is something different with Schnorr regarding signature verification using public key?
i don't have any code to test ECSDSA but i could check ECDSA and in there you can't use -P for verification or it fails.
in other words if we use 32 byte public keys then we have no way of knowing which Y is the correct answer, as a result we would have 2 public key points (P and -P) one of which fails the verification.
so how did the discussion solve this?

you should never try to re-invent cryptography methods for "encryption". at the very least when you do that, you should not call it "encryption" because it is not doing that at all.
encryption is the process of encoding an input in a way that nobody can access without having the password. at this day and age with fast computers at everybody's home the method has to be strong so that it could not be brute forced. as o_e_l_e_o pointed out what you are calling "encryption" could easily be brute forced in matter of seconds.

on top of that, in this process you have to remember or write down the number you added or you will forget it in the future. so why not simply encrypt the seed with a password using one of the known encryption methods such as AES and then write down that password?

the ICO makers in the past two years used any topic they could think of to raise money. some of their excuses to get paid for have also been so absurd, basically they saw a stupid market that were paying anybody who asked for money and they created lots of crap asking for money! all of them are scams from the beginning.

it has already happened multiple times, most of it portraying bitcoin in a negative light. others mentioned a couple of cases nobody mentioned: Dope

it is true that it is speculation but it still has to be reasonable and have some logic behind it. for example if i keep saying price is going to fall down to $10 this year, that is also a "speculation" but without any logic, i would be randomly bullshitting. and that is what's wroth with that. Lee has been "speculating" unreasonable price rises during a time when it was clear that rise (specially that kind of rise) wasn't possible meaning during 2018 when the market entered bear mode and needed the bubble burst and correction.

and that works both ways, like Lee, there have been others who get caught up in a certain trend and fail to change with the market changes. for example there have been many who were "speculating" low unreasonable prices such as $1000 for bitcoin just because there has been a long drop last year.

but the difference between password and seed is that your password contains any character and is random but seed words are limited known strings that are chosen in a way that are different enough from each other that it nearly removes the possibility of mistakes. for example there aren't that many ways you could write down a word like "abandon", even if you made a spelling mistake (abondan) you still could figure out what the word was and correct it. that is not the case with passwords so if anything things are better for seeds!
not to mention you could always print your seed (or rather encrypted seed) on paper and eliminate spelling mistakes.

this is misleading in a way, since there is no "list".
Seed is simply the "entropy" that is encoded to human readable format so that you can write it down. and this entropy is used in the relative cryptography functions to derive any key at any path for any coin that you want.

the first thing you must check is the signature of the Electrum installed you downloaded and used to install this current version you have. https://bitzuma.com/posts/how-to-verify-an-electrum-download-on-windows/
if it doesn't verify then that is your problem, you had a malicious software that gave you a wrong address.

if it did, then tell us how you created the wallet? did you let Electrum generate the seed for you or is it an imported wallet using a master private key (starting with xprv) because there can be some path conflicts in this process.

if by "use technology" you mean using the blockchain technology in the gaming industry by using the technology itself then the answer is no, it won't happen because these two technologies have nothing in common and can't be integrated in each other! think of blockchain as an inefficient database in this case.

if it is just usage of the "product", then it has already happened in a smaller scale. meaning usage of bitcoin as a payment in gaming industry and that is how it should happen since bitcoin is a currency and that is how it should be used.
the scale is still small because of the volatility, higher fees in some cases and the low adoption that bitcoin still has. we first need to reach semi-mass adoption and reach more stability to see a widespread usage of it.

you have good points here specially about bitcoin should be treated as a currency and the fact that it can bring in more investors. but i disagree with saying this recent rise was because of this news. the recent rise was not exactly a rise, it was some sort of reverse correction (recovery) that price came back from the unrealistically lower price that it went to for a short time.

as for Bakkt itself i think it is more hyped up than it really is. this is exactly like ETFs and Futures trading. both were super hyped up in 2017 when they initially began, ETFs kept being rejected so were forgotten, Futures trading went through and it didn't change anything other than in some cases increase the volatility.

bitcoin doesn't need "saving" because it is not failing to want that!

lightning network, like many other things that were either added to bitcoin or built on top of bitcoin as their underlying technology over the past 10 years, is an addition to improve bitcoin more than it currently is. to add functionalities that weren't possible before, in a decentralized and secure manner.

Satoshi's identity has turned into an advertising technique where everyone who wants to sell someone to the newbies is starting to use it nowadays. last time i saw a website putting up a countdown like this to "reveal" Satoshi's "real identity" they were trying to sell something to the newbies and thought that kind of publicity could be good. nobody even remembers who they were now...

simply because the number you have been looking at has never been "dominance" it was the ratio of bitcoin supply and the sum of supply of 3000+ altcoins. in 2017 alone we saw about 1200-1500 new shitcoins be created each with ridiculously large supplies. over the past 2 years a lot of them died and as they died they took their useless supply out of the market and that meant the ratio that went up in 2017 slowly came back to normal.
there was also altcoins with gigantic supplies that got pumped, there were tons of bitcoin copies that created about 18 million * whatever price they had market cap in an instant and as they all continued getting dumped and/or dying their market caps came back to more realistic prices hence the total market cap normalized and finally that ratio which you call dominance came back to a more realistic level.

as i said this introduces centralization and that is a big point of failure.
for starters how could anybody even trust this centralized server? it can easily give false information to anybody connecting to it. imagine you were waiting for a payment, you connect to this server and it tells you that you have received the payment but since you aren't connected to the bitcoin network and aren't receiving and validating blocks yourself, you have no way of knowing whether the server lied to you or not.

additionally you mention problems in your country and bad government, so what is stopping this "bad government" from simply shutting down this centralized server or arresting the owners of this project? or worse to take over and monitor/control what everyone owns and what they do with it.

one of the things we are trying to do in bitcoin is to keep it "trustless" which means you (as a node) don't trust anybody else, you verify literary everything from the beginning of time (that is the first block known as genesis block where bitcoin blockchain began) by verifying every transaction with their signature, check the work that was done to produce that block,....

if we do what you said, then you will have to "trust" that those who created that "new blockchain" and deleted the history were honest and didn't change the immutable ledger (aka blockchain) in the process.

basically every time there is a price rise, someone raises this discussion again.
it is a good suggestion, but the thing is that there is no "official" bitcoin unit that all merchants must follow. every merchant is free to use any unit or units (as in offering multiple formats) as they want.
you can also set your wallet application to show you any unit you want. for example if you prefer Satoshis then set it to show you Satoshis. so when you want to pay a vendor for a "Can of Coke" you see the value in Satoshi no matter what the vendor shows you.

if you are worried about bitcoin then you must be 100 times more worried about altcoins specially centralized ones that are shady like Tether.

then sell a certain amount of the bitcoin you have received so that you end up with a smaller amount that you could "afford to lose". that way you are reducing the risk and your stress while still having some amount of bitcoin.
how much, depends on your personal preference.

the problems with recovering it in the future are always about remembering what you did. what i said was meant as a general rule for different things people come up with and then forget about it after some years pass.
maybe nothing goes wrong with recovering from this format but the problem is that it is not adding any real additional "protection". if someone could gain physical access to this, then they may also guess it is a wallet mnemonic written in another format (12 random numbers all smaller than 2048 could be a good indicator). it is always a comparison of what was gained and what complications were added. i'd say in this case both are small but the complication is more than the gain.

they don't care. the point of making these guesses is to just be heard and gain popularity as a so called "bitcoin market expert" (more like self claimed experts though). otherwise they wouldn't have made this many nonsense guesses every day.
the thing about bitcoin is that the short term is never predictable. the only thing we can predict is the long term and for that we can only say "price will rise" by how much and in what time frame is again impossible to predict.

let me start by saying that it is always best that you don't try to invent new ways of protecting secret information. instead you should always stick to the common ways that are tested and standardized. meaning if you want to protect your seed then simply encrypt it with a strong password and then create a back of the encrypted result and the password you used for encryption (separately).

so if you ended up "inventing" a new way then at least make sure you test it multiple times to see if you can recover your secrets (in this case mnemonic phrase) using that method. for instance in this case:
these words actually represents different numbers: 785 and 169 respectively because these are "indexes" and indexes start from zero. so when recovering it in the future and writing a code to do it, you may end up with a wrong seed if you weren't careful. because the code would look like something like this:

or like this case:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093310.0
the user swapped word positions and had trouble when he wanted to recover his coins later on.

you have to explain the idea more than that but so far it sounds like centralization, something that has been discussed before with different names (physical bitcoins, paper bitcoin, bitcoin notes,...) in any case it never succeeds because it is highly risky and requires an enormous amount of trust in that centralized service that is "physically selling bitcoin".