I think the idea of Bitcoin as protection against economic collapse is both interesting and complex. On one hand, Bitcoin provides something traditional finance cannot: a decentralized and borderless asset that cannot be printed or inflated at will. For individuals living in countries with high inflation or strict capital controls, Bitcoin has already served as a lifeline.

On the other hand, during global crises, we often see Bitcoin’s price move down together with stocks and other risk assets. This suggests that in the short term, it may not act as a “perfect hedge” but more like a highly volatile alternative asset.

Perhaps the real protective value of Bitcoin is not in short-term price stability, but in the long-term guarantee that its supply cannot be manipulated by governments or central banks. If the traditional financial system keeps moving towards more debt and money printing, then over time, Bitcoin could indeed stand out as a form of digital protection.

The real question might not be “can Bitcoin save us from collapse today?” but “how much stronger will Bitcoin become after each crisis exposes the weaknesses of fiat money?

It is indeed fascinating that Satoshi mined over a million Bitcoins yet never moved them. This act alone separates him from almost every other figure in the history of finance and technology.

In many ways, the untouched coins are more than just a mystery — they serve as a symbol. They remind us that Bitcoin was not created for personal gain but for a larger vision of financial freedom and decentralization.

If Satoshi had spent or cashed out those coins, the narrative of Bitcoin might have been very different. Instead, by walking away, he ensured that the focus remained on the technology itself, not on the creator.

Sometimes I wonder:
👉 If one day those coins were ever moved, would it weaken Bitcoin’s legend, or would it make the network stronger by proving that even Satoshi must ultimately rely on the same rules as everyone else?

Bitcoin was designed to be censorship-resistant, but governments still have power to regulate exchanges, restrict banks, and control internet infrastructure.

It makes me think:

If several major countries coordinated a strict ban, would Bitcoin transactions still remain strong through peer-to-peer networks?

Could users shift more toward decentralized exchanges and privacy tools if regulations become too harsh?

Or would such actions simply push Bitcoin underground, similar to how some banned technologies still survive?


👉 I am curious about the community’s thoughts — would Bitcoin survive and adapt under a global ban scenario, or would adoption slow down significantly?

Thanks for sharing the full list of matches, it looks like a very competitive week.

From my side, a few games stand out:

Liverpool vs Watford → Liverpool at home is usually very strong, so I think this should be a safe pick.

Feyenoord vs PSV → This one feels tricky, because both teams are in good form. For me it looks like a game where both teams could score.

Arsenal vs Manchester City → Probably the most exciting match of the list. City has the quality, but Arsenal at home with their current form can make it difficult. I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends in a draw.


Overall, I think making a multi-leg parlay this week will be tough because too many close games are on the list. Safer picks might be Liverpool and PSG, but the rest look unpredictable.

Bitcoin’s base layer is designed with limited block size and block interval to maintain decentralization and security. However, this also creates scalability challenges when transaction demand increases.

Layer 2 solutions such as the Lightning Network are often considered the best approach to scale Bitcoin without compromising its fundamental principles. Yet, questions remain:

Can Lightning (or other Layer 2 protocols) eventually handle the majority of Bitcoin transactions securely?

What are the technical limitations that still need to be solved (e.g., routing, liquidity, channel capacity)?

If Layer 2 becomes the main medium for transactions, will the base layer primarily serve as a settlement layer, similar to how central banks handle reserves?


I am curious to know the community’s technical perspective on whether Bitcoin’s long-term transaction scalability will depend mostly on Layer 2 solutions, or if significant base layer changes may still be necessary in the future.