This could potentially change how the public percieve cryptocurrencies in general. With UNICEF being quite a large institution, it might make other institutions think of adopting the currency, which would further increase adoption, and also encourage beneficiaries of the fund to talk about and consider using cryptocurrencies too. It also proves how cryptocurrency is not a get-rich-quick scheme as some people still think, but rather a tool that could be useful in financial sector.

This is one of the compelling reasons that could drive miners away, and would definitely affect the hash rates and also the prices. Though as we have seen in the past, it doesn't really happen. Maybe it's because the hype and price increase even before the halving keeps the miner from bailing out. Though if the price won't increase for whatever reason, no whale manipulation, no real investor hype, then we could see some quitting out.

That error is quite suspicious, and that explanation could be suspicious to some crypto-enthusiast, since it took some time returning the content back, and based on the recent news, Google Play Store has removed 2 apps on their platform just recently with relation to cryptocurrencies. It's either another error, an organized attack, or intentional censorship by Google.

Right now, I'm still quite confused on Google's stance on cryptocurrencies. Earlier this year, there are already rumors of Google Pay's support on cryptocurrencies. But now, things seems to start making a turn. The YouTube drama was said to be unintentional, but here we are again at another crypto-related censorship on one of their platforms.

Of course I do, though I am not assuring myself. Anything could happen in the market. But the past halvings have been suggesting that it would make the market to another bull run since fast increasing prices would make the media and government look into it again, which could bring more demand to Bitcoin. Though it's likely to happen, it is certain that nothing's for sure.

YouTube can't vanish, the amount of its userbase and its reputation in the market would make it difficult for it to be completely gone. Cryptocurrency content on YouTube is significantly low on percentage compared to their entire database of content, and boycotting YouTube for the ban on cryptocurrency could not hurt their company that much. Also note that there are not many people that is a fan on cryptocurrency, and people would always be forced to use the platform, even how much they hate it because of the crypto-ban, at some point in time because it's still by far the best multimedia content provider on the internet.

It has indeed become a store of wealth rather than become a usable day-to-day currency. Though it has still some use, people tend to not believe in it because of media censorship and influence. And not Bitcoin alone, media portrays cryptocurrencies in general. And the government has a great part on the oppression of its adoption.

It could be, but far more time would take to reach that level of adoption on such low-scale. To reach that, adoption should first take place on SMEs (Small-Medium Enterprises) before even thinking of vendos accepting Bitcoin. Also, if fiat could be replaced by Bitcoin or some other, much taxable cryptocurrency for governments to use, then having vending machines accept cryptocurrencies wouldn't be that hard to implement. Unlike current cryptocurrencies that anyone could create a wallet anonymously, a reason that the Government isn't looking on current crypto as plausible.

ATH is not that necessary. What to me is more essential is that we have higher demands over Bitcoin by adoption, effectively increasing its price on a steady level, that could be much above where it is right now. If you're anticipating new ATHs, and treating Bitcoin only as a speculative asset for investors to gamble on, it's way off what Nakamoto has it intended for. Though this is what happens this days, it's just not that right to be.

Depends on your target price and your enter price. If you're already on a gain now, and doesn't want any more risk, then selling is what might be the best for you. Although you could get higher rewards if you hold, the risks are also higher. There's no perfect time, as the market is unpredictable. It always depends on your intuition of the market's sentiment to the next months/years.

Your idea is plausible, in fact, this is what I had in mind when thinking of taxing Bitcoin. Exchanges would be subject to regulation, and most likely to implement KYC. Every transaction would be taxed effectively in the platform, in the form of additional fees. Though one may create a wallet online and can even recieve Bitcoins, it would be pretty useless if not exchanged to fiat, and thus it still is not an exception to taxes.

It's good for more potential adoption towards the technology. And even though it's only introductory, it might be used for future references by these young students to be an inspiration, of what they can possibly do in the future. Blockchain has been taking adoption in different fields, and much more fields once taught to students.

As much as we want to contribute, simple letters couldn't even explain what an element in your formula is. And by simple supply and demand, it doesn't work that way. Demand is a multi-factored element in its own, and is driven by market sentiment, recent news, companies take on an asset such as Bitcoin, and many other more. It cannot be simplified to a formula that would definitely answer predictions. No such thing exists.

Whatever it might be, I think it's an isolated case, or probably a coordinated attack. It might be personal, or is related to hate on cryptocurrencies. Either way, I don't think Google has switched sides already. And I don't think they'd censor cryptocurrencies either. I also don't think they are on a crackdown on cryptocurrencies, and that it's only limited to a few.

Banks are left with no choice. They run on fiat, under the government. Non-compliance would hurt their business more. They can't pretty much do anything, since the government politicians and law enforcement could always use their power at their will. They also aren't able to support cryptocurrencies either since it is also restricted by the government.

HSBC is not in control of such, articles also states that the account closing was conducted by the police, and not voluntarily conducted by HSBC themselves.

There are other possibilities of crypto-related content being removed on the site. As others have mentioned, it could be an organized attack. But we still can't rule out the possibility of Google's opposition to cryptocurrencies, though it's much unlikely, since there are already rumors of Google supporting cryptocurrencies in services such as Google Pay.

I think you're indeed getting carried away a little bit. I think balanced diversification of funds would be your best way to go, and don't prioritize Bitcoin alone since the market is too risky, price change happen extremely quick especially those huge pumps and dumps in the market. Having some still on stocks would not only lessen the risks, but makes sure you have enough backup funds once needed.

Definitely no. If you're talking about I already gave KYC documents, it's a different thing. Since exchanges hold some responsibilities and privacy policies of their own, whereas giving details on someone you don't know in the internet in exchange for BTC is extremely risky. It could be used on a wide variety of risks such as identity theft. And one also thing to note is that the amount you received might be smaller than the damage it would deal to you once you get involved with some problems from spilling your information.

First of all, cryptocurrency isn't a solver of slow economies. It won't magically close the gap between the rich and the poor. It could solve some corruption in the government through transparency, but it would pretty much be their own government-made cryptocurrency. There's also a reason why fiat is made inflationary. Here is a quote from Investopedia^[1] that summarizes why it is ideal:

Which in basic terms, forces people to use the currency instead of just hoard it once the value is too high, because the latter would slow down or kill the economy.

Source/s:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp^[1]

This has been discussed multiple times in the forum. From what I observe, the following takeaways would dictate quantum computing's threat to current cryptography algorithms:

1. It's still not powerful enough, around 50 qubits, while the required to break such cryptography is above 200.
2. It won't be available immediately for public retail. It would still take years before it would be open for public, and thus thiefs/hackers.
3. Current studies are already ongoing, aiming to provide quantum-proof cryptography to secure it from such computers.