You're right, Bitcoin is not an investment, just like the euro or gold is not an investment asset. One wouldn't "invest" in the Swiss Franc like one would invest in a company by buying some of its shares. Bitcoin is a commodity that is suitable as a currency due to its ability to be transferred electronically, which sets it apart from other commodities. But Bitcoin doesn't pay dividends, doesn't turn a profit and doesn't itself create a good or service.

That said, it must be recognized that Bitcoin is very young and has not yet reached saturation in terms of how much it will be distributed amongst individuals, companies, investment funds and even (central) banks. The price of Bitcoin is still rising which means that apparently Bitcoin is still increasing its reach.

Recently, Microstrategy (MSTR) and other companies have started to acquire Bitcoin. This creates an interesting conundrum for companies that see their competitors buying in. Ignoring Bitcoin might become a competitive disadvantage if it continues to take off, while buying it might be wasted money after Bitcoin fails. Yet, game theory tells us that companies are best off to copy their competitors' moves (i.e., buy Bitcoin) in order not to be at a disadvantage and become for instance a take-over target after Bitcoin happens to take off. Even if the treasury of a company thinks Bitcoin is a filthy pyramid scheme and a complete scam, still they'll be almost forced to follow the competition or risk being left behind.

Eventually, similar considerations will also applicable to central banks all over the world. As Bitcoin keeps extending its reach, central banks may be forced to acquire Bitcoin as well in order to protect their own currencies.

Once Bitcoin has reach saturation such as is the case with gold today, then it will start behaving more like the price of gold: less volatile, suitable as a protection against inflation, not at all suitable as an investment.

Few of those asset bubbles lasted for over 11 years. Bitcoin started in 2009, 11 years ago. For how long must Bitcoin exist before you'd stop calling a bubble?

All these points are true for gold as well. The value of gold is mostly derived from its scarcity -- if it wasn't for the fact that gold is hoarded by central banks all over the world, the value of gold would be only a small fraction of its current price.

An easily transferable and dividable asset that is provably and predictably scarce works great as a money. Humanity has tried to use sea shells, spices, cattle, gemstones, precious metals etc. and ended up using gold because it is scarce.

Currently fiat is no longer backed by gold, incentivizing governments to inflate the money supply as we're currently witnessing, screwing over pensioners, savers and generally anyone without the ability to invest in assets that are resilient to inflation such as real estate or stocks. In other words, screwing over the poor and favoring the rich.

Bitcoin mining is an extremely competitive business and only profitable when having access to dirt cheap energy, for example excess power generated by hydroelectric dams. For instance, Chinese miners close to dams in Szichuan pay less than 4 cents per KWh for their electricity. In other words, this is otherwise near-worthless energy and if it wasn't for the miners, the energy would have remained unused.

So how come energy can sometimes be worthless? That is because energy is too expensive to store. Supply and demand of energy is normally imbalanced -- and sometimes the supply greatly overwhelms demand resulting in the price of energy plummeting for hours. The price of electricity sometimes turns zero or even negative. It may be cheaper for a power plant to pay a small cost for getting rid of excess energy than it is to stop and restart the entire plant. Storing excess energy is uneconomical under normal circumstances because of the additional infrastructural and operational expenses as well as inefficiencies caused by the conversion losses (the original energy has to converted into a different form to store it, and converted back into power when using it).

A power plant operator knows that inevitably a fraction of the generated energy will be lost due to these supply and demand imbalances. However, bitcoin miners will be happy to buy this excess energy for a minimal price per KWh. Ironically, this extra income increases the profitability of a power plant and may even turn an otherwise loss-making renewable energy plant into an economically viable project. So, what-the-heck, are bitcoin miners actually helping in more renewable power plants to be built? Well, I wouldn't go as far because there are many other considerations, but to say that miners use an amount energy that is enough to power an entire country is short sighted and flawed.

This is reasoning assuming a bitcoin-only society which is not realistic. But even then -- stocks, real estate, gold and art also appreciate in value over time, yet these assets are healthily traded because most people tend to want to enjoy their wealth before they die. Why would it be any different for bitcoin? Besides, the average Janes & Joes tend to spend most of their income on housing, transportation, utilities, groceries, clothing, holidays, personal care and entertainment, i.e., expenses that cannot reasonably be delayed for a year just because the currency increases in value.

Citation needed. Hundred-dollar bills are, though.

Gold is:

Not a replacement for cash.
Not stable as a currency.
Not anonymous.
Easily stolen.
Difficult to insure
Extremely expensive fees to transfer.
Haven for crooks and thieves.

Both gold and bitcoin lend value from their scarcity and is perceived to be a reliable long-term store of value, especially in the face of the rapid monetary inflation currently in full swing. Basic economics predicts that trillions of dollars entering the economy without the corresponding productivity gain to justify it inevitably leads to price inflation, which goes a long way in explaining currently soaring real estate prices and otherwise inexplicably record breaking stock markets amidst an economy-debilitating pandemic.

Great, a tool that will help in making more convincing deepfakes /s

I experienced the same -- it worked without switching off my ad blocker shortly after my post. Perhaps the site temporarily switched to some "low-ad" mode. However just now I tried again and the anti-adblock popup is again present, and, I presume, all the annoying ads as well (but didn't care to try).

This seems contradictory. Does "doesn't clump" mean to say that dark matter does not interact with gravity? In that case, one would expect that the matter is dispersed evenly across the universe and cannot act as a gravitational lens.

Ad bomb alert! The linked website will ask you to turn off your ad blocker and subsequently bombs you with auto-playing videos and tasteless clickbait ads. Instead, use one of these:

The universe is nearly 10 percent more homogeneous than expected
Universe Is More Homogeneous Than Expected
New KiDS result: Universe 10 percent more homogeneous than assumed

Urgh! What could possibly go wrong?

I hope you're wrong because if this is then the design is flawed and the mission pretty much doomed. If there are 300 SPOFs that each have 1% chance of materializing, then the chances of the mission succeeding are about 1 in 20. At a rate of 1 in 1000 per SPOF, the chances for success is still only 74%.

And also maybe demand full reimbursement because of failing to deliver services as stated in a binding contract.

And also maybe sue UFO VPNs developer TOOLSFOREST LTD and their CEO Lei Zhou for any and all damages incurred due to gross neglect.

Or perhaps pay them a visit and let them know personally how you feel about their practices:
UFO VPN company address: Lee Garden One, Room 1907, 19/F, Lee Garden One, 33 Hysan Avenue, Causeway Bay, Wan Chai District, Hong Kong

And also maybe don't give their parent company any business either: DreamFii LTD.

It is undisputable that Germany is on a slippery slope.

At first, only Nazi propaganda was outlawed. The new "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" now also makes “evidently unlawful” content illegal and forces Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to remove it or be fined. It is unclear what is meant by "evidently unlawful" but it is definitely no longer just confined to Nazi propaganda.

Textbook slippery slope.

Redundancy can help. Just put three cables, 1000 km apart.

'BlackBerry will not comply with that sort of directive' ...in Pakistan.

air speed*