You can never blame someone for their ignorance or being close-minded because somehow, this was caused by the environment they lived in the past. I would assume this person you talked to was at least of old age because this happens so often with old people. Might be that they got scammed in the past by someone over the internet or just plain-out fear of the unknown which is understandable, whatever that is, don't invest in people you will never get something back from. You would only be wasting your time, your energy, and possibly your money arguing with people who have already made their mind about bitcoin. Well seeing as we've literally surrounded ourselves with like-minded people that will help us pave our cryptocurrency journey it would really sound absurd to hear about people who still haven't had any information about bitcoin or cryptocurrency for that matter, but the thing is there is still a lot of people out there, millions probably, who still haven't caught wind of bitcoin and the wonders it can offer to everyone today and in the future.

Cryptocurrencies are like celebrities as you are trying to put it. They need to be relevant to stay afloat in the market, they need public attention for people to engage in them, and once they served their purpose, there's no telling what the future will be for them. But unlike celebrities who only rely on shows and appearances to remain relevant, cryptocurrencies can remain relevant for the years to come either by remaining in the market as a powerful contender, as in the case for bitcoin, or implementing a very functional design and project right at its conception that could fill the niche that the market needs. I don't think that's what OP meant by the post, but let's assume influencers and celebrities do invest in bitcoin and shill it in their respective platforms out of pure support for the cryptocurrency, they will leave a bad taste in people's mouths when bitcoin dumps in value, which is definitely not good for their career as they rely on the public's good interest for them to receive projects, this doesn't happen with bitcoin and any other cryptocurrency for that matter.

Twitter rolls out monetization options for their influencers, especially those who have verified accounts and have a considerable amount of followers. And since the feature is still at its infancy, there could be opportunities for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to come into the scene and offer their valuable services to the table. Twitter has a good amount of usage from millions of its users, and this could pretty much mean good not only for bitcoin but for Twitter as well that since then had become a cesspool of canceling people, pornography, and a bunch of unsolicited bullcrap that each "content creator" force onto unassuming users' throats. I don't think the article's main point is to offer a shimmering glimpse of hope for people who are hoping for twitter to become cryptocurrency-friendly but rather as a means for people to be informed that Twitter is at least planning to include a feature like this as a part of expansive growth for their project. I don't think it's going to be offline though since in the case of the still in beta phase "Twitter Spaces", users would need to buy a ticket first before joining their favorite creators to whatever the hell they are doing online.

Looking at it right now there's no telling what the max price bitcoin can reach, honestly, the question of whether bitcoin does have a max cap price or not is already a mind-boggling question because for me it's like asking if we can prove the existence of a God. There could be one, there could be none, but whatever the answer is, there will still be bitcoin to support and invest on. Regarding the question of when bitcoin will be stabilized however, it is soon as the circulation stabilizes as well. Right now people are holding bitcoin more than they use it for selling and transactions, but as soon as people do these things, the price will stabilize itself, well hopefully it does. There's still a small margin that could cause bitcoin to never reach stabilization and worse, fail. Not saying this to be the party-pooper but we gotta have a bit of realism especially in situations where it's everyone's game, just like right now where bitcoin is in a precarious spot where it could go lower or go higher and reach 60k or even 100k by the year end. Of course as we look at the market there is a huge chance that bitcoin could reach the latter.

We cannot tell you where to invest that money but we could at least give you some pointers on HOW to invest that hard-earned money you got. The fact is that there is no surefire way for you to earn money exponentially but there are leeways you can take that'll make you consistent money, most people will tell you to invest it into stocks, bonds, shares, or crypto but I would suggest investing it to whatever floats your boat. It's a big no-no to step on a venture that you barely know so pick one field, be very good and knowledgeable at it, and then invest in it. Investing in a Dollar-Cost-Averaging is a good way to start up your cryptocurrency journey but this works for people who can afford to not touch their earnings, be it big or small over a considerable amount of time. If OP is good with this he might wanna look into this technique and the ventures where he can apply this to give him the chance to earn.

Honestly, if you're letting your kids watch you gamble unsupervised the problem is not with them or the gambling casino you're in, the real problem is you and your bad parenting. There's a reason why an age limit is imposed on activities like this and of course, that is to avoid exposing younger individuals to this kind of addicting venture at a very early age. If you would gamble, be it online or offline, make sure you don't have kids sneaking right behind you watching you play, or at least let them watch and inform them about the detriments of gambling so you start them young. Exactly. Although of course environment plays a huge role in influencing a minor to gamble later on in his life, but this exposing shouldn't come from your immediate guardian out of all people. Honestly parents that do this must stop and reconsider their actions because that kid will one day live his own life and your neglect right now will have serious detriments to the child's future later on

A huge percentage of votes come from people who are quite old enough to even bother about investing in bitcoin more so care about its implementation in their city features and infrastructures. This could be a good reason why still as of now you shouldn't focus on cryptocurrencies as the selling point of your project platforms as a politician running for candidacy since you'll prolly get nay'ed  by an angry mob of boomers. This is also a good reason why politicians who make cryptocurrencies their main selling point would lose in these elections. Everyone with half a brain would know the need to take politicians' words with a grain of salt since not a lot of them would be able to comply with their words. This along with the fact that we assume only a small percentage of cryptocurrency enthusiasts live in NYC and not a lot of them will vote.

On the contrary actually. If bitcoin were to flourish and boom in value there will be more establishments that would adopt the use of bitcoin and/or its support token Satoshis, which are fairly easier to earn than bitcoin itself, and speaking from experience, Sats are a good gateway for the regular people to start using bitcoin. Then again its all a matter of accessibility, if these people wouldn't have access to the internet in the first place we can't really expect them to jump into the bitcoin hype even if the whole world gets on to it.
This is what I am saying, there's no chance private entities and companies wouldn't implement bitcoin utilization in the event that bitcoin goes full-on mainstream. These companies will be the ones to allow bitcoin into the sector of the poor and since it has a very good purchasing power, there will be less problems of inflation taking over the scene and stealing what these hapless people can save. 

Just as everyone here would say, everyone has equal chances of being addicted to gambling, be it for fun or if they want to earn from gambling. Then again, I really think the reason why Athletes fall victim to gambling addiction isn't about their competitive drive, but because of the apparent feeling that they can earn all their losses back anyway. This goes especially for highly paid athletes such as Michael Jordan who literally lost $6 million in a single gambling session, prompting him to receive alleged sanctions from the NBA. Sadly, not all highly-paid gamblers are as fortunate like him to have solid backup plans in the form of sneaker partnerships. I think it's a matter of who's headline-worthy to expose of being a chronic gambler, you wouldn't bat an eye for a not-so-well-known athlete to be exposed of gambling, since they don't hold so much presence anyway to produce any impact to the public, but if we were to see MJ or Rafael Nadal beating the headlines because of chronic gambling, people will literally go nuts all over it. So for me I think athletes and regular people like us have the same tendencies to be addicted to gambling, just that they have a lot more going for them compared to us.

Taxation will be paid and implemented one way or another. If bitcoin is to be used to pay salaries and compensation then there's a huge possibility the government or the entities that will provide the necessary leeway for bitcoin to be implemented as a bona fide salary means will find a way to tax it and in turn give the tithings back to the government, and yes this will induce a lot of selling pressure but that's the price of becoming a fully-fledged currency, that's why there needs to be an overhaul in the currency system if we want to use bitcoin for our daily transactions and keep its value at a high standard. In the past you have to remember that banknotes are literally just pieces of paper where you write the person how much you owe them in gold, so when the time comes and you can either carry the amount of gold you owed or could afford it already, there's no issues in the payment system, this could be implied in the continuous rise in value of bitcoin, and basically every type of asset that there is in the market. We value it because we think the item's precious, to an alien species that could visit us in the near future, they may have different concepts of value and currencies, so what may seem valuable for us may seem useless for them.

I still believe the stage cryptocurrency adoption is in is at early adoption stage. The fact that the number of people who are still not aware of what cryptocurrencies are and what they do still outnumbers those who do know and had at least cryptocurrency assets within their portfolios serves as enough reason for me to believe so. We needed more people to know more about the wonders crypto could offer the people, level the playing field and make it everyone's game for us to be considered into a new stage of cryptocurrency adoption, plus there are still untapped potential within cryptocurrencies that we are still yet to uncover, enough for me to personally consider that cryptocurrencies are still at its infancy. That's the thing, it will take a huge amount of time for cryptocurrencies to finally find themselves in everybody's wallet, be it virtual or physical. There will be a lot of factors to consider and all will play a role in the surfacing of cryptocurrencies in the mainstream. It has to be large scale but subtle as haste makes waste, people should be given enough time to learn the basics of using and keeping cryptocurrencies, along with passing the information to other people, which will definitely take a lot of time.

Well the question is a bit subjective because some people will favor the existence or lack thereof of KYC even in a poker casino site. Some may like KYC because of the added protection it offers to the customer or in this case you. Some will prefer the lack of KYC due to the accessibility and the fact that you can literally just signup and load your account and then you're good to go. Personally I prefer KYC on gambling sites that offer a lot of games because then I know there are huge possibilities of being hacked and being stolen from, at least for me. For sites that only offer one game, I'm okay with it not being KYC-packed. This makes sense. if it's for casual games that don't go over the thousands of dollars at stake I don't think it'll be worth the effort to invest on something as expansive as KYC, then again implementing KYC beforehand should also be a good thing anyway since you can never tell which poker games will be high stakes or not and for that matter it's better to offer the same type of security for all games within your site by adding KYC upon signup. That way everyone is secured and no one gets left out.

Most people's idea about a hacker is the movie type hacker. Glasses, hoodie, looking like a regular guy, sometimes even going as far as to wear some insignia that allows them to be recognized by regular people, but the thing is this doesn't happen in real life (wow really never thought of that lol). There are three types of hackers out there, white-hats, black-hats, and gray hat hackers. White-hat hackers are the good guys basically, they are the types of hackers that will breach systems and networks to find weak links and report them to the developers to reinforce the security within that site. The black-hats are the ones who do criminal activities, stealing identities and money online, extortion, you know the likes, and then there's the gray-hats, these types of hackers will either do illegal stuff for fun and then reestablish or return stolen goods just for the sake of it. I would assume this guy who stole $600M worth of crypto could be classified as a gray-hat. He's basically a good guy who tried to play with people's feelings and money in the process. Sure he returned the money under his own will, and we'll never know what made him return the money besides the fact that he felt like returning it. But the fact remains that he stole the money first for something, what that reason may be we do not know, but that alone puts him in my book as one of the best if not the best gray-hat hackers out there.

Satoshi had made himself clear that once bitcoin was out in the public, there are no alteration that will be made directly to the coin itself. So this means that however people think PoS is beneficial for bitcoin in the long run we can never expect it to be reimplemented into that system because Satoshi wouldn't want and wouldn't do it. Main reason why it wasn't put in the same system I would assume is because Satoshi never assumed bitcoin will be a store of value besides being a form of currency that could rival fiat, so they never bothered with ensuring that computation is efficient and cheap because it was made under the same assumption that it will be used just as how you would use cash. This is also true, what really made bitcoin outshine fiat is the fact that it is decentralized, and if we were to transfer into a PoS service system bitcoin will inevitably fall into a centralized network which will not fare well for users who adopted bitcoin for its anonymity and security. One more reason why I think it's only fair that bitcoin is in PoW right now, even if PoS in the long run offers some more benefits.

Well for one taxation on a decentralized system like cryptocurrencies would be hard if not outright impossible. The fact that the transactions itself is nigh-untraceable already speaks for itself. Then again what a government can do is have ISPs operating within their country impose website restrictions on key sites where cryptocurrencies mostly operate, but this will be counterintuitive since what they want to happen is to tax let's say a cryptocurrency game. So they're basically in a deadlock situation where they ought to allow these games to be operable within their territories without tax until they find a surefire way to do so. The government will make all kinds of excuses to impose these bans and will mask it as reasons. We cannot do anything about this type of scenario but what we can do though is to stand up against malpractice within the confines of the government. If you think taxing or imposing a ban on cryptocurrency games is unjustified then there should be protests and movements that the people who support the operation of cryptocurrency games and cryptocurrencies in general are to make to ensure that their voices are heard, lest these efforts will all be wasted.

I think the government of Ireland had the welfare of its citizens in mind upon imposing the credit card ban, however I do not think this is something that the Irish people will appreciate considering the fact that their government is practically disallowing a certain aspect of their spending habit which they had been accustomed to for God knows when. I am confident that there will be alterations and improvements that will be imposed to this law or mandate since it's going to be unfair for banking institutions and most of all for people who aren't even in the gambling scene to be affected by a law that is not even directed towards them. I think the reason why Ireland is banning the use of credit cards mainly for gambling is because of the fact that in gambling you can never assure yourself that you'd be gaining back the money you will borrow from your banking institution, hence causing these hapless gamblers to be in debt because there's no way you can ever pay them back by gambling whatever money you still have. And having this ban on credit cards means less avenue for chronic gamblers to use and/or abuse so in a sense it's not going to help promote crypto gambling at all.

Not to sound pragmatic but to say that bitcoin will last til infinity seems to optimistic for me. Humanity had always chosen the better alternative when there is one available, which is the very same reason bitcoin is more favored by the public than fiat itself, because it's much advanced and offers a wider variety of benefits than fiat. The future holds a very high possibility that we can encounter a much better alternative than bitcoin, but of course till that day comes let's all support bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. Even taking it literally bitcoin wouldn't last until the end of this universe lol. I get that this is meant to rile people up in supporting bitcoin and investing more in the process but digging deeper into the idea of bitcoin lasting until infinity just seemed so flat-out absurd to me. Again we do not berate the support because we love bitcoin as much as the next guy, but a little realism wouldn't hurt you too, wouldn't it?

Bitcoin increasing much more than altcoins during bull runs is to be expected, it has a much larger market cap than altcoins. This also is the reason as to why altcoins look much more severely beat down everytime bear season comes in. Since bitcoin has a much larger market cap, resistance is at a higher point which makes it so that bitcoin can weather much more severe dumps compared to altcoins. Truth be told, without bitcoin altcoins wouldn't even be a thing, so it's not like altcoins are at a big disadvantage with bitcoin being around. Exactly, rarely do I see an altcoin increasing in value dramatically in the midst of bitcoin dropping in value either due to a dump or because of bear season as most of them fall down the same time as bitcoin. A good example is DOGE flourishing amidst the bitcoin dump where it reached an astronomical value courtesy of Elon Musk shilling DOGE in his twitter page. But as the market recovers we can see more altcoins increasing in value once again, that's for sure.

Biggest barrier that could affect the people's usage of bitcoin for day-to-day transactions would be its seemingly complex nature. The regular joe wouldn't spend an hour or two just trying to figure out how the payment system works, based from personal experience as a customer service representative in the past. There are user-friendly wallet options like Phoenix wallet that new users could take advantage of, but it would definitely take some time before a huge portion of the population accepts crypto as a day-to-day transaction tool. People are becoming more and more intelligent, and a huge portion that causes this is of course the exponential development of technology. Now having that said, the thirst for innovation is becoming more and more apparent, and since fiat can only do so much and has offered the current generation so little, there is a really good possibility that as long as nothing too harsh happens, bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will replace the current financial system that we live in that severely favors the rich and leaves the poor hapless.

The streamer you were talking about used his own money under his own accord, the gambling casinos that he is playing in did not beg him to play with them so I don't see the reason for his complaints. These paid streamers get paid because there is risk in streaming casino games in their channel. Imagine a big streamer, known for solely playing League of Legends one day starting to stream casino games either full time or on the side, there's a huge possibility of him/her losing viewership which could cause loss of profit, so the payment these casinos give as sponsorship is a fair compensation for when that event happens. This too, I noticed some streamers winning way above average but most of them lose just as much as a regular player who doesn't stream would. That being said, in-house losses are the only thing that the streamer is shielded from, viewership and donations may also be affected because why would I watch someone play poker when I can switch to someone else who I know plays videogames at the same instance?