If someone clearly has enough income to cover expenses, I think starting from income, as the op suggests, can be a good idea. But if one is currently living off savings, I think one should start with determining the realistic minimum monthly expenses (mainly, the rent, the bills, food costs, transportation costs), and then consider how much one is earning vs how much is required. This can help set simple goals of what kind of job a person needs to cover the expenses. And then the excess can be used for other achievable goals.

Whether you need higher education or not depends on what sort of job you expect to have in the future and what kind of country you live in. In my country, higher education is highly accessible because it's public, so free for tons of people. But not having any kind of higher education is a major problem if you want an intellectual job. You don't need to have specific education, usually, but it's good to have a higher education diploma because it shows that you are capable of learning new stuff, you are organized enough to meet deadlines, you have at least some soft if not hard skills. I think most intellectual job descriptions require it.
Bitcoin can be good for savings, I think, but obtaining higher education might still be important.

Bitcoin is safer and more decentralized, but Ethereum is also a very big project, so I'm sure they're watching out for security risks, too. Also, Ethereum transaction fee is around $1, much lower than what Bitcoin transaction fee has been lately. To many people, this can be an important point when making a choice. As for potential of growth, it seems to me that Ethereum roughly matches BTC ups and downs and does so at a similar proportion (Ethereum is currently 52% below ATH, and Bitcoin is 39% below ATH, but it's close enough). That means Ethereum is a decent investment option, even if not the best one.

I find an ETF rejection to be realistic, and that can upset some people. So yeah, maybe we'll see a small and temporary price decrease, but I hope it won't be anything big because nothing changes in practice. It's not the same as with Tesla a few years ago, when Musk actually announced a big investment in Bitcoin and adoption of Bitcoin as payment, and then pulled out. This time, an ETF was not approved and then rejected; the price went up in anticipation, not because of real change, so I'm hopeful that a rejection won't have a major impact.

Something is very off with the price, although the most expensive car in the world does cost a very similar amount of money, and with taxes in various countries, it could cost $28 million. To be honest, if someone has so much money, I don't think this person is buying a car to reduce transport cost. I also don't think this person needs to invest because that's well enough for one's whole life, and this money could be used to do something good for society. I agree with fellow forum members who suspect the story is made up.
As for purchasing a car in general, I think people should avoid doing that even when they can afford it because cars hurt the environment and take up too much space on the streets.

I agree with those asking the op to share more information about the calculations. While it makes sense that some people cash out near Christmas because they want to buy presents for their families and friends, there are very different ways to calculate the price increase/decrease. If it's a 24-hour change, I think it's way too short. If it's a 7-day change, that's a different story. But let's also not forget that in many countries the New Year is a bigger holiday than Christmas, so perhaps the whole period between Christmas and the New Year should count as a period of interest.
I also want to point out that while the op's results show a decrease in 4 out of 6 cases, only once the decrease is significant (in 2021). Minor decreases or increases don't really matter, in my opinion, because they happen all the time.

I think a guide on manual management of fees in different non-custodial wallets would be useful, considering that the fee topic is very relevant right now. I've encountered some issues when trying to use the advanced fee settings on Electrum, and the recommendations I've seen online didn't cover what I needed. So a comprehensive guide that covers topics like where to find out about fees (Mempool), how to set the fees manually, how to use additional features like increasing fees of unconfirmed transactions could be useful.

Game 1:  37, 23'
Game 2:  37, 34'

It's always nice to see businesses adopting Bitcoin as a form of payment. Your shop sells parts for vehicles, so I assume transactions won't be particularly small? In that case, on-chain fees might be okay, although it can still be inconvenient for people to wait for a transaction confirmation if you simply use a BTC address. So you'd need to figure out for yourself how to do it best. Maybe an off-chain solution, maybe pre-payments online, maybe zero-confirmation transactions below a certain amount of money.

It's technically possible to issue a stablecoin and back it up with real physical assets, but there are issues with it. If it's issued by one government, other countries with their governments won't be happy to use it. If it's issued by a corporation, as the op suggested in one reply, then there's a problem here because corporations are profit-oriented and will do whatever they can legally get away with for profit. There's also a big issue of trust to the corporation, and if people don't trust it, they won't use that currency.
So, in the end, it's hard to make such a currency practical.

I disagree with Hayes. For starters, Bitcoin ETFs weren't approved yet. Furthermore, it's a centralized solution for traditional investors, the way I see it, so it won't really compete with proper Bitcoin and its usage by people who care about privacy and decentralization. If the number of transactions goes down due to ETF popularity, I think it's fantastic news because the fees would go down as well. As for miners, if some decide to leave, it's totally fine because the difficulty rate will adjust. Bitcoin will be just fine, no matter how popular ETFs get.

Op, I don't think they're getting full payments, especially if you mean full BTC payments. Not all the funds were recovered. From this article, it seems that only 21% of the money that was on the exchange in 2014 is actually the amount of payouts. It's 142,000 BTC, while there used to be 850,000 BTC. From some calculations I've seen online, it looks like the victims will still get some gains in comparison with how much they had in 2014, somewhere around a 9x-10x boost. But maybe I misunderstood the numbers.
The fact that they're getting anything at all after all those years is already very good, IMO, as money lost in scams and hacks is usually lost completely with no hope of getting any of it back.

I'd say that a thing requiring clarification is when people use 'cryptocurrency' and 'Bitcoin' interchangeably, and then apply what goes for Bitcoin to cryptos in general. And then this confusion leads to misconceptions about cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, but, as we know, there are plenty of others. Bitcoin is a relatively safe investment, it attracts serious investors, it is very decentralized etc. But that doesn't hold for cryptos in general. Some are more or less popular, volatile, or centralized than others. So assuming that cryptos are a relatively safe investment in general or that they're all decentralized are big misconceptions because Bitcoin isn't like the rest of cryptos.

The current fees aren't as high as many believe them to be. If you look at Mempool, that's one picture, whereas websites tracking average transaction fees report significantly higher figures, and some people simply follow what they see as average from those websites, overpaying for transactions. Then there are fee recommendations by wallets, and Electrum tends to recommend me around $10 as a minimum (ETA), whereas people often pay the maximum.
The fee situation isn't great, but it's perceived to be worse than it really is because of such things.

Bitcoin halving will happen for sure, but the ETF approval, while considered likely, it still something undecided. While an event of ETF approval can boost the price even further, in my opinion, halving doesn't automatically lead to a higher price. I expect 2024 to be a good year for Bitcoin, perhaps a year of gradual growth with occasional setbacks caused by something we can't predict right now (like a crash of an exchange, introduction of some regulations by countries with high crypto usage, etc.).
As for hodling vs selling, it's not a dilemma to me because you can always keep some and sell some.

Wikipedia can be okay as a starting ground for further research, but it's best to refer to a topic that is popular and not controversial. If it's a neutral but unpopular topic, someone may have written something that nobody really bothered to check and correct. If it's controversial, a lot depends on the admins, who can have their own biases and make different kinds of decisions.
It's unfortunate that reasonable edits are being reverted by someone. It's counterproductive.
The op's story is a good reminder that it's important to fact-check Wikipedia information.

To be honest, similar matters have been discussed in multiple threads before. I have a spouse who can access my BTC, and I also hope that someone else from the family will be able to figure out how to do it in case something happens to both of us. We trust each other, so it's not really a problem for me. And we similarly have access to each other's bank accounts, so Bitcoin isn't different in that regard.
If you don't have anyone you can trust with this, perhaps writing a letter of inheritance and mention the important information in it, so that it can be dealt with when you're gone.

I like the op's idea, it looks like the op thought of different aspects and came up with a reasonable solution. Of course, not a full solution, because many wouldn't consider a transaction finally getting through after a couple of days a win, but it would be an improvement, I believe.
As for the fees, they are still higher than desirable, but they're not outrageously high if one follows mempool.space instead of going by websites that track average fees or by wallet recommendations, that seem particularly off lately (at least on Electrum).
That being said, I support bitmover's point that it's also important to address the matter of Ordinals directly.

Binance really seemed like an exchange that was trying to comply with the regulations and even follow sanctions initially. But then came allegations and investigations that Binance is helpful for evading the US sanctions, and it seems that Binance didn't do enough to prevent that from happening (and, judging from the article, sometimes even helped high-level clients to keep using Binance). What's good about this case is that the fall of CZ did not take Binance down. Binance will be supervised but will continue to operate, and 18 months isn't a big jail term.

It's a situation that isn't likely to occur naturally. Some things I can think of are the collapse of the global Internet, or perhaps a huge leap in quantum computing, but I don't expect those things to happen. If nobody, for some reason, can access their BTC, Bitcoin loses all of its liquidity, and the price kind of freezes because nobody can sell and make it lower, but BTC becomes worthless because you can't buy it, can't sell it, can't do anything with it. But then, in reality, it all depends on a cause. If the cause has to do with the Internet or even electricity worldwide, it's probably the end of cryptos. If it's quantum computing, new coins with stronger encryption can appear, and it would be the end of Bitcoin (assuming that all BTC is lost), but not the end of cryptos.