That would justify circulating supply but NOT the inflation. Inflation happens when there is more supply (of fiat) than demand and it only happens when they print more money than they should. Otherwise population growth is only a small contributing factor to the demand for more fiat in circulation (still not for inflation).

Depending on the case it could mean removal of the traces of centralization as much as possible (eg. in case of mining pools) and in other cases it could mean inventing alternatives (eg. in case of CEX we should offer a truly decentralized exchange, in case of server-dependent SPV wallets we should offer more decentralized SPV clients).

Mining (actual hashrate) and mining pools need to be spread around the globe specially in independent countries as much as possible. They should remain in US as much as they should have remained in China and as much as they should be created in other countries like El Salvador.

That's how we achieve true decentralization. In a peer-to-peer network, we can not eliminate malicious "peers", we just populate the network with enough "honest peers" that the malicious one doesn't affect anything.
That's the same with pools, we don't need to remove a malicious pools but we should make them ineffective. For example the reason why the malicious MARA pool is not a serious threat is because it has ~3-4% of the hashrate. But there are other pools with higher hashrate and some are located inside same jurisdiction...

Can they stay anonymous?

I think that's the problem, they are still signing up on a centralized websites like the one owned by Microsoft (ie. Github) and have to push commits there. This can create a lot of challenges for someone who wants to stay truly anonymous.

LOL
Unless you are a Palestinian living in Gaza, you don't even get to say this
Hamas is the Palestinian resistance fighting foreign invaders according to international laws and the UN charter. Palestinians specially in the open air prison called Gaza, support the resistance when they were offered only two options: die slowly or resist.

Additionally the genocide of Palestinians has been going on for decades and the resistance (that is what H.a.m.a.s stands for in Arabic) started after decades of Palestinians being slaughtered by the Zionist occupiers.

That's why we need more independent/international developers who would create different tools and more independent reviewers who would look at the code of those tools and let others know how they work, whether they have a vulnerability, etc.
Specifically reviewers is something I feel like we're lacking. People who can read code just don't spend time doing so... and if they do, they are not vocal enough...

That would be a paradox because a server by definition works in a hierarchy in the server <> client relationship whereas in a decentralized peer-to-peer network all participants are at the same level (peers) without any servers.

Incidents like the case with Samourai wallet have a silver lining, they act as a wake up call that reminds us of vulnerabilities and forces us to think about solutions before a catastrophe happens. We don't have to come up with a solution right away but it is a good thing to first know the problem and strive to solve it.

Does it even matter? For those individuals, of course but not for Bitcoin.

What this act achieves is scaring every programmer out there from even contributing to anything privacy related since they now know the anti-privacy dictatorship can traumatize them and their families like this. Not to mention all the huge legal fees these "programmers" have to pay.
Speaking of traumatizing families and legal fees, lets not forget this is not a new thing in USA. Lest we forget arrest of BurtW basically just because he was a bitcoin user...

The reason why decentralized networks work and can continue staying alive is that they operate on a purely peer-to-peer basis without significant traces of centralization. We have the Torrent, Tor and Bitcoin networks as 3 excellent examples of such systems.

But with the passage of time, we have centralization creeping in. Sometimes it is 100% centralized services like CEXes that are a flaw through and through and sometimes we have what is known as "decentralized" services but they are either centralized behind the scene (eg. Binance DEX) or have significant "traces of centralization" that acts as their vulnerability or that "chink in their armor" which is going to be exploited by the anti-decentralization regimes to shut them down or worse to take control of them and turning them into honeypots.

The most recent case is the Samourai wallet. At first look it is an open source software, it talks about CoinJoin, looks "decentralized" and all is good. But at the root of it, this is a centralized company and when you use it you are relying on a centralized coordinator (server) both of which could always been shut down and they eventually did get shut down.

The worst part is that the same "chink" can be seen in a lot of places.

• There are simple cases like bitcoin.org which is a centralized website with a single owner that we saw how easily a well known scammer could force to take down the Bitcoin paper in UK by manipulating the legal system.
• There are not so obvious cases like the server dependent SPV wallets that rely on connecting to a single centralized server that can be shut down
• There are similarly server dependent DEXes that suffer from the same flaw just because the developer of that DEX wanted to make money (through fees) not develop something decentralized to solve a problem!
• Last but not least is the worst of them all: centralization in mining in form of mining pools that can be taken over, shut down or forced to attack Bitcoin (eg. the US based MARA pool attacking Bitcoin principle of censorship resistance)

The only viable solution is to patch the chink in the armor! To eradicate as many traces of centralization as we can. After all we should remove the attack vector not try to defend against the attack.

Apart from the mistake others pointed out, you should remember that just because the dictatorship ruling over UAE is rich, it doesn't mean the small population of that region (about a million) is also rich enough to make an investment let alone invest in something like bitcoin.

Because money does not exist. We only have Bitcoin that has the potential of being money some day but for now all we have is currency. (currency is medium of exchange and money is a currency that is also store of value).

Why is it like this? Because economy as a science is wrong. What they teach kids in schools, universities, etc. is wrong. Which means the economy that rules the world is built on top of flawed sciences hence it works like this, where the so called "experts" believe that inflation is a good thing.

You are confusing supply and demand with inflation.
Printing money (increasing fiat supply) doesn't automatically mean inflation. Where that printed money goes can lead to inflation. They also don't print it based on population, they print money (or should print money) based on demand which could be simply referred to as the "production capacity".

But in reality they print money to cover their budget deficits which doesn't go into production so it causes inflation. For example US doesn't print $1 trillion every 100 days because US population is suddenly growing, or the US economy is growing. Neither one of these are happening. What is happening is a massive budget deficit that they have to cover by printing that much money.

Let me just point out that to this day nobody has done anything to Wasabi developers ... For those who don't know, Wasabi devs cooperate with blockchain analysis companies that deanonymize transactions such as the ones that go through Wasabi as a mixer!

Can we start calling Wasbi a honeypot yet?

That's sad to read my comment from years ago again since today I do not think $400k this year is as possible as I thought back then because of the way global economy is struggling with recession thanks to all the interest rate manipulations and conflicts that keep on growing.

The interesting thing I learned about this "mess" is that apparently Chinese government never wanted to go down this path. They had drank the Kool-aid so to speak and were happy in the unipolar world order having to rely on importing technologies. The idiots in Washington on the other hand, specifically starting from Trump admin., thought bans work and like always they were wrong.
Now China is running its own massive chip industries that is growing much faster than its competitors and they are also entering the "high tech chips" territories and setting new records.

It's worth repeating what I said 6-7 months ago:

Are you trying to create the joke of the month?
Erdogan should first stop bowing to the Zionists then stop helping genocide of Palestinians by sending the Zionists resources such as fuel for their tanks and cement for occupiers' illegal settlements.

The irreversible transactions was a solution to the existing problem with payment systems that have reversible transactions. Just check out how many merchants are being scammed when they are paid through something like PayPal and you'll realize what Bitcoin solved.

It is not a problem either because unlike reversible transactions, there are rather easy solutions for what you explained. One could be payments to reputable "receivers". For example back when Valve was accepting Bitcoin, you wouldn't see anybody complaining about them running away since it is a reputable gaming platform. The other solution is using escrows or even a 2of2 multi sig between yourself and the merchant (without a third party escrow).

It's crazy how much money people pay for weird stuff like this that in reality have no value
It was cool and all what he did and even I wore this iconic picture as an avatar for a while but I wouldn't pay more than $10 for something like this...

P.S. I love how they're holding it up wearing gloves in the picture as if it is some ancient work of art that needs to be preserved LOL

You are heavily limiting the definition of "world of crypto" by limiting it to only include "traders".

This is was expected too. When the government watches trillions of dollars in a certain market changing hands and loads of profits being made, it was always obvious for them to want their "cut"! So in a way, this is not even a big change that we didn't know was coming.
The rest is completely the same though. For example Bitcoin is just as decentralized as it should be and you can use it like always.

The "digest" that is used in signing and subsequently for verifying is not the txid, it is double SHA256 hash of a special serialization of the transaction that depends on the type of the output that was being spent.
For example since in this case the output that is being spent is a P2WPKH the steps to compute the digest (ie. sighah) are explained here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki

What do you mean by "value"? Is it market capitalization of bitcoin? That is $1.3 trillion which puts Bitcoin on the 9th biggest market according to this list: https://8marketcap.com/ which is above a lot of big companies like Meta and big banksters like JPMorgan Chase.

In other words "value-wise" Bitcoin can handle a lot, not to mention that it is still appreciating and has a lot of potential for more rises which would increases its "value"!
The real question is "does it need to do any of what you said?" and the answer to that is no.

There are always new investors coming in but I don't think there were a significant increase in the number of new investors before halving. The rise we experienced is pretty much the existing traders that only looked at the historical charts and realized each time before each having there is a rise so they started buying more bitcoin than before hence creating the rise.

Not in "crypto industry", halving is a Bitcoin related event and some altcoins that copied Bitcoin also follow the same thing but may have different intervals.
It is also not "believed" to happen every 4 years, it is part of the consensus rules and must happen every 210000 blocks that happen to take about 4 years.

This is the 4th halving we've had and so far the hashrate has only grown, meaning the number of miners has grown. The reward has gone down from: 50 > 25 > 12.5 > 6.25 > 3.125
Some miners may shut down and go away if the operation is not profitable enough for them. But the total hashrate is important to us not these small changes.

When a block is found, there is a reward that can not be bigger than the predefined amount. The miner that found that block will receive all of it. However, since nowadays mining is like a cooperation through "pools" there are multiple miners that find a block so they split that reward amongst themselves based on their amount of contribution.

The reward is in Bitcoin while their cost of mining (electric bill, employees' salaries, taxes, etc.) is in fiat so how much 1 bitcoin is worth affects them.

Mempool is not a singular place to have a "complication" and have a global effect; each node has its own mempool and not to mention to find a block you don't necessarily need mempool, the block can be empty.

They don't have to, they can "solo mine" but they'll have to run their own full node and monitor a lot of things. So it is easier to join a pool specially if their hashrate is too low to find a block often enough.