I agree that a more stable price is desirable in the long run. However, I have a couple of notes here. One is that fiat has an authority that can manage it, whereas Bitcoin is and will most likely remain under nobody's control. So how can we make the price more stable, or do you believe it will get there on its own? The second point is about introducing Bitcoin in stages. Again, something like a big company getting involved with Bitcoin happens, the media spread the news, people find out about Bitcoin and some get interested. It's not a process which is under control. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in practice Bitcoin is sort of being introduced at stages this way, but it does nothing to help stabilize the price.

I think these things just show how bad the legislation is, how favorable it is to those who are already very wealthy and powerful. The thing about the sell tax and avoiding payments by now selling should be fixed one way or another. If it were up to me, I'd introduce a specific law for everyone with wealth above some very high threshold, requiring transfering of assets for the good of the state if one is not selling the assets and thus not paying the sell tax. Or tax borrowing, and tax it hard.
More importantly, we need to change the culture. People who are wealthy but barely contributing (proportionately to their wealth) to their communities or to other communities which are in great suffering should be shamed, condemned. It should be considered a matter of respect to donate generously and do things like fund hospitals, universities, establish scholarship funds, help the elderly etc.
As for the income gap, it exists and can be very high, but let's not forget that it's minuscule compared to the wealth gap,

Game 1:  12' SPFC 2-1

I've been numerous speculations on how BTC price can't fall below a certain level because then mining wouldn't be profitable, and the op's question reminds me of that. The thing is, that's life, and yeah, something can become unprofitable, people can lose money, and some will go out of business while others would continue operating despite losing money, hoping it would all be worth it in the end. Mining gold requires resources, and mining Bitcoin requires them as well. But we don't value gold based on how hard it is to mine it, and the same is true for Bitcoin. The difference is that with gold a mining deposit can be suddenly discovered and an influx of gold can increase unexpectedly, while mining of Bitcoin is happening at a strict rate, and we also know the total supply whereas we can't know gold's total supply.

I was worried about El Salvador when the price fell so drastically, as a state budget can't afford such a high volatility, especially for such a poor country as El Salvador. But then I learned that they actually only held a very small percentage of the budget in BTC (I can't find the article now, but it was something between 0.5% and 2%). So yeah, they played it safe, and I'm happy they can now buy more at a great price. These are baby steps when talking about a country's budget (meaning that even when this $1.5 million becomes, say, $5 million, it won't fix anything major in the economy), but they're happening.

I don't know if the estimates of gold for this Uganda ore are correct and how they can compare to what's known of gold these days, but the Reuters article suggests that the supply in there might exceed the total amount of gold currently in circulation. If that's true and it can be extracted in such numbers, gold could indeed devaluate extremely. And yes, with Bitcoin, it would never become a problem. Also, it's no secret that gold mining has big environmental impact, harms the communities and nature, contaminates water supplies. Bitcoin mining, on the other hand, doesn't have such a direct negative impact on communities and can be done in eco-friendly ways.

I think the EU already has some crypto regulations, and I don't think more are needed. Cracking down on scams and things which are often a scam (like ICOs) would be good. It's probably a positive thing that they're setting requirements for stable coins because when they aren't really backed up by much and people don't realize how fragile the stability is, it's a potential catastrophe waiting to happen. What I also like is that the new rules won't apply to Bitcoin because it's considered a coin without issuers. And, of course, the environmental thing is ridiculous when the EU is looking at coal amidst the Russo-Ukrainian war but thinking of restricting crypto mining because it's allegedly not eco-friendly.

I'm from a 3rd world country as well, and yes, things can be very challenging. However, it doesn't mean that education doesn't matter. On the contrary, making the level of education higher would prompt more to develop new ideas, start businesses, create things that can bring new demand and make the economy grow, as well as make things better for people. Do what you can, on your level, to challenge the system, to go against the flow and to try changing things for better. If enough people do that, it can bring great results.

I believe Bitcoin reached the point of no return in that sense when it recovered from the 2018 fall of the price. Many thought Bitcoin would never reach $20k again, and it's been years before it did, but it happened and, as we know, the new ATH was established. I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that Bitcoin will die after it recovered from that situation, unless something very serious (like WW3 or breakthrough in quantum computing) happens. The last years have shown that things most aren't waiting for and that haven't happened for decades can actually happen, so who knows, but until then, Bitcoin is likely to stay afloat and continue growing long-term.

a) 12 b) 2:12

This question only makes sense philosophically. Does anything digital really exist? Does this forum exist, or social media, or any websites? It is, after all, purely digital, just 1s and 0s. And yet these 1s and 0s have a profound effect on our lives because it doesn't really matter to us that we can't touch a Facebook post if it contains information that we're interested in. Bitcoin is digital, but so are the replies in this thread and the op's question in the first place, and yet we don't doubt that we're typing these replies and sending them. So being digital doesn't mean not being real, not in any meaningful sense.

I agree that inflation is a hidden tax and all that, but some things should be noted here.
1. Wages normally do grow to be adjusted for inflation.
2. While Bitcoin can save from inflation, it can't always save from its worst consequence: devaluation of one's earnings or hodlings. That's because the price is very volatile, and sometimes one can really benefit from keeping funds in Bitcoin while at other times it can lead to the sort of losses which are uncommon for fiat inflation (although they do happen with some very unstable fiat currencies).
So it's important to assess the situation and make careful decisions.

It's only on foreign debt, and yes, it's only a technical default. So I think some might overestimate this event because it's a default without truly not having money. That being said, it's not a completely useless event because an event and a declaration like this sounds serious, and it is historical (first time since 1918 for Russia), so it can scare away investors who weren't scared by the war already. Apart from the panic, uncertainty and big reputational damage to Russia (they were doing their best to avoid a default announcement), this doesn't mean much.

To be honest, I thought they already have something like corralito. As the op mentions, the 80% selling requirement was introduced on February 28 and additional limits in the spring as well. So heavy restrictions are already available, but I don't think more will follow just because of the technical default. The default is, after all, technical, for Russia has the money but can't transfer it internationally due to sanctions. That means that inside the country, there are funds, and I don't think people will run from fiat much (not after it got stabilized quite well in Russia).

Nadal prediction:
a) 12 b) 1:56

I guess things like time of day matter sometimes, but not generally. If there truly is a consistent pattern and a person is a trader, then playing on these differences of the price can be rewarding (especially if you're operating a big budget). But if it's a purchase for a long-term hodling, I really don't think it's worth a second thought, and things like more long-term trends (such as the price this week compared to last week or this month compared to last month) matter more. After all, the difference of buying BTC for $40k and $20k is very singificant and can be a matter of a month or so.

12) Israel Adesanya
11) Max Holloway
10) Sean Strickland
9) Sean O’Malley
8 ) Brad Riddell
7) Robbie Lawler
6) Ian Garry
5) Jim Miller
4) Andre Muniz
3) Maycee Barber
2) Dricus Du Plessis
1) Jessica-Rose Clark

Total Strikes 108

Game 1:  18' SPFC 2-1

Investing in Bitcoin during a dip market is good, and $6k could buy a decent part of BTC at its current price. Taking a loan to buy even more, and also borrowing money from a relative, and aside from the loaned amounts having to pay interest rates is.... risky. Congrats on 1 BTC, but how soon are you supposed to start making payments on that loan you got, and how soon does your uncle expect those $4k + interest?
I do agree that 2 years will probably be enough time for Bitcoin to recover and for you to get 3x-5x profits, but there's also a risk it'll take longer, and does your loan not require any payments for the full 2 years?
And as many pointed out, it's a very risky decision. This situation breaks the rule of only investing what you can afford to lose.

The question is pretty good, but I think so far miners are still getting a significant amount of rewards for mining, and for the fees as well because most transactions happen on-chain. Moreover, I agree with witcher_sense that it's reasonable that small payments would be made via an off-chain solution like the Lightning Network, and there are still plenty of transactions for miners to confirm. So I don't think it's anywhere near being a threat and discouraging miners who could've got more payments in transaction fees.