The price isn't the thing that matters the most about Bitcoin...
What matters the most is that nobody can take my coins from my wallet if I don't want them to and that I can send the coins to anybody I want, however much I want and whenever I want.
> Before any crypto transaction who do the buyer and seller both turn to for a "fair market value" ? A centralized exchange.
That's the simplest way today - but definitely not a requirement, and doesn't make it centralized in any way. The centralized exchanges don't set the price (if anything, they suggest it) and they can't control transactions nor wallets. Who doesn't know the private key can't do anything with the funds on a wallet.
> The crypto market is controlled by companies like FTX. This still holds true even if you deal directly with these companies.
The "crypto market" - maybe. But they don't control the cryptocurrencies themselves in any way. This is like saying that because NASDAQ controls the $MSFT market they control Microsoft - of course they don't.
It's perfectly possible to use crypto without centralized exchanges and many people do so. As "centralized crypto" continues to fail, people will use it in a decentralized way more and more. I don't see how the conclusion is "don't use crypto". People seeked simplicity, found out there is no free lunch - that doesn't mean they will throw the baby out with the bathwater.
FTX failing is not crypto failing. FTX failing just proves the fundament of crypto to be right - don't use centralized finance (yes, FTX is centralized finance).
Weed. The only thing that made my grandfather's life bearable (and even enjoyable). His tremor went away almost immediately (for the duration of the effect - 4-6 hours) and he could move swiftly and painlessly, even do some woodworking, brew his coffee, eat soup, and other tasks like that.
He consumed the THC extracted to alcohol shot (I guess some homemade spirit). The amount was low enough to not have any visible effect on his behavior.
One plant grown on their garden (legal where they lived) was enough for a whole year, and there were leftovers.
> At best I think we're at least 100 years off for any long-term self-sustained space colony
We think alike - but IMHO that's going to happen only if we begin now. That's why we shouldn't hold off.
> If we can't solve exponentially simpler earth-based problems, then I think we have no business in expanding, and would be unlikely to succeed regardless.
It's not like there's a single "we" that can keep attention at one thing at a time only. There are a lot of great engineers excited about space stuff, who don't care about ecology/whatever else at all. It makes sense to use their skills and enthusiasm while other engineers excited about that work on solving our Earth-bound problems.
Another point is - whatever helps us survive on Mars and the Moon will help us greatly to reduce harm done to Earth.
> Even if Mars or another planet were to survive the destruction of Earth, a stand-alone colony or space station would be doomed.
> We can work on both, but one's a much more imminent danger.
For sure, but there are also dangers other than climate change - war, asteroid impact, pandemics, rogue AI takeover... It's not that either Earth gets destroyed and the Martian colony will die anyways or nothing has happened and we don't need the backup.
Perhaps there will be another pandemic and the people on Earth will die off but the Martians survive. Perhaps asteroid impact will make Earth uninhabitable for 10-50 years but no more. Etc
> There's a very good chance we'll off ourselves before we have to start worrying about anything at even a solar system scale, let alone galaxy or universe.
That's precisely the reason why we will be better off by investing into space exploration now.
What matters the most is that nobody can take my coins from my wallet if I don't want them to and that I can send the coins to anybody I want, however much I want and whenever I want.