Federal prosecutors alleged that Ulbricht had paid $730,000 in murder-for-hire deals targeting at least five people,[29] allegedly because they threatened to reveal Ulbricht's Silk Road enterprise.[36] Prosecutors believe no contracted killing actually occurred.[29] Ulbricht was not charged in his trial in New York federal court with any murder-for-hire,[29][37] but evidence was introduced at trial supporting the allegations.[29][38] The evidence that Ulbricht had commissioned murders was considered by the judge in sentencing Ulbricht to life, and was a factor in the Second Circuit's decision to affirm the life sentence.[38] A separate indictment against Ulbricht in federal court in Maryland on a single murder-for-hire charge, alleging that he contracted to kill one of his employees (a former Silk Road moderator),[39] was dismissed with prejudice by prosecutors in July 2018, after his New York conviction and sentence became final.[40][41]

No, I wouldn't. To get a driver's license you need to go through medical exams (which incidentally you don't need to get a gun in the  US), and there are laws against "driving under the influence" or "driving while intoxicated". So while driving you're always assuming the risk to get pulled over, especially if you're driving erratically, while that doesn't happen if you're carrying.

If people were looking at something safe I am pretty sure they wouldn't put all of their money into some "code". I know that there is much more to bitcoin and all of crypto then just being a code, but the reality is that we are literally talking about trusting more to Satoshi's code then we trust government backed banks. That should tell you enough about how little we trust banks, the whole reason why bitcoin even has any value is because banks and fiat monetary world we live in is discouraging for people who are not wealthy already.

Definitely, you may not become as rich as Elon Musk, but all of the people who are at the for best top list right now are people who had families with money. Crypto gives people who came from nothing to have a chance, and that is why we are putting so much trust into it. Is it risky? Yes of course it is but it is surely much more equal in risk to everyone.

...

It could also be that the new variant of covid-19 made the market plunge.

But the thing from last year is totally different, we still don't know what's next that shall come to the market.

When I see surveys like this, I always wonder how representative they truly are. The article's also written in quite a cherry-picking way. For example, take a look at a simple one-page summary of the survey, and you'll see that the article doesn't mention that on the question of investment instruments, the most popular response for Gen Z is actually stocks, and the same goes for millennials. Also, real estate is almost as popular among Gen Z and millennials as cryptos are, and a slightly higher percentage of millennials than of Gen Z chose cryptos. Given this summary, it doesn't really look like Gen Z is so special, really, and that cryptos are so popular among them.

I'm pro Bitcoin but I agree to him, He mention for payment and moving funds meaning you are holding stable coins in a short period of time temporarily. Stablecoins is perfect for payment since it's value is fixed and the transaction speed is fast. Bitcoin value is volatile while it's transaction speed is slow so there's a chance that the value of the Bitcoin that you send will change during the confirmation time. It's good if the price change is positive but what if its a negative change?

Most of the stablecoins right now has a legal license to operate so there's no way that they will freeze randomly your stablecoins unless you get your token on a shady way. We are not on crypto pioneering era where lots of scam from project is happening. Big companies including stablecoins like USDC, PAXOS and many more is moving toward the legal way.

The moral virtue of advocating against lockdowns, erring on the opposite side of safety, caution and actual science (not the 'I did my own research' science, I mean the 'this is what the most qualified humans in the world say' science), has consequences as well.  Most of them uncertain both when decisions were previously made and today.  What we do know is those consequences not as bad.

That's certainly true, mate. Physical cash will always be the leading choice for criminals, because of its anonymous nature. Not to mention, it's always stable in price. Criminals will need to exercise extreme caution when using crypto in order to avoid leaving any trace that would create a link to their identity. While there's already a solution for full-fledged privacy on crypto, it's somewhat complicated for the average person to understand. I doubt criminals will take the time to study crypto in order to use it for their nefarious actions. As Fiat is much easier to use than crypto, it'll continue to dominate the "underworld".

At least, crypto land will be able to enjoy legitimate use cases in the mainstream world. The less illegal activity there is on crypto/Blockchain tech, the better it'll be for its approval by governments worldwide. These entities will give crypto the "green light" as long as the majority is contributing towards a good cause. The day when most people conduct illegal transactions on crypto, will be such when governments crack down on the entire industry. Considering that the number of malicious actors are slightly reducing on the crypto/Blockchain space, it shouldn't be long enough before the whole industry is legitimized. I wouldn't worry about criminals on crypto, as most blockchain networks are open for anyone to explore. Governments can simply track & trace transactions on transparent blockchain networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum in order put illegal activities to rest. Just my thoughts

Honestly, I agree with you. So far, it's not even a competition. It's hard to find precise data, somehow, but at least 1.2 billion (in reality, it's probably around 3 billion) have bank accounts, whereas only 300 million people use cryptos. Also, it's not like the vast majority of crypto users don't have bank accounts, so even this discrepancy doesn't show the real difference, as people can easily combine using banks for money and treating cryptos simply as a way to profit. I also agree that people don't like change, and people also don't like it when there's nobody in charge, nobody to guarantee the safety of your funds. So cryptos aren't likely to replace banks, not any time soon.