There are 2.1 quadrillion units of Bitcoin. Not 21 million. 2,100,000,000,000,000. They’re called satoshis. Bitcoin can be divided down to 0.00000001 BTC. So when someone says: 21 million Bitcoin isn’t enough for the world. They’re thinking about Bitcoin like it’s 21 million physical coins. It isn't. One BTC contains 100 million sats. 21 million × 100 million = 2.1 quadrillion units. At 8 billion people, that’s roughly 262,500 sats per person if Bitcoin were divided equally. And the smallest unit is already worth less than a cent at today's prices. The interesting part isn't that Bitcoin is scarce. It's that scarcity and divisibility coexist. There can only ever be 21 million BTC. But there are enough individual units to divide that supply among billions of people.

Hal Finney, a cypherpunk, was the first to receive a Bitcoin transaction from Satoshi Nakamoto himself. He was a legend and possibly this tweet back from 2009 is the first tweet that mentions Bitcoin ! HISTORY👇

NEXT BITCOIN HALVINGS (FROM START TO 1 SATOSHI) Genesis — Block reward 50 2012 Halving — Block reward 25 2016 Halving — Block reward 12.5 2020 Halving — Block reward 6.25 2024 Halving — Block reward 3.125 2028 Halving — Block reward 1.5625 2032 Halving — Block reward 0.78125 2036 Halving — Block reward 0.390625 2040 Halving — Block reward 0.1953125 2044 Halving — Block reward 0.09765625 2048 Halving — Block reward 0.04882812 2052 Halving — Block reward 0.02441406 2056 Halving — Block reward 0.01220703 2060 Halving — Block reward 0.00610351 2064 Halving — Block reward 0.00305175 2068 Halving — Block reward 0.00152587 2072 Halving — Block reward 0.00076293 2076 Halving — Block reward 0.00038146 2080 Halving — Block reward 0.00019073 2084 Halving — Block reward 0.00009536 2088 Halving — Block reward 0.00004768 2092 Halving — Block reward 0.00002384 2096 Halving — Block reward 0.00001192 2100 Halving — Block reward 0.00000596 2104 Halving — Block reward 0.00000298 2108 Halving — Block reward 0.00000149 2112 Halving — Block reward 0.00000074 2116 Halving — Block reward 0.00000037 2120 Halving — Block reward 0.00000018 2124 Halving — Block reward 0.00000009 2128 Halving — Block reward 0.00000004 2132 Halving — Block reward 0.00000002 2136 Halving — Block reward 0.00000001

2014: Bitcoin falls below $400 2018: Bitcoin falls below $4,000 2022: Bitcoin falls below $40,000 So anyone saying we're going back to $40,000 in 2026 is clearly mistaken

Bitcoin CRASHES to $175k in 2030, it's declared dead one more time, but I'll still be buying the dip

Jordan Belfort was ordered to pay $110.4 million to 1,513 people he defrauded. Twenty years later, victims got about $13.5–14 million total. Most of that was assets seized at the start. The later payments added maybe $2.5–3 million, thus $96–97 million never got paid and never will. Federal law cuts off the government’s collection power 20 years after the later of the judgment or the defendant’s release from prison. Belfort got out April 28, 2006. So on April 28, 2026, that window closed. The remaining balance is no longer legally collectible under the criminal restitution order

Great video, great explanation

Monitoring the situation closely: An attack may be imminent as an unusual pattern of U.S. Air Force aerial-refueling tankers south of Iranian airspace: tankers airborne across the Gulf region. Open-source tracking shows U.S. airforce aerial refuelling tankers hovering close to Iran I am monitoring the activity closely given elevated U.S. Iran tensions following Trump's rejection of Iran's proposals. Paying particular attention to three things: unusual tanker numbers and positioning, movement of additional strike/support aircraft, and any changes around US bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Image: @flightradar24

Dear @Bit_Faced and all other Bitcoin cash proponents: Back in August 2017 I received the equivalent I held of Bitcoin in Bitcoin Cash. I don't know if you were in this space yet at the time. It was like free money cause I transfered it to an exchange and immediately converted it from BCH into Bitcoin. At the time each BCH was being converted to BTC for 0.1398 BTC Had I held BCH at the time I would have the 1 BCH worth $307 today But luckily I never trusted Roger Ver and instead I exchanged all and got 0.1398BTC worth $11,610 today for each BCH forked! This is the best interview the proponent of Bitcoin Cash ever did... He showed how rude and angry he was and it proved me right, how could anyone follow someone like this!!! 👇👇👇

When $40k? Wasn't it coded or something you said?

The Moving Average That Changed the Way I Look at Bitcoin I have used plenty of indicators over the years. Most of them eventually end up doing the same thing. They make the chart look more complicated, give you another signal to second-guess, and then tell you what price already told you. Then I found the Hull Moving Average. I use the 72-length HMA on Bitcoin, and I absolutely love it. Not because it predicts the future. It doesn't. Nothing does. I like it because it gives me something much more useful: a remarkably clean way of looking at the trend without making the chart feel like a cockpit. And the story behind it is fascinating. The Hull Moving Average was created by Australian trader and educator Alan Hull. He developed it in 2005 while trying to solve a problem that has existed for as long as traders have used moving averages: the trade-off between smoothness and lag. A moving average is supposed to remove noise. But there is a problem. The more you smooth the price, the further behind the price you tend to get. A simple moving average is the obvious example. A 100-period SMA gives you a nice smooth line, but by the time it reacts to a major move, a large part of that move may already have happened. Make it faster and you get more noise. Make it smoother and you get more lag. That is the problem Hull set out to solve. And the solution was clever. The HMA combines weighted moving averages in a way that first reduces lag and then smooths the result. In simplified terms, it takes a faster weighted average, compares it with a slower weighted average, doubles the faster component, and then applies another weighted average using the square root of the period. That sounds complicated. On a chart, it isn't. It is just a line. And that line can move remarkably quickly while remaining surprisingly smooth. This is the part that I think is often missed. The HMA wasn't designed simply to be another moving average with a different formula. It was specifically designed to attack the biggest weakness of moving averages: lag. Hull describes the result as a near balance between lag reduction and smoothing. Fidelity similarly describes the HMA as extremely fast and smooth, noting that it can almost eliminate lag while improving smoothing. That is a pretty powerful combination. And it is exactly why I like it on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not a normal asset. It can spend weeks moving sideways and then move thousands of dollars in a matter of days. It can go through violent corrections inside a much larger bull market. It can also spend months trending in one direction while constantly trying to convince you that the trend is about to end. A slow moving average can leave you late. A very fast moving average can leave you constantly reacting to noise. The HMA sits somewhere that I find much more useful. My setting is 72. Not 20. Not 50. Not 200. 72. I am not claiming that 72 is some mathematically perfect Bitcoin number. It isn't. The useful period depends on the timeframe, the asset and the way you are using the indicator. It is simply the setting I use because I like what it does to the Bitcoin chart. The important thing is not the number. It is the behaviour of the line. When the HMA is rising, the trend is rising. When it is falling, the trend is falling. That is essentially how Hull himself suggests using it. He also explains that turning points can be used as entry and exit signals. And there is an interesting detail here. Hull specifically says not to use the HMA for traditional moving-average crossover signals. Why? Because crossover strategies depend on lag. The whole point of the HMA is to reduce lag. So instead of turning the indicator into another complicated crossover system, Hull recommends paying attention to the direction and turning points of the HMA itself. That makes a lot of sense to me. Look at the chart. Forget the noise. Is the line rising? Is it falling? Has its direction changed? That alone can tell you an enormous amount about the market's current trend. For longer-term trend identification, Hull's approach is to use a longer-period HMA. For entries, a shorter HMA can be used to identify turning points in the direction of the prevailing trend. Fidelity describes the same general framework: a longer HMA can help identify the prevailing trend, while a shorter HMA can be used for entries in that direction. This is also where I think the HMA has an advantage over the traditional moving averages most people put on their charts. The SMA is simple and useful. The EMA is faster and gives more weight to recent prices. The WMA is also more responsive because it weights recent prices more heavily. But the HMA takes that idea further by deliberately combining responsiveness with another layer of smoothing. That is why, for me, it often looks like the price is being followed rather than chased. And that is a subtle but important difference. A moving average should simplify the chart. It shouldn't become the chart. I don't want ten indicators telling me ten different stories. I want price, volume if I need it, and something that helps me see the underlying trend. For Bitcoin, the HMA does that beautifully. Is it "superior" to every other moving average? If we are being precise, no moving average is universally superior. Different averages have different purposes, and every moving average is ultimately derived from historical price data. There is no mathematical indicator that can remove uncertainty from a market. But if the question is: Which moving average gives me the combination of responsiveness, smoothness and visual clarity that I personally find most useful? For me, it is the Hull Moving Average. And specifically, HMA 72 on Bitcoin. That is the beauty of good technical analysis. You don't need to predict every candle. You don't need to call every top. You don't need to catch every bottom. You need a framework that helps you understand what the market is actually doing. The HMA doesn't tell me where Bitcoin will be tomorrow. It tells me what the trend is doing today. And sometimes that is far more valuable. One line. One direction. Less noise. Less lag. More clarity. That's why I keep coming back to the Hull Moving Average. And after discovering it, I find it very difficult to look at Bitcoin with an ordinary moving average again. Alan Hull was trying to solve a mathematical problem in 2005. Nearly two decades later, that solution has become one of my favourite ways to look at Bitcoin. Funny how good mathematics ages.

Bitcoin is at $83k But here's the number I'm watching: 113,950 BTC Wallets holding 100–1,000 BTC have accumulated that much over the past 10 weeks, according to recent on-chain data. At the same time, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $2.39B last week, their biggest weekly inflow of 2026. And Bitcoin still can't get through $87k. But Price stuck That usually means there's a lot of supply being absorbed between $83k and $87k. The interesting question isn't: Why isn't Bitcoin going up? It's: How much Bitcoin is left to sell at these prices? Because once the supply dries up, the same demand that couldn't move the price yesterday can move it very quickly tomorrow. Watch the supply The price usually comes second. I am monitoring the situation very closely

US Futures opened Red, Monday morning. Whilst the VIX is at 16.18 The VIX (often called the "fear gauge") measures expected volatility of the S&P 500 over the next 30 days. A reading around 16 is within the historically typical range of 15 to 20, which signals a standard, non-panicked market environment . It implies the market expects the S&P 500 to move roughly plus or minus 4.7% over the next month (annualized 16.18% divided by the square root of 12), which is considered a relatively stable expectation. Remember that you should base your trading on data driven analysis and not follow what influencers say on tik tok or crypto twitter.

Leverage longs destroyed in the past 2 hours. Bitcoin long positions worth $10.36M liquidated completely. This is good news as over leverage stops Bitcoin from continuing on it's upwards trajectory. Now that we have reset, we need either spot buying or leverage shorts to act as fuel for the bull In fact if we look at the 1 hr chart we'll see how the RSI went from overbought less than 24 hours ago, to oversold just now. This sellout in the past hours is a very good sign for eventual consolidation and launch from this price zone

Did anyone hear anything about the Bitcoin film starring Casey Affleck and Gal Gadot? The movie, originally called Killing Satoshi and now simply "Bitcoin", has Casey Affleck playing Craig Wright, with Gal Gadot and Pete Davidson also in the cast. Doug Liman is directing. And this is where it gets interesting. The entire premise appears to be built around Wright’s claim that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, with the story portraying his attempt to prove it as a conspiracy involving powerful tech billionaires, governments and the financial system. There is just one rather enormous problem with that premise: The real-world evidence went the other way. In 2024, the UK High Court ruled that Craig Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto and had not authored the Bitcoin white paper. The court also found that Wright had engaged in extensive forgery and deception in support of his claims. So Hollywood is apparently spending tens of millions of dollars turning the “Faketoshi” saga into a conspiracy thriller. That could make for entertaining cinema. It could also make for one spectacular flop. The film is reportedly around a $70 million production and has been heavily built around AI-generated environments, with the producers pitching it as a radically new way of making a feature film. It was being shopped to international distributors at Cannes rather than arriving with a conventional major-studio distribution deal. And the most bizarre part? The story reportedly throws a whole collection of billionaires and major technology figures into the conspiracy with the suggestion that powerful people have a reason to stop Wright from revealing the “truth.” That is a pretty extraordinary premise when the central character has already been ruled in court not to be Satoshi. And for anyone who remembers the Craig Wright/BSV saga, this is almost surreal. BSV spent years trying to convince the world that Craig Wright was Satoshi. Bitcoin simply kept moving forward without him. No court ruling, lawsuit, publicity campaign or Hollywood movie changes the fundamental point: Bitcoin does not need Craig Wright. And if the movie seriously leans into the idea that Wright was secretly fighting billionaires who were desperately trying to suppress his identity as Satoshi... well, that may be a great Hollywood conspiracy story. It just isn't the same thing as history. The irony is that the biggest threat to the movie may not be Bitcoiners. It may be the fact that reality already produced the ending. Craig Wright claimed he was Satoshi. He was challenged. The evidence was examined. And the court rejected the claim. Now Hollywood gets to try to sell the alternative version. Will they succeed or will the movie be a flop?

The US dollar bond yield 10 year opened cloae to the macro high. It is persisting above the 5%. The Treasury may act to contain this upward trend which is very bad for the US government to pay it's own debts. The US Treasury is expected to act further to contain this situation, if the US Treasury intervenes it would be bullish for Bitcoin. Last time it intervened Bitcoin exploded from the $64k level to around $75k in a couple of days just after the announcement.

The DXY is a calculation of how strong the US dollar is against a basket of foreign currencies such as Eur, Yen, British Pound etc. It has been getting stronger for the past 3 weeks. This is not good for Bitcoin although so far it hasn't had much of an effect yet. But if it keeps getting stronger it may. But if the Treasury intervenes in trying to stop the 10 year yields from getting any higher it may contain the US dollar strength. I am monitoring this situation.

Oil prices opened relatively very low. They closed at $104.5 last Friday and opened at 97/98 this morning. Considering all the turmoil in geopolitics through the weekend and Trump refusing Iran's peace proposal I was expecting at least the prices to continue at above the $100 level.