I'm hopeful that the shift toward cleaner sources of energy will be swift. It's important to break away from what's ruining our environment, and if Bitcoin can shift, it'll be inspiring for other industries as well as help Bitcoin's reputation. I still don't think that Bitcoin should be blamed on the scale it gets blamed, as electricity sources are often not something people can easily choose (there's a big role played by the country you live in, and how its energy system operates). Moreover, the argument that Bitcoin mining is unnecessary and should thus be stopped doesn't quite hold when there's tons of gaming people do, which also isn't necessary and affects the environment, and yet nobody's strongly campaigning against GPU and CPU companies to make them stop making even more power-hungry products.

If Bitcoin somehow became a stable coin with a fixed price that stays more or less the same, I think it would lose a lot of its value and appeal. People enjoy investing in Bitcoin, and you can't really invest in a stable coin (you can, but you won't get any profit, so it's meaningless). If, however, the op is referring to something more generic, such as less volatility of Bitcoin and steady growth on a small-scale level, then it would attract people, I think, because it would become even more low-risk than it currently is to invest in Bitcoin, and it would be useful for adoption of Bitcoin as money as well.

1) CIN
2) CIN
3) Yes
4) Under
5) 4th
6) Even
7) Even
8 ) MIA
9) CIN
10) MIA

Final Score prediction 26-20

Op is right, of course. Bear markets are a part of the process, and they are happening from time to time after significant price increase. The differences can be in how low the price falls (both in absolute terms and in terms of percentage from the ATH), and how long it takes to fully recover (which can take from a few months to several years). Of course, it's also important to keep in mind that if Bitcoin always recovered before, it doesn't mean it will necessarily recover in the future, but the chance of it not happening is fairly low, especially if nothing game-changing happens that could truly signify the end of popularity of Bitcoin (but so far, even unlikely global disasters aren't doing that).

I agree that Bitcoin aligns well with libertarianism by taking away what's usually under the control of authorities and giving it to people themselves in the area of finance. Unfortunately, it seems that not many people agree that the state should have little control. In fact, many support the idea of a fairly strong state, as long as it's a caring one: with high taxes for the riches, good social support system, affordable medicine and education etc. The idea of a limited government means not only more freedom but also less support and normally more capitalism, and capitalism is something many despise because of how insensitive and hurtful it can be to those who can't effectively participate.

My first bullish market was 2017 when I was very surprised how high the price went and how fast it happened. But I didn't realize back then that a bear market could last for long. When the price started falling in 2018, I honestly thought it would recover in a couple of weeks. So it's been hard to see that it actually took 3 years for the price to fully recover. But then, after all that time, I became much calmer about the price and about Bitcoin because I saw that no matter how bad things look (and a drop from $20k to ultimately $3k is very bad), Bitcoin not only recovers but also becomes worth more than before. So now I don't get concerned with the current price or that it can go down even further. I am confident that, while it may take a year or so, the price will eventually recover and get even higher.

The topic of digital dollar was discussed many times. We already have USDT, and it doesn't seem to take away Bitcoin's power. USDT is not under control of the government, and IMO it makes it better, attractive to peope around the world. The USA is a big country, but many people within it would be skeptical about the digital dollar because they prefer the one they already have, and people outside the US might be reluctant to use something that is under lots of control of a particular state which they might not trust or like.
Furthermore, lots of people are into Bitcoin because of its growth. The digital dollar would aim at stability, not growth of value, so it's a completely different thing even in this regard and thus Bitcoin users won't be tempted to switch at all.

I really don't see the link between the troubles Argentina is having and how it could be devastating for the USD. If you look at historic charts, inflation has been a big problem in Argentina for a long time. It's not a strong economy, and the currency is especially weak, unfortunately. The US is a very strong economy, the USD is in high demand, and while it does lose more value than usual, it's very far from the case of Argentina. The IMF requirement is put in place to ensure that they don't lose because of the inflation, which IMO makes perfect sense and should work. I don't see how that would hurt the USA.

I believe it's normal when there is a recession from time to time. It can't all be growth, you know, and there has also been the pandemic, followed shortly by the Russo-Ukrainian full-scale war that also made the economy take another hit. IMO the job of a country in times like this is to ensure as much as possible that those living currently under the worst conditions and those likely to be hit the hardest get some lost of financial support.
Overall, I think we should move to rethinking the economy as such, and whether it's even supposed to be growing all the time. We've long been making enough produce for the whole world, and the issue is not that not enough is made worldwide but in how incredibly unfairly it all gets distributed. Figuring out better ways of distributing goods and services rather than on growing the total amount in a system where it would disproportionately be more beneficial to the riches is the way forward.

To be honest, I haven't believed in the US as a leader of freedom and democracy before, so I'm not surprised. They don't score well on media freedom, their police acts out ridiculously over small crimes and over protests, the wide availability of weapons results in the fact that more children now die in the US in mass shootings than cops on duty, and just recently the right to abortion was overruled. The US is also not a party to some major conventions and one of the few democratic countries that doesn't have gender equality in its constitution.
The US is at the forefront not because of how democratic it is, but how it can financially and militarily support those who are or striving to be democratic.

While there's certainly more tension now between China and Taiwan, I don't think China will go to war over it. China is smart, it's learning from mistakes of others. For years, it's been favoring economic interdependence over military action while being prepared for military action should this option become a more viable one. They can see how terribly wrong Russia's war against Ukraine went: so much isolation and condemnation of Russia, seized international funds, also the fact that despite being a much bigger country with a much bigger military power, Russia failed spectacularly and continues losing in Ukraine, so much that the general mobilization seems like the only way forward. I don't think China wants any of that or is stupid enough to think that the war with Taiwan would go very differently. So, hopefully, the war won't spread like that. If it did, I agree that would mean an even bigger hit on global economy.

Oh wow, I've never heard of it. I love the name 'Bitcoin', and I feel like it's a bit easier to pronounce and to remember. I am happy it's not Netcoin, to be honest, even though perhaps the name itself makes more sense because 'net' is probably a part of 'network'. Then again, I'm sure that if it's been Netcoin all along, we wouldn't have questioned it or felt like it was bad in any way.
I wonder how I've never heard of this before and how, it seems, it only became common knowledge now, 14 years later... Makes me think what other little things we don't know about Bitcoin and Satoshi but might learn along the way.

If you're getting payments from customers to a wallet, they're paying by sending their BTC directly to a Bitcoin address? How does that work in practice, do they have to wait up to 10 minutes to see the first confirmation of the transaction?
If your employees have trouble understanding how to accept these payments, I think it's best to just make it super easy for customers, so that employees don't have to do much. Something like a QR-code they scan to pay would be nice, and then I assume the job of the employees to check if the transaction received at least one confirmation?
Aside from using a wallet, knowing that a transaction can't be faked and that there's a small chance it won't go through which is why waiting for 1 confirmation is usually reasonable, I don't think they need to know much.
Maybe some basic safety of private keys, a little training of sending and receiving some BTC from one another would also help them get more confident about it.

Bitcoin bear market is not of much concern. It can end rapidly, it can last an unpredictable amount of time. More importantly, Bitcoin will recover from it, so it's only temporary and only a loss if you sell during the bear market. As for the recession the global economy is entering and the inflation of many fiat currencies, that's a more concerning thing. Fiat rarely gets better after bad times. The good thing is considered when fiat starts losing less value than it used to be losing, and people normally can't expect the value to grow or to recover to pre-recession times, even. So hodling fiat can be unsafe in these times, and it's better to spend it or to hodl Bitcoin, IMO.

Okay, first of all, there's no "war crisis Russia is going through". The op is saying it as if Russia is being bombed and invaded and how impressive it is that they're finding time for new laws. But NO. Russia is waging a devastating war against Ukraine, just because they want more land for themselves despite being the largest country on Earth. So nothing is obstructing their legislative activities because Russia is doing the war on someone else's territory.
Secondly, the only news I could find (searching it Russian because that would be the original language) is about a bill (not a law) that would allow using digital currencies to avoid some financial sanctions. The Ministry of Finance seems to be supportive, but it's not Ministries who write up and vote on laws.
Finally, if Russia adopts it, I don't think it's good for Bitcoin at all. Russia is a terrorist state that is behaving unbelievably terribly for the 21st century. So it would be a bad thing for Bitcoin's reputation, and Western countries might become more hostile to Bitcoin as a result.

I think I am an open-minded person. I try to give a chance to all sorts of things and remain open to ideas that are probably not true. If there's an empirical proof, I'll take it. If, however, there isn't a proof (in a sense that only those who already believe it or are very keen on believing it will find it convincing), I'll disregard it.
When it comes to Satoshi, just saying "Hi, I'm Satoshi" doesn't work. But there must be ways for Satoshi to prove identity. This can be a signed message from a Bitcoin address that's really old and belongs to the earliest of days. It can also be something like an early version (dated accordingly) of the Whitepaper, or screens of chats with someone who can also confirm the authenticity of the chats about Bitcoin from very early days. I think to me it would be a mix of things that would not convince me 100%, but that would allow me to roughly accept that this person is most likely Satoshi Nakamoto.

I think that Satoshi deserves a Nobel in Economics. It's first an foremost and economic innovation, and it's innovation of the kind that changed the world in many aspects, created a whole new industry, revisited what money is, what its essential traits are, and how it can be otherwise, and demonstrated in practice that a decentralized unregulated currency is not only possible but can also be attractive for a significant number of people around the world. Of course, since Satoshi's identity is unknown, they wouldn't know who to give the prize to, and it would be terrible if they gave it to Craig. So Satoshi is unlikely to receive this recognition.

The op lists true concerns, which are largely about the price and high expectations. However, I disagree about trading. While I tried trading and realized it's not for me, I do know people for whom it's basically a job, and they are fairly good at it. I believe a person can become good at trading (maybe not everyone, but some), and this can be a source of some regular income. Long-term investment doesn't require still or effort, but it also doesn't give regular profits: you can stay in the red for months and then see some positive movement going on. Also, I'd put other things into top newbie mistakes, such as keeping money on an exchange, using a non-custodial wallet, and being reckless with basic security of the passphrase.

1.  Mayweather 
2.  Over 2.5 Rounds
3.  Round 3

Several scams are easily avoidable if you follow the rule of storing your own BTC in a non-custodial wallets. This way, you're not going to fall for investment scams or wallet scams, and can avoid exchange scams as well. More on exchanges: only use highly reputable ones, and don't store coins there or at least withdraw regularly if you need to keep some on the exchange.
An extremely common Bitcoin scam is also a 'giveaway' scam where, often pretending to be someone famous if not even hacking an account of a famous person, you're asked to send a bit of money to an address and get a lot more in return. I think newbies should be aware that even if it's a popular Twitter account, a verified YouTube account or a corporate email address, such 'giveaways' aren't to be trusted.