In fact, I find your thoughts strange to me, how do you say "you cannot just lose a large amount of fiat money - bank will not let this happen"? There are a lot of banks that have declared bankruptcy and people have lost a lot of money there without being able to do anything. You must remember the mortgage crisis in the United States in 2008. Many banks declared bankruptcy and the global economy was on the verge of collapse. The banks were closed and defaulted on their debts until the US government intervened to save the situation.
You can view the mortgage crisis here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Considering human error, there is a possibility of losing your private keys but I don't think that the system in place is not going to easily collapse just because of one human factor, maybe if multiple vulnerabilities are spotted and all exploited then there is a possibility of a collapse but I think an apocalypse will be possible because there are people that knows what they do are going to protect it and try to raise it back up.

These accidents can happen, whether for paper money or bitcoin, Bitcoin like any other currency can be lost, stolen or damaged for many reasons, paper money also can be damaged, lost or stolen, so what is the difference?
Banks also can be exposed to viruses or hackers via the Internet, and all money in bank accounts or credit cards can be stolen.
In the end, whether it is paper money, bank cards, or cryptocurrencies, you are the first responsible for protecting your money, at least you can protect bitcoin and cryptocurrencies yourself, but banks or bank cards cannot protect them yourself!

I do not agree with you on this point, it may be that storing significant funds in Bitcoin is unsafe in the short term, but it is completely profitable in the long term. Look at the price chart of Bitcoin in recent years and you will find that it is in a permanent rise, it is true that there are periods of correction and decline in prices in a manner Large but in the end the general trend of Bitcoin is bullish. This can be clearly seen.
There are many people and rich economists who had the same idea that Bitcoin was not safe to store big money, but now they are starting to change their minds, and this is evident from the increasing global adoption of Bitcoin by the big company and rich men.

I didn't like the idea. Honestly, going back to the old system in a twisted and reversed way, I only believe in one thing: “You don't own your private key = you don't own your coins”.
What is the benefit of placing Bitcoin in banks? We will be forced in this case to deal with banks again and return from decentralization to centralization, and there will of course be no possibility for a privacy preserver, if we lose these things, we will have lost Bitcoin in reality.
I am sure that there will be much better solutions in the future for the problems of network congestion, delays in transactions, and high fees, but surely the solution will not be to return to the banking system.

As you should, because LN is not where you should store all or most of your coins in the first place, as you should only use LN transactions for day-to-day transactions. The same reason why you don't leave literally all your money in your cash wallet because of the risks of your wallet getting lost/stolen and whatnot.

LN wallet = physical pocket wallet
Hardware wallet = bank account

Well, if you don't like the idea that brought up Bitcoin to existence then why would it even be an interest of yours? Nobody forces you personally to use crypto either. But forcing an artificial centralization of the Bitcoin supply (or mining hashrate) is an idea I certainly don't like. Let's just not include the criminal banks even here into discussion.

I don't think Bitcoin will become a reserve currency, unless its controlled only by a few people, making it more centralized, and something to represent value rather than having value simply by acting as a currency should. The only way we can really stop this is via adoption, and encouraging investment into Bitcoin, which is something the news outlets, and various organizations are campaigning against.

Not to mention the amount of times I've heard Bitcoin is a bubble, and its going to burst soon. Like traditional currencies, and any technology for that matter doesn't have some sort of events resembling a "bubble". They ignore that bubbles can actually be beneficial for traders, and that other currencies also have bubbles as that's the natural pattern of currencies. However, Bitcoin is more volatile in the amount that it can rise, and drop which is also part of the reason it appeals to speculative traders.

I believe that there is logic in your words and I am not going to refute your words. If we talk about Bitcoin as the new world money, then you need to understand that in addition to security, there is another very important factor. And this is the adoption of BTC as, say, the reserve currency in the world. That is, it is not we who decide this, but the heads of state. At the moment, I have not yet heard official statements about Bitcoin from world leaders, which means that at the official level, hardly anyone considers BTC as money. As a new asset for saving money, perhaps yes, but as the world's money is unlikely. And there is also a logical explanation for this. The fact is that in the future we are likely to return to currency zones and there is a possibility that there will no longer be a global reserve currency.

What you have stated as your arguments is not unique, I have been reading it for 7 years since I became interested in cryptocurrencies - no one can even count how many times someone called Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, multi level marketing, rat poison squared or in the end say that Bitcoin is dead. I have already stated my arguments, the fact that you refuse to accept anything other than the idea of a crypto apocalypse that you have in your head is a completely different problem.

I can't predict the future, but I'm pretty sure that Bitcoin isn't something that can in any way jeopardize the system you're talking about - it will sooner or later collapse on its own.

As I already wrote, you are obviously under the influence of garbage served by some obscure sites - what you are writing here now is already so worn out that it no longer makes sense. Stop reading garbage like this -> Bitcoin mining rigs now LOSING money daily as the Bitcoin Ponzi scheme continues to unravel

No I don't think you're right about assumptions here. I agree infinitely up and down are two equal possibilities, but to me the more likely case is something in between.

Firstly, either probability even if it does happen, won't be in this life. We'll all be dead then.

Secondly, a virus killing all bitcoin? Even if possible, Bitcoin will resurrect. And as you said, even worse risk for banks etc.

Finally on security? 100% confidence, and much less so in any other alternative.

In some of the most optimistic calculations, Bitcoin is used by perhaps about 2% of the world's population, which would amount to just under 160 million people in the world - slightly more than the total population of Germany and France. What you imagine will probably never happen, because Bitcoin is just an alternative, and it's too complicated for the average person today, as it will be in 10 years in the future.

The example of Germany and Japan shows that it should not be integrated into a system to the extent that it threatens it, peaceful coexistence is completely normal and possible. Fiat will not disappear, and it is foolish to even think in the direction of replacing it with BTC - most countries will issue their CBDCs anyway.
Everyone takes a risk, and if you think Bitcoin has no future just don't have anything to do with it - your government is forcing you to use the national currency, it's not a matter of choice - on the other hand no one is forcing you to use Bitcoin or any other altcoin.

Every government functions differently. It should be sufficient for them to engage someone to audit it regularly. If anything, SolarWinds just proves how easy it is to do something like this, if it gets to Bitcoin.

Having government adopting Bitcoin is an unrealistic expectation, defeats the purpose of fiat in an economy and probably isn't desirable given that capital flows can't be controlled any longer. Technological barrier and security is honestly not their main concern. Bitcoin can survive in its current stage, you can't create vulnerabilities out of thin air; if you can sufficiently minimize the attack vectors, then there wouldn't be a big issue.

I'm almost certain that most people would be answering no for the most parts. Reading the source codes line by line is not feasible; Windows is not open source and reading the codes of any Linux distribution is tedious to say the least. If you are that paranoid, then it would be difficult for you to feel safe.

That is unfortunately how Bitcoin actually works and the truth is that you can probably never be fully secure. The only thing that most people can do is to try to reduce the attack vectors and its possible surfaces; cold wallets isolates itself and preventing communication to the outside world. Generating sufficient entropy yourself puts RNG problems out of the equation, though you'll have to trust that the process to convert it to a private key isn't compromised.

If you are actually that paranoid, then you can probably take some time trying to learn and read it. Not going to comment on how many people would actually do this, but it is a way to eliminate most doubts.

No my friend... Alt coins are a natural extension of this technology. You should know all other technologies gets ripped off ...after the patent expire or when it is Open source like this. We (Bitcoin supporters) should embrace Alt coins that might experiment with new ideas and new concepts that might be added to Bitcoin to strengthen it.  

I see Alt coins as the breeding ground for new innovation that might some day improve Bitcoin's code. Let them copy the code and change it all they want, we can use that to our advantage.    (Loads of them fail and some are pump n dump coins... but they never survive long, before they are exposed.)  

Same as above, centralized custodial service to hold bitcoin is pointless when you can use the same service to hold fiat. Why bother with bitcoin then?

What you call "bank" already happened a long time ago with services such as Coinbase and other custodial wallets. They will be used by some people as long as price keeps going up. The day price reaches a more stable state (ie. when mass adoption occurs) these services become obsolete.

Using a second layer solution is the only way that we can scale bitcoin. If LN is not completely safe right now it doesn't mean it is unsafe as a solution.

To become a reserve currency will need a long time because I do not think that the government will easily approve bitcoin to be their currency. The government may approve bitcoin as a commodity like stock and else, but they need to research more or discuss with other instancies of using bitcoin as their currency.

As a regular user who uses bitcoin now, I only use bitcoin to trade, which is buy and sell, make a profit, and send the profit to my bank account. That is more complex if we think about the whole thing that might happen to bitcoin because that is out of our expectations, and even if that is happening in the future, I am not sure we still alive.

What you are saying can happen in the future, but we as a user need to take care and responsibility to our bitcoin, including what we used. It is like we save the money in the bank, and the bank will guard the money and responsible for the money. But this time, because bitcoin is a self-manage thing, that will be our responsibility to guarding, take care of, and know how to use it properly, so we do not give a chance for the thief or other bad people who want to steal our bitcoin. Even if the hacker tries to hack our wallet or our OS or anything we use, we do not have to worry as long as we can take care of what we have.

It is enough if we can use the benefit of bitcoin without thinking about the thing that maybe happen if we use it in the wrong way. Let the expert solve that, and we as a user only need to use it carefully. That is what I think of a regular user.