I agree with the op that while Bitcoin is relatively low-risk and has high prospects, it's dangerous to use the word 'crypto' instead of Bitcoin when talking about long-term investments or mass adoption because the vast majority of altcoins are very risky and have a low chance of becoming anything more than failed projects or Bitcoin clones. Hodling Bitcoin and perhaps Ethereum is one thing, but hodling some random altcoins is another, and there's no reason for them to recover when the bull market comes or to become more widely used in the future.

I like the convenience of high level of digitalization. It's easy to use Google Pay or a PayPass chip on a debit card, not needing to think about the country you're in and having a proper currency with you when you are travelling. Fiat can have its own problems when ATM withdrawals are limited or there simply aren't enough ATMs to meet the demand, and if you're going to another country, exchanges to get fiat can collect ridiculous fees, as well as require an ID after some threshold. That being said, sometimes the cashless motive goes way too far. For example, in London, you can pay a bit more than 2 pounds for underground if you pay contactless, but a whopping 6 pounds and something if you pay with cash! I'm surprised it's even legal, given that cash represents the same currency, so how can the price differ so much!
Bitcoin is a great solution, one which doesn't require intermediaries. But that's not the case in practice, when acceptance of Bitcoin is still very low in many places, so you can't just use Bitcoin directly.

It's a lovely story, happy birthday! I'm happy you've found a place and got some BTC. I agree with Findingnemo that Electrum wallet sounds like a good choice for storing the funds. So far, they are on a crypto exchange, right? While Binance is highly reputable, no exchange is invincible: they can still go bankrupt at some point, get hacked, suffer from a big inside job leak, require even more identification documents, etc. So, withdrawing from an exchange and moving the funds to a non-custodial wallet is desirable.

Congrats, op, on getting a job as a university lecturer. It's wonderful that your suggestion was taken into account, and there's now an optional course on Bitcoin for students now. The turnout is also great, which I hope will motivate the university to make the course a proper part of the curriculum (either as a course to take for credit or as topics integrated into a normative course students take).
I don't normally doubt what people are saying about themselves and the educational work they do about Bitcoin, but I must say that the concerns raised by others sound pretty valid to me.

I completely support the plea not to delete Finney's account, as it is of historical significance. The first tweet about Bitcoin, as well as Hal's legacy, are important and should stay. If Elon doesn't want deceased to have their accounts kept on the platform, he should come up with a sensible alternative, something like Twitter archives, as this matter goes beyond Hal Finney. Many people die, and some leave a legacy that should not be forgotten. Twitter deleting history, not preserving the past, is an unfair thing to do.

14. Sean Strickland
13. Arman Tsarukyan
12. Amir Albazi
11. Julian Erosa
10. Drew Dober
9. Michał Oleksiejczuk
8. Cheyanne Vlismas
7. Jake Matthews
6. Julian Marquez
5. Saidyokub Kakhramonov
4. Rafa García
3. Bryan Battle Maheshate
2. Manel Kape
1. ourney Newson

Match 14 winner Total Strikes: 64

EUR 17,000
kryptonomous

1. SF
2. SEA
3. SF
4. Yes
5. Under
6. 2nd
7. Odd
8. Even
9. SEA
10. SF

Final Score prediction  23-18

It's always inspiring to read stories like this and see that this community has very proactive people who work on educating people about Bitcoin. I guess many felt conflicted about the word "sponsored" the op used, but from op's reply on this point it seems that it is sponsored in a sense that op sponsored the event (purchased the necessary materials and equipment for it). That's a great act, really.

1. 13, 22'
2. 14, 25'

There are some collaborations between football and cryptos through crypto betting website sponsorships. The teams can be pretty high-level there too, but I haven't seen it on the level of national teams, which I guess makes sense.
In terms of currency, it sounds like a good idea to at least give a choice of currencies to teams, given that the USD will be a foreign currency to almost all of them anyway.
And while it could be good publicity and dozens of millions of dollars worth of BTC movement, it's not significant enough to make direct impact on the price. However, if publicized widely, it could boost Bitcoin popularity temporarily and lead to FOMO. Unfortunately, that's far from happening.

If you're hodling altcoins, it's tricky because a lot depends on which ones you bought, how long have they been around, did they manage to recover from 2018 crash (if they were around) etc. Some altcoins will recover with Bitcoin, but it's still a significant risk. Some might never recover.
As for Bitcoin, I think expecting $100k+ is reasonable, if not in 2023, then in 2024.

3. 10, 12'
4. 8, 14'

It seems that there are always people who don't believe that something works. Some don't believe private blockchains (like Monero) are private, some don't believe in Bitcoin mixers. Of course, there are scammers in every field, including mixers. But it doesn't seem that mixed funds can be traced to a person. The shuffling is just good enough to make it impossible.
Another issue is, of course, that mixers might often be used by criminals, so the bits and pieces you'll get might look suspicious because a person felt a need to use a mixer. But o don't think there will be any proof, any way to link the funds that went into the mixer with those that went out of it, if a person gets them out to a noncustodial wallet.

I wouldn't bring most of it to the bank for sure. I'd use half of it to buy a flat, so that I can stop spending so much on rent (mortgage rates are some of the worst in the world in my country, so that's not an option). Then $40k would go into Bitcoin for long-term hodling, and $10k can go to the bank account just because they can come in handy for traveling, visa matters and stuff like that, but not as a deposit on which I plan to earn interest rate.

I remember an article declaring Bitcoin halal. That's something I understand, as it basically allows Muslims to use it. Bitcoin being Islamic, however, sounds as if there's something specifically Muslim to it, which isn't true. It's like appropriation of Bitcoin by one religion. I am happy that Muslims can use Bitcoin and that it doesn't go against their laws, but people of other faiths and atheists can use it just as well.

To be honest, I don't think it's common for people who were rich to become poor. People don't often move significantly up or down between social classes, and if you're rich, it's not so easy to lose your wealth, mainly because it's usually diversified and isn't even all material: you have impressive symbolic capital in forms of powerful connections and relatives. So it can be that a person  has issues like an addiction, losing too much money and also having relatives who are unwilling to continue funding it. Or it can be that a person had a bit of wealth and was always in a fragile situation, and mismanagement or external circumstances caused the loss of what a person had. It can also be a result of running out of luck (if a person won a lottery before or won by gambling).

Thankfully, Bukele seems to be specifically  pro-Bitcoin, so I don't think his country will do something like this. Of course, they could make a fork, but from that point, they'd be simply altcoin adopters, a coin nobody cares about outside their country. They might as well just make their own token for such purposes, because the fact of it being a fork of Bitcoin won't help to keep the value and capitalization of BTC. So the safest and most secure way is just buying regular BTC as they do, and encouraging eco-friendly mining of regular BTC as I think they are planning to do.

I think this question is about accessibility of basic software required to properly use Bitcoin. If a person has a disability related to moving or hearing, I don't think it's a big obstacle to use Bitcoin, given that things can be done online, using a wallet like Electrum, without much need of moving and with no need to hear anything. So the biggest difficulty is disabilities related to vision. I found a Reddit thread claiming that Electrum wallet is 'partially accessible', but I've also seen articles saying that Bitcoin should be more accessible. Generally, I agree, but this applies not only to Bitcoin but to media, websites, cities and our lives generally: presuming that everyone will be able to read, hear, and move with no issues is just wrong.

I think the "you do not trust" format of discussing the benefits of Bitcoin doesn't feel right. I'd prefer "you don't need to trust", as otherwise it sounds as if people who use Bitcoin just have big trust issues.
There is a place for centralized services, and they will find their customers. But keeping in mind the risks of using them is always a good idea. Unfortunately, people tend to recall it only when bad things have already happened, and then forget over time when things seem to be going alright.