It's true that Bitcoin can be neither or both. There can be something that is both a good investment opportunity and the standard against which the value of other coins is measured. After all, that's what gold used to be when dollar was backed up by it, right? At the same time, despite the great improvements that Bitcoin went through, and a seemingly big popularity boost, we are here actually living in a bubble and overestimating its role for the world. There are no more than 100 million crypto users out there, in the world with 7.7 billion population. So it's about 1% of the population currently using it, which is a very small number. And the rates of adoption are not promising so far.

I disagree. Most of the time I watch youtube is when watching educational videos to broaden my horizons (Crash Course, Map Men, Vox, Eastory...). I agree that Youtube is not so great with cryptos, though. Even popular channels like Ivan on Tech are actually making videos about Noname companies that pay well to get in there. Still, though, there are some nice general educational videos about blockchain and Bitcoin there. As for technical analysis - well, it's just not a particularly strong and scientific thing in general youtube is not to blame for that.

It's actually a funny paradox because one can become the richest person in the world if one travels back in time, but to spend money even on detailed research on the possibility of the time machine one kind of already needs to be among the richest people in the world 
Seriously, though, 2013 was a great time, but we keep forgetting that it did not seem great back then, which means that now is probably also a great time to invest, but we are just being greedy, looking to the way things used to cost and missing the opportunity.

Switzerland has been fairly welcoming about cryptos for a while know. After all, the famous canton of Zug is like a crypto Silicon Valley. But if I am not mistaken, they used to keep a distance from the fights with banks by making cryptos property rather than legal tender. I wonder if letting open a bank account with cryptos changes that... If the banks still stay in power with all their decentralization, though, I believe it still counts as balancing between innovation and tradition. It's easy to understand Switzerland since Swiss banks are arguably some of the best in the world, and going against them would not be a good move from the economic standpoint in this country. I believe it's better to have something like this than a policy that bans cryptos, but at the same time, this approach diminishes the whole thing of decentralization and pseudo-anonymity.

Look, leaving clues about the remaining words and not having them written down anywhere makes your money safe, sure. But what if you somehow forget the words, stop understanding the clues? Then your investment is lost forever. And it might be that the probability of you forgetting the words is higher than your wallet getting hacked. I use 2FA and I feel pretty safe. There are a confirmation link on my email address and a temporary personal code sent to my phone. Oh, and also a password which is a mixture of words and symbols. The password is stored in a way I find secure. There's a chance that it can be stolen and hacked, but the chance is low, and I am okay with that.

I never believed Crag was the real Satoshi. I think he probably knew or was pretty close online with the creator of Bitcoin, and being a d*** such as he is, Craig could steal something from that person which made him a plausible candidate. And Kleiman could be the real Satoshi, of course, but I hope that the creator is still alive. Anyway, the press release, unfortunately, does not prove much. Okay, Craig has to give half of the bitcoins he mined together with Dave. Plus, Craig is accused of falsifying some documents. But, according to CCN,
This must mean that it was not falsification serious enough. Not to mention that it could have nothing to do with Craig being or not being Satoshi. It could be about those mined Bitcoins and to whom they belong. So Craig believers, and I have some friends who belong to them, will remain Craig believers.

Well, I don't see how these topics are related. If there's one wallet with the money that belongs to the owner of this wallet, and then there's another wallet of the person who decides to steal the money, then the money from the second wallet can be returned to the first wallet without any identification required. I am not sure if reversing transactions is even theoretically possible, but I am sure that the majority won't approve of it. It's not about anonymity, it's about decentralization. Sure, it's sad when the money is stolen, but if the mechanism that allows freezing the money in certain wallets or reversing some transactions is introduced, there will be room for abuse of this system, and Bitcoin won't be much different from fiat indeed.

The plan seems alright if by investing in residential property you mean buying flats and houses and living off the rent people will pay you. However, I am bit sure it counts as an example of financial freedom reached because of Bitcoin. You seem to have good financial situation already if you can invest that much. And you intend to sell your BTC for fiat in the end and invest into something not related to Bitcoin at all.

Bitcoin is still very new, so it's hard to make a decision now. It's still not clear how many people are going to use it in the future and what is the best way to regulate it. I think that most of the countries wait for a unified strategy for the top countries or at least wait to see which regulations in other countries have what impact. When something starts to stand out as the must effective policy, others can adopt it rather fast.

Well, Japan is a special case, because they have deflation. Their fiat becomes more and more valuable with time (I think it was not done on purpose, and people mostly think it's a problem but that's how it works there), so it makes sense that one should pay back less that one borrowed. As for countries with a stable inflation rate, it seems that the lender loses significantly in this case, but I can see how people might be interested in that. It's just like discounts and promotions. If nobody wants to buy your product for a certain price, you make it lower, and then people buy it and probably even more stuff they never intended to buy. Likewise, if nobody wants to loan from you, and you really need an active flow to get going, you make a negative interest rate.

It does not seem to be a true prediction. At least for now,  the tendency is that Bitcoin is getting all of the attention even though the fees are high, and alts that may cost nothing to use are dying. Because transaction fees are not the most important thing. People choose what's popular, what is more frequently used, what is more stable. It's risky to use a cryptocurrency like doge that works fine for now but does not have a dev team. Such coins can have critical bugs and you'll regret you were greedy to pay a couple of dollars for something reliable.

The second point is more or less fair since if alts are losing market capitalization, it means they are losing investments, and that affects the price. However, I disagree with the first point. Nowadays the dominance is strong, and Bitcoin is bravely holding its $10k position. However, as the op mentioned, this is the strongest dominance since April of 2017, and that was not the best time for Bitcoin. It was worth slightly above $1k, and the biggest bull run was still ahead. And notice what happened to dominance during the bull run of Q4 2017. It had its ups and downs but eventually dropped to 35% on the first of January 2018.

I think the answer largely depends on the definition of gambling. For most terms, there are various definitions, and nowadays we live in a world where the limits of different areas are getting more and more blurred. One could say that gambling is only when you take your chances irrationally when there are no skills that can affect the result, whereas trading is a profession. But then there are games like poker in which you can become a professional and earn money. Does it still count like gambling then? At the same time, trading offer involves such a high risk that your skills play a very small part in it. This seems to be especially true with binaries since there's a house edge, according to this guy, and so the house wins in the end: https://youtu.be/nXHdoXJ9h5M?t=189.

If you're not sure about Bitcoin as an investment, then you probably should not hope for the best and risk it. Bitcoin is very volatile, and it's hard not to sell when you see it going down even if you're a Bitcoin believer. Manage (take responsibility for) your money, think about the risks, make sure you're not investing more than you can afford to lose, try to buy low and sell high. These are important rules of investing, and even though they are simple, I don't think you should neglect them.
I am a believer, and I don't find it likely that Bitcoin will even drop below $6k again, let alone to $1k. But nobody can know for sure, so it's good if you decide in advance for yourself at which lowest and highest prices you're definitely selling your coins.

No-no-no, I did not approve of the stealing part. I said it was nice that people used clean energy for mining (so they're being eco-friendly, reducing the carbon footprint and stuff), whereas I am definitely against using the state's resources for personal profits.As for everyone who wrote about nuclear energy not being clean:
It's a matter of debate whether the nuclear option is good or bad for the environment, but it seems to be humanity's best shot, something to look at more closely and develop. Because not everything can run on solar or wind energy, some locations require something else. Here's a video about it that I find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k.
Yes, the security risks are very high. It's somewhat good they were just mining Bitcoin, because if they managed to put all of this equipment to the facility, they could probably bring some means of causing a disastrous explosion as well.

I like the low house edge, smooth design and the option of investing in the bankroll. The latter might seem suspicious to potential investors, though, because you're new and it's thus unclear whether you are to be trusted (the provably fair game is one thing, sending out the payments to the winners and to investors is another). There are many websites these days, so you'll face strong competition, but good luck!
Even if the minimum bet is 25k Satoshi ($2.5 indeed seems too high, but I guess the owners got the message already), Bitcoin Lightning Network is worthy of consideration. Because the withdrawal and deposit Bitcoin fee can be worth a couple of such bets these days... And if the minimum bet is going to be reduced, it will be even more appropriate to think about the LN.

It's never a good idea to use the same password for different accounts, but this website you linked does not seem to pretend it's Sportsbet.io or something like that. It simply looks like a new website where people can bet on sports. Plus they seem to run on smart contracts, so it must be hard if not impossible for this website to scam people. They do have a quite similar dark background on the main page, but the logo's very different. As for the name, I think it's a general problem with casinos these days, it's probably hard to prove (=sue) that the name is unfairly close to the one of the known brand and can be misleading to customers. For instance, there's Bitcasino.io, Bitcoincasino.io, and Bitcoincasino.com with the former being the oldest one on the market if I am not mistaken.
I would choose Sportsbet.io over Sportbet.one, though, because the former has already gained the trust of the community.

I think that nowadays there's a range of solid websites that earned the trust of their customers and offer various games, good customer support, promos, etc. However, it's rare to see fancy animation, and I think it really brings something to the overall experience. Another thing is that there's a set of activities most of the websites offer, but it's very limited. Maybe it's because it's difficult to come up with a good way of monetizing other games, but I would like to see something like Monopoly on gambling websites, for instance. I guess it's related to what bill gator said - not only focusing on gamblers but trying to attract the attention of gamers in general.

The pop-up is a bit annoying, because it's something you instinctively try to close, and there's even no button to close it. Perhaps it would be better if a person saw this window about registration only after trying to bet, not at once. And I guess there should be a button for agreeing to Terms of Service of the website in the registration form. The website's design is plain but nice, I liked it. I was wondering whether you thought about making a small faucet or a welcome bonus for new users since the website is new and something has to encourage to try playing here.

It's a good question, and I've been asking myself that as well. Honestly, I don't know the answer, and some of the important points were already mentioned by others (such as a small period of time it all exists and way more media coverage for Bitcoin than for anything else). But I'd like to mention two other possible reasons. One of them is that altcoins are not that much of improvement in comparison with Bitcoin to be worthy of taking over the king's place. Another one is while alts can be interesting ideas to offer, the Bitcoin dev team is the strongest, offering the best protection they can, and people thus trust it more than altcoins (which can be great in theory but buggy in practice).