Prior to fiat currencies, the dominant currency was often the most useful, and therefore the most universally desirable, and therefore the most universally accepted commodity. There is zero need to decide whether Bitcoin is a currency, commodity, or store of value. It's clearly all of these.
Governments and regulators will no-doubt decide otherwise -- I'm simply speaking technical truth.

I've used bitcoin to pay for stuff when I wanted a degree of anonymity and when I did not trust the retailer enough to use a credit card. However IMO, using bitcoin for retail purchases is bad for bitcoin when the retailer (or the payment service) will immediately trade it for fiat, putting downward pressure on bitcoin's price. I think bitcoin's price and market cap needs to be much higher in order to reduce its price volatility and increase its utility as a medium of exchange.

Blockchain will require a HUGE increase in efficiency before it becomes commonplace. Visa uses the electric consumption equivalent of 50,000 homes (US) to process its billions of yearly transactions. The bitcoin blockchain consumes the electric equivalent of millions of homes to process a fraction of the transactions. The biggest obstacle to the adoption of blockchain will be environmentalists not banks.

Volatility will decrease over time as the market matures. Market maturing meaning the price will be many times what it is today as user adoption grows exponentially over the next 5-10 years.
Lightning Network will be used for daily payments and will be used like Android Pay and Apple Pay are used today. It will probably take a decade from say 2020 to 2030 for usage of Bitcoin as a payment medium to become a pretty mainstream thing.

I don't feel like these are relevant. They're not the same.

Bitcoin isn't a competitor of a Paypal. Paypal is not a currency. Paypal would essentially just be an online wallet if they supported Bitcoin, no?

You can spend Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) on any item or service that the provider will accept Bitcoin as payment. For Example, a bank will not allow you to pay your mortgage in cryptocurrency, but you may be able to purchase a house with cryptocurrency if the seller is willing to accept it.
Certain states, such as Vermont and Arizona, are beginning to allow cryptocurrency for tax payments, and many people are pushing the IRS to allow tax payments in cryptocurrency as well.
Also, one of the benefits of Bitcoin are to have an immutable historic record or payment, so it may be beneficial for large purchases while not as important for smaller, more average transactions such as purchasing a cup of coffee.

Bitcoin provides some anonymity but it’s up to bitcoiners where they want to be on the spectrum from fully anonymous to fully identified. Bitcoin transactions provide some clues which could be combined with other information to de-anonymize a user if they are not careful.

Lets be realistic, governments are not going to abandon fiat. Even if Bitcoin fulfils its potential it won't replace government created money, if anything it will pave the way for central bank cryptos that will still have an infinite supply.

Thats why we're here though, to safeguard against that.

The only thing that really makes Bitcoin different than the existing banking and financial transaction system, is that it is censorship resistant. It is that way because it is decentralized so that it cannot be shut down by pinpointing a few select points of failure, and putting the clamps on them. That's because it's peer to peer, and you verify transactions you receive yourself, and don't rely on some other entity to tell you if the transaction you received is correct or not. If running a node gets too expensive for most users to run, then they have to rely on third parties to verify transactions for them, like Coinbase, or Bitpay, or Blockchain.info. They then get power to force through even more centralizing pressure, strengthening their position until they are irreplaceable. What happens then when some powerful states come knocking, and demand a fork to redistribute all coins from a revolutionary party's wallets? Or that all fungibility features be removed? Or that the mining reward schedule be extended forever, to "stimulate growth", aka building a bubble during their rule so they get elected again? We would have completely lost our censorship resistant money. It's only when you at least have the option of verifying your own transactions, that the system is resistant to corruption.

Crypto is global and decentralised, but people who use it aren't. Regulating crypto means that you write laws on how people have to pay taxes on it, and what they need to do if they want to create it, trade it, and advertise it.
While there are well known examples of crypto that were started anonymously, nowadays most of the projects have founders known by name, and these founders will have to stay in line with the law, or move to a country that doesn't have such laws. Also, for exchanges, this means that if you're running an exchange, or an interface to a decentralised exchange, you will need to apply the laws, or move away from that country.

I’d recommend a hardware wallet or cold storage, hardware wallet generally being the easier of the two for someone not experienced in holding cryptocurrency. I use the Nano Ledger S which is easy to use and high quality but there are good alternatives out there.
Other options are using a hosted wallet (leaving your crypto on the built in exchange wallet normally) or a software wallet. I’d avoid both if you have enough bitcoin to care about losing it.

The future of Blockchain Industry can be imagined by thinking about a world where every computer system is connected via decentralized networks and systems which will not be centrally controlled by any individual or agency.
Imagine people buying groceries in exchange of cryptocurrency! Imagine where the usage percentage of fiat currency getting less than that of cryptocurrencies!
This is what could be the future of Blockchain in terms of Cryptocurrencies (the main feature of Blockchain right now).

There is nobody who is most likely the inventor. There are countless of people who could be, but it’s all debunked so that we can’t say. Also, many believe it’s not just one person. This is how I see it anyway.
Satoshi Nakamoto is a symbol. Everyone with piece of Bitcoin is Satoshi in a sense. The original inventor would be irrelevant if we are talking about truly decentralized currency.

 For the simply reason that they are not subject to central control or inflation. They are currently volatile because they are not all mined, there is a lot of speculation, few people use it and there is a lot of bad press against it. Once a country adopts a decentralized crypto currency, banks would be obsolete, so the people would have more money. Governments would not be able to print money to spend on their agendas and this way not contribute to inflation and people would always have more money by being their own banks.
 A cryptocurrency has limited supply, so has the need for currency increases and there is no more currency to add, the existing currency will increase in value.

Addresses aren't exactly created randomly, and there is a log of all of them, we call it the blockchain. But knowing an address is not enough to access coins, you also need authentication from the wallet that owns the coins.
It's kind of like how even though someone knows your mailing address, they can't get your mail delivered to them instead of you.

No, because there will always be a certain percentage of people who do not want to use bitcoin for whatever reason. It is clearly extremely important that people should have the freedom to choose and not be forced to use any currency against their will. The ideals of freedom and liberty are embedded in bitcoin's history and it would be massively self-contradictory to deny anyone the freedom to choose an alternative crypto, or fiat , or some combination if they so prefer rather than bitcoin.

 Bitcoin has it's place, and probably will for a long time. It has values that surpass the problems of transaction times and fees by a long shot. However... As far as it's usefulness as a day to day currency for anyone and everyone goes, it is absolutely dogshit, and that position will be taken up by another cryptocurrency (maybe one that exists now, maybe one that isn't even a thought yet).
 The thing is, that for Bitcoin to succeed in doing what it is good at, it doesn't care how many USD it is worth, so if enough people hold Bitcoin for those purposes, with it's limited supply the price will continue to rise. However as it's successors gain adoption according to their niches, there is the chance that in the end Bitcoin will be left by the wayside as the world realises that not only can these new 'coins' replace fiat currency, they also make Bitcoin obselete. The main thing Bitcoin has going for it is it has been around for a long time, and apart from scandals with exchanges, it is damn secure. Given time, other coins may approach the level of demonstrated security that Bitcoin has, and when that day comes it may be a bloodbath.

In theory, nobody. In practice, the large conglomerates of Pump and Dump traders that artificially push or pull prices before exiting at a favorable time. With enough hashing power you can “control” coins to a greater or lesser degree.

No. For assets to be stable, they rely on some form of non-speculative capital influx. Buying and holding is the cancer of crypto, barely better than trading. Buy crypto to buy things with it. Sure, you might have heard about people holding Bitcoin/Ethereum from not long ago and making lots, and you could regret not buying, but speculative hype is short lived and there is little to no inelastic demand backing up this price rise, meaning there’s no reason for it to stick around once speculators lose interest (as they inevitably do) and thus the price crashes.

 Cracking down on exchanges didnt stop people from buying crypto in China . and it will be same in India or any other country too. The main thing is Govt cannot decide where to put the value and where not. May be they put some road bumps . Wider adoption will take place eventually . DEX , regulations in some proactive economically solvent countries will push China or India to look back and revert their decision. For now , every mature crypto guy knows what to do . We have seen China and we shall overcome India too.