Op, if you're made some profit and that was your aim, there's no reason to keep hodling because there's no need to be greedy. The price is quite close to the ATH point right now, and nobody knows whether it will go up or down from this point. If you're happy with your returns and do not consider Bitcoin as a long-term investment (so if a bear market starts, you don't want to keep hodling), then why not sell now and be happy?
Sure, the price might go above $60k, but just think whether you're ready to risk and whether it makes sense for you to wait. Or sell 50% now and hodl the other half, I don't know.

Satoshi did a lot, but you're right that the whole maintenance, infrastructure and development require other people. I agree that Zhao and Buterin deserve to be on this list, and I'd perhaps add He Yi (she is a co-founder of Binance) as well. It was interesting to read about Amiti Uttarwar, it was honestly the first time I've heard of her.
As for Pavel Durov, I like Telegram, and I've used his other social network when it was popular in my country, but I'm not sure if it's so integral for the crypto market to bloom. I mean, he's creative and all that, but he doesn't strike me as a 'crypto king'.
Moreover, for the sake of history, I would add David Chaum. I think that his creation, while commercially unsuccessful, was an important precursor to cryptocurrencies as we know them today.

I can see that people have different opinions here, so the question isn't a simple one. I believe that Bitcoin cannot be hijacked by billionaires. Firstly, miners are doing their job independently, so generating new coins and confirming transactions are things that billionaires wouldn't control. If they tried, it would be extremely hard to gain control of the mining business because it already has its strong players. As for controlling the price, I don't think this can happen either because of two things:
1. The more they try, the harder it gets. The more demand of BTC appears due to buy orders and hype, the higher the price becomes.
2. If they want big purchases or to sell a lot at once, they're most likely not going to do it on exchanges, but via OTC deals, so the market wouldn't feel the change much.

Op, being an early investor doesn't guarantee profits if you're being reckless about it. Investing all savings and quitting the job that gives a stable source of income just to buy (mine?) Bitcoin was a very dangerous solution. One should never invest what one cannot afford to lose. I didn't understand what happened to those mined bitcoins, though. And you shouldn't resent that your friends got rich, and you didn't. Being rich doesn't automatically mean being happy, and it's never too late to invest in Bitcoin. However, investing everything is always too risky, so if you consider buying BTC again, make sure you have a plan B in case the price goes down. Everyone makes mistakes, so what's important is to learn from them and move on.

12)  Marina Rodriguez
11)  Donald Cerrone
10)  Geoff Neal 
9)  Marcos Rogerio de Lima 
8 )  Gregor Gillespie
7)  Amanda Ribas
6)  Ben Rothwell
5)  Kyle Daukaus
4)  Ludovit Klein
3)  Carlston Lindsay Harris
2)  Ryan Benoit
1)  Tafon Nchukwi

140 total strikes

Game 1:  15'  1-1 Draw
Game 2:  15'  2-1 Arsenal

Op, if we're talking purely about the revolutionary aspect, I think that Bitcoin is not as huge of a deal as the Internet was. However, being absolutely revolutionary is not the only thing that matters. For instance, the Internet was indeed something very new that became very popular, growing from 16 million users in 1995 to 5 billion users in 2020 (according to the only data I've found). And since Bitcoin is already used by about 100-200 million people, it's indeed currently the same with BTC as it used to be with the Internet at the end of the 1990s. So Bitcoin has the potential to become a worldwide thing hypothetically. It's even more so if we consider that sometimes things which are way less revolutionary than computers or the Internet eventually reach billions of people. I'm referring to smartphones, which IMO are more comparable to BTC because they weren't such a huge improvement since mobile phones and tablets already existed, and yet billions of people use them nowadays. So Bitcoin isn't extremely revolutionary, but maybe it doesn't have to be and can still become widely used.

That's indeed not fair to Bitcoin. While Bitcoin is new, it's already obvious how different it's from Netscape. Netscape started operating in 1994, had its best time in 1999, and by 2003 according to Wikipedia,
So in 9 years from its creation, it was already a big mess, and it was obvious that it was dying. It's been 12 years for Bitcoin already, and it's as strong, expensive and popular as ever. There's up to date no coin that poses even a serious threat to BTC dominance, whereas Netscape started losing to Internet Explorer in 1998 already.
In any case, it's just an opinion by the finance guy who wrote this article, and I think he just used these intro paragraphs about Bitcoin as an attention grabber.

I think it means companies can get a boost with their Bitcoin investments, and then they'd have more resources to manufacture cars or do whatever they specialize in. But it should be kept in mind that Bitcoin is profitable temporarily, and it can always go down. So companies shouldn't go all-in with Bitcoin because this can end badly for them.
I also want to point out that investing in Bitcoin isn't exactly incorporating it IMO because it's not like Bitcoin becomes an integral part of anything the company does. Accepting Bitcoin as payment for their products or allowing employees to be paid in BTC are bigger steps than simply buying BTC and then selling it when the price is higher.

As with any other investment, there's a chance you lose it all or lose some of the money you've invested. It's always a risk. However, you can reasonably reduce the risk by investing in cryptos which are most popular and by investing not only in Bitcoin, but also a couple of other coins that have been around for a while and seem solid. What's good is that you can always change your mind, so if the circumstances change and some coins becomes less credible, you can sell it and buy something different instead. But for now, Bitcoin seems to only be growing and popularity, and it definitely didn't reach the limit of its potential because only around 1.5% of the global population currently use it. So it's not a bad shot.

If that's what you believe, why use cryptocurrencies at all? Fiat works perfectly fine, the fees are miniscule and transactions are fast if only we're not talking about big sums or money or about international transfers. Why do you even need something like XRP when you can use your bank account to transfer money?
Being decentralized is a big part of what being a crypto means. The price and the market in general isn't controlled by any single entity, so there's a higher level of financial freedom that with ANY fiat currency. But that comes with its own issues, such as occasionally expensive fees.

If a person wants to invest and forget about it for, say, 5 years+, then investing now is probably not that risky. I think that the price will go down, but it will also go up afterwards, so over the course of years it's not very important to look for the lowest point. However, if it's a short-term or mid-term investment, the price can go 50% down easily anytime because it's still very high compared to what Bitcoin cost over most of its existence. So in that regard, buying high is a very risky decision. I think it's wise to wait will the bearish market hits, but it depends on the purpose.

They hate is because they're losing real and potential profit. They're losing real profit when more people are switching from the traditional market towards Bitcoin because there's fewer dynamics with the stock and fewer interested customers. Likewise, they're losing tons of potential profit that they could've made had they been less stubborn about Bitcoin. It's a huge investment opportunity people like Buffett keep missing, so of course they'd want Bitcoin to go down and stop being so popular, so that they can finally do the "I told you so" thing. But it's indeed irrational to miss out of Bitcoin like that, even if profit is all they care about.

I'm glad that your experience was positive because even though their support seems to work poorly, you did get your money back. However, since a website isn't one of the popular ones, I agree with others that gambling there is risky anyway. Casinos can practice selective scamming, so they could easily let you withdraw this time, so that you come back again, and they can steal more. It seems from what others found that the website already has a shady reputation, so perhaps it's good that you decided not to deposit money again.
But given that you're from the US, I think it can be tricky to find a friendly dice website. Primedice and Stake don't accept US users, the same goes for Bitsler, Crypto.games, Bustadice from my fast search about these websites... Unfortunately, I don't know any reputable US-friendly dice websites.

I wonder whether using cryptos is okay if using foreign currencies is. Or are these options de facto available but de jure illegal as well?
I think that countries should regulate casinos instead of banning them because people will play anyway, and this way at least some money will go to the state and can improve its economy (although Dubai doesn't seem to need a boost just yet). Some things that cause addiction and are proven to be bad for health and trigger violence are legal (I think alcohol is the greatest example), so it doesn't make sense that gambling stays illegal as it's probably not even as bad for a person as alcohol. Moreover, it seems that the majority of people don't develop a gambling addiction, so banning it for everyone even though it's safe for most makes even less sense.

I've watched The Father and Nomadland, and I liked the former more as well. Anthony Hopkins played very realistically there. I didn't guess that he would get an Oscar for this one, but I think he totally deserved it. Congrats to those who bet on him.
While I didn't like Nomadland that much, McDormand played beautifully in it, and my bet on 4.27 odds on her was the biggest one I've made for this round of Oscars, so I'm glad it was a win 

Op, if it's not the first time you're accusing Primedice of scamming you, why are you still using the website? If you don't like this casino, you can find a new one, but if you keep playing there, it must mean that you don't really think they're scammers. And if 3000 doge is all you have, and you're gambling with this money, it sounds like you might have a problem with gambling because playing with money you cannot afford to lose is a red signal. And if there was an error when you tried to withdraw, it doesn't mean that the website FORCED you to gamble your money away. Just like the support officer on your screenshot mentioned, if you cannot stop gambling, it's a problem you should focus on. But this has nothing to do with scam.

I think that there's nothing wrong with doge that would be unsafe for a kid, and it's more like a general question of how much an 8-year old can understand about money and with how much money a child can be entrusted. Banks don't allow kids to have accounts. In my country there are "junior cards" which have limitations and which parents are informed about, but I think even those start at 14. So maybe giving her a little doge (like, $10 worth of it or less) is okay to teach about responsibility, but this should go with telling about the basics: don't share your password with anyone apart from your parents; don't send money to anyone who is asking for it and/or promising something for it; ask when in doubt.

Op, to talk about a 90% chance you probably need research, not merely observations. It's not something obvious, and it's actually a very useful criterion if it's a real one. However, evidence is needed that analyzes tons of coins and their performance. And also criteria on what makes a coin one with 'a good potential'. Binance has 302 coins right now, so perhaps analyzing all of them is possible. And I honestly doubt that 90% of them are coins with potential, but I might be wrong, of course.
Does 'potential' mean at least 2x growth and some success after the ATH and a period of stagnation (if it's an old coin), for instance? Or how should we define it?

It seems that nobody mentioned Polkadot yet, and I'm frankly a bit surprised. It's fairly new, but already very popular (#8 on coingecko by market capitalization). It's a very decent project that can seriously compete with Ethereum. It was created by Gavin Wood who's a co-founder of Ethereum, so the team is solid. Polkadot also gets a lot of media coverage and probably has a strong community behind it by now. Given that it's already one of the top currencies, it probably won't grow too much in the future, but I think it'll alwayd keep up with Bitcoin and Ethereum when they grow, and I believe the price can double with DOT becoming #3 or #4 in the chart of cryptocurrencies.