No government agency is forbidding it, so it is already legal. The problem is merchants aren't adopting it because it's not compelling. It can't hold a steady value which makes it useless as a currency.

1) it doesn't have to be taxpayer's expense. There are plenty of think tanks and public policy groups, not to mention corporations and university economics programs, all publishing these studies.
2) projections are not "idle talk."
3) you're still displaying a non-understanding of what a projection is by saying that "well-founded projections and calculated assumptions" are fine, but projections are "idle talk" at the same time. The methodology is largely the same for projections, so you're arguing both for and against it at the same time. Either you don't realize this, or you need to explain your point better so it's not a steady stream of contradictions.

I don't follow. What is your link between the banking system and Hitler coming to power?

Again, you're not talking about the same thing as me, or you're not understanding what I'm saying. When they make a projection on when oil will run out, it's based on usually three key pieces of information: proven oil reserves, rate of consumption, and expected change in consumption rate based on the current trend line. Then there are many lesser factors that might be considered, like speculation on finding new reserves or changes in technology that allow greater access to difficult to access oil. The projection is just a number based on the three main pierces of information that let us estimate how long our oil supply will last. If that number happens to be 100 years, they're not claiming to be projecting what the oil situation will be in 100 years, they're simply saying that oil will last 100 years if nothing changes.

Things always change, but this is the best we can reasonably do, and it's necessary information to know, because the difference between oil lasting 100 years and oil lasting 20 years is a tremendous difference that will vastly reshape global priorities.

Underpriced how? If supply isn't decreasing and demand isn't increasing, the price shouldn't change.

Yes of course, Germany is just my go to example because people don't generally equate hyperinflation with the western world. I actually bought a 100 trillion dollar Zimbabwe note on eBay as a novelty. The currency had more value for westerners who thought it was cool than t did for anyone trying to use it as a currency.

Yes, that is what OP is talking about, but no, this is not going to be a credible concern in the next (at least) 30 years.

It's also possible (I would even call it likely) that in the future, Bitcoin's economics prove unsustainable as transaction fees required to propagate the network would become so high to keep miners around in the face of declining block rewards that the 21 million coin cap is eventually scrapped. That is, of course, assuming Bitcoin stays viable long enough to reach that point.

I'm not overly familiar with how banking in China works except it's heavily dictated by the communist party which isn't good at all. Other than that, I just know what is reported which is that China is pumping massive amounts of money into the stock market to inflate asset prices, and has all kinds of programs encouraging regular citizens to invest in the market at these inflated prices too. When that crashes, it will crash hard and wipe out a significant amount of wealth from China's middle class. I don't think it's a perfect analogy, but it would be similar to the US government enticing people to buy into the stock market in the 1920s, far beyond what was already happening naturally, and then at the same time also actively manipulating the market to send stock prices even higher. By the time that gravy train ended in 1929, it would have made the Great Depression one hell of a lot worse than it was, because in addition to all that wealth disappearing, all that artificial wealth the government tried to create would have disappeared too, and that would have made the hole to dig out of that much deeper. That's where I view China today.

Tell that to Germany in the 1920s. They thought they could just print all the money they wanted to pay off all their debts and it lead to hyperinflation. The more money you print for no reason, the less it's worth. That's the problem with your concept of "free money for everyone." If you just print money for no reason - if the money isn't linked to any actual value that has been created - then it is worthless. Money has value because it represents something that already exists that has value.

I would think it's pretty safe to say that automobile and transportation use dwarfs all other uses of oil.

They make sense in that it's the best we can estimate given everything we know, and it would be foolish to not make projections just because they can't be 100% accurate. Oil is too vital to the world economy and energy needs to live in complete ignorance, which is what not making projections would be. No one is claiming 100% accuracy. When new information becomes available (such as a new reserve located or a change in the global consumption rate) the projections are updated. The projections are immensely useful because this knowledge directly impacts where investment goes (into searching for more oil, extracting already proven reserves, or developing alternative energy sources). Not making the projections is utterly idiotic.

I couldn't say. Japan had a lot of advantages China doesn't, such as a very conservative base of national savers (vs. China, which is recklessly encouraging investors to buy into the market despite insane multiples and no transparency). In that respect, it seems likely China won't be nearly as resilient in the face of catastrophe, and take "resilient" with a grain of salt, because Japan was anything but resilient after their meltdown. They don't call it the lost decade for nothing. As resilient as Japan wasn't, China seems destined to be far less so.

No, the current price now is made up of speculators who are day trading to try and make profit from small movements, or long term speculators treating it like an asset. Neither one adds value to Bitcoin, which derives value from utility as a currency. When disaster strikes, both short and long term speculators will leave because it's too risky to be holding Bitcoin which still has very low utility outside of speculation, and all that will be left are people who use it as an actual currency, which is a very small number of overall current users. The cascade of people fleeing will make it harder to attract buyers too, and the fact that this is so predictable will create intense pressure to be the first out so you're not one of the ones left holding he bag. Bitcoin crumbles harder and faster than other assets in a real crisis.

Yes, that's my point. There is no correlation. The author manufactured one that doesn't exist to make his point.

Yeah but my point is it only looks like a correlation and a divergence because the y-axis is in log. The chart is manipulated to make it look so instead of actually being so. The chart only tracks the prior 15 years before the "divergence" and uses this as the basis for saying these two lines should track? 15 years isn't a correlation, it's a coincidence, especially when the chart is in log and cropped with axes that don't go to zero. If you back this chart out to a bigger timeframe, you'll find that these two lines don't track each other at all, whether the y-axis is in log or not.

I think Bitcoin drops like a rock if there's an economic collapse. People will flee risky assets, and Bitcoin is among the riskiest. Nobody will look at a crumbling world economy and plunging asset values and think taking on more risk is a good idea.

China is in way more serious trouble than the US. It's estimated up 25% of housing is uninhabited, there are ghost cities that were built and nobody moved there. China is spending to try and pump the economy up, but they're spending without economic need, which is a recipe for disaster. Things are already starting to crumble, so they've starting massively interfering in the stock market by pumping stocks and arresting short sellers. These are the actions of a desperate country on the verge of major economic collapse.

Why is the y-axis in log? That distorts the chart and makes a meaningful comparison of the two lines meaningless, although perhaps it advances a particular narrative.

It's more likely Bitcoin becomes obsolete before the above scenario ever has a chance to happen. Even when the reward is a paltry .09 btc per block, that's roughly 13 new bitcoins produced per day, and we're still some 30 years away from that point.