15. Tom Aspinall
14. Molly McCann
13. Nathaniel Wood
12. Andre Muniz
11. Farès Ziam
10. Lerone Murphy
9. Daniel Marcos
8. Danny Roberts
7. Joel Álvarez
6. Jamal Pogues
5. Bryan Barberena
4. Ketlen Vieira
3. Chris Duncan
2. Bruna Brasil
1. Daniel Barez

NOT go the Full Distance 4

Having a source of regular income (including, but not limited to a job, as it can be a grant, a scholarship, stable freelance work, etc.) is a good thing to have in life before putting any money at risk (and investment is a risk, even if it's Bitcoin we're talking about). However, if someone unexpectedly gets some money (either as a gift or by winning it), I think it's fine to buy Bitcoin with such money, even if a person doesn't have a source of income yet. IMO, it's actually the kind of money people can be ready to lose, as they weren't supposed to have it in the first place.

EUR 30,000
kryptonomous

Regarding the price, it seems realistic for Bitcoin to hit the targets noted by the op, but of course there can be no confidence about any forecasts.
As for the SEC, I don't think they want to hurt the industry, but they don't want to regulate Bitcoin either because it's not a security and isn't like securities. But Blackrock is a very solid company, so rejecting them straightaway can have a lot of backlash. So they make new demands, accept it for review, and now they can buy a lot of time under the pretence of thoroughly investigating the matter. I don't believe an approval is likely in the end.

I think the situation is similar to tons of other areas of knowledge.  For example, laws are available online, and urt many go to law school to learn them, and those that don't usually rely on those who did if the time comes. Similarly, there is plenty of information about Bitcoin online,  but it doesn't mean that Bitcoin shouldn't be taught at schools and other educational facilities. Learning about something from social media carries less trust that something learned from people who are perceived as credible, and a lot also comes down to navigating the oceans of information, learning how to filter it out and what to trust.

It's good when people who are reasonably suspected of wrongdoing regarding their customers are arrested. Cases of alleged bankruptcies should be investigated, and people who robbed others should be punished. That kind of accountability is positive to show that there's a difference between legitimate crypto businesses and crimes. But I don't think I want the CEO of Binance to be next because it's a serious exchange that tries to be fair to the customers and comply with regulations. If Binance falls, I think it will do more damage than good because if even this exchange is shady, a question arises whether crypto exchanges can be legit at all.

Bitcoin's value is related to it being decentralized, but I'd add that it's also a quality that many users don't appreciate. For instance, using centralized crypto exchanges is very common, and despite warnings, people often keep a lot of money there because it's convenient to them. Some also use custodial wallets because they don't care that it technically poses a rick of an exit scam and similar things.
Another Bitcoin's advantage is that it can be used as an alternative to a bank, especially for international transfers. International transfers can sometimes take days and have a significant fee, but Bitcoin transactions can happen much faster and, if the sum is high, at a much cheaper fee. Also, where's no requirement to enter a lot of data and wait for an authority's approval.

Reading how the op unpacks the term decentralization, I think I understand why the question was posed. Bitcoin is more decentralized than Ethereum, but in aspects different from those pointed out as important by the op. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum have non-custodial wallets, so you can have control over your coins. And I guess the op is right that Buterin isn't the only one in the decision-making process regarding the future of Ethereum
But PoS encourages a more centralized ownership of coins than PoW because those who already have a lot of Ethereum are given even more Ethereum, whereas with Bitcoin, miners and rich Bitcoin addresses can be two completely different things.

I haven't seen the movie yet, and the articles are very vague about cryptos (perhaps because it's a new movie, perhaps to avoid spoilers). It won't be anything new if this movie mentions Bitcoin or cryptos in general, as many others have already done that, but it's a very major blockbuster, so unless it's a negative mention (cryptos being used by the bad guys), it's still great publicity. I think I've watched all the previous Mission Impossible movies, so I'll most likely watch this one as well. I'm interested in how much is about cryptos there, and what sort of perception of cryptos it puts forth.

The op is right that some expectations regarding Bitcoin are simply unrealistic. It can't fix global issues, and I think that even if we limit the expectations to the realm of money, Bitcoin can't become a dominant currency (if we measure its regular usage as money versus the usage of fiat currencies), and even sustaining a vision of 'on-chain transactions only' isn't realistic. Also, expecting people to not use centralized exchanges or custodial wallets is also likely to be too much because people often prefer comfort to decentralization.

If we look at various definitions of investors (I focused on popular dictionaries and Investopedia), it seems that it should be a person or organization that puts money into something with an expectation of financial returns. The profit may never come, but someone is still an investor if the goal for to gain profit. Investors are usually separated from traders because traders actively use their capital for short-term gain, whereas investors are focused on a long-term gain. Considering that, anyone who sets aside some BTC and expects to gain profit this way in the long run is a Bitcoin investor. That doesn't mean that this person can't use some BTC for other purposes, and it also doesn't mean there's any financial threshold to pass because it counts as an investment.

I didn't know about this thing before, and I decided to check whether my country has it. In my country, one can make a special statement in the bank for an event of death, but that's basically to transfer ownership of a bank account to a specific person. It's still cool, but it's not about a specific sum of money being paid out. And it's considered a supplement to the testament (or a testament if there's no additional document), so there are still documents needed to claim that money. Perhaps the usefulness of this option does depend on a jurisdiction.

Thinking about the question itself, don't people usually understand when they are not addicted to something? I mean, people often ask the opposite question because they aren't sure if their obsession qualifies as addiction, but I'm not sure signs of not having addiction are generally needed.
Turning to specific points, I agree with all of them, apart from non-escape mechanism, and honest behavior, I think. People often do things to escape reality, and that doesn't mean they're addicted. For instance, many people read novels to dive into a different world, but that doesn't mean they're addicted to them. As for honest behavior, a person can choose to hide the fact about gambling for a lot of reasons, especially from friends or distant relatives. It can be done because a person doesn't want to gamble together with those people, because society is often prejudiced against gambling in general, because many automatically make the connection between gambling and addiction, because they don't want to share their wins, etc. And none of those reasons involve an addiction. Trying to hide gambling can be a part of addiction, but it doesn't have to be a part of it, so it's just a feature that's not helpful to define the lack of addiction.

EUR 28,000
kryptonomous

BlackRock is a huge investment company, so I'm sure they have plenty of resources to promote their situation and try getting an approval. That can mean using connections to push favourable articles into the media, creating a perception that an approval is just around the corner, which can put additional pressure upon the SEC. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to pull some strings, find people who'd speak up positively about their ETF. But IMO all that doesn't mean that they'll actually get an approval. I still think the SEC isn't willing to review their policy, but if BlackRock manages to succeed, I agree that other ETFs can easily follow, and the SEC's approval could drive the market up significantly.

I wouldn't waste time on that. Some traders are good, but they can also make mistakes. But while they can afford to make big mistakes, their followers might not be so lucky. Also, there can be impostors making their own groups to scam people. Joining a group requires analysing how fair it is, how successful, how transparent, etc. It can also cost money, of course, which is another risk. Trading is tricky, and one can try to experiment with it or simply hodl till Bitcoin grows. The latter is safer and easier, and I don't trust any groups to follow their suggestions.

14. Mayra Bueno Silva
13. Junyong Park
12. Walt Harris
11. Norma Dumont
10. Jack Della Maddalena
9. Terrance McKinney
8. Francisco Prado
7. Tucker Lutz
6. Istela Nunes
5. Melquizael Costa
4. Genaro Valdez
3. Tyson Nam
2. Carl Deaton
1. Ailin Perez

NOT go the Full Distance 4

a.  SPFC
b.  2-0
c.  Over
d.  No
e.  18'

Sometimes people manage to go viral, get lucky with something. Or a person can already be famous and thus have an audience from somewhere else without a need for marketing. As for the rest of us, I do believe that investing in ads, a good SMM manager, and nice communications with the target audience are all very important things that can be decisive in terms of success.
A product can be great but simply fail to reach its audience without proper marketing. I'm not sure traditional marketing is important (billboards, TV ads), but having good social media presence certainly is.

Bitcoin wasn't envisioned as a form of investment, but it because an investment because of how drastically the price started changing and because it's consistently going up over the years. When the value of something increases over time, it's natural that people will treat it as an investment.
The idea of Bitcoin as electronic cash is still somewhat relevant, and there are people who use it this way. But there isn't enough adoption of Bitcoin as a form of payment, and then there's the scalability issue.
It should also be noted that even fiat is sometimes used as an investment. For example, it used to be very popular in my country to buy the USD, hodl and then sell for local fiat because our fiat suffered a lot more from inflation than the USD, so the USD was mainly seen as an investment. But it is also a type of money, there's no doubt about it. Bitcoin can easily be both, and it doesn't matter whether this is what Satoshi thought Bitcoin would become.