It's hard to estimate how much money is needed for a retirement because people have different standards of life, different countries require different amounts of money to cover basic expenses, a person may of may not have additional sources of income at that point, consumer prices can grow significantly over time, there can arise a demand for something like a medical emergency that can't currently be calculated, you can't know how much you'll live etc.
Assuming $1k per month is enough to cover basic expenses of retirement and 30 years is how much time one expects to live after retirement, it gives us an estimate of $360k for that period. Of course, given inflation, it's actually significantly more than that, so let's perhaps double it to $720k. 10 BTC and 100 ETH already cost something close to a half of the required rough amount. I'm sure Bitcoin will cost much more in the future and Ethereum will try to keep up as well. So yeah, I think this amount is enough. But of course, nobody can know for sure and we have no idea what sort of new challenges and demands the future will bring or whether cryptos will be as relevant as they currently are at that point.

13. Cory Sandhagen
12. Holly Holm
11. Nate Landwehr
10. Maycee Barber
9. Manel Kape
8. Chidi Njokuani
7. Tucker Lutz
6. Lucas Alexander
5. Trevin Giles
4. Daniel Da Silva
3. Manuel Torres
2. Victor Altamirano
1. Hailey Cowan

NOT go the Full Distance 5

Is it fair to say it's all out of thin air over 14 years between 2008 and 2022? Some of it surely is, but the economy is also growing because huge new businesses appear, creating new jobs, new demand and offer, so since the charts are for the total assets, I think at least some of that printing has something reasonable justifying it. I agree that the US is playing with fire and has been doing so for a while, but sometimes it's hard to make a better choice than printing when you really need funds to fix something now and deal with the consequences later. That being said, banks should not be bailed out when they fail.
I'm honestly not sure that Bitcoin as a sole legal tender instead of something like the USD would have a better overall effect on the well-being of the population when facing global challenges like the pandemic.

Poverty is a global and structural challenge. It's not right to blame particular people for making wrong decisions, not trying hard enough etc. because it's a fact that our world is build on privileges which some have and others don't, and some things are objectively much easier for some and harder for others with an equal amount of effort made. Poverty is becoming a big problem in my country specifically because we are currently at war, and unfortunately, I don't think Bitcoin can end poverty.
Bitcoin might help some people if they are not truly poor but can actually invest some money and then enjoy an improved quality of life, and maybe pension funds investing into Bitcoin could also help to elevate some people, but generally, poverty should be tackled from various angles and we must remember that the problem is not the lack of resources but the terrible mismanagement of them.
When some go hungry, plenty of food is getting thrown away because of not being bought by anyone or being bought and never eaten. When some are homeless, many houses remain empty with nobody living there, renting them or thinking of buying them. We need all sorts of practices to learn to share and redistribute sources. More importantly, we need a serious worldview shift from 'who doesn't work doesn't eat' to 'everyone deserves to have their most basic needs like basic food and having a safe place to sleep in covered because these are basic human rights'. Once we really get to agreeing on that, we can work on ensuring that everyone gets at least minimal resources and can put an end to poverty.

Unless you live in a country where there's something like an obligatory service if you don't go straight to university, why not take a gap year? I believe that getting a university degree is a way of improving your soft skills, becoming a more organized person, a way of meeting like-minded people and getting to be in an environment that is very different from the one you usually have at school. But I also think people shouldn't rush with such decisions if it's possible to wait and see. If you want to invest some money into Bitcoin and try to spend some time outside the learning space, there's nothing bad about it. You can see for yourself what kind of jobs you can get without a degree in your country, have some time to think whether you want to go to university and what kind of things you'd like to study. In my country, there are lots of people who go to at least some sort of universities or colleges after school, so for almost any intellectual job positions you are expected to have at least some sort of degree. Also, a university is a great chance to form connections, to see how other people start finding jobs and think what sort of jobs you could apply for. But I believe it can vary from one place to another greatly.

We live in a world of variety where one rarely needs to choose one thing over another. I'd gladly choose both fiat and Bitcoin. Fiat is relatively stable, and I'd also want to use my country's fiat because I want to support my country this way during a very difficult time it's having. But Bitcoin is more private and largely quite convenient. If I could use it directly for payments for my basic goods and services, I can't say I'd always do it, but I would certainly do it from time to time. Bitcoin is better for savings because it grows in value over time, unlike fiat, but fiat is way more known and accepted, which is also something that matters when making a choice.

A bank is a place where a person come to deposit money. It's also an institution that enables online transfers of money. At least, these are the functions of banks that people usually use. If you use Bitcoin, you can download a non-custodial wallet, transfer your BTC there and then make Bitcoin transactions to other Bitcoin addresses when you want to do it. So in a way, you are your own bank this way. That being said, it is also true that due to huge limitations set by where Bitcoin actually is accepted as a form of payment, people can't usually pay the rent, the bills or mortgage with it. But that's the problem of acceptance of a currency, not a problem of the idea of Bitcoin replacing a bank.

Unfair advertising practices and financial advice aren't good things to employ, I agree with that. However, I don't think it makes promotion of gambling bad per se, and Hispo has a fair point that similar unethical practices exist outside the gambling industry.
IMO, gambling is a form of entertainment. People easily pay for other forms of entertainment, such as going bowling, buying a computer game, going to the cinema etc. In those other cases you 'lose' every time, you don't expect to get your money back. In gambling, there is a chance you'll actually win, but that chance is not a promise and not a guarantee because what you're paying for is the process and the emotions you're getting out of it.

I'm not sure what the op means about a low demand for Bitcoin and Bitcoin price getting lower. It's clearly getting higher and higher, and it's happening pretty fast. It also means that Bitcoin is in high demand, as that's what leads to the price growing over time. I don't think the reason why Bitcoin is growing is clear. It might be because of the banks in the US, or maybe Bitcoin just stayed low for too long and it's finally building up toward a proper bull run, which happens from time to time regardless of external economic or political factors.

I thought fiat would fail and the time of Bitcoin would come, but I don't think so anymore. While banks fail occasionally and some of the top currencies experienced unexpectedly high rates of inflation last year, fiat and banks are still here to stay, I believe. It is also worth noting that while Bitcoin can be used without a centralized service, many still rely on exchanges or custodial wallets, and those can fall as well. Moreover, banks aren't doing so badly, at least not everywhere. For example, banks in my country reported top deposits over the last year, and they are flourishing. Cryptos are also quite popular, but people don't see one as an alternative to another.
As for Bitcoin vs USD, I think that due to other complicated political engagements and relative stability of the latter, most countries will stick to it. Bitcoin is too volatile and isn't objectively highly desirable by other countries, which are both problems. Not to mention how the IMF feels about Bitcoin and the kind of pressure it can put on countries that try to adopt it more.

I believe what one can afford to lose is purely subjective an it's normal. For someone, even $100 is life-saving crucial funds that one can't afford to lose. For someone else, a million dollars can easily be money one can afford to lose. If we try to generalize, it certainly should not be a part of money a person needs to cover basic living costs (food, transportation, rent if applicable, utility bills) and maybe other crucial funds (for example, if a person has money for an upcoming surgery or university tuition fees). Everything above that is, I suppose, what one can afford to lose, but people should use their subjective sense and particular situations to determine what that amount really is for them. And it's better to invest less if you're not sure than invest more and realize you actually really needed that money.
As for a proof that investing in Bitcoin is profitable, I think one should just look at the price chart and see how each time Bitcoin recovered from each fall and also look at how, while Bitcoin does decrease its value significantly from time to time, the lowest point it falls to seems to also be getting higher over time.

There are perhaps too many kinds of coins and too many coins themselves to regulate everything, as they are often different from one another in various ways, but IMO the shadier a market is and the more centralized a project is, the better it is to regulate them. Bitcoin itself doesn't really need much regulation, and it doesn't have any 'fixed commodities/products' connected to it either. If the reason for regulations is the FTX collapse, why not regulate crypto exchanges, making them report how much funds they actually have, what they do with their clients' money etc.?
But if some in Taiwan welcome these regulations, I hope it means they'll be favourable not only to big companies but to regular crypto users and customers of big companies.

Some people make comments precisely to get publicity, to get attention to themselves and capitalize on that attention. It doesn't mean that these people are truly influential or that their words mean much. I've looked at his Twitter, and he seems to be a firm believer in the banking system, but also in regulating banks more strictly to ensure that bankruptcies happen less often. So he's more of a believer in central banks, and that certainly goes against Bitcoin ideologically because Bitcoin shows that we might not need central banks. Still, it's very unfair to say cryptos don't have any social or economic value and to compare it to drugs. Drugs affect human bodies and communities, whereas Bitcoin is as neutral as it gets.

It seems that ordinals are just a new shiny thing, similar to NFTs back when they appeared. I don't oppose such things, I believe that it's good that some are experimenting with Blockchain use cases and ways of capitalizing on new markets, but I'm not interested in them either. Can something like this really be stopped? One can simply decide not to participate, sure, but that's not the same as stopping ordinals. Also, isn't Bitcoin founded on the idea of financial freedom? So why try to impose a centralized restriction upon something else? People should be free to experiment and choose what to put their money in, and it's not some sort of obvious scam like a Ponzi to try imposing any bans.

Game 1:  27, 19'
Game 2:  27, 23'

I wouldn't say that El Salvador adopted Bitcoin the wrong way. Sure, perhaps the merchants should have been given more choice on what they want to accept as payment, but maybe not. If a currency is recognized as a legal tender, people must be able to use it as payment where they want to use it, and thus merchants must ensure such an option is available. Denying this would mean saying that Bitcoin should not be recognized as legal tender, I believe. I'm happy that grassroots thing is working for Guatemala, but the top-down El Salvador's approach isn't automatically bad. I'd be happy if my country used El Salvador's approach.
The video is cool, and it's awesome that people like Eleazar exist. They use the Wallet of Satoshi, a custodial lightning solution. But the upside is how easy it is to use (based on the examples featured in the video). What feels a little off, though, is that the video and people in it emphasize that you can be your own bank with Bitcoin (which is true), while omitting the fact that they use a custodial wallet (which is convenient to use but defeats the whole 'be your own bank point').

I think that while the idea of 1 btc = 1 btc is very appealing (in a way because it represents the law of identity, and we want to have more stability in our lives), it does not make much practical sense. Value can be subjective, and some can say that the price of Bitcoin doesn't represent its real value. But the price represents a sort of consensus of how much people are willing to pay for Bitcoin, for how much they are willing to sell it, and how many goods and services it can be directly or indirectly exchanged for. I'd say the value of Bitcoin changes because the price is merely an indicator of purchasing power. If one day you can exchange your Bitcoin for a Tesla car and another day you can only afford a motorcycle, it's a difference. Just like some time ago you could only exchange Bitcoin for a cup of coffee, whereas now it's way more than that.

If the price is in INR or Nigerian naira, 700 seems like a very small amount (or is it 700,000?). I mean it merely from a practical perspective: sometimes the transaction fees can be, like, $1 or around that, so it shouldn't be a significant amount of your investment. Also, if you invest, say, $10 into Bitcoin, it means that even when it grows 10x, you'll only have $100 out of it. Is it a difference-making sum over several years? Is it worth it? Of course, just as an experiment, it's good to invest any sum. But the expectations should be adjusted to the state of affairs. As for the time of the investment, it's really hard to say if we're finally in the bull market which is hitting fast or if Bitcoin can be around $20k soon once again. But others are correct that if the investment is meant to be long-term, it does not really matter.

There are people whom I told about Bitcoin and that I believe it will rise. The price was around $6k at that point, it was after the 2018 price drop. They said that they think Bitcoin is shady, a financial pyramid. I didn't put much effort into convincing them of the opposite, I merely outlined why I think they are wrong. Yet these were the kind of people who would never recognize they were wrong. They just forget that they were and never admit that I was right or think of investing in Bitcoin (or that there was a time when it was the right thing to do). So I think those friends of the op who are regretting something at least recognized their mistakes and might learn from them, which makes it a positive story.

I think that while you won't earn an interest rate with Bitcoin, and it won't be based on automatic payments (if it's not a centralized exchange), the easiest solution and also a very good one is to simply download a non-custodial wallet (Electrum, for instance) and decide for yourself that it will be for savings and when you can use this money. So you can just use one wallet for savings and barely access it, and then use another wallet for everyday usage of Bitcoin. It's simple, you can decide not to access it unless it's an emergency or a routine check of everything being in order, and you'll be your own bank.