First off, I don't see a necessity posting 2 different links containing the exact same article. And also, I don't think it's legal since plagiarism isn't bound to different people, but also in yourself.

More info here: https://www.bowdoin.edu/dean-of-students/judicial-board/academic-honesty-and-plagiarism/common-types-of-plagiarism.html

Second, though interesting, the fact that it might just have been hacked makes it irrelevant to dig deeper into. Throughout the years, bruteforce might have been conducted and the hackers just wants publicity.

Not much to see on the article. Even though charts provide an insight to what the price would be, cryptocurrency market is still too volatile to be accurately predict, and all are just speculations. What I think is much better way of speculating is away from the charts, and instead focus on real-world happenings that might affect the price. In that method, you could gain insight on how the world, the demand, and the whales would manipulate the prices.

I'm not sure if it would make any impact on the market. She clearly stated that there has been settled a clear line of separation between what they're talking (although she seems to not understand that Bitcoin is singular, and not be used as collective term for cryptocurrencies), and that the ECB focuses on R&D in digital currency sector, not in cryptocurrencies. They would find out whether such need for digital payment exists.

It all comes down to one's personal beliefs. However, I see current situation being manipulated by the whales through artificial sell orders. They are, too, anticipating for the next halving, pushing the price further down to buy at its lowest. Which might prove the point of speculation, but soon, when adoption becomes more widespread, Bitcoin could be used more and thus demand follows.

It is still possible for them to implement such policy as a preparation for a cashless system. And there's nothing wrong about it, in fact, it would help cut the needed natural resources used in cash production. However, it does sacrifice some financial freedom (because cash is harder to trace than digital means of transaction). And not all people are capable of transacting digitally.

Even with their clear intents to restrict cryptocurrency usage, I highly doubt that they would not make their own digital fiat. They might even be starting doing R&D and might be close to announcing it without us knowing. A great superpower wouldn't let all these advancements just slip up their hands, they would be surely catching up with other countries. It's either intentional delay, or it's just that the current administration running the government doesn't want digital currencies maybe because of political reasons, personal, or even be their pride to hold what their first stand against such currencies.

I wonder how it would operate as decentralized, and how it would affect their operations. Such move is likely to be inspired by his love for Bitcoin. Although experimental, pulling off such R&D could change the game for social media companies, and would set them leading the race. It also does exhibit decentralized ideas that might promote Bitcoin, but not that much.

It's still too early to make assumptions. And a single node isn't significant either. It could be a potential success, if interplanetary missions and life-support has been achieved, but by then, it's more likely that bitcoin would be obsolete and be replaced by a more efficient and reliable framework. Though there are still chances that Bitcoin would remain by that time, the latter is much more likely to happen.

It comes as a no surprise. That data is mainly because of its unregulated nature. No one controls its price and thus it could go soaring high for smaller timeframes than most stocks/shares available of stock exchanges. It's mainly driven by just demand-supply principle and is not bound to any restrictions. On the contrary, companies listed on stock market need to adhere with ever-changing government regulations, and the price volatility is low, thus showing data much lower than what Bitcoin could offer.

Other factors have to be considered, such as the value of Bitcoin to be given and the technological literacy of the beneficiary. The amount should be substantial enough to convince the beneficiary to do extra effort in claiming his gift. Technological literacy is also a factor, as people with lower literacy in using technology such as other adults, might find it not worth the extra effort.

Decentralization only comes to the part where full nodes and hash rates are computed. In financial terms, Bitcoin as of now isn't decentralized and equal. Mining pools and whales indeed got a large part, contribution, and power over the network. Proof of work forces them to gather as mining pools, but the rewards are still split up though, but the power remains on those powerful enough, such as huge holders like exchanges.

As many here have already stated, simple chart timeline might help visualizing and also proving such point. But personally, I don't think those markets are highly correlated. Even though there is some resemblance, such as when we consider the fact that cryptocurrencies offer as an alternative to fiat (stock market units), I don't see a lot of people investing/trading in stock that talks about switching to crypto as soon as a market crash happened.

I think what they aim when some exchanges impose higher fees on lower volume trades is that they force such traders to go higher. In the business sector, you could see that whenever you buy huge, the prices become lower. Such as when you buy items in wholesale/bulk, you get discounts and lower item price than when you buy in smaller amounts. Same principle is applied to their exchange.

Such scams bring bad image to cryptocurrencies. And this is one reason why altcoin market nowadays are getting worse. Too many options, crowded market for altcoins prove no purpose or advantage. It's actually worse than having a few reputable ones.

Scammers take advantage of the current era's hype for cryptocurrency adoption, and innocent investors blinded by greed are easily fallen to such scams. From the first line already, if a firm promises high unjustifiable returns/profit, and it just sound all too good, it's probably an exit scam.

It's just by pure chance. There's no correlation between those two times. We have not received news and has not feel any investors move on such dates. It mainly depends on when the manipulators want to instill FOMO in investors minds. If I were you, I'd stop hoping for miracle but instead watch the price if you're eager to profit as much as you can from the market. What's important is that you hold some at your right time, and exit with profit instead of loss.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could help providing an alternative to digital fiat, since not all are capable of acquiring credit and debit cards. In addition, digital fiat and cryptocurrencies are two different things. For one, digital fiat could still be monitored, such as whom are you sending to, your purchases, etc. On the other hand, cryptocurrencies offer true financial freedom, though is often exploited and used for illegal activities. Removing fiat does decrease the need of natural resources, but sacrifices a bit of financial privacy/freedom since cash is difficult to trade while is generally accepted.

Though all your points are right, you haven't considered the things that would oppress Bitcoin's growth. Problems are present such as its scalability, due to slower transaction validation. You cannot also deny the fact that anonimity provided by Bitcoin is a double-edged sword. You get financial freedom, as well as criminals to conduct their illegal acts one step easier.

It has definitely picked up the pace and built a solid foundation of trust, which correlates to its market value. However, even with the said achievements, Bitcoin has still a lot of room to grow and problems to go through. Problems with scalability and power consumption are just some of the weaknesses ot currently has. Also to mention problems in hacking and unidentifiable transactions of illegal activities.

About global powers, that's more unlikely, if you're talking about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency adoption. From your words, these countries have 'power' to make their own digital currency, or even their own version of cryptocurrency (but highly unlikely since they don't want full transparency) and use it to lead the race again for being the globally accepted currency aside from their own fiat.

We can't do anything but to still use the platform. True censorship through restrictions is quite impossible to implement. In the most basic level, it's just a mesh network of interconnected nodes which has the capability to re-route through different ways such as proxies and virtual private networks, and pretty much like the internet, it won't go down as long as there's still a single node running (unless outright ban on internet access has been implemented on ALL countries).