I saw a post somewhere that some rich countries already did it, they have bought massive agri farms out of their profits from selling their own crude oil. It was a brilliant idea, now they cannot solely rely on their oil as it will drain sooner or later. So the alternative is needed, in order for them to survive they have bought lands across the country to grow foods that their own lands cannot. I am speaking about Saudi Arabia, look at their 3km disc like farms, it is an innovation and it was lit.

 I was planning from the start to buy farm lands, I wanna grow my own food too, releasing myself from the shackles of this society. The system wants us to follow it like robots, we die, somebody takes our position and I won't be waiting that to happen and do nothing. We need to think an alternative to break the chain, even if inflation hits us hard, knowing we have food in our backyard won't do us any damage. We might be needing the energy for transport, then if things gets harder, we'll just have to go back on using the old ways huh.

New telegram post by the master in Bitcoin Beavers

Oчeнь жиpнaя бычья дивepгeнция нa нeдeльнoм. Пoxoжe идём нa 80к.

Very bold bullish divergence on the weekly. Looks like we're going to 80k.

You are wrong because value of bitcoin doesn't stem from how easily you can trade it! But the real value of bitcoin stems from how decentralized and censorship resistant it is as a currency or a payment system. This principle does NOT change for bitcoin no matter how much restrictions are placed in some centralized third party service that works with bitcoin.

It is not about censoring at all, it is about what would happen next to the entities that broke the sanction, they too will be sanctioned. It's essentially the fear of punishment that outweighs the benefits of the trade that prevents some entities from having relations with country A! Otherwise if the benefits were more (like Germany and other European countries) or if they didn't even care about them (like China, Iran, ...) they would just ignore the sanctions.


Again it is not about censoring but about finding out and then punishing those involved.

Interestingly enough Russia is now demanding that those Europeans receiving Russian gas have to pay with Ruble from now on

Countries can not and do not use bitcoin to avoid sanctions.

It's a pretty simple matter, if country A is sanctioned by country B then country A can not use any means of payment including bitcoin to trade with country B or any country following B. And if country A and C don't give a shit about sanctions they will trade with each other with or without bitcoin.

Keep in mind that bitcoin has the most transparent ledger in the world. So for example if country D was worried a little about getting sanctioned because of trading with country A, it would never use bitcoin!

Bitcoin is just another way to dump US dollar as reserve currency and for trades. Sanctions only give the incentive to do it faster.

As I said earlier, other means of payment are already being used (a LOT more than bitcoin will be). Even Saudis are talking about dumping US dollar and using Yuan for oil exports!

I think that there are those who are trying to appear as Elon Musk or Justin Sun, thus inject this coin with news and a little investment to gain confidence and then print a lot of money to buy more Bitcoin.

I can't understand the benefit of adding a stablecoin based on the concept of linkage, which means that they may be good at first, but soon we will find that they have printed more of the assets they have.

If they create a new model then we may approve them.

I have been reading theblockcrypto.com article and there is one thing I don't understand. It says on the one hand that they are buying it on the one hand because they are going to tokenize Bitcoin into Luna, their native token and on the other hand they are going to serve as a reserve for their UST stablecoin.

I think in part this is an acknowledgement that their stablecoin and token are crap and that Bitcoin is better.

I suppose the reserve is to cushion the depreciation suffered by fiat currencies and therefore stablecoins, but it is not clear to me what role the volatility of the Bitocin can play in a currency that is supposed to be "stable".

What is interesting, however, is that despite people supporting Bitcoin they are also supporting centralized exchanges and custodial wallets and all things that are essentially against the Bitcoin standard. So perhaps we could ask whether the people really prefer complete independence. For many years, DExes are left behind by CExes in terms of volume. Moreover, despite compulsory KYC hassles and failing a number of times in the process, centralized exchanges are not losing popularity. Is it only because DExes don't support fiat? Or is it simply because CExes are generally better? Or perhaps people aren't really interested get out of fiat altogether?

Most of the world population goes by those rules. They usually end up as laws.

There are a lot of wonderful experiments that didn't get world wide acceptance/traction for whatever odd reasons. And I will not talk (only) about (some) altcoins, I would (also) talk about better ways to store data (much better than DVD), for example. The world goes on and most will not miss that, but for some.. it's a loss.

You do have a good point about proving it works as designed, although imho that was already proven.
Can Russia trigger real adoption? I doubt it. Just look how the "adoption" went in China. They toyed Bitcoin for a while, then kicked it out and started their centralized coin. It has proven to us the Bitcoin resilience, but for the average Chen it's a loss.

And the western banking sector (and it friends) just waits the perfect opportunity/reason to ban their main competitor. And then.. who will adopt Bitcoin?

It's a free world (actually network), that's the beauty of it. And protesting won't help; I don't expect Russian government care at all.
But please allow me still be concerned, OK?

I find Bitcoin now at a thin balance between the experimental status and worldwide adoption. I fear that the critical mass (user base) is not yet achieved and although we both have similar goal for Bitcoin, I'd prefer to "play safe" a little more.

What we have now with Bitcoin is a mix of hope and speculation. Bitcoin's actual value will come after the critical mass is reached and we can go on with or without the current financial sector.

I don't think that you really want that. It would be an immense setback.

Buy dip and hold seems like a very simple strategy, but it offers maximum benefits.  Sometimes simple things succeed but people do the opposite and insist on complexity.  Unfortunately, Bitcoin is already in the $43k region and it looks like it continues to surge after some exciting news regarding Russia's acceptance of GAS payments in bitcoin.  The market will respond to the next level of that need.

I'm not sure it's a bullrun and much to look forward to in Bitcoin Miami April 6-8. No signs of verifying the next level yet but $48k looks great to end March for trend building

If Bitcoin ends up as underground-only currency, it will be everybody's loss.

Sorry, I find your view in this a bit limited (or maybe I just don't understand it), and repeating that bitcoin is permissionless medium of exchange won't change that.

For example, an asset only in the underground markets - no matter the price recovers or not - won't really be seen as a store of value.

For Russia and China, Bitcoin is only a toy they can use and throw away. If Russia will indeed sell gas for Bitcoin to whatever sanctioned countries, we may get back to "bitcoin is illegal money" and businesses/individuals getting restricted in using it.

I do understand your point, this kind of use would show how powerful Bitcoin actually is. But if then Bitcoin will no longer be accepted in the western world... it will be pretty bad, and not only for the price.

For "underground" use there are the privacy coins. But I would not be happy with Bitcoin used again only by (some of) us. I want to see Bitcoin accepted literally everywhere, by every merchant/business. The more legit the better.

One of the reason for high trust on bitcoin is that the bitcoin owner Satoshi identity is hidden.

If all of sudden Satoshi come in the public and his identity is revealed, do you think it will have a bad impact on the bitcoin price and it can dump?  Or do you think that bitcoin price will pump on this revelation? Mind you that i am talking about the real satoshi, not the fake ones claiming themselves to be satoshi.

This news is cheered by those who care only about the price (which has indeed started going up), but I fear it will give even more ammo to Bitcoin's opponents.

And BTW, the whole news as I've read it, tells that they consider asking Bitcoin from the friendly countries and rubles or gold from the others.
However, changing the means of payment currency is not allowed by most of the existing long term contracts, so this looks to me like pushing the countries take the (not so easy) decision of finding better providers than Russia.

Sure I’ll take note of these. I still have at least a month to prepare myself, gathering all of the information to be put to my slides. I already have my old slides from last year and can still use them, but I may have to update some of them though with the inclusion of NFTs, metaverse, etc. But the main focus is Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general for their real use cases and fundamentals as well as giving them advice in risk management.

But someone can not just become expert in one day, if you are discouraging people not to trade, then no one will be an expert.


New traders do lose, then best to advice them to use a very small amount which they can willingly offer to lose, starting to trade with $50 is not bad while trading with $10 in each trade

Tradimg can start anytime, it depends on the approach used.

This is exactly what happened with the Nigerians government, they did the same thing by placing ban on crypto just to reveal the launch of their E-Naira CBDC, i think you're right, government are contending with cryptocurrency but they lack the understanding that CBDC is totally different from cryptocurrency.

Speaking of CBDC, I did posted earlier about the Philippines doing a pilot implementation run on it here.

I just don’t know if CBDC’s poses a threat to the adoption of cryptocurrencies as mode of payment or so. Every country has their own point of view regarding Bitcoin. As you said about Thailand not allowing crypto as mode of payment but allowing as investment, maybe they need to study more deeply about it as they don’t want to be left behind in the trend like the anti-Bitcoin countries right now.