Investing in real estate is one of the most obvious things to do, but that won't necessarily make a person rich. Firstly, the vast majority of people can't afford to buy real estate because it's a very significant amount of money to pour into something. Secondly, if the property is fairly spacious and renovated, it can be a real challenge to rent it out at a decent price, unless you live in a country where the demand for rent is much higher than the supply. And a lot of things depend on a country if you think about it. The prices, the market's stability, the demand depend highly on where you are.
What's attractive with Bitcoin is that you don't need a huge amount of money to invest, whereas you really need a significant amount of funds available to invest in real estate.

From the way obsession is defined in the dictionaries, it seems close to hyperfocus because it's something that preoccupied one's mind. Being hyperfocused on something can be useful when it's important to a person and when a person can eventually let go, but obsession is something a bit different. To be honest, I haven't met people who are truly obsessed with Bitcoin negatively, such that it intrudes upon their daily lives and other activities. Of course, that doesn't mean such people exist, and if obsession with anything isn't kept in check, it can become a serious problem.
But as for being objective about Bitcoin, I think there are many people who are overly optimistic, but without being obsessed. They simply hold very strong opinions about Bitcoin, but it doesn't mean that their thoughts about Bitcoin are very time-consuming or that they can't focus on anything else.

The dollar is already very strong as the world's reserve currency. The so-called de-dollarization is greatly overestimated, and wild allegations of moving away from the USD usually aren't serious. There's a neat Wikipedia table that summarizes the IMF data on foreign reserves. As of 2022, the USD accounts for more than 58%, with the next currency (EUR) having 20%, and the next being shy of 6% (Japanese yen). So the USD dominance is clearly still very string, and it's not even falling if you zoom out, as it was lower in 1990, 1985, and around the same in 1980, for example.
What I'm trying to say is that the USD doesn't need anything to get stronger and prevent de-dollarization, and there's data that supports that claim. As for stablecoins, I don't think they increase the trust in the USD, to be honest, but I don't think they do much harm to it internationally either.

I'm happy that the Eurozone is doing well, and like the op, I'm tired of pro-Russian propaganda twisting reality hard to try to say that something very different is going on. Of course there's poverty, homelessness, unemployment. These just aren't things that our world has conquered yet, so a lot of bad stuff is happening everywhere. And it should be noted that countries are very uneven in the Eurozone, some much stronger than others. But the percentage and comparison between regions matters. And using framing to focus on things that create very distorted images of reality is deeply problematic, albeit unfortunately efficient.

PayPal and other centralized services can freeze the funds of their customers already, without stable coins. I mean, not just banks but also crypto exchanges can totally do stuff like that, citing alleged suspicious behaviour and asking to provide additional documentation, for example. So it's nothing surprising, IMO, that a stablecoin by PayPal would include the freeze function, just to make the process more efficient. And I do agree that people should be aware of these stark differences between cryptos and stablecoins, but let's also not forget about what can already be done by centralized services.

If you're doing the will thing, can't you include the passphrase into it? I think in some countries any will counts, and in that case it shouldn't be an issue. If you're in a country where a will has to be certified by a notary to count, I can see why a person can be reluctant to write the passphrase down for another person to see and potentially copy. Locktime can be good, and in some cases you can simply share access with the person you trust and want to have this money in an event of your death.

The answer probably depends on how the person got that BTC and on the jurisdiction. If a person earned BTC, income tax would likely apply, even if the coins aren't sold for fiat. Of course, even that may depend on a jurisdiction, as there can be a progressive income tax, starting at 0% up to a certain point, or special rules for Bitcoin. So not having to exchange Bitcoin for fiat might help a bit, but that won't make all taxes go away. Even at that point, new legislation would have to be introduced if we want to ensure that Bitcoin isn't taxed.

There's product life cycle, which is supposed to cover the stages of a life cycle of any product: introduction, growth, maturity, decline. It's actually based on interpretation of human life cycle, and it's vague enough that it can be applied, but that doesn't mean that it's useful for any product. For example, what's the life cycle of a wheel? It was invented, its usage continued to grow, I suppose it's been at the maturity stage for a while (or is it still growth because new types of wheels continue to appear?), but will it ever decline? It's a matter of interpretation, and it is an extreme case of something that proved to be particularly useful, but I'm just trying to show that it's not that simple and not that universal.
I believe the market life cycle phases are based on the product life cycle, and note that when I google 'four phases of a market life cycle', all results on the first page are from the product life cycle, so I'm not even sure how common is it to use the phases outlined in the article.
If we suppose that Bitcoin can go through the cycle for many times (and it seems to me that this is what the article indicates), we're probably at the accumulation phase. If it's a one-time thing, I'd say the second one.

While I agree that many fiat users don't understand the problems of the traditional system, I don't believe that all or even most Bitcoin users are mainly motivated by their distrust to the system in their usage of Bitcoin. To support my claim a bit by evidence, according to FED research, only 5% of US citizens who use cryptos for financial transactions do it mainly because of not trusting the banks. People often use Bitcoin as an investment or as a supplement to the traditional system, so not understanding what's wrong with it can be combined with actual Bitcoin usage.

Bitcoin can be a store of value, but depending on the situation, it might not be the best option. For instance, some countries have very strong fiat currencies and banking systems, so people trust that enough to have no need for Bitcoin. In other countries, however, putting money into a bank account can be much riskier, and fiat inflation can be terrible.
Another factor to consider is duration. If a person may need access to that wealth within the next year or two, Bitcoin may be a worse option than something more stable like gold because it can be in the bear market for a long time. But it also has more liquidity because Bitcoin can be used as a currency, whereas gold usually can't be used like that.

Others pointed out very well that there are a lot of meanings of centralization, and the answer about Bitcoin's value depends on what's meant. I'd also add that some centralization options are probably impossible with Bitcoin because it just wasn't built like that.
Bitcoin could hypothetically move from PoW to PoS, and PoS is more centralized than PoW, but considering the level of opposition to this idea within the community, I find that option unlikely. But if that happened, I don't think Bitcoin would lose or gain much value from it.
To me, centralization is mainly about control over the supply and the price, as it works for fiat. But it's impossible to gain that control over Bitcoin due to how it's designed.

Op, as you pointed out yourself, the price increases assuming that the demand remains unchanged. But the thing is, both Bitcoin supply is growing (albeit at a slower and slower rate) and the demand is fluctuating. So it can't be said with certainty that Bitcoin will grow even better once mining is complete because it's possible that some of the demand will decrease as well (maybe some people are interested in Bitcoin because new coins still appear or directly because of mining, for instance). Also, let's not forget that it's highly unlikely that any of us will still be alive by the time Bitcoin mining is done.
And as for the conclusion about mining, people should keep in mind that mining is already very competitive and complex. The equipment is expensive, maintaining it also requires resources, and electricity bills can be very high.

I haven't heard of this before, but that's certainly something to keep in mind if that ever happens. I guess the good thing is that is a person's wealthy and experiences these symptoms, it's totally affordable to go to therapy and work through this. I've never won life-changing amounts of money, so I haven't experienced that, but it certainly should not be disregarded, and it's better to plan ahead for it. It's kind of like the midlife crisis. You don't know if you are to experience it, but it's better to be aware of that in advance, so that it's not unexpected.

Deflation isn't good for the economy, but mild inflation can be better than high inflation, for example, and intuitions about the negative impact of deflation and the positive impact of inflation are often questionable. For example, it's assumed that if the price gets a bit lower over time, people will wait and won't buy stuff, but one could easily counterpoint that if people want or need something today, they'll still buy it today, simply because they don't want to wait.
Moreover, Yuan dipped a bit into the deflation area at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, so it's possible that something similar will happen this time around as well.
Dr.Bitcoin_Strange noted that if deflation spreads, people will start selling BTC because its price will drop. I'm not so sure about that because Bitcoin can easily increase in value well above the deflation rate and grow despite what's going on with top fiat currencies.

I'm having mixed thoughts about it. On one hand, I agree that people should be able to do what they want, as long as that doesn't harm others around that, and I surely don't support the state ban or harsh crypto restrictions. On the other hand, I don't think that people only reject Bitcoin because of the legislation or authorities. My country is very chill about Bitcoin, but I know a lot of people who won't use Bitcoin anyway because they are worried about the volatility, the responsibility over one's own wallet, just generally worried that it's not under the state's control etc. Accepting Bitcoin is a choice, and some people might not want to make that choice, which is also okay.

12. Rafael dos Anjos
11. Hakeem Dawodu
10. Khalil Rountree
9. Polyana Viana
8. Tafon Nchukwi
7. Josh Fremd
6. Marcus McGhee
5. Terrence McKinney
4. Francis Marshall
3. Martin Buday
2. Jaqueline Amorim
1. Luana Santos

NOT go the Full Distance 4

I find it completely understandable for a person who supports decentralization to remove oneself from the equation after ensuring that a product is stable enough and has a community that will work on its maintenance. It is consistent with the values of privacy and decentralization, as there's no highest authority that people listen to when it comes to further development and direction that Bitcoin takes. Moreover, it's simply reasonable because with fame comes tons of unwanted attention from people who are obsessed with your life, people who feel like you ruined their lives, the authorities etc. Living a normal life without all that is a blessing.

1. Joshua
2. MD
3. 2

a.  Flamengo
b.  1-0
c.  Flamengo
d.  Under
e.  No
f.  36'

Okay, it's a fairly complex topic, and I don't know what's the tendency in the US, but in my country it's often a choice whether to work from home or from office, although some jobs can have specific conditions listed and it's not up to a person. And often, when you work remotely, there are some results expected from you regularly, but you aren't literally monitored by the company.
Now, let's look at the research information. One thing that stands out to me is that poeple were randomly picked and told that now they'll work from home. Again, I believe it should be a choice of an employee, not something mandated by the company, so perhaps if these were people who worked at the office but were suddenly told to work from home, they fell under the category of those to whom remote work is less preferable. Secondly, they did snaps of workers every 15 minutes, which I bet is a stressful thing to go through. It can add anxiety and discomfort that doesn't exist in the office setting, and that could easily contribute to worse productivity.
So to me, this research simply isn't representative because it was done in a specific way that could mess with the results.