Bitcoin doesn't exactly have an efficient way to measure "consensus" and further, there's a major difference between what bitcoin users might think versus a consensus by miners, the vote of which is significantly concentrated the hands of very few relative to the number of bitcoin users as a whole.  Plus, the frequent splits off the main bitcoin chain are instances where there have been major disagreements concerning the "consensus" about the proper protocols bitcoin should use.  All this is a long way of saying that there's no credible "consensus" about bitcoin.  There's a status quo which, for reasons that have nothing to do with consensus, is very difficult to change.

The infection patterns may be tracing the same patterns as before, but one thing that is different is that there are more variations of the virus circulating through the population and we know that Delta is far more contagious than previous versions.  Luckily, the Delta variant doesn't seem to be more lethal, but who knows how much more deadly the virus can become with continued mutations.

If you're just looking for a fast double, gambling is what you're doing.  Nothing returns such high gains without a corresponding high risk of loss.  Expecting any asset to double in short order shows just how warped your expectations are. 

The law of conservation of energy has no applicability to bitcoin.  Under this extremely confused analogy, it could only be applicable if energy could be converted into bitcoin and then converted back into energy, which is not the case.  Bitcoin only consumes energy, and what energy is consumed creating bitcoin is never conserved or reclaimable.  In fact, it only requires ever more energy to continue transferring bitcoin through the blockchain once it is created.  This is the antithesis of what you're trying to convey.  Bitcoin is an energy sink and in its current form will never not be.

The IMF already uses some form of supranational currency to make up for the limitations of sovereign currencies.  Keynes proposed a supranational currency called Bancor, and while it was never implemented, SDRs are a close analog and currently in use by the IMF.  It's therefore extremely unlikely that we would see radical change like Bitcoin becoming the standard supranational currency when we have in practice something that already mimics the effects of doing so, and radical change like the kind you talk about will lose out to the inertia of "good enough" every time.

We're at about $50,000 right now.  Bitcoin was perhaps the “best” investment opportunity when it was below $1,000, but it’s no longer likely to put up the super massive growth numbers anymore. At this price, it is just as likely that the a basket of technology stocks outperforms bitcoin from this point out. Bitcoin is likely going to largely correlate with the overall stock market from here.

Valuing coinbase as a financial institution is wrong. They're 100% a tech stock.  The same way you wouldn't value Square or PayPal as a financial institution because they also are tech stocks.  The current marketcap is 67 billion.  Personally, I'm not interested in that because a lot of future growth is already baked in and they're offering a commodity product (access to crypto) and have to defensive moat to protect the business.  Anyone can come in and beat them on price.  The risk-reward at this valuation isn't there for me.

You can hope that all you want, but it's demonstrably not the case. Almost nobody cares about using it as a currency. People buy it to speculate and try to get rich, and because they have major FOMO when they see others buying it. If it weren't for social media, Bitcoin would still be worthless. And a red flag about its true intrinsic value is that nobody knows what it's worth themselves, they depend on what others think it's worth (or worse yet, the perception of what others think it's worth) to inform their opinion of what they think it's worth.

Adoption as a currency is virtually non-existent.  If you mean adoption as a speculative asset, perhaps this is closer to entering the mainstream, but this was never part of the original thesis. It's only when you move the goalposts that you come anywhere close to saying bitcoin is entering the mainstream.  Use as an actual currency still remains rare compared to people just buying and hoping to make money holding it.

Fighting KYC is exactly the type of thing that's going to lead to harsh crackdowns by governments. Either you want bitcoin to be a widely accepted part of the economy or you want limited utility untraceable dark money.  You can't have both. Bitcoin can occupy a not insignificant part of the financial system, but only when it fits into the current framework and the current laws. Bitcoin will not be the glorious revolution you envisioned.

Like 99% of altcoins, this is not going to move the needle and not going to amount to anything more than a publicity event. Miami coin isn't going to be popular and isn't going to increase adoption meaningfully.  The one thing you can say about it is at least Miami is trying something far more advanced than any other place in the US, but don't expect it to have a material effect on anything bitcoin related.

Just as everyone who has ever predicted a top has been wrong, likely is everyone wrong who ever predicts the "last" time we see a certain low.  The history of Bitcoin has always been one of extreme volatility, where peaks and valleys are revisisted with regularity.  Last time it was at $60k there were also people saying it'll never go below $40k again, and they were wrong, just like you're likely to be wrong.  Forever is a long time.  I would bet that we see $30k again if the time horizon is "forever."

"Always remember 1 Bitcoin equals 1 Bitcoin no matter what."  This is an empty platitude that doesn't mean anything.  1 dollar equals 1 dollar no matter what too.  It doesn't have any practical value knowing this.  You need to know the value of money in relation to things you want or need to buy.  Does 1 bitcoin buy a bag of groceries or a car?  Knowing it's worth "1 bitcoin" is meaningless.  Bitcoin is unusable as a currency because no one knows how much it's worth unless they convert it into USD first.

Zinc is not a COVID-19 supplement and nothing in the study you posted even mentions any applicability to COVID-19 whatsoever (in fact it was published before the pandemic began).  Nobody should take one abstract study that doesn't address the premise at all as any type of confirmation that zinc is a suitable treatment for COVID-19.  It's not.  Vaccine's have proven effective at limiting the spread and reducing the rate of serious illness, hospitalizations and death.  To maintain anything to the contrary ignores the reality and the science of it.  Due to people like OP who refuse vaccines, everyone in the world is in far worse shape.  This continued stupidity imperils the world.  Perhaps this is the type of virus that can never be defeated, just as influenza cannot be defeated, but we're certainly not in a better place because of the anti-vaxxers dragging the rest of us down, giving the virus continued runway to mutate into more dangerous variants.

It's more of a speculative asset these days.  Nobody is using it for commerce, people are only interested in the gains from holding it.  And there is a great deal of FOMO driving the speculative frenzy.  Nobody wants to miss out on being a "crypto millionaire."

I never understood the adherence to smaller block sizes either.  It's like hardcoding a limit into the ability to enable mass adoption.  A currency that can't be used without lengthy transaction delays or significant fees is not a useful currency.  But the ship has long sailed on bitcoin as a functional currency.  Now it's all about price appreciation and FOMO.  No one uses it as a currency.

A 1:4 split is a reverse split, so for every 4 shares you owned you will now own 1 share.  The point is to reduce the share count and increase the price.  If you had 4 shares worth 1 dollar each ($4 total), after a 1:4 reverse split you would have 1 share worth 4 dollars.  The market cap remains the same, so the price undergoes the same change as the share count.  Usually, reverse splits are a sign of distress in a company.  It's commonly done by companies whose price has fallen below the minimum threshold to be listed on an exchange, and a reverse split boosts the stock price in order to be able to remain listed on the exchange.  Those instances are clear red flags.

The energy prices don't have anything to do with Biden policies.  Keystone wouldn't be producing for years still and same with fracking on federal lands.  None of this impacted the current supply, so none of this impacted the current prices.  The prices are reactive to actual supply changes from OPEC, not policy decisions that would have changed supply 3-5 years from now.

Anything that is so overly simplified is bound to be inaccurate.  Boiling down Florida to a simple case of sanctions is pure folly.  There are 21 million people in Florida, and the vast majority of them don't give a damn about sanctions on Cuba, and I'd guess they don't know anything about it either.

Pools that are very large and very liquid generally are not as volatile because of just how much money is required to move the market cap substantially.  An example of this is small cap stocks are generally more volatile than large cap stocks.

I do think the market cap is reaching a size where crazy swings will be on the decline.  It'll be interesting to see what happens as more companies lock up millions of dollars of bitcoin at a time, and whether that increases or decreases volatility though.  Generally, the less of something available the more volatile it is, so locking up bitcoin in company treasuries could possibly increase volatility.