I had to read more of op's replies to get an understanding of op's argument because it wasn't clear from the original post to me. Bitcoin's price is not getting inflated. The price is determined by supply and demand: since the supply is fixed (although still growing slowly) but the demand is increasing over time (as more people get to know Bitcoin and want to try it out), the price grows in the long run. To me, it has nothing to do with Tether, and Bitcoin isn't "controlled by the printers". Sure, Tether is traded a lot against Bitcoin, but that's just out of convenience, since the price of Tether is pegged to the USD.

That's an interesting question, and I'm personally not 100% anti-censorship, so I'd actually support the decision to make it impossible to build NFT-like things on Bitcoin blockchain. But I'm not a part of decision-makers in this case, and it's also clear from this thread and other discussions that it's a divisive matter. Miners probably enjoy high fees, as it's more income for them. Everyone else probably isn't thrilled with high fees, but for long-term hodlers it's an insignificant matter (as they don't move their coins much anyway). Then we have those who are directly affected by high fees, but even among those there are people who see it as a necessary downside of freedom, decentralization, and censorship-resistance.
So even if it's technically possible to do such a fork, I think it's too divisive.

USA is still among the top political and economic powers. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. The USD is the top official reserve currency, with a share of nearly 60%. So yeah, the US is important and the USD is important. If dedollarisation is happening, it's clearly failing to make any major global impact so far.
The stuff about US companies is also relevant, but it's important to note that US private corporations and US government are very different entities, especially since the US is a democracy and a very capitalistic country.

Ouch, that's a very unfortunate story. It's good you didn't bring that person to school to talk about Bitcoin. We can't know everything about our neighbours, and people posing as Bitcoin investors can, unfortunately, sometimes be scammers.
It's good that he got caught, and I hope some action will be taken to punish him for stealing from others and, ideally, to compensate the victims.
I don't know about mixers, but I'm just indifferent to them. I've never used them, and I don't know people who used them, so it just doesn't affect my bubble.

I believe that there are old but still relevant concepts that must be taught at school. But, of course, it's also important to teach something new, so that the new generations have the skills and knowledge that's relevant in the contemporary world.
I think that Bitcoin should be a part of school curriculum, but that's not the same as Bitcoin being a school subject, let alone a core subject. Instead, Bitcoin should be taught as a part of the subject that covers finances (Economics, Financial Literacy, or however it's called in a particular country at schools). Children still need to understand money in general, and have some basic knowledge about banks, loans, fiat, etc.

Sharing mistakes is a good idea, as long as it's done not to ridicule others, but to support each other and learn.
One mistake I've made early on was to trust a custodial Ethereum wallet, which ended up performing an exit scam (or was hacked, that remains unknown).
Another was feeling greedy when the fees were around $15 per transaction at the end of 2017 and not selling any BTC at that point, while ending up selling later at a much lower price.
And I'd also name believing in the potential of altcoins and investing in them as a mistake.

ETFs got approved months ago, so I think we can already see their influence. In terms of adoption, I think it just created new demand for Bitcoin (indirectly), as those people who invest in the traditional market became more open to investing in Bitcoin via such mechanisms. Bitcoin ETFs grew really fast, but it seems that they're now slowing down.
In terms of the price, Bitcoin got a nice bump in Q4, 2023, due to anticipation of ETF approvals. And then this year, we've seen it going from $43k to over $70k.
So I'd say that the impact is positive, but I also don't think ETFs will be a game changer in terms of Bitcoin global adoption.

Money is important, especially in more capitalistic and more urbanistic countries. But there are simple joys that people can get without it, such as nice weather, or depending on where you live, you might be able to go fishing or forage mushrooms without any permits.
When money's really tight, it can have negative impact on one's happiness, and sometimes money can make people happier. But from what I've heard (there's a nice video about it) about long-term research on money and happiness, it's not so simple. Even high achievers tend to be happy, in hindsight, about their relationships (with their loved ones, children, friends, etc.) rather than results. Also, people who were already kind of happy get happier with more money but those who were miserable kind of remain miserable (or at least the marginal value of financial success is much lower for them).
People often misidentify what they want and what can make them happy, and when they get it, they immediately get unhappy because they move on to the next thing. Happiness is often an attitude and mindset problem.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Bitcoin will always survive. Everything dies at some point, and human civilization has been around for a very short time on the scale of the universe. But even if we look at humanity, there's no knowing how relevant Bitcoin will be 50 years from now, or especially further into the future. We don't know where humanity's development (or degradation) will lead us, and whether Bitcoin is a part of that future.
The features mentioned by op are important and relevant, and I expect Bitcoin to thrive for decades to come, but the future remains unknown and largely unpredictable.

I think that, unfortunately, has nothing to do with Bitcoin or any real risks related to cryptos and has more to do with what falls under which authorities and regulations. The SEC regulates assets, and assets aren't something people normally have in their bank accounts. What they have is currencies, so maybe if banks store cryptos for people, it can be misinterpreted as if cryptos are now currencies in the US. That, in turn, can have big tax implications because fiat currencies aren't subject to taxation, as they're not considered assets.
I'm not saying that it's fair to limit banks like that, but I think there's a certain rationale behind such decisions.

Thinking of Bitcoin as an enemy of fiat isn't very realistic and isn't very productive nowadays. It's a zero-sum mindset idea that Bitcoin can or should cause loss of value of fiat currencies, whereas, in reality, there can be a lot of win-win situations. Let's face it: fiat is still a relevant mainstream idea, and monetary policies as well as great integration with banks has its pros for users. Fiat can be stable, online transactions can be instant and free or very cheap. There are exceptions and regional differences, but the desire for stability and reliability shouldn't be underestimated. Bitcoin is an alternative currency that provides more financial freedom, and it's also a good asset. They can coexist, with or without regulations, and regulations aren't bad per se.

Well, Iran is a pretty terrible country, both in terms of internal and external politics. If it's true that they're using mining to avoid sanctions, it's unfortunate. I agree that there should be some pressure put based on it, such as sanctions on the Iranian mining companies or companies doing business in Iran. Another thing to impose is restrictions for Iranian citizens on Western-based crypto exchanges (if they aren't already imposed somewhere).
Undermining Iran is a good thing to do, and if Western countries fear war all the time, they're just showing weakness, which can in turn lead to more wars, actually. But it's important not to use it as an argument against Bitcoin mining in general, falling into guilt by association (associating Bitcoin mining with Iran).

13. Derrick Lewis
12. Joaquin Buckley
11. Carlos Ulberg
10. Mateusz Rebecki
9. Sean Woodson
8. Robelis Despaigne
7. Chase Hooper
6. Esteban Ribovics
5. Tabatha Ricci
4. Trey Waters
3. Jake Hadley
2. Jared Gooden
1. JJ Aldrich

NOT go the Full Distance 5

Around 50% of hashrate being under control of a certain company and located in China is a very different thing from China as a state being in control. China seems to have chosen a policy of avoiding and restricting Bitcoin, with an exception to Hong Kong.
I don't think that any major economy would try to nationalize major Bitcoin mining farms to gain control of hashrate, and I don't think it's that simple to do it because if someone suddenly creates a huge demand, the prices (for mining equipment and mining companies) will rise, so it'll be a race. There's just not enough motivation to attempt to do something like this and to spend tons of money on it.

While there are certain ideologies that make more sense with Bitcoin than others, Bitcoin unites people from all sides of the political spectrum, actually, and I think that even on this forum we can see how diverse opinions can be. Even if someone adheres to libertarianism, for instance, which may go naturally well with Bitcoin, it doesn't mean being anti-government because you might actually be a part of government and support the minimal state conception of it (like Argentina's President). Also, being against the Central bank is different from being against banks in general.
I think a matter of trust depends more on one's usual approach than on ideology. I'm a pretty trusting person, so I sort of have a default trust for other people until they prove me wrong. But that doesn't mean I'd share access to my accounts or disclose certain private information to those people. It's just basic background trust as a lack of distrust, and I have it both for Bitcoin holders and non-holders.

Game 1:  42, 22'
Game 2:  42, 28'

While the US and China have comparable political influence and comparable sizes of economies, I think it's important to note that they fiat currencies are incomparable. The USD is not just "still somewhat" dominant, as the op put it. If we look at percentage of foreign exchange reserves, the USD is as nearly 60%, with EUR (the closest contestant) at 20%. The Chinese renminbi is at 2.3%, which isn't even in the top-5.

As for inflation, I think it's still useful to look at it from more regional and local perspectives, but the USD and CNY are famous for their low inflation rates: 3.4% and 0.2% respectively in 2023.

If it's an electronics store, it especially makes sense for it to accept cryptos, as customers are likely to know about it and to be interested in that option. It's also interesting that people aren't using e-naira in interviewee's experience. A good story for those worried that CBDCs can be a big competitor of Bitcoin.
It would be nice to see more interviews like that, and perhaps some more information about businesses that accept Bitcoin. For example, what percentage of transactions are done in Bitcoin (and other mentioned currencies) vs fiat? Is there a discrepancy regarding the average sums (maybe people tend to choose BTC for bigger transactions, but maybe not)?

I know some people view their Bitcoin investment as a retirement fund. Another reasonable idea, especially for the younger generations, is a Bitcoin college fund for kids or something like that. As for me, I'm flexible with Bitcoin: I treat BTC as a savings account, from which I take money as needed, but which I want, ideally, to grow. There's no need to go all-in on just one idea or never sell BTC. Life is unpredictable, and none of us really know how much of it we have left, so I'm a proponent of regular spending on things that make us feel better.

I'd say that forcing anyone to do anything is generally bad. Some things are worse than others, but force should only be used when no alternative is viable. When it comes to investment, it's important to keep in mind that we all make our own financial choices and take responsibility for those choices. There are some exceptions, such as automatic investment choices for pension funds in some countries, but that's the general rule. So not only we shouldn't force anyone to invest, but I also believe we should not try to convince anyone to invest. It's other people, their money, their financial choices, their responsibility. We shouldn't get entangled in that. It's just wrong to impose our will upon other people in matters that concern them and for which they are responsible.