Though it's still up for debate. The CEO securing a seat in the senate is still up for debate, whether that would be surely go positive on cryptocurrencies, or she has other plans in mind, or that she might get influenced by power and make decisions that would benefit her, instead of cryptocurrencies.

In terms of price trend, it hasn't really affected it significantly either. Market sentiment is split up, some argue and some supports. Either way, it does have some potential, it just doesn't translate that well on the prices as of now.

If in any case they use Bitcoin to transact, then they would need to find suppliers that are directly accepting Bitcoin as payment. Because if not, it's still useless, because they wouldn't be able to cash it out on exchanges (assuming that exchanges there are also locked/restricted).

All transactions need to flow only on cryptocurrencies, and away from fiat. That's the only way they could succeed.

It doesn't change that much. Even without tax, it is still used, and considered by most people as store of value. Bitcoin still hasn't found an effective solution for addressing scalability. Lightning network looks promising though, but comes with drawbacks such as some point of centralization is introduced. If Bitcoin could surpass that limitation, then I think it would progress much faster, and demand would be real by that time.

It is not impossible to eliminate middlemen in transactions, though it would be difficult, or rather still ages from now, when an era that everything is almost digitalized. And yes, it does make more people unemployed, since traditional banking systems are requiring more manpower than running the blockchain alone.

And thus, without that manpower, transaction fees are cut significantly lower, which is one of the advantages of cryptocurrencies over banks.

Not so sure though, it still depends on the CEO. Indeed it is generally good for cryptocurrency's image, but the CEO might have another plans, especially it is politics, and power corrupts these peope into doing where they would benefit more that the others.

It could drive the prices up if whales decide to swim with it and manipulate the market, but it won't really assure that there would be any significant effect on the prices.

Printing crazy would make hyperinflation, which is worse that normal inflation. Though they still has to make cash out of thin air, since inflation is intended to be made. One theory suggests that inflation, while reducing the purchasing power, makes people actually use money, since they know that if they just hoard it, it would become less valuable and therefore, could only purchase fewer products.

If deflationary is used (such as Bitcoin), then there would be a tendency that when the prices got so high, people would not actually use the currency, but instead just hoard it, making it useless.

To summarize it to you:

Cryptocurrency = High risk, high reward.
This is because most cryptocurrencies are decentralized, and therefore volatile. You could earn, or lose a lot in just few hours.

Stock Trading = Lower risk, lower reward
Due to lower volatility, you can't earn that much especially if your capital is low. Higher investments, however, yields to rewards enough for a living (but needs extensive knowledge on charts and indicators).

The article's response to Bitcoin having no intrinsic value is spot on. Demand makes something valuable, and thus gets its purchasing power. Fiat's value is dictated by the government, Gold's value is driven by demand and luxury, and any other type of currency, or material, gets its natural value from demand. Thus, Bitcoin actually is comparable to all tyoes of currency, and the statement is false.

Though I agree on the part that serious regulation must be implemented on ICOs, since as of now, they're just destroying Bitcoin's image rather than actually propel the progress and make meaningful projects.

You want adoption? Surrender to regulation. If you don't, then adoption becomes difficult to implement. Because the government is there, and what the government wants, is what would happen. You cannot abolish the government either, since we'll all be just chaotic.

It does give us some benefits still. For one, it gives us assurance, when our account gets hacked on the exchange, we could file a complaint and get our money back (since addresses are traceable in the blockchain, and with KYC, could track the hacker).

As stated in the article, there are several theories that aims to predict the next price action. And there's nothing wrong with that. In the end, we still are the one deciding on our buy/sell orders. And also like you, I don't believe much on these theories. Anything could happen, the market is indeed unpredictable. It might follow the path this week, and suddenly crash the next one or two due to several factors such as market and government sentiments.

I'm interested on the news about China you're talking about. Nevertheless, anything could be the reason, from the holidays, to whales, or even such news you're saying. For me though, I'm holding my coins since it isn't too much, and I have cash to buy gifts for the holidays. And also, I'm hoarding coins for profit on the next halving. These dumps are clear signs of a buy flag.

I think this is a duplicate post from here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210183.0

And is already been discussed. Just for me, it doesn't make any sense. First, educational material are almost touches away. They could just type it in Google, and start learning from there. Those for me are just excuses, and them telling they'd be willing to invest on Bitcoin is either, (1) just wants to show off, (2) doesn't want to be judged as not giving attention to long-term investments, or (3) doesn't really know what they're talking about.

These lawmakers and government personalities are looking into cryptocurrencies, because it is certainly inevitable. We are at the point where transition from paper money to digital currency is becoming widespread, as technological advancements has made its way in most parts of the world, the need for such step is evident. And given the fact that cryptocurrency has already existed for years, now might be the right time for it to be given attention to.

I got quite confused at first, since at first glance, it looks like what you're asking is that if Chinese people use Bitcoin (which I generalized to cryptocurrency, because I didn't know that it was the main point),  to get pass its Foreign Exchange Control.

Then came the short answer: no.  In which upon reading, all this time I think that what you want to convey is that people aren't using whatever it is to get past FEC, instead for other things. Just in the later part I realized that what you meant is that they don't use Bitcoin specifically, but rather other cryptocurrency/ies aside from Bitcoin.

Nevertheless, a good read. I just don't think it's necessary to have this long read just to state that they're not using Bitcoin, and instead uses other crytocurrencies, with mostly USDT.

What more do they need? It's as if we live in 2000 to not have mainstream internet which you can get knowledge from, just few clicks away.

I think what the surveyed women thinks when being interviewed is to answer the positive way, because of whatever their reason is, without actually having the intent to do so.

If they really do want to invest in Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, then they should even have started to search what it is. If they even don't know it's core ideology, but rather only the terminology (in which they just heard from the 2017 hype), with current available online resources, then it could be concluded that they are either reluctant to learn it, or just doesn't care what it is at all.

I suggest that you go easy on trading, but rather start investing. Think of them like shares on a stock market, you invest on some conpany because you believe in their future success. Same applies to cryptocurrency, you should start looking in the long term, but still must be updated of the latest trends and news regarding cryptocurrencies. In that way, you minimize the stress brought by dumps, have more time to do your job and to relax a little bit, and just sell when you think it won't go higher anymore.

Good thing in general, for adoption and publicity of Bitcoin. Things are looking our way with recent news coming up. However, it still does not solve one problem, or for me at least, that Bitcoin is mostly used as a speculative asset rather than its main, foremost objective, as a medium of payment. Nevertheless, small steps like these contribute to Bitcoin's progress to success and soon enough, we might see Bitcoin in real action a few years from now.

Good in terms of cryptocurrency adoption, but not so much to Bitcoin. It might be even worse, since it's an added competitor to the space and might be an excuse/reason for governments to restrict Bitcoin usage when they would release their own cryptocurrency. But nothing's for sure, they could look at it good and consider it like the international currency, or deemed it obsolete due to uncontrollable illegal acts conducted through the network.

$10k is a much better speculation than all those saying it would hit $100k. While it's true to sme extent that no one could predict Bitcoin's price, factoring in some happenings such as the halving, the smaller supply and some news regarding adoption, $10k is quite possible and attainable, also to note that the price is volatile that it can happen within a day.

Almost all those predictions point to one price range, somewhere near $100K, which is attainable but highly unlikely. Those prices were too high, and take into account the current slow progress on Bitcoin adoption, paired with weaker demand, and more informed public (unlike the 2017 hype where everyone just go with the bandwagon), 100K is far too high. I'd say near 20k-30k at best.