The technology clearly isn't there for us to currently worry about the quantum computing threat to Bitcoin, and hopefully, there will indeed be enough time and opportunity to develop better algorithms in case that threat gets more real.
The Twitter thread suggests the tech is decades away, but I think that we actually can't know that at all. Tourist trips to Mars also seemed decades away in the 1970s, and yet here we are nowhere near that point. But I think quantum computing is even more difficult because it really requires a breakthrough in understanding of quantum mechanics, not just a good engineering solution.

It's good to see that courts work alright in some countries, and people get charged with financial crimes when they're guilty. This guy caused a lot of pain to a lot of people, so it's important to punish fraud to ensure that others understand the risks. That being said, he's basically facing a life sentence, and I've said it before that I don't think people who aren't guilty of violent crimes should have huge prison sentences. What's important is to return money to the victims, and a guy like SBF could be more useful generating wealth than being kept on taxpayers' money for decades while rotting in prison.

It's clearly impossible, at least with the current level of technological development. I see that some say it's impossible in principle, but I don't know about that. In any case, that's certainly not something a person would actually worry about when generating a seed phrase. More realistic concerns are forgetting where you put that phrase, accidentally sharing it with someone else because of storing digitally, getting your seed phrase lost by some other means (accidentally destroying the copy, for instance), etc. A storing decision is very personal, and people should analyse what they think is the likeliest risk for them, but someone guessing the phrase isn't worth any thought.

Ukrainian banks set some restrictions at the beginning of the full-scale invasion, but bank cards continued working (except for areas where electricity and/or internet was/is out due to Russian attacks), and banks totally work in Ukraine.
Binance was very kind to suggest financial aid for some Ukrainians, but that's an initiative of a specific business, it's not really a Bitcoin thing. So yeah, crypto businesses and charities can be helpful, but Bitcoin itself is just sometimes useful for things like beating inflation or relocating because it's digital and independent of fiat.

I don't think it's unethical to track those transactions, considering that they're public and transparency is important, but, like a lot of people here, I don't do it myself. I don't want to dedicate time to it, but it's not just that. There are groups and accounts that do it for everyone, so it's not time-consuming to simply follow their updates, but I don't do that because I don't care about that.
I think those whale alert things are largely useless and meaningless, they don't impact the price and don't signify much because we often don't know the purpose of the transfer.

I find it weird that the op's talking about contemporary marketing but provides last-century examples like newspapers, radio, and TV. I'd say that social media marketing is more relevant these days, and the usage of AI algorithms to predict demand and cater recommendations to specific users deserve special attention.
But, to be honest, I don't think Blockchain is a big deal in this specific area. There was a time of excitement and anticipation over how blockchain can revolutionize lots of areas, but it seems that we now know that it was overly optimistic, and sometimes it's just not the most efficient thing.

I consider myself an average person. I'm fairly careful and attentive, but not extra careful, and my understanding of financial operations is generally pretty basic. I've only had to reverse a transaction once on my life, and that was because of a bug when I was paying with card in a supermarket in a foreign country, when the first transaction seemingly didn't go through, and then I was charged the same amount of money twice. Such a bug would not have occurred with blockchain, so it's an exception.

In general, I don't think much of reversibility of financial transactions and don't need this feature. It's not easy to do anyway, as one needs to convince the bank that there was a mistake. As for crypto transactions, there are indeed some nice stories of mistakes getting resolved.
To me, BTC irreversibility is neutral: I don't benefit from it, but I'm okay with it.

I'm not American and not a Kraken user, thankfully, but if you read the terms of service of exchanges, you can often notice that they reserve the rights to do all sorts of monitoring and share their data with various third parties, especially authorities. It's the downside of KYC and of centralized exchanges.
In this case, at least it's limited by transaction volume, although the limits are quite low over a course of a year, and I suppose the IRS is asking for that, so that they can act on it and fine those who haven't paid their taxes properly?

I've heard that some people are concerned that these might be the first steps toward gradual limitation of regional prices altogether, but I think it's too early to worry about that.
Also, the pricing for these countries will still be regional, just more stable. Bitcoin is also sort of volatile, and considering that games usually don't cost much, the fees can be significant.
I also wanted to point something out: as a person who uses local fiat to pay for games on Steam, I've noticed that the prices are only technically in local fiat and the payments are also only technically in local fiat. What actually happens is that you see the price in local fiat, but when you pay, the money is actually converted according to an unseen USD price via double conversion, so the amount withdrawn is not the amount shown as the price. I know this because, by default, our local banks block double conversion transactions, and it's something you need to specifically turn on to pay on Steam. So, as I see it, what sort of was the case already is now simply getting revealed without the pretence of local payments.

13. Jailton Almeida
12. Nicolas Dalby
11. Rodrigo Nascimento
10. Caio Borralho
9. Rodolfo Vieira
8. Ismael Bonfim
7. Elves Brener
6. Daniel Marcos
5. Elizeu Zaleski dos Santos
4. Vitor Petrino
3. Angela Hill
2. Eduarda Moura
1. Marc Diakiese

NOT go the Full Distance 5

In general, I like it when major religious and philosophical frameworks can be used to explicate and justify positive phenomenons for a lot of people to whom such contextualization can be important. So, in that sense, I like the reference to creation out of nothing. But it's important to not go too far and to ensure that there's no false information included. What do you mean regarding a Genesis block, and Israel and Gaza? In the post, it sounds confusing. In the paper itself, it's mentioned more as a chronological coincidence (but, again, where's a link to the proof?), but it's still going too far, in my opinion, into completely irrelevant things.
Also, it's important to understand that it's more of a persuasion strategy than actual stuff, and that in very similar ways very bad things can be justified, which is widely explored in dystopian novels (a couple of examples that come to mind are Handmaid's Tale and Unwind, both of which have Christianity-based justifications of terrible stuff).

Game 1:  33, 19'
Game 2:  33, 36'
Game 3:  33, 33'

People usually use debit cards, not credit cards in my country, so when a person's paying with a card, it's usually this person's money on it. I've never used a credit card, but there were times when I used cash more vs times when I used card payments more. I think that if one needs to stick to a rough budget, it's easier to use cash because you just take a certain amount with you and that's it, but in other situations, it doesn't really matter. Also, it's more of a matter of financial management rather than financial literacy to me because literacy is about more than sticking to a budget.

When I read the post, I assumed it was going to be an old, 70+ person. But he's not just 70+, he's 99 years old! So that's a person who's lived most of his life without the Internet, let alone cryptocurrencies. He's also clearly a person of a very different story of successful investments, the traditional stocks worked really well for him. So I won't even hold it against him that he doesn't get Bitcoin investments and is pissed that Bitcoin grew so much. He's literally a man of the past era, and his opinion is based on his life experience, which largely occurred without Bitcoin, within the system Bitcoin's trying to undermine.

When the pandemic was announced, Bitcoin went down, way down. But then it recovered pretty quickly and bloomed. When Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it didn't seem to have any significant impact on the price, but there were some ups and then a lot of downs. The Hamas attack on Israel also didn't seem to have any immediate impact, and while the price seems to be climbing up lately, I think it's due to ETF anticipation rather than due to that war. So, in my opinion, the price of Bitcoin seems to move independently of global destabilization events like wars and the pandemic.

I've checked my email and was pleased to see that I actually got nothing of that sort, even though I've opened a few accounts on crypto exchanges over the years. People need to be extra careful because of how sophisticated email scams can be these days (including an option of looking as if it's from a corporate email, unless a company specifically ensured that it's not possible), and there are a lot of actual promos for Halloween all over the place, such as special deals and discounts at shops, cafés, etc.
And while the fact of scams is common knowledge, some days require extra attention, so thanks, op, for posting.

When you're using a currency, you don't normally care about its value. One fiat currency can have a lot less purchasing power than a different fiat currency, but if you're in a country there one is used and the other isn't, you'll use the one with less purchasing power because what matters is its liquidity, not purpose. I don't think the whole 'return to the banks' purpose bit is convincing.
When you buy a bicycle for 100 units, you need to be sure that you'll be able to exchange these 100 units for something else, that people will be willing to take it. Exchanging Bitcoin for goods directly can be tricky, but selling BTC for something else is really simple, so it does have high liquidity and can function as a medium of exchange.

I do agree that cryptos are safer in times of war than real estate, for obvious reasons. However, a war might be accompanied by blackouts, a food crisis, and a lack of trust into digital forms of money, in which case a person may find it hard to access the funds in Bitcoin sometimes, and that can be a problem. It still doesn't make real estate better, but it's something to keep in mind. As for mortgage in an event of destruction, I got interested in my country's case (Ukraine), and apparently, you still need to pay mortgage, but you can then apply to get a compensation from the state for the ruined property.

I expect Bitcoin to go properly bullish (as in, gain value really fast, leading up to a new ATH along the way) one year from now. That's based purely on analysis of previous bullish markets, but it's dubious and can be interpreted in different ways, I realize that. A sudden ETF approval may speed up the process and boost the price, although I don't think it would be enough to drive the market all the way to the new ATH. Another ETF rejection would likely have some negative impact, but I think it would only be temporary and fairly mild. So I don't think it's a big deal.

I don't listen to any of the so-called experts because they make mistakes all the time, and because it's simply impossible to make rational guesses about Bitcoin price and whether the bottom has been reached. It feels like Bitcoin has moved past the bottom point, and over time, the bottom seems to be at a higher price point, so I don't expect a return to the previous one.
Of course, though, it depends on global events. If something like a full-on WWIII hits the world, as the op hypothesizes, I think we can see a lower bottom time than right now, and possibly even the end of relevance of cryptos if that war gets nuclear and basically destroys human civilization as we know it. But in that case, Bitcoin will be the least of our worries.