They might call it 'like a recession' and who knows, maybe they're even technically right, but if the effects are those of a recession and the economy will suffer similarly, then it's effectively a recession. Yes, I think we're entering one, and it's already pretty bad if we look at inflation that hit even some of the currencies that were considered strong before, but it's probably only the beginning. It's not a sharp drop, explosion-like thing; it's a slow downward slope that does not seem to have an end yet. And, unfortunately, despite the hopes some had that Bitcoin would do well when global economy gets down because people will use it to save what they had in those other markets which are going down, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Cryptos can work in such environment, yes, but they're not doing well as a way of saving people, at least not yet. Who knows, Bitcoin might recover in the middle of it, but it's hard to estimate in advance. I think we're in for tough several years.

I think that China's move makes sense because they want to strengthen their fiat. Just half a year ago, Russia did something similar by forcing banks and, I think, corporations, to sell 80% of their foreign reserves for local fiat to make it stronger. That, with some other actions, did manage to stabilize ruble. So the idea of selling USD to make yuan stronger makes sense, and if someone wants to support China, I guess they can do the same. But let's not forget that the USD is devaluating as well, and so are other major fiat currencies. So IMO if one wants to avoid devaluation and is willing to take a risk and do long-term hodling, now is the time for Bitcoin.

It's wonderful when older people, who tend to be sceptical and wary of new technologies because they lived most of their lives without them, are trying to understand and explore new areas (even when the reason isn't general open-mindedness). I am happy the op has a nice relationship with dad to share knowledge about Bitcoin and to help make a purchase, since dad is already interested. I do think that storing the coins on Binance isn't a good choice, unless it's a small amount (say, less than $50), but I get it that the op doesn't want to impose storing choices here, and perhaps the idea of transferring the money to one's own wallet can become appealing later.

I see only a handful of unlikely scenarios where Bitcoin goes to zero. One is a sudden leap in quantum computing, rendering the current cryptography completely useless by making it possible to calculate the right keys within reasonable amount of time and thus open the wallets. Another is basically an apocalypse of human civilization (nuclear war, a pandemic that kills the majority of the population, etc.) when there's no longer global connection via Internet, people focus on the small communities where they live and on basic survival, not money nobody can touch. In other cases, Bitcoin can lose a lot of value if huge regulations come from big world powers or if somehow a coin that it truly so much better than Bitcoin becomes available, but it won't be zero. For something to cost nothing, it should be completely worthless to people, have no value for them. Bitcoin has much more value to many people, which is why even in bad times the price is still $19k.

I think the estimates like that come from the richest addresses and how much BTC they have. But assuming that each address becomes to one person, so that we come to the 2% user base, isn't fair. It's known that some of the richest addresses actually are cold wallets of exchanges. So the money there belongs to tons of people (unless you are a maximalist when it comes to 'not your keys, not your coins', and the all money on Binance for you belongs to, like, one person). Also, while the divide is probably indeed unfair and there is probably a small percentage of riches that own the majority of coins. But it doesn't mean these people act together, conspire to regulate the price. So the price isn't manipulated by whales.

It's not a matter of complicated maths, it's a matter of how high the demand will be in the future, and that isn't something that can be calculated. The only maths calculations we can, IMO, make are related to the global economy's value, estimating how big it'll be in a few years (there are estimates for that) and trying to reasonably predict which percentage from the global economy Bitcoin market can take. But it'll just give rough estimates of how high it can possibly go, not what the price will actually be.

I think I heard of it for the first time when the news of Silk Road being closed hit the news. Maybe it was Silk Road 2.0, so some time in late 2014, I guess, if not early 2015. But I wasn't very interested. After all, I learned about it from the context of black markets, so it seemed like it was the sort of weird money people use to buy drugs. I wasn't into drugs or into anything that seemed shady, so I didn't think anything of it. But eventually, I got more interested and more involved, learning that it can be used for other things and how different it is from the traditional fiat money.

This topic has been discussed before in various threads. If a person dies before making any arrangements for the coins and if nobody finds a password or a passphrase afterwards, then the coins are as good as burned: they exist, but nobody can ever access them. So yeah, it's up to everyone to think about what a person wants to do with BTC in an event of death. BlackHatCoiner mentioned LoyceV's Locktime thing, which is an interesting solution. In my case, I have a person I fully trust who has access to my coins, and another person who can figure out access to my coins if necessary.

I agree that some proactivity and desire to change one's situation is important. But surely the op is familiar with how problematic 'stop being poor' thing is. People often get in trouble with finding a job even when they have good higher education degrees, aren't reckless spenders and can learn new things. Also, people in stronger economies with big social welfare can avoid poverty without being highly educated and proactive. So while the government can't be blamed for everything, it is at often at big fault when there are high poverty rates and/or things are getting worse. I'd also say that it's often the riches (in my country we say oligarchs, as it's not just rich people but rich politically influential people) who are, one way of another, stealing the money that should go to those most disadvantaged.

My approach has been relatively stable for years: when I can easily get by with the fiat I have, I don't sell me BTC. If the price is particularly good (in relation to how it's been lately), then I might sell some money in advance, knowing I'll need it. Otherwise, I try to use fiat and Bitcoin is basically for savings. If there's something expensive I'd like to buy but can't without BTC, I'd most likely sell as long as there's no prospect of swift recovery of the price (if it's bad). It seems that some others have similar strategies here as well, focusing on not spending unless they have to.

Advertising must be disclosed, one way or another. It should be clearly understandable that something is a promoted material, not someone's personal opinion and desire to share it with others. It shouldn't only be related to what is considered securities in the US, though.
The fine was perhaps too small considering the fortune of Kim Kardashian is 1.8 billion dollars, but it's good that she was accused and had to pay. I think her team perhaps also did a good job of covering it up. While it's only a few days old, if you look at news in Google when typing Kim Kardashian, it gives you sets of news about sections. The first is Kardashian and Kanye West, then about her and Pete Davidson, then about her not knowing what a tortellini is, and only then comes the 'fined by SEC' section.

Op, I think that purely logically, you're right. In times of uncertainty, people should be looking into something more certain, into a way of saving their wealth if it is very likely to suffer heavily from the global economic recession. Perhaps the problem is that Bitcoin is NOT stable. If a person doesn't have faith that Bitcoin will recover again, the losses with Bitcoin can be higher than from fiat inflation. Also, stability is something more associated with gold, the price of which remains quite stable. Bitcoin requires taking a risk for the sake of potential profits, and maybe priority in uncertain times is not a risky decision but something relatively certain.

I was too young to get involved with Bitcoin 13 years ago, but I certainly could put more faith when I did get involved and the price was in hundreds of dollars per coin or get involved a couple of years earlier. We shouldn't feel sad about missing out, IMO. We have no idea how it would've played out. You could lose access to them because of storing on an exchange that performed an exit scam or just because that piece of paper with essential info didn't seem important for a long time. There's also a good chance that a person would sell way too early.
IMO focusing on what's happening now is more productive.

I am not religious, but I like it when religious institutions go beyond the matters of religion and help people learn something new. Church and education have been actually going hand-in-hand for many centuries (churches and monasteries where places where people could read and comment on various texts and churches often organized schools for children), so it isn't anything compeletely out of order or against tradition. If it's indeed focused on providing information, not investment advice (and it seems that it was indeed an educational event), I don't think people should think badly about it at all. It is good that people like the op exist and try to make a difference in their communities.

To be fair, I saw reports that El Salvador's adoption failed (it didn't completely fail, of course, but the point was that despite much effort from the government, mass adoption of Bitcoin in this country did not occur), so it's not all good feedback. Still, it's a country that really tried, and it can still attract more crypto users both within and outside the country. Mexico adopting Bitcoin as a legal tender would be huge, as it's indeed a much bigger country and economy. However, one senator saying that Bitcoin becoming legal tender is not a matter of opinion does not actually make it less of an opinion. Adoption would be required by the majority of MPs and/or other authorities (I am not sure which institutions have most power over economic regulations like this in Mexico). One senator isn't enough.

Didn't El Salvador also not abandon their fiat, which is the USD? I remember reports that the actual amount that the state is keeping in Bitcoin is very small. Moreover, do we really know how (if at all) Mexico will adopt Bitcoin (I mean, in detail, so that we could assess how similar or different this is to El Salvador)? Is there at least a project law already?

I believe that the basics about cryptos, blockchain and Bitcoin should be taught at school and at universities. It's not an 'either-or' situation. At school, the most obvious integration is into Economics and into IT classes. At universities, it can depend on a degree a person is getting and the courses students choose based on their interests. This way, some will be left with the basics they learned at school, while others will be able to dive into more detail if they want to do that.
Also, the op is talking about schools and unis as a hypothetical, but in fact, it's already the case at some places. I remember that cryptos were included into school curriculum in France nationwide, for instance. There are also individual schools and cases in other countries, to the very least. As for universities, it seems more widespread and some crypto-related courses are offered in many countries, while some, I believe, even offer blockchain-related degrees or specializations.

I don't know which meme the op is referring to, but I believe whether hodling makes sense depends on a situation and a coin. If it's an altcoin which suffered from an exit scam or something very similar, then it's best to cut the losses and pull out. The chances of it being fixed and recovering are low and losing more is making things worse. If it's Bitcoin and nothing truly devastating happened to it (which is so far the case), then the chance of recovery seems very high and thus hodling through the bear market gives a real prospect of making profit instead of cutting losses. As for dependence on a situation, I think a person should sell if the money is truly needed or if a person could use it now (not urgent, but still significant) and it's not at a big loss or is at some profit.

21,000 EUR
kryptonomous

Each time people discuss halving, what often remains forgotten is that there's no proof that halving objectively leads to either a price boost or a dump. In fact, it might not have any impact at all, aside from the FUD or FOMO people might experience before and after, and the price growth often happens months later, which makes it unlikely that it can be reasonably attributed to halving and not some other events.
Even this post shows the price 150 days later (so after a significant amount of time), and the increase is by, like, 15-20% (apart from 2012), which isn't anything that couldn't happen without halving.
I don't have any particular expectations for 2024 event, and I am almost sure we'll see a major price increase of Bitcoin before that because it's still a long time away.

I'm also interested if the op actually means the device itself or the private keys on, like, a piece of paper. I certainly wouldn't trust a safe in a bank with my private keys because, well, an employee can just read it and take the money, and then it'll be basically impossible to prove it's the bank's fault and especially find out who did it. Also, that would mean needing to go to a bank to access funds, which IMO is very inconvenient. So private keys should be stored somewhere at home. As for the physical device, I still feel like there's no need for a bank safe and that it's safe at home if you find a good place for it.