Like the title says, he did it inadvertently - what happened is that there was a list of blockchain's influential people and the name of Satoshi Nakamoto was included, but "Craig Wright" was not, and then Craig Wright twitted that he wasn't included on that list, meaning that he doesn't think about himself as Satoshi Nakamoto. So, it wasn't a direct confession, but it's another piece of puzzle called "Craig Wright is a scammer".

If you mean only the network fees, than it will depend on whether we will have some very efficient scalability solution like Lightning Network so we could have near-zero fee transactions - without it on-chain transactions will eventually get very expensive since the blockchain space will always be limited. But there's also a problem with conversion fees - when you want to send Bitcoin to someone, you first have to pay fees for buying it, than your receiver will have to pay fees for selling it, and sometimes the USD price of BTC in some countries is lower than on western exchanges. So, for Bitcoin to be cheaper than fiat systems, it should get widely adopted so there won't be any need to convert it to spend it.

Well, it's a fact that a few Parliament members own BTC - it's just my speculation that there can be more. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole government is pro-Bitcoin - there are a total of 450 MP's and their votes are often influenced by oligarchs. Also, there wasn't much talk about cryptocurrencies in Ukraine if you'd compare it with Russia and how we've been hearing news from there almost every week. Before this bill was drafted the government almost didn't care about Bitcoin and people could and still can do whatever they like with it.

Bcash supporters are getting desperate these days, because the true Bitcoin keeps growing despite the FUDsters saying that it needs to scale right now (which means compromising it's core value - security, for some short term gain in capacity), while their altcoin keeps falling lower in lower in its BTC value. Bcash even starts looking like some ponzi scheme - in order to survive some more time it needs to recruit new supporters asap, and the easiest way to do this is to confuse newcomers by declaring it the true Bitcoin on a site with a name "Bitcoin.com.

It depends on the definition of cryptotourism. If it includes using third party services like Xapo or Bitpay, as well as exchanging Bitcoin on local exchanges or via other means, than it's not hard and close to traveling with only your credit card and no cash. However, if cryptotourism means only using on-chain transactions for all spendings, than your options will be very limited, you will have to plan your routes accordingly and many places will be out of your reach. Since cryptocurrencies haven't reached mass adoption, it may be too early this kind of cryptotourism can be very inconvenient and only attracting for cryptoenthusiasts who love some challenge.

Bitcoin can briefly touch $7,000 in the next weeks, but as always reaching a new ATH is usually followed by some short period of correction so when you combine it with uncertainty of the fork it will result in some slowing down of the price rise. But the price also shouldn't drop too much before the fork, since many traders see it as an opportunity to get free coins, so we shouldn't drop below $5,000 before the fork will happen. But Bitcoin has proven to be quite volatile so going above $7,000 or below $5,000 is also possible.

This is a good opportunity for people who are ready to face some risks, but for me it's kinda too uncertain - there's still one month before the fork and a lot can change, maybe something will force exchanges to change their stance on SegWit2x, maybe the fork itself will get canceled or it will be so disruptive that it will lead to some loss of funds for exchanges. For example, Bitfinex credited only 0.85 of BCH for each Bitcoin due to their mess up with margin positions. Since there are so many parties involved in SegWit2x, I'm sure that its price will be supported and even pumped for long so most people would be able to dump it like it happened with BCH. I don't see any need to face risks, unless you want to trade as soon as markets will open to catch some pump.

You are right, many people here are taking security too lightly, they think that a company that holds giant amounts of money should just have an office in some building because "Bitcoin is on the blockchain". I guess they don't think that data can be stolen by physical means, starting from plain robbery at gunpoint and ending with sophisticated side-channel attacks or infiltration. There's no such thing as too much security and we definitely don't want to see another Gox-like incident with Bitcoin.

It will definitely cause a dump. Coinbase will release BCH not because they support it but because it's their duty as custodian, and they will just let people move their BCH from the exchange if they have any due to hodling coins during the fork - it's not the same as listing it. BCH survived still because most people didn't want to bother dealing with its software to get some additional 6% of their Bitcoin value - Bitcoin itself is growing by dozens of percents per month. But if Coinbase will release BCH coins, it will increase the actual supply of BCH since there won't be any need to go through the process of claiming it, so it will crash the price unless Jihan Wu and Roger Ver will decide to pump their stillborn creation again.

As for BTC, it simply doesn't care about altcoins, because Bitcoin is the king of crypto.

This is just getting ridiculous now, I think the Bitcoin community should learn to ignore obvious naysayers instead of giving them attention that they seek by arguing with them, or turning them into some kind of anti-celebrity like it happened with  Jamie Dimon. Bitcoin is meant to be stronger than FUD and the flawed argument about bubble or ponzi scheme was around since early days, so there's nothing here that deserves out attention.

This bill hasn't been voted yet so it's still remains uncertain whether it will pass but in general Ukraine is much more liberal than Russia as its government is not obsessed with controlling citizens in a totalitarian way - everyone who has even a little bit of power just wants to protect and increase their wealth, usually accumulated through corruption. And Bitcoin doesn't seem to be a threat to this cleptocracy, and in fact some MP's already own a big amounts of it, while many others might own it secretly - just like they do with offshore bank accounts.

There are a few possibilities. National and private cryptocurrencies can bring more attention to decentralized cryptocurrencies and serve as gateway for them. They can also help fight a myth that cryptocurrencies are bubble and ponzi scheme, because the launch of national cryptocurrencies would mean that the technology is sound. But there's also a possibility that national cryptocurrencies would be very centralized and have very few things in common with decentralized cryptocurrencies, and their proponents might use it to criticize the last ones. And right now it's not clear what effect will be more noticeable.

Indeed, it seems like SPV clients might be vulnerable to this segwit2x attack

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/60360/segwit2x-btc1-block-header-changes-wipeout-protection-for-spv-nodes

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/46#issuecomment-312067571

So far segwit2x developers did everything to ensure that their hard fork will be as contentious as possible, and attack on SPV clients was exactly their goal.

Some time ago Electrum added a new feature called Multiple Chain Validation (MCV) which should allow Electrum clients to distinguish between different Bitcoin chains - https://electrum.org/bcc.txt

Also, I'd advice all SPV users to avoid doing any transactions after the hardfork and wait until the situation will resolve.

Crypto journalists like to overdramatize every Bitcoin price moves, but anyone who has been into Bitcoin for a while knows that volatility has always been there. There are many possibilities why Bitcoin dropped after reaching the new ATH - it might have been just a usual correction, or maybe it's a reactions to some news not yet known to the public. Either way there's no reason to worry for hodlers, and as for traders - they shouldn't base their decisions on media and get some better sources instead.

Most public casinos feature provably fair system and if you use it correctly for your bets, it's a pretty good guarantee that you won't get scammed. Perhaps the things are different with fiat online casinos, since they rely on licensed software. But to me invite-only casinos sound quite suspicious, because lower amount of players means more variety for casino, and casinos really don't like variety - so such casinos might have more incentives to cheat, especially if there are any whales.

Of course he says that, it's the same Ben Bernanke who was advocating and performing economic interventionism for all those years, and he's a huge fan of printing more money. So it's no wonder that he hates Bitcoin because it strips people like him from both the power to control economy and print more money. It is obvious that he would bash Bitcoin for it and use all sorts of arguments to discourage people from using it. One of those strategies is to tell that blockchain is valuable while Bitcoin is not while in fact it's the opposite - blockchain without decentralization and mining is just a distributed ledger with public key cryptography, which is not enough to solve problems of trust and security entirely.

From the point of view of traders and investors it's close to a commodity like gold, since it's scarce and indestructible, and both gold and Bitcoin are different from assets like stocks and bonds which are meant to bring profit on their own, unlike commodities who have only speculative opportunity.
However, from a technical point of view it's definitely a currency, since it's a token of the network that was created to make transactions on the Internet. Bitcoin can serve as a settlement layer for building new networks with different properties, like Lightning Network for micropayments, smart contracts, decentralized exchanges and so on.
So, the best answer is that Bitcoin is Bitcoin, it can exhibit different properties in different situations so you can't say it's only something one all the time.

If any illegal money played big role in Bitcoin, governments would just ban it quickly. I know a lot of people like to repeat "you can't ban Bitcoin", but you can ban exchanges and prohibit any operations with it, which would hurt it's liquidity and attractiveness as an investment. But the key feature of Bitcoin also makes it ill-suited for large scale illegal activities - publicity. If authorities will be able to deduce BTC address of a criminal (for example by asking an exchange), they would then be able to trace those coins and block any attempts to exchange them for fiat or spend them at places that comply with regulations.

This is an interesting topic and I'm sure that in the near future professional economists will be doing research about the structure of Bitcoin economy. But until then we can only get some very rough estimates. Most results put Bitcoin user base at around 2-3 million active users, which is actually not far off from your predictions in original post! Also, as of today Coinbase is reporting 11,200,000 users.

"Foreign cryptocurrencies"
Just think about it, those people who claim to represent entrepreneurs (while in fact they are just sock puppets of the state) don't even understand that cryptocurrencies don't nationality, they don't have any physical location or people who control them from a certain country - they are spread across the world and anyone is free to join. Russia is very paranoid and previously there were comments coming from their officials that Bitcoin might have been developed by CIA to undermine Russia, so this statement kinda repeats it. And the part about "domestic virtual currency" clearly references the rumored CryptoRuble, which will be just a centralized state-owned payment system.