcoin, which, although at its core, is the same - improved and adapting to some new times. This is a very important fact as a counter-argument against those who claim that Bitcoin is becoming technologically obsolete and that it will be replaced by some new super coin.

It is difficult to predict whether some countries (except El Salvador) have already invested in Bitcoin in some way, or will do so in the future - but all those waiting to see the moves of central banks will remain behind enemy lines if that ever happens. The key thing is to do it before them because the more BTC there are in the wallets (non-custodial) of ordinary users, the less will remain for those who are today in the vast majority against the decentralization that Bitcoin represents.

We who have owned Bitcoin for more than 5 years have certainly not regretted it and can serve as a representative example and an adequate answer to the question. I think it is not at all doubtful that everyone should consider investing a certain percentage that they keep in FIAT in BTC, because paper loses value and no one can dispute that, while BTC does just the opposite.

Of course, the future is uncertain, but everyone must ask themselves what brings them greater security - money in the bank or Bitcoin in the crypto wallet.

There is a better chance that Putin will walk through Kyiv smeared with tar and feathers and publicly apologize to everyone for the war, than that the admin would go so far as to close a board for political reasons. Such censorship exists only in Russia or the media of North Korea, and if it started happening at the forum, it would be the beginning of the end.

But if there is any truth that Russia intends to completely separate itself from the global Internet, then that board will lock itself up because Russians from Russia will no longer be able to access it.

That news has been good for 2 days, you're a little late

But even if they decided completely differently I personally wouldn't care because Bitcoin doesn't need a license to exist.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg59524187#msg59524187


I experienced this in the war for the independence of my country 30+ years ago when we faced an enemy that was incomparably stronger. Less than 2000 poorly armed people managed to hold the city of Vukovar for 87 days in front of a manpower of at least 36 000 people, hundreds of tanks, cannons, air force and everything that the modern army had at that time. Although the city eventually fell into enemy hands, the losses the enemy suffered were a turning point in the war.

If the Ukrainians last long enough in defense, it is only a matter of time before they launch a counterattack - and most EU countries have realized that not only Ukraine is defending itself there, but that it is defending all countries in the east and north of the EU.

So you indirectly admit that you are the same person who already presented the same ideas some time ago - did you forget the password from that account or? Your theory might be interesting to the kids in kindergarten, for everyone else it's total nonsense - maybe one day you'll realize some things, and maybe not.

If you think that 1 BTC in your non-custodial wallet is not worth more than the usual number 1 presented on the screen, I suggest the following: draw a sunset and live in the belief that you have something more valuable than 1 BTC. You have not revealed any great secret but perhaps one of your greatest nonsense in life.

Therefore, it is not clear to me why anyone is thinking in that direction at all, because the negative aspects of biometric methods are, in my opinion, much greater than any benefits.


This could be avoided by adding a PIN to the fingerprint, as is the case on smartphones where in case you fail to unlock the fingerprint device for some reason, you get the option to do so with the PIN you previously set. It often happens to me that I can’t unlock my smartphone with a fingerprint located under the screen (often after washing my hands), but a PIN is always there as an alternative.


If someone thinks this would give more security, maybe the seed could be combined with a fingerprint, so in case someone steals the seed he has some extra security with biometric data - something like a biometric passphrase - although I don't know how technically feasible.

@Arriemoller, Ukrainians only need weapons to defend themselves, each of them fighting with the strength of ten Russians because they are defending their country and their homes. More good news is coming from the US, sending small killer drones (Switchblades) is being considered, and that would give Ukrainians even more power given how deadly and easily portable the drones are.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/ukraine-asks-biden-admin-armed-drones-jamming-gear-surface-air-missile-rcna20197

Ask @DaveF, because if memory serves me he could be from NY and I remember reading about his experience not so long ago. Although it is possible that the man was just visiting and I misunderstood something.

You're the same guy who asked us to convince him to invest in Bitcoin some time ago, because he thought he was just buying a number on the screen - and he compared the whole thing to a picture of a sunset? Even if you are not the same person, you share similar opinions, so I suggest you get in touch and maybe try to monetize your ideas in some way. I also have a suggestion for the name of your association, Sunset Guys

@YellowSwap, it definitely makes sense to buy something cheap, and when it comes to cryptocurrency bear market or big corrections are a great investment opportunity. However, many see such a strategy as a problem due to the fact that they will have to wait a long time for some profit - and that is why most choose the opposite strategy of short-term investment at a time when prices are rising.

And as for some good crypto projects, good luck with that - because finding one such project is the same as looking for a needle in a haystack, and I personally prefer to play the lottery once a week and hope that some pretty girl will draw my lucky numbers

Does this mean that someone thinks that Binance is worth between €40 trillion and €50 trillion? It is a public fact that they make huge profits not only from having (like most) very expensive fees but also from their token and listing various crypto garbage in their offer. Yet someone has recalculated quite a bit, as Binance had a trading volume of around $2 trillion in 2020, and all EU banks in 2019 had a total asset value close to €50 trillion.

$60k is quite an achievable number in case some positive things happen to us, and when I say positive then I don't mean that someone bought 30 000 BTC or something like that. Not necessarily in that order, but this would be positive news for me :

• The end of the war in Ukraine, because the war is bad for every business except for the production and sale of weapons. I think most people (especially those who are relatively close to the conflict site) are not interested in risky investments, Bitcoin is no exception.
• Stopping inflation, which is increasingly affecting living standards around the world, could result in mass protests, which could destabilize the political situation in many countries.
• Make final decisions in terms of laws that regulate Bitcoin in the EU and the US, because we can not constantly be on the edge of a ban and wonder what will come to their minds tomorrow.
• Approval of the physical BTC ETF in the US, which would very likely affect the price as it would create a demand for Bitcoin.
• Raising awareness of how useful it can be to invest in Bitcoin compared to traditional investment methods, especially in terms of long-term investments.

If we know that a man is ready to invade a sovereign country militarily, to destroy everything in his path without any mercy - then why would it be strange to want to nationalize the property that will remain behind the companies that cease to operate in that country? All these companies must take into account the risk of such events, in every business you can profit and you can lose.

All of these companies may one day return if the government in that country changes, and that new government will then do the right thing and return the property to its owners. While everyone is focusing on how many companies are leaving Russia or temporarily shutting down, the drug manufacturing sector is not covered by sanctions and continues to operate normally, despite some wondering how moral it is - but the fact that oil and gas are still flowing from Russia to the countries that impose the biggest sanctions is no less moral.

Of course, Russia will lose a lot of jobs with the closure of all these companies, but this is their internal problem that they have created for themselves - maybe these people will now be redirected to other sectors.

I do not believe that this kind of news could have a positive effect on the price, because most of the EU is not exactly a place where BTC can be profitably mined. Although some crypto miners have their own mining farms in the area, the biggest impact is still on some other parts of the world where such operations are carried out on a much larger scale. People misunderstand that this was a real threat at all, because the procedures for passing laws in the EU are not so simple, and any member state may refuse to implement such a law.

Political games about some things related to cryptocurrencies in general in all parts of the world are not exactly in the focus of investors who have turned their attention to the war and everything that will result from the sanctions imposed on the aggressor country. Bitcoin is holding up well no matter what, but in these circumstances, I don't expect a bull run - the bigger challenge will be to defend the position it currently holds.

I know that they were quite strong in the crypto advertising sector a long time ago, and that most faucets used their service, but that was 5-6 years ago - today I rarely see anyone use their service, which explains why they have empty wallets.

If you can't withdraw your funds, you always have the option to use them for advertising as you had planned. While the question is what kind of visibility you will get through such advertising, it may still be a better option than not getting anything.

---

You would be surprised how many different crypto services of this type are actually owned by people from those two countries, and I am convinced from my personal experience that about 40% of the traffic just comes from there. Given the current situation, it is quite logical that their focus is on the war, and not on what they should be dealing with.

Data for 2021 show that the number exceeded 56 million, and only a few years ago I remember a similar thread in which there was a debate on the same topic, only the number of millionaires was 46 million. What you think is realistic is far from it, because every millionaire will never want to have 1 BTC, just as every millionaire doesn't have an expensive yacht, a $10 million house, and an expensive car.

Bitcoin has been around since 2009, and currently on crypto exchanges there are millions of BTCs available for sale - I don’t see millionaires interested in buying it. Being rich does not necessarily mean being intelligent, and Bitcoin is for a little more intelligent people who understand a little more than how to push a credit card into an ATM and type in a PIN.


Most rich people have enough money, you don't have to be afraid that they will buy Bitcoin to be even richer - of course some will, but that number will never be 100% - it might be more realistic to say that number will be maybe 10%.

Come on, do you think he would say something like that seriously? The boy obviously watched too many stories from the Wild West where the confrontations were resolved face to face, and now there are some other, much more dishonorable times. Even if Bloody Puto accepted the duel, do you think EM would have any chance against the former secret service agent?

@Toughit, the idea is not really bad, because as far as I hear a very large number of Russian soldiers do not want to take part in the war, but it is not easy and simple to surrender. Yet some have found a way, and this video of a Russian soldier fed by Ukrainians was certainly very inspiring for many Russian soldiers.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/video-shows-crying-russian-soldier-drinking-tea-calling-mom/

The Russians boast that they sell quite enough gas and oil despite the sanctions, and how could it not be when the whole EU depends on their gas, and China, with which they do business normally, can easily buy everything that others do not want.


Sanctions have no effect in the short term, and some analysts say it would take years for Russia to feel them in the right way. Russians are finding holes everywhere, so despite the ban on passenger planes, they continue to fly across the EU using the so-called "Serbian backdoor", which has not imposed sanctions on Russia. What does the EU say about the behavior of a country negotiating EU accession? Nothing, they pretend not to be aware of how someone is undermining their sanctions, if they can be called sanctions at all.