I don't think the op makes much sense, to be honest. Fiat is already here, in some countries it's very stable, but there's still poverty there. El Salvador, prior to adopting Bitcoin, had the USD as their legal tender, but economically hasn't been doing well, to put it mildly, and many were (still are) in poverty there. Stablecoins are not making things better. A coin won't be stable if there isn't some mechanism used to make it stable, so your coins would probably devaluate as soon as it hits the exchanges because people will sell it all to get real money for it, or it would effectively be worthless if it doesn't make it to exchanges and nobody is willing to give any money for it.

I haven't heard of this strategy, I believe, but I fail to grasp how this is better than other things. It's kind of time diversification, but it still depends on a year when you do it. If it's a bull market that's going on for months, the price is growing, and you keep pouring a thousand after a thousand into Bitcoin. Then the price, say, starts going down, and you're still doing it. Why isn't it better to wait till the price is quite down (say, at least -30% from the ATH), and invest $10k then? It would mean buying more BTC than if a person buys when the price is high.

40 high schools isn't as big of a step as some others did (for example, France added Blockchain and cryptos into the overall school curriculum, not as an experiment in a bunch of schools), but it's still better than nothing. And I think the article is right to mention hyperinflation in Argentina as a part of the discussion because the argument is often that fiat is stable, whereas cryptos aren't, but that's not the experience of people in Argentina, and they might thus be more open to cryptos because they've seen the devastation of inflation.The inflation in Argentina hasn't been good for years, it's not just 2022. While not always 50%, neither is Bitcoin losing 50% every year, and it's not like 35% or 40% inflation is anywhere near normal.

I tried explaining Bitcoin to a relative who is in the 70+ category, but he was all about it being a scam, volatility being dangerous and fiat being great because the state has control over it. But I think it's not as much about age as it is about a person. As for me, I started hearing about Bitcoin when I was a teenager, and while I was open to it (not negative), I wasn't very interested. I don't think age played a big part, I think it's more about context. When you're a teen, you still live with parents, probably don't have a job and much money of your own which you could invest or experiment with. But some people are in the same situation when they are in their 20s or even 30s sometimes. So it's about the experiences and knowledge more than about age to me.
I'm very surprised that Jet Cash is almost 80, btw. I sort of always perceive most forum members as relatively young (as millennials). But I'm happy that this assumption is wrong and that there are people of various age who are interested in cryptos.

The idea is simple, but I like the design. Perhaps it would be more fun if a person could insert multiple entries (for example, holding a certain amount of BTC in a certain period, and then another amount in another period), that would be more valuable to see, IMO, as here the chart is essentially the same, and only the numbers in USD change based on how much a person is holding.
There's data since the end of April 2013 on Coingecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin. Perhaps, you could use this to make the chart bigger.

a) 11  b) 1:55
a) 10  b) 1:34

I can see the discussion is heated up by passionate supporters of Russia, but I won't engage with that. I think it's a good question to ask to ensure we understand the current war well, and I'll try answering it as coldly as I can.
First, I want to say that the op said he'd bomb Kyiv like Mariupol or worse. I must say that there's this thing with Ukrainian national identity that it's built around the idea of freedom, rebellions, independence. The more bombings there are, the angrier people become, and the stronger the desire of revenge gets. Which is why it's much better, pragmatically and ethically, to conduct the war in as clean a way as possible: if it's just soldiers fighting and only military bases getting destroyed, many might feel it's 'merely politics' and stay out of it, feel more indifferent to the war. That means both Western support of Ukraine and self-organization of civilians to help the army. But when you see war crimes after war crimes, it gets very personal, people radicalize, and many countries that would have stayed neutral otherwise start feeling like this is something they must help to stop. The demarcation between the good and evil becomes very sharp, and most want to support the good.
Now, to the question of aviation: the rhetoric of Russia, its policies on national security presume that enemies are around them and that, if an opportunity arises, the enemies will invade and try to destroy Russia. This is why Russia demanded NATO to not only stop expanding, but even pull back to 30-year-old borders before the 2022 invasion. This assumption means they must reserve the majority of their air power for themselves, to be sure that if they are invaded by NATO, they can protect their own land.

The decision to revisit the ban sounds like a result of lobbyism to me, to be honest. After all, it was about donations to political parties, so the idea was to ensure transparency of who is sponsoring a certain party, and with cryptos, I think, it was supposed it would be harder to do that. That being said, I don't know how financing parties happens in the US, but in my country shady parties are often allegedly financed by the public, but then investigations usually show the people who generously donate are themselves very poor and far from politics, suggesting they are only straw sponsors, not the real ones. So perhaps the ban doesn't make much sense after all.

Yeah, and I actually agree with this hypothesis. It doesn't surprise me that the countries weren't those with well-developed economies. If a country has a relatively low poverty and unemployment rate, relatively high standard of life one can afford on an average salary and overall slow but steady growth of the economy, there's a lot at risk when going into new areas and little incentive to do so. In countries that are struggling, however, taking risks makes more sense because some sort of improvement is urgently needed. Cryptos can bring new investments into the country, create new jobs, make people more engaged in the economic process. So there's a lot to gain potentially, even though it might not work in the best envisioned way.

Op, I think it's a great initiative. I wonder, though, how many people who are into cryptos are also into reading books about Bitcoin. Perhaps you could follow up from time to time in the thread to share how the book club's going, whether anyone joined the 3 of you, and how the talks are going. I'd probably make something wider, adding discussions of articles, as well as of crypto-related movies and TV shows, to lighten up the whole thing and broaden the scope. But a book club is a thing of its own, of course, and it can focus specifically on books. In any case, good luck!

It's in hundreds, not dozens (the 5-year-old poll is), but still, it's indeed not representative of the community and might be a very biased result (for example, perhaps those who do have 1 BTC are in the minority, but are more eager to vote in the poll than those who don't). So it's not possible to assess such things when it was an anonymous poll in one thread. As for discussions, I think it's natural that many who do own 1 BTC would not share this information to avoid the risk of being targeted. Such matters are sensitive, and evaluating them properly is done best by professionals (sociologists).

11. Holly Holm
10. Michel Pereira
9. Chidi Njokuani
8. Polyana Viana
7. Jun Yong Park
6. Joseph Holmes
5. Jailton Almeida
4. Omar Morales
3. Jonathan Martinez
2. Felipe Colares
1. Sam Hughes

Game 1:  9'  2-1 Arsenal
Game 2:  9'  1-0 Southampton
Game 2:  9'  3-0 São Paulo FC

EUR 28,400
kryptonomous

I have seen several materials and arguments surrounding this topic, enough to make up my mind about that. In short, there was a huge anti-automation movement since the beginning of industrialization, basically. People were also talking how jobs will disappear and people will be left with nothing. Some jobs did disappear, but you know what happened? Many new jobs appeared because of technological advancements, new demand was created basically out of thin air. Demand not only for programmers, but digital marketing workers, web designers, moderators, SMM workers, and then also content creators on many online platforms. So things do not change for worse with automatization overall. They can hit some more than others, which is why social care must be in place to help those that lose their jobs to adapt. But it can also help out many people to find new jobs that didn't exist before, and be passionate about something like this.
Eventually, I think countries should move to universal basic income on the surplus that's created because maintaining machines is cheaper than paying people to do those jobs. And people should move to jobs which can't be done my machines in an undeniably better way.

I don't think it's so simple. For one, not all cryptos are equal, and many fall and never recover. So with a coin like this, it's better to sell at some loss than wait for it to devalue completely and lose much more if not everything. If it's Bitcoin, life situations can differ and sometimes a person might need to sell some BTC even at a bad price point due to some unexpected change in financial situation. Also, cryptos are not only about hodling, as some people use it for trading that requires regular buy-sell orders, and some use Bitcoin as money, so they spend it instead of hodling or at lest try to do that.

Op is right that there's gold outside Earth and that makes for a potential problem regarding treating it as scarce because it might get possible to mine it. Also, I believe we don't know for sure how much gold there is even on Earth, right? Isn't it possible that some new reserve would be discovered at some point? So we don't know the real total supply of gold. As for Bitcoin, we do know it for sure, even though we don't know how much BTC was lost (burned, lost private keys, accidentally sent to altcoin addresses etc). We can be pretty sure there will never be more than 21 million BTC. But I don't think we can reasonably compare scarcity of something digital with something physical. We can measure BTC per coin, but how shall be measure gold, and who's to say that it should be measured in this specific way? Or do we measure it by value in USD (obviously, disregarding everything outside Earth), but then the price of BTC changes quite drastically. So they are just to different to be compare, apart from the fact that we can't know the total supply of gold and the rate at which the circulating supply would increase, while we know these things about Bitcoin.

It's a weird way to use a car, but it's only as green as the electricity that's used to charge up the car. Mining uses electricity, and the same goes for Tesla cars, so it's not really an improvement. Only if somehow the car is charged with electricity that comes from eco-friendly sources, whereas the electricity as home or a building dedicated to mining comes from sources with higher carbon footprint. I think the cunning part is that Tesla comes with free charging, so basically the electricity for mining might be free for these people, while in any other way they'd have to pay for it.

Op, I like the term and that you brought it up. The price does seem sort of stuck around $30k, not moving significantly above or below this point. As I see no strong reasons for Bitcoin to stay down right now (no major restrictions from major countries, no big companies pulling out money, nothing like that), I think it's likely that the price will go up from this point. But, of course, who knows, maybe it can go down even further. It's best to wait it out and see what happens.

You're absolutely right. It's not possible to rebuild the country during the war because even if you manage to, say, restore a destructed hospital, who's to say it won't be hit by a missile tomorrow? As for humanitarian aid (food, medicine), it is something important during the war, of course. But there's also this big problem we've seen before in Mariupol, when Ukraine filled up huge trucks with dozens of tonnes of food, but Russia just blocked the roads and didn't allow the aid into the city. So what's the use of tons of food if there's no way of giving it to those who need it most because they're under occupation by a regime that couldn't care less about starving Ukrainians (if their purpose isn't starving Ukrainians, that is, which I'm not so sure about).
But the way, from what I see on the website, the initiative not only accepts cryptos, but also allows dedicating a donation to a certain direction, which means that it's unlikely that money donated to, say, medical aid, would be used for military purposes.