While I generally agree with the definition of economy as a concept and of money as a concept, it's not all that simple. For example, acceptability of local fiat can be very low in a different country, next to nonexistent. That means there's a limit to that. Also, I am not sure what you mean by uniformity as money is often banknotes and coins that aren't unoform at all.
As for the claim that it's a payment simulator, it sounds as it it means it isn't real, it's a fake etc. That certainly isn't it. You know what else is a payment simulator? When you pay by card in a shop, and your online banking tells you that you spent money there. The money will actually leave your account much later, so all 'transactions' we rely on aren't really happening, at least not at that moment. Bitcoin is real enough to work and be trusted.

I don't have questions to Craig. He is an arrogant rich guy who is used to having it his way and, apparently, enjoys making lives of others harder with his copyright notices and claims he makes. He can't prove anything because he's not Satoshi, and there have been years for him to prove otherwise.
My question is to judges: why is this guy still enjoying freedom despite failing to meet court's requirements and making false statements in court?

I know that cryptos are big in Nigeria, but I must say I was surprised by such a high percentage of crypto investors there. It was allegedly KuCoin who generated this data, but the article linked by the op refers to another article that isn't the original source... If the survey was conducted by the exchange and they simply took in the responses of those who filled in their form on something, it is likely to not be representative of the whole population because people a crypto exchange can reach are already within the pro-crypto category. Of course, maybe it is representative, but in that case more than 10% of the global crypto users are Nigerians (maybe it's true, idk, but given how many countries there are, I am not sure).
In any case, I do hope the Nigerian state will finally follow its citizens and will become much more crypto-friendly.

It's wonderful news that more people are already in the clean energy because it can be good for argumentative purposes of moving further away from fossil fuels. But are there largely new people who are getting these jobs or is it that people who worked in fossil fuels are getting a chance to re-educate and switch to clean energy jobs? After all, it's very important to support those who worked in industries that are now going away, right? That would also help responding to concerns that many are losing jobs because of mines and other things closing down.

I wonder what's in it for Coinbase to finance a lawsuit that is unrelated to them... Playing the good guy who cares about privacy while actually being a centralized service that requires KYC? I get it that they must do KYC, but still.
This lawsuit will be interesting because it's not just about Tornado Cash. Given that it's a crypto mixer, it is likely to set a precedent for treating other crypto mixers as well. It does seem to me that crypto mixers literally do what's called money laundering (the mechanism is that of money laundering), so even if some use it for noble causes, it might reasonably be outlawed, but I am not sure and I'd love to see what the court decides.

While the sub-index categories are questionable (I am not sure they're all equally important and that it's also enough to look at these 5 things to determine adoption), I am happy to see my country so high up the list. It sounds about right because cryptos are indeed quite popular here, but then again, maybe it's not on the level of being #3 in the world.
I was, however, surprised by the low ranking of El Salvador. I know Chainanalysis is assessing the grassroots adoption, so governmental initiatives don't really count, but it's sad that such a friendly approach to cryptos from the state didn't motivate people to boost adoption.

Even if Bitcoin costs $1, it would be $1 million to spend, which is a lot. And I highly doubt Bitcoin will ever get so low. Also, NotATether is right that the community would become much smaller if something like that happens and makes Bitcoin worthless.
Charles-Tim (and others who are writing on the point of tokens), I think that perhaps by 'token' the op meant something like 'a token of appreciation'. Something of symbolic value, something meaningful to some people, but not something of financial value. So it has nothing to do with crypto tokens.

I think the misunderstanding and unexpectedness is due to the most common mistake people make in the area of economics: they assume that economic actors (buyers, consumers, investors, sellers) are behaving rationally and acting in their best rational self-interest. It's been shown over and over again that humans are in fact way less rational that we tend to assume. People often buy what they can't really afford and don't think of the consequences. Or they surrender to panic and sell what they rationally know they shouldn't sell because emotions play such a big role. People from developed countries aren't used to dealing with high inflation rates, rising utility bills and things like that. So they're feeling insecure, uncertain about the future, emotional. Thus bad news leads to panic, not to reasonable search of solutions. Yes, Bitcoin isn't susceptible to inflation and that could save wealth during recession. But it won't if not enough people believe in that and if panic prevails.

EUR 1200
kryptonomous

EUR 20,200
kryptonomous

I wish they spent money on something more meaningful, not on ads against PoW. Some are fast to attack Bitcoin because they don't like it much, don't understand it, and think they can succeed if they go against it. That's not possible, the consensus to move from PoW to PoS won't be reached.
Climate change is real, but fighting Bitcoin won't stop it or even meaningfully make the problem smaller. There are plenty of other areas where meaningful change is possible and where advocating for change would make more sense.
Also, it would be nice if they did their research to prove that if they succeed, things will actually get better and it won't be that the dirty energy Bitcoin used would immediately get used up by other players, so it won't even make that tiny difference it's supposed to make. And, on the contrary, I've heard interesting arguments that Bitcoin can actually stimulate switch to green energy because it can be what creates demand for it.

Water can be life-saving for many things. If there's a drought, it's a catastrophe for crops, and it can lead to hunger. But if there's too much water, it can also kill crops, as well as force communities to relocate if the flood is bad enough that it directly affects houses. Many people think that climate change is a very abstract thing. I it used to be 22 degrees and will now be 23-24, it's fine, right? So what that it'll get a bit hotter. But no, that's not how this works. Devastating effects of climate change are already here, just not everyone is experiencing them. Floods are among them. And, among other things, this will be a huge financial toll on global economy because people in many countries didn't feel like investing in preventive measures and cutting back on what makes it worse, not thinking that then they'll be forced to spend much more later.

I tried working in the office, and it's not my thing. If a job is such that really requires doing something that can't be done from hope with as much quality, then I'm alright going there. But if it's all on the laptop and thus can totally be done wherever a person is, as long as there's a laptop and Internet connection there, it's unreasonable to require this person to waste time on going to an office, limiting the time that could be spent at home. Of course, it also depends on the home and how quiet it is, which can be different for different people. So I think it's more reasonable to allow a person to choose. Some might prefer the office atmosphere, while others find it unbearable. I've never had a problem with my time-management and organizing myself, and I've never really had a strict boundary between work and home, so I prefer to do what I can from home.

I think the situation is different depending on a country. What may be shocking for developed countries can be something typical for people from developing countries. I'm no stranger to high inflation rate. In my experience, making lists of things to buy, paying attention to discounts and planning meals in advance are all good things. But it's also important to stay open-minded. Maybe the product you used to buy very often is now much more expensive. You should look around the shops and see if there's something cheap that you haven't tried before. Do your research on that, and which meals can be cooked with something you haven't tried before. Also, don't be afraid to look at what used to be those very expensive things you normally didn't buy: there's a good chance some of that out-of-reach stuff isn't that expensive anymore, considering how much the prices changed for other things.
And yes, you'll spend more money that you used to, so you should think about where you can earn more money or where you can reasonably cut down spending. But it won't be as devastating as you initially assumed. Especially with such a low increase as 13.5%.

An economic zone would be on a limited territory, right? And it's just considerations for now, they might not even go forward with it. Even judging merely from the threads I've seen on this forum about Nigeria, it seems clear to me that there are many small businesses and initiatives which aren't limited to big cities, even, and which focus on Bitcoin-friendly approaches. Nigerians are very cool people who are clearly doing a lot in trying to make their country a better place via crypto entrepreneurship. The government should just follow what people are doing and create a friendly environment for businesses to flourish. It should be all over the country, not in some special economic zone, and not just with Binance.

1.  Canelo 
2.  Over 10.5 Rounds
3.  Round 12

I didn't have any particularly bad experiences with Bitcoin. But the worst time was that long bear market of 2018-2020. I had a couple of big lows there. One is that I had what was around $1k in BTC at the end of 2017, but I didn't sell. Given how long the bear market lasted, I needed the money and had to sell at $10k, some at $8k. It wasn't panic selling, I just needed fiat for stuff, and I tried waiting it out as long as I could, but the market stayed low just way too long. And then I recall this moment when the price has been very low ($7k-$8k) for months, and then, when I thought it couldn't get lower than that, it went to around $3500. And it wasn't at such a low point for a brief period of time. In fact, the price remained below $4k for 4 months!
Overall, it took almost 3 years for the price to recover, so it was generally a bad period, but that time below $4k was particularly sad.

From the article the op linked, it seems to me that they're not referring to any specific Blockchain and certainly aren't talking about Bitcoin blockchain specifically. They are talking about the technology itself and its potential flaws that could manifest itself had decentralized Internet been built on blockchain. The 51% attack is a well-known thing, and yes, it's a vulnerability. But the bigger the network, the more people are involved and the more funds are required to even attempt it, the less likely it is to happen. And if decentralized Internet becomes the new standard, it's unlikely that it will be small enough to be vulnerable like that.

While I generally agree with the op, there are certain nuances to it. Firstly, how and where a person is storing BTC matters. If it's a non-custodial wallet, that's fantastic, and there's indeed no authority or company that can demand anything from you when you want to access your funds. But if it's a centralized service, your funds can also be frozen, access can be restricted, demands can be put forth. Secondly, as long as you're storing your own BTC, it's all good and you're enjoying access to your coins. But there aren't many places in the world where you'd be able to use these coins directly. This woman wanted the money for her sister's cancer treatment, and I bet the clinic doesn't accept Bitcoin. In that case, a person still needs to get fiat, and that's likely to involve banks, centralized crypto exchanges, and/or ATM which might also ask for documents and get a hefty fee.
So, unfortunately, keeping the money in Bitcoin for emergencies also have its downsides. Not to mention that the price can just fall by a lot, and suddenly you have way less money for the emergency than you used to have.

Thanks for sharing the calendar, op. I looked through all the events, and while some are famous and familiar to me (Mt Gox, Pizza Day, Lightning Pizza), there were also many I've never heard of. On the calendar, it also seems like July is the most uneventful month, with only Shitcoin day being there, which isn't even a Bitcoin thing. What I think could make this calendar better is more events. If they have Mt Gox, they could do dates related to some top exchanges or a date the firt exchange was opened if it's known. Also, days when major Bitcoin wallets became available (if such dates can be traced) would be nice. Finally, if there's a day when Bitcoin reached 4 figures, why not add the day with 5 figures as well? A Bitcointalk date should also be there, as Maus0728 pointed out.
And given that there are only two countries where Bitcoin is legal tender, the second one (Central African Republic) can be added to the calendar as well since El Salvador is already there.