You are asking two questions, one in the title and one in the thread. Addressing the latter first;

Yes, it's a possibility. Digital exposure is quite high in the U.S, and having an extra layer on that using the block chain could definitely be successful. It could create a cheaper and faster way to transact using the USD, than what is available today, while giving the government more control of transactions.

Is the regular dollar a threat to Bitcoin? It isn't, so a digital version, or more specifically a blockchain version would not be any different.
People use Bitcoin for a couple of reasons;
• As a global currency,
• For privacy,
• For freedom,
• As an asset and/or hedge fund,
• As a speculative asset, etc.
A CBDC would not fill this and attract those users to hold them instead.

Judging from the fact that Amazon has earlier this year paid $2.25 million to the Washington state attorney general's office after a lawsuit on alledged price manipulation on their site and also discontinuing their "sold by Amazon" program, which was a way where sellers let the platform determine the best price for their products, it's no surprise they are getting another lawsuit now.

Big companies with monopoly like Amazon, Google etc are prone to unsavoury practices to boost profits and also fizzle put competitors.
I've not gone through this entire law suit to know the merits of the case which the state of California is bringing up yet, but with their antecedents, Amazon is likely culpable.

You are spot on here, such effects would only be noticable if that country has a global export which other countries depend on. There are lots of wars which go unoticed by the general public, cause it doesn't have any rebound effects on the rest of the world.

Russia and Ukraine are two heavy exporting nations, contributing to economies on different economies, reasons why the war is so pronounced.

Environmental degradation is also a major effect. Up there is also the displacement of citizens who now become refugges in other regions, depending on their economy.

The only benefit of war is selfish interest. A nation seeking to expand its empire or build one, would go about conquering viable nations to further their course.

It's just a hypothesis and would not be fully put to the test until a while in the future. The perspective of LN taking many of the transactions off chain and only needing to open or close channels on chain, increasing the fees of such individual transactions. The downside is such a situation would practically force everyone to go for off chain means of transacting as, no one would spend ridiculous amount on a single transaction.

Awesome idea and execution. The fact that your business is heavily focused on lightening network is also a good initiative, which would show other merchants how they can successfully accept Bitcoin, without worrying too much about huge fees and transaction confirmation time.

Which question; does accepting arts on ETH and XCP network contradict the idea of an"Satoshi place"? And do you see any other altckin based initiative coming up in the future?

I was thinking about this thread while reading this one, and it's obvious that coinbasw has shown to be very aversed to privacy of freedom over the years, from strict KYC policy, to selling users data and everything in between.

Moves like this one and creating a "perceived" non custodian wallet seems just like another way to whitewash their public image and attract more users to their platform. Coinbase are not pro Bitcoin or privacy.

That's just a little less than the last ATH, so it's definitely a feasible amount per Bitcoin. There would also still be a percentage coming from block rewards, at least for the next 30-90 years. And the significance of that could get much higher with increasing value. Maybe even to the last coinbase reward being claimed.

I've always had the perspective that the rewards to mining requirements ratio, is a system that can regulate itself, especially as there are so many years between now and the finite supply and many gradual decrements between now and then.

Great write up and a great read. After reading the title, I was half expecting some bogus link between Bitcoin and the economy and how it can prevent a recession or some like that.

Some reasons could be;
• They form the bulk of the population,
• They are younger and not so rooted into the traditional ways of doing things, hence they are more likely to adopt changes,
• They are more digitally aware.

Those benefits mentioned, such as freedom to transact internationally, cheaper and faster, as well as potential for Bitcoin to rise, are more of personal benefits to users and not to the economy.
It could of course grow local businesses which supplies internationally and bring in more revenue, but that would be until they convert to fiat. Same with potential ROI

I've recently read news about how third party sites and Dapps pose a security threat to wallet owners.

Ideally we should never give 3rd party platforms access to our financial or personal details (KYC). But if you must, it should be for a short period of time, and only limited to certain platforms.

This opens up a new perspective in the discussion, which I had not thought of before now.
At the current block reward of 6.25BTC, miners averagely earn $122k - $125. Using the current average rate of one Bitcoin. If you include the tx fee, that's an extra ~$3k.

For the reward of mining to remain commensurate with the current value (in USD), i.e, 0.15BTC giving miners about the same amount they are earning now, which is ~$125k, then the value of 1 Bitcoin needs to rise to above $800k. That's a huge leap from the current price levels.
Would we likely be seeing $1 million to 1BTC within the next 25-30 years?

Firstly, not everyone is savvy in using the forum search option, or is aware of it.
Asking questions is also a form of learning and research, if the said user follows up on answers and discussions bordered around their questions.

There is no singular form of manipulation, it could happen in various ways;
• Pump and dump: here a whale buys up a large amount of a small cap asset and moves the price up, attracting investors. When more people start to buy at that price, they dump,
• News and media can also be used to manipulate trader sentiment. Social media influencers are now becoming more popular to shill projects,
• Governments can also manipulate the market with policies they adopt.

Bitcoin as the most popular and adopted  cryptocurrency is somewhat inoculated from the effects of manipulation. It's mostly unrewarding and expensive to attempt.

Technology is the currency of now and the future, if a country has a healthy community base who are highly skilled in Tech and E-commerce, they would have many of the leading industries in those fields, bringing in revenue from other countries around the world.
This is one reason nations around the world are investing in education.

Freelancing is a broader blanket, involving so many skills besides those which are tech related.

Bitcoin is quite common for use on sport betting platforms.
There are so many casino games out there which use Bitcoin as well as some other cryptos to facilitate bets.

Head over to the gambling section and you will find a number of such platforms there.

YouTube channels say whatever for the views.
In reality, majority of crypto users do not care about their privacy or desire to keep their financial transactions away from he eyes of the government - "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't need to hide".
The minority users who value their privacy would avoid centralized exchanges and stick to decentralizated, P2P ones to avoid the regulations that come with CEX.

Care to tell how?

Yes, promoted multiple projects in the past and learnt a lot from them, but would be difficult to describe that in a few words.

• First advice is not to invest solely based on marketing. The actual product is the value of a project and is more important,
• If you like the product, you then scrutinize the marketing strategy. There are projects which prioritize quantity over quality; such projects would encourage numerous spam posts about them around the forum (and internet), in the hopes that it gets them some traffic and users.
This is more common on social platforms like YouTube and Twitter, with bots promoting several projects multiple times, sometimes in the same comment section,
• Customer response is also an important aspect of customer relations. Do not only check out how a project tries to announce themselves to new users, also check how the interact with existing ones.

A giant Panda is a bear, so your NFTs would be promoting the bear market, just kidding. But mroe seriously, the Bitcoin centric part of the forum would not care for a forum themed NFTs, or any NFT for that matter. There are definitely members who see value in it and associate with them, but do not expect a wide spread interest if you did create some.

Basing them off "ethereum improvements"? It frankly would have been much better if they actually were inspired by the bear market.

No, you didn't.
And the reward has nothing to do with more people joining the network, it's a protocol in the system; every 210,000 blocks, the coinbase reward is halved and it is currently at 6.25BTC. You might want to correct the OP.

Use of Bitcoin does not reduce cost of living. Bitcoin barely impacts the economy of a Nation, and cannot directly impact the life of holders, simply cause they hodl.

The number 2 point is the most practical. But Bitcoin is already very popular, and I would not be expecting a demand shock due to increased population, which happens gradually overtime.

Bitcoin does not create new jobs either.

Outdated figures.
The current coinbase reward on each completed block is 6.25BTC.
It stopped being 25 after the halving in 2016.

The difficulty level can increase or decrease with each difficulty adjustment, depending on how the hashrate increases or decreases.
The average time was always designed to be 10 minutes for each block.

This is a reach in my opinion. Bitcoin is barely being adopted by the approximately 8 billion people on Earth now. And of those who have adopted it, it's not utilized much for purchases of daily needs. An increase in population, would not significantly impact demand, unless there is a rise in adoption.

In the technical definition of a payment processor (PP), Bitcoin was not meant or designed to act that way.
A payment processor, although described a bit differently by different website, has some similar terms across all definitions, in how it mediates between buyers and sellers, or in a more basic term credit and debit (cards).
PP acts as a middle man or intermediary, enabling user A, to send funds to user B, more easily and efficiently, despite barriers like banks, currency or border. It's effectively a third party.

Bitcoin is not a third party, infact it eliminates the need for one and allows users transact P2P, so it's not meant to be on that list.

Most likely not. One reason for this would be scalability issues; using Bitcoin as an accepted means of exchange would increase the demand for faster transactions, increasing the demand for 3rd party systems like BTC processors, or lightening network (best case scenario), or some centralized exchange system which is adopted by citizens (worse case scenario).

Another reason is how governments always want centralized and controlled systems. They wish to give the impression of being a citizens watchdog, which prevents them from getting into trouble, but in reality, they seek more control, which is not available on Bitcoin, without the use of 3rd parties.

If you can use Bitcoin today, you don't need to wish on any day where governments get into it.