Both price growth and potential profitability are halved in log scale.

I have found no altcoin (nor other asset) whose price development resembles with Bitcoin during its first three halving cycles. Except that their early price growth is understandably faster than later ones.


Of cause, the numbers are related. And something similar is found for example in Litecoin, Etherum and Dogecoin, the real estate in the Former Soviet Union and so on and so on. However, this similarity is limited solely to the existence of the fact you pointed out: early price growth is much faster than the later ones.
But neither the price growth nor potential profitability decrease follow the same rule as for BTC...
During the first halving cycle (4 years), the price of BTC increased by almost - the error is remarkably insignificant 0.1 order of magnitudes from 4.0 order of magnitudes - exactly the same amount (10000x) as it did in all the subsequent years combined.
During the second halving cycle, the price of BTC increased by almost exactly the same amount (100x) as it did in all the subsequent years combined.
During the third halving cycle, the price of BTC increased by almost exactly the same amount (10x) as it did in all the subsequent years combined.

During the first halving cycle, the potential profitability of BTC decreased by almost exactly the same amount as it did in all the subsequent years combined.
During the second halving cycle, the potential profitability of BTC decreased by almost exactly the same amount as it did in all the subsequent years combined.
During the third halving cycle, the potential profitability of BTC decreased by almost exactly the same amount as it did in all the subsequent years combined.

Point out some other asset that could show something similar and I will abandon the Bitcoin cult instantly.

...and this raises the question: why haven’t people simply switched to Bitcoin for their daily payments and routine financial transactions?
Let me answer that right away - no, the government doesn’t prohibit it! In most countries, Bitcoin is not considered MONEY, which means exchanging goods or services for Bitcoin is simply a trade -a kind of barter. We could just as easily exchange, say, gum wrappers for food,  they aren’t money either, so there’s no income, and therefore no basis for taxation.... So what went wrong?!

Exactly, and do add to that, I don't know, it makes thing complicated to us to understand. On the contrary, some of us might not go with that too much technicalities, same as when we see graphs and patterns for predicting the price in the future.

In any case, others might find the numbers or the idea of the OP. But for the majority of us, it might be better to not dig ourselves with this kind of conundrums. For us, there is going to be halving no matter what every 4 years and this is the catalyst of the next eventual bull run.

Banks and cryptocurrency centralized exchanges paid penalty money then their business operations continue until a time they want to sell their business, close it or bankrupt by severe incidents in the future.

Years ago, when CZ had to imprison for months, Binance had to pay $4B as penalty for their exchange's money laundering violations, it was like a shocking news but years later in 2026, Binance is still here, and serve many users in cryptocurrency industry. Likely in recent months, with mICA in Europe, Binance have changed their policy and tightened their AML enforcement.

Looking at how players get carried away due to the mental stress caused by excessive gambling, and the need to top up during this period to further fuel dopamine, AI integration will limit how gamers wager endlessly in hopes for wins. A player could set up a bankroll for the agent to wager low amounts over a duration of 3 hours, while the gambler is out there doing real life activities. When the duration is over, and the gambler comes in to check up on the results, do you think the pain or emotional melt down of losing all the bankroll would be equated to that of a player who sat all through the session for 3 hours and still lost every dime in their bankroll?

Thank you so much.

I attempted to send a message to the administrator and Satoshi's account, but messages from new subscribers are not being received.

If possible, please send a message mentioning my ID(abjinny_bluetwoseven) stating that I would like to recover my 2009 wallet.

Hey I can direct you to either of these two profiles belonging to Satoshi

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=000001 - this is marked ADMIN

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=000003 - this is Satoshi's profile page

From there you can send Satoshi a PM and then from there you will just have to wait until
he* gets a chance to deal with all the previous messages which were sent.

I agree, this isn't ideal for those who had a terrible experience with how their group managed their money or doesn't trust other people to handle their savings. There's not a lot of incentives for an individual to get into this but, maybe just for the very few ones can matter. Better to handle your own savings and you can pull it out anytime you wish to. I think with these community or group savings, there are thresholds of how long you have to lock the savings before they allow you to withdraw so, you'll not be able to use it in times of emergencies although that's really a separate account to save with.

What you quoted is not something I wrote.

I do not lie or joke.

No, there is a striking difference for me. Trading P2P is a contract between individuals. Restricting such contracts is imo much worse than imposing KYC restrictions to businesses providing Bitcoin services. And the prohibition to transfer to self-custody wallets is the topping of the cake: as in my previous answer that basically bans self-custody.

I don't know what you're referring to here, i.e. the practice in countries like Spain that Bitcoiners have to declare most transactions for tax purposes?

There are only very few countries that really have banned Bitcoin, and in many cases (e.g. Bolivia) the "ban" was probably illegal itself (and has since then been lifted). Russia's restrictions are probably worse than China's now, even if there are licensed trading platforms, China doesn't prohibit P2P and self-custody.

With the term "atrocity" I refer to the ban in Turkey and (probably, if I understand correctly) Russia, where there are specific restrictions trying to specifically prevent (and punish) "circunventing" of the ban with some intermediate "bartering" step (and in the books it figures as local currency). In most other countries instead you can accept Bitcoin like when you accept some form of barter.

See you understand the nuance of the situation and put your bias aside to try to see the situation what it truly is. We can't make judgements based on biases or about single decisions, but the important thing is also to look at trends. Many countries had much better laws and freedoms regarding Bitcoin and crypto in the past and have continued to get worst, the big example of this is the European Union and that is why Bitcoin is actually quite weak there compared to the current leader like the US. Russia is the opposite case, it was always against it and banned it so this is actually a big move towards a better future. We are not going to get there with big leaps and perfect solutions, so people need to be fair when analyzing things. They might never get to where they are supposed to be, but this is a step in the right direction for them only recently they made it not completely banned.

It is not prohibited, provided that these assets are held on licensed platforms (there are currently 13 such licensed platforms). However, assets cannot be withdrawn to one’s own non-custodial wallet, which, in effect, makes self-custody impossible. It amounts to a sort of veiled prohibition.

In short, this bill turns the entire concept of cryptocurrencies upside down.
Only if the recipient’s address (wallet) is managed by an organization that is authorized to manage wallets (belonging to others).
 
Legally, barter is permitted in Russia under what is known as an "exchange agreement", which is used for "goods-for-goods" swaps.Cryptocurrencies are classified as "property" (this also applies to "digital currency", which can't be used as a means of payment - isn't that absurd? ), rather than as commodities. It is highly unlikely that this loophole could be exploited. It’s an interesting situation, really: market participants wait for official regulation, only to then start hunting for (advantageous) loopholes in the law. Doesn't it strike you that this type of regulation might be improper improper regulationor at least not what was expected?

And stay right there.


By the way, if personal possession of crypto (in their own wallets) is prohibited in this country, it will "kill" the market for hardware wallets. It’s even possible that the sale of these HW-devices could be banned (there was a period a few years back when the import of HW-devices into the country was prohibited, and it was impossible to purchase them from the official manufacturer with delivery).

Or, conversely, it might boost illegal sales (possibly involving counterfeit devices with implants). In any case, a "time of change" is a prime opportunity to make money. The question is, who will do it?

What the regulators have come up with looks like another attempt to fully control people's finances and, of course, find a new source of tax revenue. The provision banning transfers to one's own non-custodial wallets implies that if a user buys crypto through an exchange listed in the Central Bank's registry, they won't be able to transfer it to an external network outside the regime's control. Such transactions will be rejected immediately. For ordinary crypto users, this means, first and foremost, that transfers from cryptocurrency, which Russian regulators cannot control, to fiat (rubles) and back will be more difficult.
As for the P2P ban, I think it will lead to the emergence of a domestic black market for cash-based P2P transactions.

If a wallet is close source, it's hard to know and be sure that you are the only entity that own private keys of that wallet.
Even the wallet is source available or open source, if it is a bad wallet and fails to create wallets with enough bits of entropy, wallets you created by it will be only weak and insecure wallets that can be compromised by hackers.

Coldcard incident is a good example of how a wallet with weak entropy can be exploited.

That is no longer how self-custody works because you trust someone for your own keys, so you don't really own the keys alone, someone is also aware of it. With that, there's high chances that privacy will be ruined any time and that self-custody will turn into other custody instead.

Know the real advantages of self-custody first and learn how to manage all its responsibilities. If you think you can't do it, better not continue risking yourself, your funds and your own privacy.

Russian government is one of the most authoritarian ones in the world and one of the most hostile to cryptocurrencies. They have already banned using crypto for payments for goods and services (which is already an atrocity) so this is not really surprising.

Basically the new law restricts "real" usage of crypto (besides speculation) to the political elite. They can order the exchange platforms to ignore their own transactions to evade sanctions, while individuals will always have to put their pants off ...

And no, MiCa isn't even close to this and doesn't even affect P2P in any way, thanks @Don Pedro Dinero and @stompix to clarify that.

Note that @Darker45 and @pooya87 are correct imo: Self-custody isn't technically banned in that Russian regulation. But afaik interpreting the articles correctly it would only be possible to obtain self-custodied BTC through mining / cloud mining or buying before mid-2027. I wonder if something like reselling server space for BTC in a P2P way (to foreigners, as Russians aren't allowed to pay for that with BTC ...) would be still possible (or use a proof-of-capacity altcoin? but then you can't trade it for BTC legally ...).

I wonder if Russia has an exception for "private non commercial trades", a lot of countries do have that and you can barter or trade most goods (excluding stuff like weapons or illegal drugs) without the State's intervention. If that exists, it would open a "hole" for cash-to-BTC trades between friends or neighbors. They could also try perhaps to buy non-custodial BTC when abroad.

Week 67

---

The post count has been completed.
Payment will be credited to your Spinly account.
$20 bonus given to Darker45. Congratulations!

We changed the rule a little bit,

That seems to be the case. I used AI to translate and analyze the actual announcement released by the actual Central Bank of Russia here (https://www.cbr.ru/develop/cryptocurrency/) and it seems to have no mention of banning self-custody itself but only when people want to transfer the funds they had on a centralized exchange out of it to self-custody.

Don't make many assumptions, a lot of these people are aware of the blunders or the issues that happened. I very rarely find people that are actually into crypto that do not know the latest news unless they are very passive holders or old people. When this ledger situation broke I saw it in all the groups that I watch on telegram but also on other platforms. It is more that people don't care or that they have other reasons not to care about that. Ledger is involved in many blockchains, companies, projects in different ways and their continued spending of a lot of money continued to defend their brand. As you see in your example with CZ, he's defending it because there are many business relationships in the background. Not every partnership or cooperation must be exposed publicly. Unfortunately that is the world that we live in.

The Wallet might been tampered recently because and the affected one are in southeast asia, those who bought within the 90 days period needs to transfer the funds to a safer wallet at the moment so that it will be secure while they are investigating the issue, they also reach out to the reseller to halt selling the said hardware wallet, it could be that someone tampered it then the reseller did not know that it was tampered, but as a reseller he should have make sure the devices were sealed and did not been open, also see a post in twitter saying that the wallet has some kind of a e-sim inside.

In the case of the tampered Ledger cards, the values ​​are not far from those of the Coldcard hack.

But I believe this case didn't get worse only because the criminals probably shut down the servers where they were receiving the information, to avoid being caught.

First it's those DeFi platforms.
Then it's those centralized exchanges.
Now it's the online casinos.

Nobody's safe especially now that the hackers are becoming better and better, the security of ALL of the platforms must become better as well. I don't think that the year will end with only 2 casinos getting hacked. I have this gut feeling that we might see more. I will not specify which ones, but I have some in my mind already. We can't also forget that AI is becoming better and better now, and we can't deny the fact that these hackers are using AI to do these kind of things in a more efficient and better way.

I think I've said it in the past already, but hiring a group of white-hat hackers that will try and test their security is their best option. Pay them the money that they want to get because the amount of money that might lost in hacking will be much more than the payment to these hackers.

So that means many of exchange listed in their site, had a record of compromising their users. Also majority of exchange in their list is not known, with that I'm afraid to use it and will just go to active exchange which posted their threads here.

Since with that we can clearly verify if they are still doing good or not.

Hard to trust OP list, unless he clearly explain on how he verify those listings.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you. I was merely thinking that there is no way that this can be fully prevented at all, at least not that I know of from a hardware perspective. They can only make it harder by including different things, from the hardware validation which seem to have failed in this case, to the stickers that were mentioned, to some supply chain validation and that. The more things are added the better, and I don't think these things add that much cost on a scale. Definitely those stickers are pretty cheap, so that part of the weak protection can be blamed on Ledger.


I would not expect a company of this scale to use basic anti-tampering stickers if they were going to add them, but they should do something more after this case.

It is not enough but every step helps.