I don't know about the merchant's side of the transaction because I've never been on that side. If Bitcoin's fees are lower than for traditional payment methods (like with a debit card, Google Pay), that's great news. But the fee may be high for the customer, then, right?
Also, I don't think the focus in this question should be on the fees anyway because Bitcoin's volatility is a more pressing matter. If a merchant accepts BTC and keeps the payments of customers in BTC (as there's always an option of accepting BTC but converting to fiat), then they are taking a risk. In the long run, it may be profitable. But if monthly and even quarter profits are counted, the value can easily be down. What should also be accounted for is whether a merchant has to pay additional taxes for accepting Bitcoin.

I see why a company would choose a confusing name and Bitcoin's supply, as they probably rely on people mixing it up with Bitcoin and/or investing because of believing that crypto is a big thing, without differentiating between coins. Companies like that benefit from the lack of regulations of the altcoin market, as I believe in other fields that would be called unfair competition and misleading behaviour and might be a punishable offence. But since Bitcoin isn't a company or a trademark, and altcoins are regulated more loosely, people can do all sorts of things.
Those who say Bitcoin and Bficoin can be told apart are correct, but it's the same with Adidas and Abibas/Adibas, and yet the latter is frowned upon if not considered illegal.

I am not a big risk-taker, and perhaps that's also why I don't have any big financial regrets. I thoughts that Bitcoin's price in hundreds of dollars was big and that it was worth to sell it for fiat, but that was due to the lack of proper financial literacy and also really needing the money I was getting out of it. Sure, I could try to save up some of it in the early days (early for me) and  didn't, but getting rich isn't among the goals of my life, so I'm okay with the decisions I've made and the reasons I had for them. I also lost 60% of my Ethereum holding in the early days due to using a centralized wallet that was popular back then but performed an exit scam, but it wasn't a lot of money, and I've learned my lesson, realizing why holding your keys is important and why custodial solutions are truly risky.

PoS is not just more centralized, but it also promotes the very things we've trying to get rid of in the global economy: the rich getting disproportionately richer, and the gap between the rich and the poor becoming wider. That's because the more Ethereum you already have, the more you can afford to stake, and the more you stake, the more you get in return. At least with PoW, miners aren't always or maybe even usually those who possess the biggest amounts of Bitcoin, even though to mine more, you still need to be able to afford more equipment. And I do think PoS is more 'energy efficient', but the energy consumption is naturally growing anyway, so we should focus on better sources of this energy rather than on trying to consume less energy.

The problem is that inflation isn't widely regarded as a negative thing. Too much inflation is an issue, but a stable inflation rate is considered healthy and stimulating for the economy by many experts, with the argument being that the fact that money is losing some of its value over time motivates people to spend it rather than save up, and spending is crucial for a healthy economy. With Bitcoin, which keeps growing in value over time, there truly seems to be an issue for many to spend it, as people want to hodl and enjoy better profits. At the same time, though, people aren't inclined to spend Bitcoin when it's losing value either, as they believe it's temporary. With fiat, when a currency loses some of its value, it rarely then grows in value later, so the spending motive works. At the same time, it can be argued that people spend money when they need to buy something or feel like they want to buy it, not because of inflation.
But I don't see people turning to cryptos instead of fiat in the near future because people don't want volatile money and largely views cryptos as assets, not as a payment method.

Being able to use Bitcoin for something as regular as buying groceries is something I'd love to see happen one day. That being said, the major issues that immediately come to my mind are the time it takes for a transaction to get confirmed (which would make queues even longer and waiting time not worth it) and transaction fees (which aren't that high in general but are pretty high if your receipt at the supermarket isn't big). I've seen the photos, but I don't see anything Bitcoin-related in them. How are you planning to accept Bitcoin? What will the waiting time be, what will the fees be like?

Bitcoin's price is determined by the demand (given that the supply is largely fixed and only somewhat increasing at a predictable rate, I'd emphasize the demand). Bitcoin can stay in the bear market for several years, that wouldn't be unheard of. Moreover, the current price isn't so bad, even if it's very far from the ATH. If enough people start believing in the $100k price and become willing to get it there, it will happen. But I don't think the momentum is there yet. Something must happen to push more people into actively buying Bitcoin, and there's no such thing for now.

It seems that in the case of the op, the father wanted to invest and came to the son about it years after the initial discussion of what Bitcoin is and how it can be an investment. So, to be honest, it doesn't seem like much convincing happened here (and it's a good thing as convincing people to make certain financial decisions is problematic, as others noted). I am happy you have such a progressive parent who is ready to explore new areas at the age of 79. Even if he doesn't buy more, I think it's a good investment. I wouldn't try to convince my older relatives to invest in Bitcoin, but I wouldn't hide interest in Bitcoin either, so if they come at some point, I'd be there to help but make sure they understand the risks and that I'm not responsible for what happens next.

Game 1:  28, 13'
Game 2:  28, 22'
Game 3:  28, 21'
Game 4:  28, 14'

I think it's good to have Bitcoin for emergency situations, and it shouldn't matter during an emergency whether the price is good or not. I generally don't like when something doesn't go according to my plan, so I would be upset about selling BTC when I wasn't planning to do that, but not because it's BTC; rather the bigger issue to me would be that an emergency occurred. Bitcoin is volatile, you win some and lose some, and I don't have a problem with that. Also, Bitcoin is money, so it should be used when it's needed, even if its value isn't the best at the moment. I think it's better than taking a loan, which some are asking about.

14. Merab Dvalishvili
13. Alexander Romanov
12. Ryan Spann
11. Ricardo Ramos
10. Said Nurmagomedov
9. Vitor Petrino
8. Karl Williams
7. Davey Grant
6. Sedriques Dumas
5. Mario Bautista
4. JJ Aldrich
3. Tony Gravely
2. Bruno Silva
1. Carlston Harris

NOT go the Full Distance 5

The charts are only indicative of the last couple of weeks, or even less than that. If you zoom out to see the last year, the difference is less noticeable, and what's been so far in 2023 looks quite similar for Bitcoin and for S&P 500. These minor fluctuations are IMO not a sign of a decoupling, not yet. Moreover, Bitcoin may still recover from its recent drop, whereas S&P 500 is already somewhat down, at 4,012 rather than 4,045. Honestly, I don't think it means that the stocks are doing better than Bitcoin or that Bitcoin no longer correlates with stocks because we're talking about such a short period of time and have no idea how that will change in a week from now, for example.

LoyceV has a very valid point. Before this forum and getting interested in Bitcoin, I couldn't care less about Economics, and I had no idea how fiat worked. In fact, I thought that currencies like that were still on gold standard, which hasn't been the case for many decades! I was very young, that's also true, but still, that's not an excuse, and I'm not sure how much I'd know about the traditional financial system without getting interested in cryptos and how they are different. So if people don't understand Bitcoin, it's quite natural, typical. I think more people will be aware of Bitcoin on some level in the future, and perhaps emphasizing that it's the kind of digital money which one can use and own without banks and which is also not issued or regulated financially by any authorities is more important than the current focus that seems to be on how much profit is to be made with Bitcoin if it reaches a certain price or how much one can lose if it doesn't.

I do agree that generally, it's good to monitor emmissions and what causes them. After all, reducing emmissions is something we should be actively working on, and the USA is clearly not meeting eco-friendly goals, which will then be bad for the whole planet. That being said, are there similar requirements to any other companies that use more than 5 megawatts of power? Because if it's about emmissions, everyone should be reporting them and it shouldn't be assumed that what everyone else is doing is too important to restrict them, whereas miners are doing something the USA can successfully live without, which is why miners must report their environmental impact. If they introduce a bill that obliges every company or at least a wide range of companies to report their impact in similar ways, that could be really helpful and set fair requirements to everyone. Focusing merely on miners is unfair.

Not every enterprise turns out to be profitable, and in many cases everyone loses, more or less, it's just that some gather political influence as a side effect of their actions, perhaps. That's how the US really became a prominent country after WW2, while France because way less powerful than it used to be. But it doesn't mean that the war was beneficial for Germany, the USA, the Soviet Union of anyone else. It was a huge tragedy, dozens of millions lives were lost, but the evil of Nazism had to be stopped no matter the cost. The USA gained political influence and probably money as well, but the war wasn't beneficial overall. In the Russo-Ukrainian war, everyone is losing and some might gain due to side effects if the war ends as it should, with Ukraine's victory. Ukraine would certainly gain a lot from defeating Russia, becoming a widely recognized political regional player rather than a country most can't even point to on the map and have no idea how big it is. But that doesn't mean Ukraine is benefiting from the war, as Ukraine is also suffering from it immensely and would of course prefer not to be invaded by Russia and remain of a lower political significance and with fewer weapons. The UK is gaining political influence which it lost over the last few decades by being a major ally of Ukraine and thus showing that it can still do things that matter internationally, despite not being that huge empire it used to be and not even being a part of the EU. Russia, I'm sure, wanted to gain a lot politically by conquering Ukraine because somebody is still not over the end of the Soviet Union and thinks that Kyiv should be their major city, while Ukraine is a 'fictional' state that should not exist. Analyzing potential gains isn't always helpful to determine what's going on and how it will go.

It's good advice to plan financial expenses and to not overspend on unnecessary things. However, I also believe that it's important to have some monthly money that would go on unnecessary joyful things, such as going to the cinema, buying games on Steam, perhaps buying some clothes or eating out. That's because life should be enjoyed, quality time should be spent with those you care about, and maybe going to expensive restaurants all the time and running out of money is a bad idea, yes, but never spending extra on something, always trying to save up, is just a less enjoyable way of life.

Geothermal energy is great because it's eco-friendly while also being quite reliable. I'm happy miners can use clean energy in Iceland, but the percentage out of the world's total is indeed very small. Iceland's just on top per capita because of their very small population. I hope miners will find more suitable locations for eco-friendly mining in the future, as it doesn't seem like Iceland is explicitly against it, right? The issue of the end of 2021 seems more technical than ideological to me.
I didn't know about the jailing of bankers, by the way, but I must admit I admire their actions.

I don't know whether this guy got his money in a legitimate way or by robbing others, and whether those who robbed him wanted the money for themselves or for the victims of an alleged scam. I've googled him, and there seem to be many people unhappy with his activities and that claim he is scamming others. So aside from being a rich Russian, he also had enemies, was into providing financial advice to others and was known to be aware of the crypto market because he commented on some crypto-related things earlier.
There's nothing to save one from being robbed this way, of course, but he had additional risks related to what he did and how he was earning money.

It's easy to judge in hindsight, but of course it was hardly realistic to imagine in the early years of Bitcoin that it would cost thousands, tens of thousands of dollars. And I'm confident many of us had our own moments of doubt at whichever point we joined the market, thinking that the price is already really high (to me, it was when Bitcoin was worth hundreds of dollars). AFAIK, Laszlo said he didn't regret the pizza deal, maybe the other two don't regret it either. After all, these are amazing stories that show how far we've come, how far Bitcoin came. I don't think they should cause regret.

Okay, if you're planning to hodl till you die, what's the point? It's like not having this money at all because money is a means of exchange, something you give to someone in exchange for something meaningful for you (goods or services). If you don't want to sell Bitcoin for fiat, it's okay. If you want to hodl for a while, it's fine. But hodling till the rest of your life is meaningless, unless you want someone specific to inherit the funds (they were never meant for your own benefit) and have made arrangements in place.
As for the update on accepting Bitcoin since September 2021, I'd like to hear more! Have you analysed the percentage of customers that pay in Bitcoin or the average number of Bitcoin payments you get per month/quarter? Is your revenue in BTC a sizeable amount, comparable to your revenue in fiat? It would be great to hear how accepting Bitcoin in a physical store works out for you in practice and how many people use this option. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd be interested to hear about it.