Milei had some radical ideas, and some of them are being implemented. But as of May 2024, Argentina's Central Bank is still operating. The solution of dollarization and Central Bank abolition is still being discussed, but it wasn't implemented. It's not impossible to make it work, and it might be a good idea for Argentina, considering decades of poor financial policies, but it doesn't mean this decision is without risks. In the meantime, Milei restricted public spending and said that Argentina had a first budget surplus in more than a decade.

I agree that wealth is not just about the money one has, but it also affects the lifestyle, social circles and activities. However, there are some things people can't and maybe shouldn't change (such as your family). Also, getting a fresh start doesn't mean you'll get rich, and of course there are different kinds of rich.
As for hard work, some rich people do work a lot, but there are also those who simply are rich by inheritance. Also, some people work really hard but are poor.
What I think is important is to understand what one wants from life and what one can realistically get. It's also great to enjoy the process and not push oneself for a result that may never come or may come at some point at a great expense and without the expected joy.

For money to function, its value doesn't need to increase (and it seems that a lot of economists believe that it actually should decrease to motivate people to spend it). So that makes the op's question about the price of Bitcoin legitimate.
Bitcoin is seen by many as an investment, and also, its price isn't regulated by anyone. That's why when there's roughly the same amount of coins, but there's way more demand, the price increases naturally.
As for the answer the op suggests, I disagree. It IS true that fiat value decreases, and $100 in 2010 is around $143 today if we adjust for inflation. But then there's another thing to consider: purchasing power. Nowadays, you can buy a car with 1 Bitcoin. In 2010, it was far from enough to buy even a single pizza.

Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, and calling it so is just a mistake based on confusing Bitcoin with other things (other crypto projects or scammers who take BTC from people).
But I also think there's no sense in convincing people to hold Bitcoin. Financial decisions are personal, and if someone feels uncertain, it makes perfect sense for those people to sell.
But yes, temporary price fluctuations aren't a strong reason to sell and don't mean anything it wrong or riskier than before with Bitcoin.

I think CZ got away with a very modest sentence (if that's the total sentence, based on all charges), good for him. That makes it seem that the crime wasn't a big deal, which can also be good for the reputation of Binance.
But CZ being in prison doesn't mean that Binance will stop working (especially when we're talking about the global exchange) or that people wouldn't be able to use the funds they have there. I'm all for self-custody and I don't keep funds on exchanges, but I'm just pointing out that this particular news on CZ probably doesn't affect the money on the exchange.

14. Alexandre Pantoja
13. Jose Aldo     
12. Vitor Petrino
11. Michel Pereira
10. Caio Borralho
9. Joanderson Brito
8. Iasmin Lucindo
7. Myktybek Orolbai
6. William Gomis
5. Joaquim Silva
4. Mauricio Ruffy
3. Dione Barbosa
2. Ismael Bonfim
1. Kevin Borjas

NOT go the Full Distance 7

Game 1:  48, 23'
Game 2:  48, 18'

1. Canelo
2. 1
3. SD

The op is reflecting upon the increases and decreases in national economies, but then jumps to a conclusion about Bitcoin. National fiat currencies are kind of tied to national economies, so they are directly affected by what's happening in those countries. And yet, fiat doesn't normally grow in value, as that would be deflation. So when things are going well, fiat loses a bit of value, and things are bad, fiat loses a lot of value. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is actually growing over time, not just in capitalization but also in price, but it's not tied to any national economy, and it doesn't even always follow global economic trends.

It's great that the address belongs to a fairly known exchange, as at least there's an understanding of how to look for the money to be returned. I've never used this exchange, but it seems to be a pretty well-established company. However, there are a lot of negative reviews, mentioning that they have terrible customer support, so I'm not surprised the op has had some issues with responses taking a while.
I wonder why they're not disclosing the full address of their customer who got the money, though. Also, since it's a centralized exchange, I don't understand why they can't simply take the money out of that account and return it themselves.
I hope the issue will be resolved. This story really showcases the importance of taking time to double-check the addresses before making a transaction.

There's no need to overcrowd the Bitcoin network with stuff. If one wants to explore ideas of innovative libraries, why not consider Blockchain technology, but not Bitcoin blockchain specifically? I think that, realistically, it's inefficient and unnecessary, but at least it won't hurt Bitcoin, won't be an inconvenience and, who knows, maybe won't even be that expensive.
There are papers (for example, this one and this one) on using blockchain in library services, if that's what op wants to explore. But I feel like sometimes it's just better to stick to what works and not use Blockchain for unintended purposes.

There's nothing inherently positive or negative about Bitcoin halving. It's just a reduction in block reward, and it has happened 3 times before 2024. Perhaps the biggest unfortunate thing was a huge spike in the fees this time, but we are, thankfully, back to really nice and low fees below $2, even for transactions of the highest priority. You need to be careful with transaction fees to avoid losing your coins to those fees. You can look at the fees at mempool.space, and try to wait out the periods of extreme fees.
As for the price, I still believe there's no correlation between the price and halving. Bitcoin is just moving its own way, in cycles of around 3 years, give or take.

ChatGPT is correct that whether a particular person has to pay taxes or not depends on the jurisdiction and legislation that exists there. Some countries have an unclear position, some have progressive taxation (with or without a tax-free annual amount), and some have a tax-free position. And yes, there are different kinds of taxes which may or may not need to be paid, which also depends on jurisdiction. Another thing to consider is whether the laws are enforced or exist only on paper, and what kind of punishment one can face for violating the law.

Privacy is a significant part of Bitcoin, even though it's not a fully anonymous cryptocurrency. Satoshi seemed to want to stay private, and that person was competent enough to not disclose private information. Perhaps the governments got interested and noticed Satoshi too late, when Satoshi has disappeared, so it wasn't possible to uncover Satoshi's identity. But maybe no authorities were interested enough and resourceful enough at the same time to learn who that person was. Right now, there's probably not enough interest in it, as Satoshi doesn't actively influence any decisions nowadays. Maybe there's a taxation angle, but maybe not, and maybe it's not worth pursuing.

I feel like the op is mixing too many things together.
BlackRock is an investment company, not a currency, and they are open to Bitcoin as an investment. USDC is a stablecoin, meaning that its price is pegged to the USD, but that doesn't make it a central bank digital currency (CBDC). XRP is a more complicated project because it's not a CBDC but wants to cooperate with central banks, and Ripple as a firm is launching a USD stablecoin.
So all of these things are very different, and none are actually CBDCs. Maybe CBDCs will become popular and a part of a new financial system, but for now, it doesn't look this way.

People should not start businesses if they don't have capital. An exception, I'd say, is when a potential entrepreneur participates in some sort of program that gives financial and educational support to prospective businesses, so if you can get some sort of grant (but, crucially, NOT a loan), it can be a good idea.
Affiliate marketing isn't the same as starting your own business. It's often a scam, a pyramid, and a way of spreading it further by recruiting the people you know into it. Of course, there are legit businesses that do affiliate marketing, and it can be a legit strategy, but one has to be very careful with it.

Burying something requires having land, unless you want it to be dug out by some animals or found by people. When you do have your own land, you have to make sure that you won't forget where you put it, otherwise it can become a very difficult and unpleasant thing. You also need to be sure that this land is safe (no underground water nearby, no flood risk, no destruction risk). And, of course, you kind of do it once, so it's not a strategy of making gradual savings because burying and then digging up and then burying stuff every month is too much work and confusion.
I think digital storage is more practical, more affordable, and more realistic. I know that some people bury what they have, but I don't think it's a good strategy in contemporary world.

The USA is quite a peculiar country because of the power the states have and the delicate balance between state laws and federal laws. It's often hard for me to understand what the states can actually do and what is the competence of nationwide legislatures. But overall, it seems that state laws often function and make different states really different places to live in, and from time to time there are major federal decisions forcing the states to do certain things. For now, as the US is still figuring out its overall Bitcoin policy, it looks like individual states can become Bitcoin-friendly.

People didn't expect the bull market and a new ATH to be established prior to halving, so things are going differently, in an unexpected way. But there's no problem with the price temporarily going down. It's less than 15% below the ATH point, actually. And I think we can still expect a stronger bull run in the future. For those who want a lower price to invest, I think there will be an opportunity in the future at some point. But also, I don't think this Bitcoin has reached its ceiling this time around in terms of a bull run.

Floods are a problem in some parts of the world, and they are going to become a bigger problem in the future because of climate change. A paper seed is a bad idea because of it, but I think that even something fairly simple like having a piece of paper laminated can be enough to withstand water damage.
My problem with a steel sheet is its weight, so it's not only going to sink, but it's also not going to be a priority for gathering minimal things during the flood when getting out. A laminated piece of paper can get carried away very easily, which is why it should be put in some sort of bag along with other essential documents.