As far as I know, not disclosing your revenue to your largest shareholders on a company is punishable, as it is the company's responsibility to inform their investors legitimate data from their business. And if proven true, this could impose some problems to Nvidia. As far as what I've understand, the takaways here are as follows:

1. Nvidia told their investors that the 'Gaming' industry revenues are high, when in fact, large percentage of those profits are from cryptocurrency mining.

2. Now that it's mining industry had fallen, the investors are 'shocked' because they initially thought the profit was from gaming and the company is doing great.

No one can tell, and it all depends to you. However, I don't think putting all your funds to the point that you become short in your needs is a good idea. It's much better to still split up your holdings to different investments. If you're always maxing out your available funds, and Bitcoin recieves a huge crash, then you could lose a lot of your investment and be forced to exit even when you're at a loss.

I don't think they consider it cryptocurrency, but rather a digital currency. It's unit might be different in their fiat, but the core value of it would still depend on it. According to the article, they 'decisively' make it different from a cryptocurrency. This means that blockchain might not be implemented, and as well as its transparency. It might still be run on centralized servers and is monitored by central banks.

Exploits using clipboard (most known as copy-paste method) are common in cryptocurrencies. That's why one should be wary that installing pirated applications (which most likely includes malware) would increase risks of losing funds when also using that device in handling large transactions of cryptocurrencies. It's much better to stay safe and avoid installation of such programs to not be victim of such exploits.

What OP does mean is not traceable by what address, but by person, which is by reality, is almost impossible to happen. By now, the bitcoin network and community has grown into size that is unmanageable and untracable, even if they try to implement KYC to every exchange, people would always find a way. If they had thought of if right from the start, then maybe it could happen. But conditions right now doesn't give hope for governments to make their surveillance to its users.

This is what it could look like when adoption becomes widespread in retail stores, and involving it into POS is a possibility. The design has lots of room for improvement though. By saying the system is 'working', do you mean that you have already partnered or made your own backend software that would confirm sent cryptocurrencies to a newly generated address and immediately convert it to local currency, or it's working for computations only on local currency and what you did is just slap on a QR code of an address? If the latter is what you did, then market price changes would affect the business profit and auditing, because profits and overall revenue prices won't match at all.

It depends on the time you're asking. As of now, I would 'need' both. Fiat is still the mainstream medium of exchange with daily transactions. You need it to buy what you need/want. Cryptocurrencies as of now, are best in sending money from long distances and higher amounts. Adoption is still not that great for it to replace current traditional monetary systems.

Bitcoin being considered as money is still up for debate as far as I know. Also, being it as a misnomer, I don't see any problem at all. I don't know why you're so being annoyed from that.

Why I think people consider calling it currency is that it has a units comparable to existing fiat 'currencies' such as USD and such. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has BTC, or satoshi as unit, hence they call it currency. Either way, what's more important is adoption is on its way. And whatever they call it, it's function is much more important.

Your dream is what most here also do, but is not advisable to happen. This point has already been atated here in the forum, and while it may sound good for the market demand for Bitcoin, it's not that good of a system for the community itself. Replacing fiat with unidentifiable currency (anonimity), makes it hard to collect taxes (which is used to implement laws and bring peace/order), which would crash the government, living on a society of either organized peaceful communities, or total chaos.

As the article already stated, not much really seem to care about this phenomena. It's just maybe a whale trying to confuse such whale alerts and just kidding around, though he must have some guts moving such huge amounts on new addresses. Either the reason might be, the prices isn't affected contrary to what other people might think.

If you truly believe that much in Bitcoin, or you just have much to spare to invest and risk on something, then there's really nothing wrong in what you've done. Still, it depends on your total capital and the amount you can liquidate that won't compromise your living. Your bike isn't any antique either. You could try and watch the market for pumps, or better yet, wait for the next halving and its anticipated bubble, then sell it all.

It does help, though the risks are higher, especially if what you're considering are those altcoins that are maybe irrelevamt or a whale could just crash it to death. Still, we have to acknowledge that cryptocurrencies provide another space for investment, although still it isn't meant to be a speculative asset, but rather has a main goal of having an alternative payment system.

Whales do it pretty much most of the time. Especially this season, and the halving is just a few months , that's why they dump to buy it at lower prices that would guarantee more profit once the bubble starts to go. Give it some time, hold your investments and once you have passed your buying price by a few hundreds or even thousands, you could sell tl cut losses.

Starting a petition could gain some traction and possibly more new learners of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies through educating who Satoshi Nakamoto is. And even though his real identity has not been disclosed, he has proven to be one of the most influential especially in relation to financial possibilities and government separation.

It's not because they're ignorant, but rather they choose to stay away from adoption to keep current banking systems that (1) provide them easy tracking of person's details for whatever their reason is (criminal tracking/surveillance), and (2) cryptocurrencies give people the power through financial freedom, which the government doesn't want since illegal activities might increase in number while getting harder to monitor and solve such cases on an anonymous blockchain.

He might have do his calculations and averaged out current monetary system's supply, and also decided the smallest amount (unit) available to somehow match the need of a payment system that could handle smallest to large sums of transactions, because that's what he envisioned it for (an alternative way of payment). And as we can see, 1 satoshi could handle even smallest USD cents, and even though it's too small of an amount, it could change depending on how USD/BTC price trades, which I can consider as future-proofing.

It's quite irrelevant these days whether he is really dead or not. He has already made his legacy and is probably resting somewhere, or in heaven. Either way. the technology, and his mind-opening ideology made us realize at one point in time that separation in financial institutions and government is possible to transact and trade goods and services, without their surveillance. Although this is the main objective of Bitcoin, we could still say that true separation is not possible, as government would always try to regulate/control anything under their watch.

Similar thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206249.0

Although this seems to be more appropriate in Bitcoin Discussion. It's true that risks can be found in such a way of handling funds. If the wallet holder decides to get it all though, it would be a lot of risk to him/her since his/her identity is known already, unless the private keys are "stolen" (as they might say), in which case solid evidence must prove the theft. And it would be hard for the thief to get it in cash/fiat because the address used to steal such amount would be closely monitored for transactions, as the blockchain is transparent.

If the exchange is not implementing any KYC policies, and does not care about how much money you're getting into their exchange (assuming that a money laundering scheme would involve large sums of money), then they can probably use cryptocurrencies, especially those top ones such as Bitcoin and Ethereum (because they still need the money to be safe, and not store it on just any shitcoin). However, if the exchange implements KYC or starts asking questions if they have a limit of how much you can exchange, then authorities can contact these exchanges and help them solving the case.

In terms of scalability, Ethereum does win over Bitcoin. And I also do agree that in practical financial uses, Ethereum proves to be more useful than Bitcoin. As of now, I only see Bitcoin as speculative asset for traders to play with, and only a few establishments and enterprises support using it for payments. This is because of its scalability problems and government oppression. Stablecoins does also prove something but has problems in terms of centralization.