The supply is fixed. Your analogy is right. This type of scenario is similar to the burning process made by some altcoins to control their supply and inflation. Essentially, this coins would be locked out of existence. As of this moment, these coins are considered locked, but if quantum computers would be more powerful, the hashing used in Bitcoin might not be sufficient to protect those coins and crack their private key to bring those coins back.

Even if they implemented a ban, the execution of such ban would be difficult and would be more of a waste of time and money rather than actually solving a thing that is not even a problem. Remember that Bitcoin is decentralized, and unless they'd get a hold of more than 50% of the nodes, they won't control over the network. Also remember that most Bitcoin nodes are located on China, which is not within their territory, add that to the fact that China is one of their oppositions.

One thing about Bitcoin is that it performs very well on macroscale transactions, because of its higher security and value among other altcoins existing in the market. Though one problem emerges on large scale transactions, they take some time before getting validated. Let's assume that a property is sold and the transaction took 40 minutes. The volatility of Bitcoin might make significant changes from the time the transaction was made, compared to when it was received. And even we think 40 minutes is quite fast, the market too can change in that short timespan.

Worse case, a whale abuses the system. Pumps the market, buys a property on smaller bitcoin amount (USD/BTC), and after the transfer is complete, dumps it back down, which gives the seller smaller amount in USD.

Mystery on his innocence, but foolishness for us who quite knows about the seed phrase. The negative thing of this whole case is that he immediately blamed it all to the Bitcoin as a technology, rather than thinking first of his actions and what he actually did. Good thing is that Blockchain still helped him despite his mistake, maybe to uplift Bitcoin's image and prove he was wrong.

If the discount is significant, and you're up for the risk, then go for it. For example, your promotion would be Buy 1 Take 1, then people might consider researching about Bitcoin. Though the problem I see here is the volaility. Unless you're pricing your products in Bitcoin, you'll need to change the price accordingly to its fiat conversion. A QR code could do this, and if you already have the portal to do such instant conversion, then have a try. You may be the pioneer in your locality, and the risk might bring you fortune.

February 22nd is still a month away, and the price may go up significantly, or crash down. If the Bitcoin you have, when converted to fiat, is already enough or is much more than what you actually need, then it's better to convert now than later. The risk is too high if you still decided to hold and the time is not enough to wait for another pump.

The thing is we cannot predict when would be the lowest price. Some expect that the lowest would be on February, but all are only prediction really.

Pretty much impossible, unless an address is posted on the person's public profile elsewhere. Not only this information is unlikely to be posted in public, but it's also often replaced for every transaction made. If you're dedicated enough, you could see some patterns in transfers and pinpoint some central address to where coins go, implying it is a wallet, though you still wouldn't know the person behind it (unless publicly disclosed).

It is the technology that gave it the people's attention. A more comparable and proper term of what I think you want to portrait is "Is it the technology or just people's hype?".

The fact that you could transact on large amounts, disregarding any limitations on location, and away from intermeidaries such as traditional banks, with their high amounts of fees especially on international transactions, makes Bitcoin a great alternative in sending funds with minimal fees, and directly conducted without monitoring and further investigation.

Most coins do follow what Bitcoin's pump and dumps. Though this might be true, each coin still has some potential on itself and not relying on Bitcoin. Diversify if you truly believe in a specific coin, aside from it being a 'cryptocurrency'.

One notable example that happened is the BSVs pump due CSW claiming to have the list of addresses that contains 1.1M bitcoins. This led to a pump that hyped the BSV community, though it is short-lived since it is later clarified that there are no included private keys to access it.

Bitcoin's halving effect has two sides. For the good one, the price increases because of slower supply generation (only good for speculators). For the negative side, it discourages some miners because of 50% less profit (bull run doesn't immediately happen, and so some are discouraged because of cost-to-profit factors).

Another thing to note is that Bitcoin is deflationary, which makes it difficult to be a currency. If price steadily increases on the long-term chart, then Bitcoin would be only used as a platform for speculation rather than actual usability.

Value is purchasing power, not represented by numbers, but is represented by how much it can buy. Any government could release a million numbered bill, but it doesn't guarantee you could buy a car. Most often, high-numbered bills indicate high inflation rate, in which 1 unit of a any currency becomes low valued.

This is the exact opposite of Bitcoin, a deflationary currency. As we can see, 1 Bitcoin has increased in value, and therefore also increased the amount of goods and services a single unit of that currency could buy.

Another problem arose amidst the hopes of cryptocurrency "saving" a failing economy. Such real-life examples bring out the issues that needs to be addressed, and what are the possible hindrances to adopting cryptocurrencies in solving such cases.

Paper money still has advantages over digital currencies. They provide anonymity, fast exchanges, and also not relying on any technology aside from it existing on a paper.

The idea to me is plausible, and given that this would be like a voluntary work, it seems possible. Though aside from your effort and energy in teaching the students, one thing to also consider is how would you get the population that would complete your two to three rooms of class? It is free, but what would be the convincing factor that would let parents (if still young) let their child put time in your mini-academy instead of doing their own endeavors? Achieving a full two rooms of class seems difficult (though this would still depend on your location and community).

It maybe, or it's just coincidence. They are both considered assets, both holded by market players, and can be both affected of related news. Though, what happens now, cannot be guaranteed to be the indicator until the future. There are always other factors such as market sentiment and paradigm shift towards making digital technologies important, which might make the correlation between the two assets more apart from each other.

Even if it is possible, it doesn't make any sense. Why run a full node on a moving vehicle in the first place? You're fixing a thing that isn't even a problem. Running a full node requires constant connection. The processing power a tesla's chipset has, is more efficient to use in automated driving that running a node. If you want to run a node, buy a dedicated ASIC and run your own rig at your home. There's no advantage putting it in a car.

People often correlate various holidays to price movements. And while it may be partially true to economic markets, I don't think it always affects Bitcoin in any way. Traditional economic markets such as stock and commodities have a very much difference with Bitcoin's decentralized, digital market. Bitcoin is 24/7, with a market that does not actually care that much on such events, aside from most important like Christmas.

You can't divide what's already given. Bitcoin is not immune to inequality, and it never aimed to be. Largest bitcoin market holders manipulate the market. You can't redistribute the funds because altering the blockchain is almost impossible. It's just that the inequality in Bitcoin is not caused by unreasonable taxes and fees, and corrupt practices, but it's just the way it is, since from the beginning when early miners got a hold of large block rewards.

What do you expect from a man that has been skeptic and critic of Bitcoin since from the start? He didn't even set up his own wallet, he seems to not know its basics (saying that "the wallet has forgotten his password"), and now his argument simplified things as "Bitcoin is bad"?

He blamed a technology for being bad because of his own mistake. That, to me, makes no sense.

I don't believe much on technical analysis and prediction like this one. Looking fundamentally, there are more factors to consider in predicting the price. One thing to note is that the hype has already faded significantly and the awareness has increased, and therefore not all new investors would hop in to Bitcoin just like the early times, because they already knew some background to it.

Also, the argument stated that the % of increase per halving is also decreasing, from 13k% to 12k%. From their arguments that it would increase exponentially, we could also apply the same on the % of gains per halving, and can also conclude that it would drop its % by a significant amount.

That is expected. Miners are hoarding as much as they can to sell on the peak of the halving's bull run. After the halving, expect miners quitting because of a significant 50% decrease on the rewards, while the cost maintains the same. The halving's bull run also does not immediately take effect on the prices too, so miners would be discouraged right after the halving, which would in turn bring the hash rates down.