I think I've seen something similar before, but this chart is very nice. It's not surprising to me that it's ben proclaimed dead so many times, but I think it's good that the peak is behind us. The early years don't really count as there haven't been many obituaries not because of a strong belief that Bitcoin isn't dead but simply because few people knew about Bitcoin or cared about it at all. Then we see a big MtGox spike, and the peak of 2017-2018. That was a hard time, as many truly thought this was the end and that there's no way Bitcoin can cost $20k again. And now, just a few years later, many are whining about such a low current price of $20k.
I think the 2020 count is low because Bitcoin recovered fairly quickly and because Bitcoin was overshadowed by bigger things. And lately, there have been fewer proclamations of BTC's death due to, I believe, fewer people believing that it really won't recover this time. The public trust in Bitcoin is growing.

There's a lot of potential Bitcoin adoption, but many things just didn't kick off. There've been experiments, but not mass adoption.
Tickets don't usually cost too much, so a transaction fee can feel significant to people. Also, if it's an even that's in very high demand, the speed of buying the ticket can also matter, and then Bitcoin confirmation time can be of issue. I think there's more usage of cryptos in gambling rather than entertainment in general (but I do consider gambling a part of entertainment) and in sports sponsorships and betting.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that companies adopt Bitcoin more during the bear market than the bull market. My guess is actually the opposite because it seems that Bitcoin always gets more attention when its value is on the rise. During the bear market, many are in disbelief and few are ready to enter the market. It is a bit hard to assess it all, though, since we'd have to agree what sort of companies (in terms of market capitalization, for example) we're including, what sort of adoption (investing, allowing as payment) we take into account and whether we count only when things are put into action or publicly expressed intentions as well.

I don't speak French, and the short info provided in a Reddit post and in one news article that I found aren't enough for me to assess what was meant and what kind of consequences it can have. I also read the article on Smart Cities and digital identity is literally mentioned zero times there, while involving civil society and protecting privacy are mentioned in the article and in the video.
Not to mention that this is just an experimental project, basically.
So I think it's very far-fetched to say that freedom of speech will be over, and that it looks scary. To me, we're not there yet and there isn't enough information to claim that any major changes will happen by 2030 when it comes to privacy or freedom of speech, really.
Oh, and yes, I'm sure Bitcoin will be out there in 2030.

I get what the image is trying to do, and I agree that Bitcoin generally has more benefits, but I want to comment on some of the content from it. Scarcity of gold is actually debatable because it's very possible that there are huge gold deposits somewhere that we just haven't discovered yet or are about to discover. As for divisibility, I'd say gold is divisible enough, so not having a tick there isn't very fair. And regarding established history, first fiat appeared during the Middle Ages, so it also has quite a big established history, I'd say. Moreover, the criteria we choose matter as well. If we chose something as relative stability, gold and fiat would tick, but Bitcoin wouldn't because it's usually more volatile. Also, we should ask for what Bitcoin is most preferred choice. For savings, for payments, for returns on an investment?

The majority in the thread seem to recommend long-term investment, and I agree with them. If you're set to invest in Bitcoin for a period of, say, 6 months or less, it's very realistic that the price won't change much over this time or even that it might get lower. Of course, you might get lucky and invest right before or at the beginning of a bull market, in which case your short-term investment can pay off nicely, but that's not very likely to happen. If you invest and are willing to wait for 2+ years, I'd say it's very likely that you'll see good returns on your investment. But if you invested money, and you see that in 7 months you already have a pretty nice profit, there's no sense in waiting for another year or so because, chances are, the price will fall again, so unless you want to wait for a longer time (another couple of years) for the next bull market, I'd say it's better to cash out.
It's important not to be greedy, to be realistic about returns, to keep your coins in a non-custodial wallet and to invest what you can afford to lose because investing always means taking a risk. Good luck, op!

The op seems to be saying that students don't usually realize that scientists aren't and weren't rich, but I think it depends on a country. In my country, everyone knows from childhood that going down the academic road means having financial struggles or, under good circumstances, just affording a middle-class life (unless you come from a family that has wealth, and then you don't need to earn your money by doing research). So people go for it because they are really interested and willing to do what they feel is important instead of focusing on being rich but doing something they aren't personally invested in.
As for housing, many are forces to rent and/or rely on institution-provided accommodation, of course. But the mortgage deals and their affordability also vary a lot from country to country.

Some people do buy during the bear market, but yeah, the hype is always when the prices are high. People don't buy when it's low because they don't believe in it. They don't believe it will recover, and they feel like the bottom also wasn't reached. So they think that if they buy at $20k, and then it falls to $15k, it would be very sad and they'll lose money. When the price is growing rapidly, they figure that they'll buy at $60k, and in a matter of weeks it will already be $65k, so they'll win. It feels safer, unless you believe that Bitcoin always recovers and will recover again. To be honest, I don't think the majority will ever learn from this. Some who've made this mistake earlier might not make it again, but then more newbies will join the market when it's bullish and will make these mistakes.

Bitcoin is largely about having some privacy and about decentralization. Satoshi's identity not being revealed serves these purposes well. Satoshi has some privacy, and the development of Bitcoin can go on without a center (the creator) heavily weighing in on all big decisions. Moreover, whoever the real person is, there will be people who don't share the actual person's views, values, or opinions, and some might even stop using Bitcoin because of that. So it's easier and better for the community not to know who Satoshi is; it's probably better for Satoshi as well because there's no need to worry about tax authorities trying to imprison you, jealous people trying to rob you, and tons of publicity.

It's a cool story of how the FBI conducted a successful operation and how the double agent's integrity was actually in place. However, I agree with the op that in this case, the currency (Bitcoin or fiat, digital or cash) does not matter because the double agent simply told superiors about the bribe, it wasn't traced back to him. So this story doesn't tell anything about whether Bitcoin is better or worse than fiat for bribery or for fighting crime. We don't know whether they would have noticed the bribe had their officer decided to keep it a secret.

I am happy that I don't live in the US. Seizing funds without a criminal conviction and without even a strong criminal case that could perhaps justify freezing funds is very weird. But apparently it can be done in the US for all sorts of property and assets... Perhaps if your money is seized without a good reason, though, you can go to court and win, but that's still disturbing, especially given the stats of 80% of forfeitures being administrative.
Such legislation would motivate people not to declare their crypto assets, so that the IRS doesn't know how much they have and where, which in turn means not paying taxes. And, of course, storing only in a non-custodial wallet.

Doesn't it depend on a future job and on the area? In my country, obtaining higher education isn't hard and isn't expensive, but at least having a Bachelor's degree is something that is strongly expected for the vast majority of intellect-related jobs. The particular area you got your degree in doesn't matter, and neither do your marks, normally. But having a degree is desirable even if you want a pretty generic job like a community manager, SMM, etc. That's because if you went through higher education, it's assumed that you learned to self-organize, you know how to manage your time, and you have a flexible brain, which can help you pick up new things and adapt to new conditions. So if 'college' is basically high school or a bit more, I'd go for Bachelors. After Bachelor's, it's okay not to do Master's unless you want an academic career.

This is lovely. To me, it seems highly unlikely that Craig is Satoshi, as there are various ways to convince people of it if not prove the identity once and for all, but he did none of that and is often contradicting himself, making things up and pretending to be a very smart guy when he isn't. I sent the thread to my friend who somehow is very confident that Craig is definitely Satoshi, but that it's Craig's incredible arrogance (not complete lack of evidence, lol) that pushes people away so strongly that they refuse to believe that he is Satoshi.

What's the new law, under which jurisdiction it's going to be (in which country)? You should edit the post and include the reference to what you're talking about specifically. Otherwise, it's impossible to assess who is going to face which charges because we have no idea what the law is going to require.
I do hope that stricter regulation is coming in this regard because sponsorships must be openly disclosed, so that people can make their decisions based on this knowledge. So yeah, 'not a financial advice' shouldn't be enough to get away with shilling. But IMO, this should cover all promoted content, not just crypto-related one.

I think we already have plenty of crypto exchanges, and they have trading pairs with stablecoins and often with fiat as well. In fact, I believe we have more crypto exchanges than the current level of adoption of Bitcoin as payment calls for. However, exchanges are very convenient not only for trading but for switching from one coin to another, so exchanges are needed, and I think the demand for them will remain. If the op is referring to CBDCs by 'digital money', then it should be said that they aren't a big thing yet, and that when they become a big thing, I see no reason for them not to be on exchanges.

Initially, Musk was pushing for $20 per month for the blue checkmark, and also, he keeps making controversial statements, as if I remember correctly, the blue checkmark wasn't for everyone, but it was free, while now it will cost money. So much for making it more accessible.
I checked Musk's tweets and replies, and it seems he didn't respond to the Lightning payments thing. But then it seems like that guy who suggested it said that his company partnered with Twitter? I'm a bit surprised if Musk is actually going through with this, given how he's convinced that Bitcoin is bad for the environment. That being said, a payment option being available doesn't translate into a payment option being actively used, unfortunately. So even if it gets accepted, it will just be a piece of good pro-Bitcoin news but not much in terms of adoption.

Game 1:  10'  2-0  São Paulo FC
Game 2:  10'  1-1  Draw
Game 3:  10'  1-3  Newcastle

1. PHI
2. PHI
3. PHI
4. Yes
5. Under
6. 2nd
7. Odd
8. Odd
9. PHI
10. PHI

Final Score prediction 25-15

12. Marina Rodriguez
11. Daniel Rodriguez
10. Chase Sherman
9. Nate Maness
8. Grant Dawson
7. Shayilan Nuerdanbieke
6. Miranda Maverick
5. Mario Bautista
4. Jinh Yu Frey
3. Johnny Munoz Jr
2. Jake Hadley
1. Tamires Vidal

Match 12 winner Total Strikes: 105 

Planning to do something and actually doing it are two very different things. The challenges with how far Russia currently is from that goal are explained in the article. I think it's also very optimistic that they think there will be IT specialists (with mass exodus of professionals plus some going to the war) of a high enough calibre and even Russia itself as a more or less stable state by 2028.
But for now, unfortunately, I don't think Russia will really need its own production. Russia can do mass contraband, plus the fast that Belarus is usually missing from sanctions lists but is almost a part of Russia by now means that buying what they need via Belarus shouldn't be hard. Also, perhaps China will be willing to help and trade some things that it gets for itself, since China is all business regarding the war.