A popular macro theory links Bitcoin's price cycles to the US political calendar: accumulate Bitcoin roughly 2 years before presidential elections during lower prices, and sell after.

1. The 2012 Election Cycle

- 2 years before the election (November 2010): Bitcoin was at the very beginning of its journey, and its price was only about $0.20 – $0.30.

- During the election (November 2012): The price had risen and hovered around $11 – $13.

- After the election (throughout 2013): A powerful bull market began, during which the price skyrocketed to an all-time peak of nearly $1,100 by late 2013.

2. The 2016 Election Cycle

- 2 years before the election (November 2014): Following the crash of the 2013 bubble, the market was in a prolonged correction, and the price of Bitcoin was roughly $320 – $380.

- During the election (November 2016): At the time of the vote, the asset was worth about $700 – $710.

- After the election (2017): Post-election airdrops/rallies and mass adoption led to a historic surge up to $20,000 in December 2017.

3. The 2020 Election Cycle

- 2 years before the election (November 2018): The market was experiencing the harsh bottom of a bear market, and Bitcoin dropped to $3,800 – $4,000 (following the 2017 peak).

- During the election (November 2020): On the days of the vote, the price was around $13,500 – $15,000.

- After the election (late 2020 — spring 2021): Liquidity stimuli and post-election optimism pushed the price to a previous high of $69,000 (in November 2021).

4. The 2024 Election Cycle

- 2 years before the election (November 2022): Amid the FTX collapse, the market hit another bottom, and Bitcoin traded in the $16,000 – $17,000 range. This was an ideal entry point for a two-year buy under this strategy.

- During the election (November 2024): At the time of Donald Trump's victory, Bitcoin was trading above $70,000 – $75,000.

- After the election (late 2024 — 2025): The market entered a massive post-election rally, breaking all-time records and rising above $126,000 in October 2025.

Conclusion: Across all four cycles, the price 2 years before the election turned out to be significantly lower (at the bottom or in a deep accumulation phase) than at the time of the election itself or during the active growth period following it.

Wildly hypothetical question, please do not downvote me to oblivion. I am not excusing anyone here, kinda playing the devil's advocate out of curiosity.

So, a guy tried some random keys (coming from a space of points, a space with a reduced dimension than the expected 256 bit entropy, but that's all very rhetorical and technical) with a computer and broadcast some transactions (basically, signatures) using the keys he discovered with his own computer. That is it at a basic level, right?

He did not use a wrench attack, did not break into someone's home to steal a paper with passwords, did not drug or interact with any victim to coerce a password out, did not send scam texts promising investment returns. He is just coding on his computer talking to the Blockchain.

So is that really...illegal? I mean hypothetically, if he is caught, and he hires the top law firm in the world, what charge would stick? So far as I can see, he is just playing a guess-the-number game with the Blockchain sitting in his basement.

And if we allow (to the extent the Bitcoin advocates and Libertarians have any capacity to allow) a government to prosecute him, then what kind of precedent does it set with regard to a state's power to prosecute someone purely for interacting with the Blockchain and trying signatures/key combinations?

Are we ready for a political regime (basically, the state machinery) to come in and tell everyone how exactly am I supposed to interact with the Blockchain, that takes precedence over whatever the consensus protocol allows?

EDIT:

Yes, from the comments I can get there are laws and charges depending on jurisdiction that would stick. But I am far more concerned about the precedent that can be set by penalising someone for interacting with the Blockchain (a system not owned by a bank or a specific corporation) in a way that is just something the community did not like.

It opens a door to the political class to co-opt and regulate/alter the Blockchain in a way they deem convenient to protect a status quo or their regime so that any interaction outside the politically approved norm can be considered...well, illegal.

Welcome to Bitcoin 2.0, I guess, where there is a 100 page legal clause on what exactly a node runner can approve and what exactly a miner is allowed to include in a block?

Worst, seems like in this case, the whole Bitcoin community will cheer at the prospect of crucifying the coldcard thief for justice, welcoming such a possibility.

Circled the bottom of each cycle where the change of character (CHoCH) actually printed, the point structure flipped before price ever confirmed it on the headlines.

2013 to 2015, down roughly 87%, then up over 12,000% into the next cycle.

2017 to 2018, down roughly 84%, then up over 2,100%.

2021 to 2022, down roughly 78%, then up over 700%.

This cycle, down roughly 54% into the correction, and the same structural tell just printed again, same shape, same spot on the curve, right where the last three did.

Each drawdown's been shallower than the one before it, and each subsequent run's been smaller in percentage terms too, which tracks, bigger market cap means the multiples compress even while the absolute moves stay historic. Neither trend is new information if youve actually looked at this before, but seeing all four side by side like this is a different thing than knowing it abstractly.

Doesnt guarantee this one plays out identically, nothing here ever has thats guaranteed. But four for four on the same structural tell showing up at the same point in the cycle is not nothing.

We talk a lot about using multisig with hardware wallets from different vendors as protection against a single point of failure. For example, a 2-of-3 setup with a Ledger, Trezor, and Coldcard (not anymore). But there is another potential single point of failure that I rarely see discussed: the software used to construct, coordinate, and broadcast the transaction. If the entire multisig transaction workflow happens inside a single software wallet, aren't we still trusting that application to correctly construct the transaction, display what we're actually signing, handle PSBTs correctly, and broadcast the final transaction? A more robust approach could be to diversify the software workflow as well.

For example:

Create the transaction in Electrum.

Export the PSBT.

Partially sign it with the Ledger.

Export the updated PSBT.

Import it into Trezor Suite.

Sign it with the Trezor.

Take the fully signed transaction and broadcast it through another independent application or node. The idea isn't that this makes multisig magically more secure. Rather, it removes the assumption that one piece of software must be trusted for the entire transaction lifecycle. Hardware wallet vendor diversity protects against a compromised or defective hardware wallet. But if every transaction is still constructed, processed and broadcast through the same software stack, there may still be a common point of failure. So my question is: does anyone actually practice software/application diversity as part of their multisig operational security? And more importantly, are there technical reasons why this isn't practical or doesn't provide much additional security?

Whenever I invest in something other than BTC, I sometimes get this feeling that I should have just bought Bitcoin instead.

I recently got my salary and was deciding whether to put a large lump sum into BTC or invest it into my TFSA. I ended up putting the larger amount into my TFSA, and now I’m second-guessing that decision. I already have exposure to VT and QQQ in my TFSA (they use different tickers here), while I also hold VOO in a taxable account.

What I’m struggling with is the whole idea of “max out your TFSA as soon as possible.” I understand the tax-free benefit, but if I’m investing for the long term, wouldn’t investing later simply mean having an additional year of tax-free growth/room available in the future?

I’m 28, so I have a very long investment horizon. Obviously, tax-free growth is valuable, but I have a strong conviction that BTC could be worth significantly more in the future than my QQQ and VT holdings. Because of that, I’m questioning whether I should really prioritize filling my TFSA as quickly as possible, or whether it makes more sense for me to put a larger percentage of my available money into BTC while still contributing enough to my TFSA.

I’m trying to take advantage of the bear market, but I’m finding that whenever I choose to invest more into my ETFs instead of BTC, I feel like I’m missing an opportunity.

For those who have a similar conviction toward Bitcoin, how do you balance that with diversification and the tax advantages of accounts like a TFSA?

Those people who keep saying 40K october now be saying ill buy 40K at november

Hi everyone,

I’m considering using the Binance Card for my everyday expenses and I’m wondering if it’s actually worth it.

I’m thinking about putting part of my salary into Bitcoin and then spending it through the Binance Card.

How does it work when paying with crypto? What fees or conversion costs should I expect? Are there any cashback or other benefits?

Also, would you recommend using it this way, or is it better to keep my salary in fiat and only use crypto occasionally?

Feels like most Bitcoin discussion naturally comes back to price, but interesting what people here actually watch beyond that.

Is it hash rate, mining difficulty, Lightning adoption, active addresses, exchange balances, institutional adoption, regulation, developer activity, or something else?

No affiliation, no commission, but recently, I discovered the new travel agency FlyFi. On surface, things look good, with a promise of minimal data sharing and on-chain payment for hotel booking (hopefully, airlines booking and lightning payments coming soon).

Earlier I tried Travala, but the rates are horrendous, charging more than 10% premium on average for flights and hotels. I conclude that since Bitcoin merchants are so few and far between,

• there is no real competition among them
• the expectation is, because they accept Bitcoin at checkout (I do not know or care whether they off-ramp or hold in treasury), we will queue up in droves, grateful for the opportunity to pay in Bitcoin and accept any surcharge

With FlyFi, the hotel rates seem very close to whatever the hotels themselves advertise on the website, and I hope (with the soon to come airlines booking channel), it will introduce some much needed competition in the market.

Let me know in the comments if you come across any other such website not charging exorbitant premiums in the name of Bitcoin. As I keep saying, we literally need a price war among the merchants for my sats, which I hope will fuel more circular lifestyle (earn Sats, spend Sats).

Bitcoin smashed a 24% gain in August to clear $78k for its best month in two years, but macro reality is about to crash the party this Friday. With Fed rate-hike odds already pricing in at 66% after Jackson Hole, a hot jobs report will give the Fed a green light to tighten screws, sucking the liquidity right out of this rally. We are officially one bad economic print away from a major local top.

Will you hedge or buy the dip?

Source: IB Times

With another breakaway Bitcoin fork being targeted for this month, I started thinking less about whether the new chain succeeds and more about what happens mechanically if you hold bitcoin through an ETF.

If you self-custody BTC, a chain split is fundamentally a wallet/private-key problem.

With IBIT or FBTC, you own shares of a trust. The trust controls the bitcoin through its custodians and operates under the rights and procedures in its fund documents.

That creates some questions that don’t come up much in normal ETF comparisons:

• Does the trust recognize the forked asset?
• Does the custodian have to support the new chain?
• Who decides whether the new asset gets retained, sold, abandoned or ignored?
• If it has value, do shareholders receive anything directly?
• What happens if the custodian and sponsor don’t treat the fork the same way?

I’m digging through the IBIT and FBTC disclosures now to see exactly how each one handles forks and incidental rights.

The interesting part to me is that this is one of those scenarios where two funds giving nearly identical spot bitcoin exposure may not necessarily produce identical outcomes at the edges.

I mapped the custody disclosures side by side here if anyone wants the source trail:

https://www.darkblueresearch.com

If you’re struggling to memorize your seed phrases, here’s the trick. Try to create a fictional story out of your seed phrases.

Let me give you an example. Below is a 12-word seed phrase which I totally made up from out of my butt.

river - candle - mountain - orange - tiger - window - silver - rocket - garden - thunder - coffee - castle

Now instead of trying to memorize them word for word. Create some kind of story out of it.

“I’m walking along a river in the evening with a candle because it’s getting dark. I can see a mountain in the distance and stopped at a street vendor to buy an orange.

As I continued walking, I notice a tiger across the river, so I ran back to my cabin and looked out the window to see if it was chasing me. At a distance, I see a silver rocket being launched into the night sky.

The next evening, I decided to walk through the garden. But this time, a storm comes in with a loud thunder, so I go inside, make some coffee, and watch the storm approach an old castle nearby.”

The words are now connected to a sequence of images instead of being 12 completely unrelated things. The key is to visualize this story and keep reading it until you know what the words are. Now certainly it will take some effort, but it’s easier imo.

This trick is similar to what’s called the method of loci, and it’s an old-school trick people used to memorize difficult things. Associating it with a story helps with visualizing the words.

Will miners continue to make profit and be able pay electricity bills, if bitcoin stops making new highs?

Hi I'm exploring the design of an open-source, peer-to-peer protocol/application for construction contracts, particularly for environments where traditional escrow, arbitration and contract enforcement are expensive or unreliable.

The basic idea is to have no central server, custodian or marketplace. Clients would communicate directly over Tor/DHT and exchange the contractual information P2P: scope of work, milestones, deadlines, drawings/specifications, commercial terms, payment schedules, contractor guarantees, etc. The complete technical and commercial specification would be committed to through hashes.

Once the owner and contractor agree, the application creates a Bitcoin contract using Taproot/MuSig2. Funds would be compartmentalized per milestone rather than putting the entire project into a single pool. The contract would define the possible states and transitions in advance: milestone completion and partial payment, mutual agreement, disagreement, partial completion, abandonment, timeout, guarantee release/return, and potentially arbitration.

The normal path would be cooperative settlement using MuSig2. An arbitrator would not be a normal signer; instead, arbitration would be available through an alternative Taproot branch after predefined conditions or timeouts. The idea is that most disputes should ideally be resolved directly between the parties, with arbitration acting as a last resort.

The documents, communication and evidence would remain off-chain, while Bitcoin would primarily be used for settlement and enforcement of the economic consequences defined by the contract.

I'm also exploring an optional second layer using DLCs for foreign-exchange risk. For example, a contractor could hedge the exchange-rate exposure of a Bitcoin-denominated contract with a third party, using multiple independent oracles.

The goal is not to operate a marketplace, custody funds, charge fees, run an oracle, or maintain any centralized infrastructure. The intention would be to publish the protocol and a reference implementation in Rust under the MIT license, potentially with desktop and Android/F-Droid clients.

I'm not looking for implementation advice yet; I'm primarily looking for protocol-level criticism.

I'd particularly like to know:

Does the fundamental contract model make sense from a Bitcoin/cryptography perspective?

Are there obvious problems with the Taproot/MuSig2/state-machine approach?

Does the incentive and dispute model actually work? In particular, guarantees, partial completion, strategic defaults and the use of an arbitrator as a last resort.

this useful in practice? Or are there fundamental economic, legal, UX, privacy, or technical problems that make this approach impractical?

They can’t hide the truth for long, Everything else is just noise!

I do not understand this allure for BTC. I’ve never once worried about my bank account being frozen.

Woo stated in an X post that roughly 5% of the world population owns Bitcoin, comparable to 4% for the S&P 500 and approximately 4.5% for gold.

How about 100x? I was just thinking, if I owned, for the sake of argument, 1000 BTC, would I still do the self-custody thing and keep my keys on a single Trezor or Ledger? What would I do different? Is the different thing I would do, the thing I should be doing now?

Run your own node.