Non-default mempool doesn't strictly enforce standardness in terms of the minimum mempool fees, the disparity arises with the fact that the graph doesn't show transactions that pays a fee of 0 - 1 satoshi. Since default implementation enforces 1+sat/vbyte, there is no disparity in the total. It doesn't matter because the default puts it at 1 sat/vbyte and is also what most miners enforce as well.

By putting the argument for disable private keys as true, the wallet cannot create any private keys as a seed is not generated for that wallet. If you need a wallet that is able to generate a wallet, you should generate a wallet without specifying true for either of the options, ie. Just the wallet name will do.

If you generate a blank wallet, you can import your own seeds for Bitcoin Core to generate or import your addresses individually.

Security is a non-issue as of now. There is no evidence that something like this is possible today nor would it be cost effective even if it is.

The argument against user's specified change address or address reuse is primarily about the privacy.

Yes correct. The remainder after subtracting both your sending amount and the fees will be sent to the change address.

AFAIK, Core doesn't limit the use of change address, specifically with user specified ones. It's fine to be using your own if desired. Core checks if the addresses are from your current wallet but it would just throw a warning, nothing much.

Binance did publish their cold storage address (both on Bitcoin and Ethereum) and are still actively using it. It is just too easy to deduce which addresses belongs to which exchange; create a few accounts and send a few deposits. Check the transaction paths of each deposit and watch for intersections, and those are the main addresses being used by the exchange. No difference if they declare it or not. Services can still directly send user's deposit for another user's withdrawals which can be slightly more complicated.
It's a proof of solvency, which is just avoiding another Mt Gox.

I forgot to mention, BitMex has a vanity multisig. Which gives you some indication that they're from Bitmex. Not 100% accurate as with any analysis out there.

Fundamentally, Bitcoin is still a form of currency and that can't be disputed and it hasn't lost its primary purpose. The current price is derived from the institutional investors which are quite speculative in nature, like Tesla. In the case of people starting to HODL Bitcoin without wanting to sell it, they're in fact creating a bubble and it would pop sooner or later. It is simply not sustainable for the majority to be refusing to sell their Bitcoins and there has to be a limit where people stops demanding for Bitcoins, the cycle cannot be perpetual.

As you've mentioned, the original purpose of Bitcoin is for P2P transactions. So far, the changes to Bitcoin is to gear it up for mass adoption someday, through capacity increases. 

Correct. The most influential people appears to treat Bitcoin as a speculative asset as compared to something that can replace fiat.

Depends. In the first place, you're going to levy a pigovian tax on the electrical production. That eliminates the negative externality as Bitcoin doesn't necessarily affect the environment directly. The cause of the negative externality is primarily the production of the electricity.

Now, it could be great for Bitcoin as you're going to have lesser people arguing that Bitcoin produces too much environmental pollution as the negative externality is accounted for. This doesn't necessarily means that the act of mining doesn't affect electrical production but it is bound to drop given an increase in the cost, -ve externality being internalized. Same can be said for any other activities that requires electrical consumption.

It could be bad for Bitcoin as there are now lesser miners, which affects the security. Forcing miners to certain kinds of energy can be potentially detrimental to the community; if the government doesn't regulate the electricity, then miners would be using far too much electricity from a certain source (which doesn't have carbon tax) and thus negatively affect the community around them. I doubt this would happen, electricity market is often regulated with the local government.

Exchanges often consolidates their funds in several addresses and they are easily identified as they're either publicly known or if most of the funds that are sent to the address flows through a certain specific address.

By analysing the pattern of certain addresses (or rather transactions associated with the address) ;(whether they're consolidated together with other deposits, being sent to certain addresses down the line, etc), we can deduce with a relatively high degree of certainty that a specific address is a deposit address of a certain service.

It exists for every Bitcoin type of website on Google. It has been quite prevalent for Electrum at least. Those sites don't achieve a high enough SEO and is often just displayed as an ad. Most of them involves several redirections which I'm assume is what helps them to evade detection. Don't think it's particularly useful but it would be better to just report it first.

There are quite a few variants of this and we don't need to help with their SEO.

You don't have to hold the attack for very long. You can at most execute only one attack, if you are out for the profit. The network will react accordingly to the attack to minimize the impact after the attack happen.

Rather than electrical consumption, the main factor limiting something like this is actually the costs of executing such an attack. Purchasing the ASICs for something like this is ridiculously expensive, keeping in mind that it's only good for one attack and they are rendered useless afterwards. Even if you were able to double spend and get your Bitcoins back, what is the use when the price crashes right after? You're still left to deal with ASICs that probably won't be used after as the community explores another algorithm.

If you want something that isn't as complex, you can implement a database systems which doesn't require much computational power at all, ie. Visa. That hardly helps with decentralization or security at all.

Mining in the context of PoW offers a way for the network to achieve consensus and at the same time having huge amount of costs being incurred. In Bitcoin and other similar cryptos, mining is a necessity in the system. I find the issue pretty much discussed to death. There are obviously various solutions that probably require less resource consumption... Is Bitcoin going to switch to that? Probably not. That is the end of discussion.

Same argument can be made against most activities that produces huge amounts of emissions on a daily basis yet providing less utility than Bitcoin.

Sure, PoW does result in quite a lot of environmental impact. That is a feature, where it is necessary to incur large costs to provide security for the network. There has been plenty of arguments made against PoW but it doesn't really make sense to change. Bitcoin doesn't produce any emission, mining does. If anything, the responsibility of this lies on the government to reduce the electrical consumption through regulatory measures. Don't really understand why RBF is in this conversation.

There are plenty of other ways to try to ensure consensus but none of them incurs as much costs as Bitcoin which is what we're looking for. Even if there is a better method, changing the algorithm involves getting the approval of the various stakeholders which is practically impossible.

No. The probability of anyone generating a private key that corresponds to those address is so astronomically small, which is the same as trying to break any other address given sufficiently random entropy. There is simply no reason for people to doubt whether you're generating an address that is in fact not intended to be a burn address.

Inclusion of OP_return is quite trivial, wallets like Electrum and Bitcoin Core all supports it. By parsing the blockchain for matching strings in the OP_return, you will be able to identify those which were burned for your purpose. That is not difficult and should be pursued if you don't want to contribute to blockchain bloat.

It is finite.

Bitcoin's block rewards follows a geometric progression where the rewards halves every 210,000 blocks. If you were to take the sum of the geometric progression, it would be 21 million. This means that in a scenario whereby you have infinite number of blocks, the total supply cannot exceed 21 million no matter how divisible it gets. Making something more divisible doesn't change the fact that the total supply is the same. The value of each denomination is still proportionally smaller.

It shouldn't happen. After the user clicks Max, Electrum will send all the remainder after the fees when the user adjusts the fees in the advanced preview and should never send anything back to the change address. I'm unable to replicate this. When you adjust the fees in the advanced preview, did Electrum add another change address at that point?

There isn't anything when you run Bitcoin Core with CMD. It'll only run Bitcoin Core and not display anything else.

Anyhow OP, if that is all you get from the debug.log. It is an ungraceful shutdown, debug.log will have several lines about shutting down Bitcoin Core instead of just stopping there abruptly. Is there any antivirus or any administration programs that blocks Bitcoin Core from running? Inter-Logic seems like some company that is involved in IT management, is it a company device?

An example here: https://twitter.com/bittlecat/status/1207621591820951552. They resolved it by returning the funds and here is their official response: https://www.binance.com/en/blog/414733786553217024/CZ-on-Regulations-Exchanges--Privacy. To a larger extent, Coinbase has always been known to block accounts that were sending to/from gambling site, that is much more common. Also, another example here: https://twitter.com/McHodled/status/1222172084610027523. Examples are non exhaustive.

I've never been banned while using ChipMixer on Binance, not saying that it is immune just that CoinJoins are a lot more obvious.

Exchanges (and governments) want to track their users and don't like it when their users attempts to evade it.

It only works assuming that the both the blocks and the rate of transactions are approximately constant. Most fees estimation takes into the fee rates for the previous blocks and use the data points to build out their own fee estimation. This is by far the most accurate way to eliminate volatility of the block intervals as it takes into account a much larger history. If the block were to be mined 10 seconds before and you choose a 1vMB from tip, it would at the very least take 2 blocks to confirm or perhaps even longer.

If you think estimatesmartfees has too conservative of an estimate, then you can change the parameters if you're using Bitcoin Core for a more economical one. While it is by no means perfect, it is a far better estimation than what we can do by looking at the mempool distribution.

Thanks.. I misinterpreted the BIP and thought it was referring to a single transaction chain.

Instead of spamming useless posts like this, do try to use Google. There are plenty of information on this, either on Bitcointalk or elsewhere and there is really no need for another one.

Bitcoin mining will be subsidized by the transaction fees with the equilibrium on the revenue/cost maintained by the difficulty.