Scarcity is a good principle because it saves from overprinting and thus hyperinflation, but it's impossible to get it perfect for each case all in advance. That's why fiat is usually monitored and policies are adjusted based on what's going on. Sometimes they are adjusted poorly, but usually it works okay. The thing with money is that most economists seem to agree that it shouldn't grow in value, and it shouldn't even preserve the same value over time. In fact, it should lose value at around 2-3% annually to motivate big purchases and economic growth. Bitcoin is rising in value significantly over time, and while it's great news for investors, it might also be a challenge to BTC adoption as money because people want to hodl, not spend.

Well, from a purely pragmatic perspective of making more profit, it makes sense to buy low, sell high, then buy low again, as long as you can buy it for less than you sold it for. This way, a person can maximize the value if it's done properly. For example, one could buy at $4k in 2017, sell for $18k at the end of that year, and then buy again for, say, $10k in 2018, then sell for $60k in 2021, and so on. This reduces some of the risk because you can cash out when there's good profit, and then just way for the price to fall significantly to buy even more BTC.
But often it's just not worth it to spend time on looking for these patterns, so it's easier to just hodl or do DCA.

Game 1:  50, 19'

a. Yes
b. Over 
c. Yes
d. No   
e. Southampton
f. Leeds Utd
g. Southampton
h. Leeds Utd
i. 33

Honestly, I agree with decodx that there is no reputation crisis with Bitcoin. I actually think that its reputation improves over the years, as more and more serious people and organizations get involved. Bitcoin used to be seen as weird money for drug dealers and other Darknet users. Now we have major investment funds buying Bitcoin, major global powers developing policies on Bitcoin, some countries and regions adopting Bitcoin is various ways.
Where there are some misunderstandings, there can be clarifications. Bitcoin education wouldn't hurt, of course. But I don't think the issue is as big as the op portrays it.

Game 1:  26, 18'

The document has over 200 pages, so of course I didn't read all of it, but I looked through the summary, and it all sounds great. Honestly, it's refreshing to see a judge being straightforward in his statements, instead of using legal jargon without any specifics. He's talking about Wright lying repeatedly to the court about many things, with the biggest lie being that Craig is Satoshi. He also clarifies that Craig Wright isn't the author of Bitcoin whitepaper, is not the person who operated online under the name of Satoshi, and did not write early Bitcoin software.
I think most of us here have already known all that, but it's good to have it officially confirmed by an esteemed judge in a country with strong judicial standards.

It's hard to imagine being a developer when you don't know how developers work, and what they can actually achieve, especially with Bitcoin consensus mechanism. I think I'd be interested in tackling the issue of fee spikes by creating something that perhaps doesn't ban Ordinals and other similar things but greatly discourages them. That would uphold the freedom Bitcoin stands for, while also helping to solve the issue. However, I don't know if it's technically doable and how.

The op poses a valid and relevant question. Bitcoin is meant to be used in a decentralized way, but of course people have the freedom to turn to centralized solutions as well. Some use them because of lack of knowledge about noncustodial wallets. Others are interested in Bitcoin as an investment asset, so they don't really care about the ideas behind it. Also, there are those using exchanges or custodial wallets out of convenience, especially if they make a lot of transactions regularly.

Poverty is one of the biggest global issues, and there's no simple solution to it. I can't recommend much without knowing the situation, and situations are very different in different countries. For instance, the op mentioned that online jobs are illegal, but is that restriction ever enforced and is there a risk of criminal responsibility or big fines for that? Also, if it's hard to find jobs, what about being self-employed or starting up a small business to create jobs? On that note, what's the situation with obtaining education (because I know that sometimes it can actually be free or just very affordable in some low-income countries, which can be a good start)? Finally, is there any chance of saving up a bit and relocating to a different country where things might be easier?

I think the more objective approaches suggested in the thread, such as using Google trends and some other resources. To me, it's important to not just watch the global trend but see what's going on in my own country. So when there's local news about someone starting to accept Bitcoin, and especially if it's not a standalone case but is something multiple parties are doing, that's a good indicator to me. I also think that crypto fear & greed index can be useful to get the overall sentiment, but it's not specific to retail trends.

I agree that it's unfortunate when people are misled by someone who is spreading unhelpful if not harmful ideas under the pretence of religion. Of course, whether you're religious or not, you can work hard and try to achieve success. Religion shouldn't be against success if it means that a person is gaining resources to contribute to the community and is just generally working hard for God (an interesting interpretation of that was offered by Max Weber who argued that Protestantism and capitalism went hand-in-hand because of Protestants accept on hard work in secular world as a Christian priority).
Calling Bitcoin demonic is just unhelpful and unreasonable, as the sacred books of major religions were written well before something like Bitcoin could become conceivable.

When someone is charged with a crime, it's important to determine whether it's an unjustified charge that is actually for something a person says/does/represents or a justified charge. Then, if it's the latter, a person has the right to fair trial. In case of Samourai wallet, the founders are accused that their tool "facilitated more than $100 million in money laundering transactions from illegal dark web markets". The charge itself seems fair, and the US has fairly strong democratic institutions, so there's a good chance of fair trial.
CZ pleaded guilty to enabling money laundering, and 4 months of prison aren't a big term, IMO. Roger Ver is charged with $48 million tax fraud, which is also a serious crime.
I agree it's a long of cases with very recent updates, but that might be an attempt to impose strict regulations rather than to go against Bitcoin. Also, note that the charges are against representatives of centralized platforms and only in one case against an individual who didn't pay taxes. Overall, that seems fair to me.

If we're choosing between Bitcoiner and Bitcoinist, I'm definitely on the side of the first option. That's because -er and -or usually signify that it's a person that's doing something: employer, buyer, investor, etc. On the other hand, -ist has a lot of negative connotations that are related to accusations of people wronging others on the basis of certain social identities: racist, sexist, ageist, etc.
I can see that there are different arguments in the thread (like physicist, archaeologist, etc.), though, and it's also a fair point.
As for the study, I agree with those who are suggesting Bitcoinology.

It feels like those struggling with hyperinflation should have very low trust in fiat and thus be encouraged to try Bitcoin as an alternative. Moreover, Bitcoin is actually less volatile than some of those hyperinflationary currencies. But it's interesting that the op points out that it's not happening in Argentina. Perhaps familiarity and status quo play a bigger role than some expect it to play, and people want stability which, of course, they still associate with fiat and certainly not with Bitcoin.
But we'll see the road Argentina will take, and perhaps Bitcoin can become huge there if the right infrastructure for its daily usage becomes available.

It's great that there's a calculator, but it's clearly just for the US market, right? I think the answer to buying vs renting depends strongly on where you live, whether you have access to a reasonable mortgage, and whether you can buy accommodation where you actually want to live/have work/have relatives or friends nearby.
My country has some of the highest mortgage interest rates in the world, and mortgages are generally uncommon, very restrictive, not very accessible. So when people buy, they usually save up enough to pay the whole sum, but that's only possible after working for, I don't know, 10+ years at a very high-paying job and ideally also having a partner in a similar situation with whom you're saving up together.
The rent, on the other hand, is very cheap in my country, and it's easy to find a place to rent (I mention it because I know it can be a huge challenge in some countries because they have a housing crisis). So an obvious and often the only real option is to rent, and then if you're planning to buy, you usually need to save up while renting.
But all that only applies to my country.

I don't consider CBDCs a threat to Bitcoin, and I don't think CBDCs are evil per se, but I'm simply sceptical about this whole idea. The idea of CBDCs has been around for years, and it seemed at some point like it was going to get mainstream. But, actually, only a handful of countries are seriously exploring them and have taken any steps to at least conduct pilot testing of them. So, honestly, I don't think they're kicking it off, and I'm sure Visa/Mastercard have a huge lobby to make sure they aren't left out of the game.
For now, I believe that debit and credit cards will remain relevant and widespread simply because CBDCs won't become a big thing.

Volatility, usage of Bitcoin by criminals, irreversibility of transactions, environmental impact, occasionally high transaction fees etc. can all be considered if they are important to a certain person. But I'd say that this isn't what one should start from. The initial questions should be: how much money can I afford to lose and thus can dedicate to investment? Do I believe that Bitcoin's long-term upward price trend will continue for the years to come? Which wallet should I use, and which seed storage method will I choose? Will I sell when Bitcoin gets above/below a certain point?

So far, Bitcoin is doing well pricewise, but I don't believe there is such a strict correlation between inflation and Bitcoin price, between Fed interest rate and Bitcoin price, or any other similar things. Sometimes Bitcoin behaves similarly to the stock market, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes major global disruptions affect it negatively, and sometimes they don't.
Bitcoin is just too unpredictable.

So far, I believe Bitcoin has been doing well after halving. The price isn't at the highest level, but it's pretty close to that. It seems to me that, with long bear markets, Bitcoin price is 50% or more below the ATH most of the time, so we're in that rare time of relatively high prices right now.
We've recently experienced another major spike in transaction fees, but I don't think it's related to halving. And, thankfully, it seems to be over, so we have both high BTC price and low transaction fees lately.