That has nothing to do with bitcoin though. It is the problems inherited from the centralized payment system and fiat that bring regulations and KYC which makes the process of converting your fiat to bitcoin a complicated one. In other words this is not "transaction process" this is "conversion process" that has gotten complicated.
However, bitcoin is a currency and if you treat it as such you won't face as many problems. For example if you were getting paid in bitcoin like you are paid in fiat!

DEX like Bisq is the closest thing to that.

Well kids these days tend to believe the garbage they read on social media not to mention how it can make them do literary anything (look at their "looting parties" across US and EU where they gather around to loot different shops!).

The difference between bitcoin and fiat is not how much of it is mined or is going to be mined. The difference is that fiat is 100% centralized and unless you want to break the law in a lot of countries and go full cash anonymous, you are using it through a centralized service like a bank that monitors your ever step and has its hand in your pocket.
This is while bitcoin is decentralized and you don't need any third parties and nobody has or can have its hand in your pocket.

P.S. you also don't know the meaning of the word "premine" it is wrong to use for bitcoin with 100% mined supply and it is wrong to use for fiat that keeps being printed without cap lol

You mean centralized shittokens created and controlled by centralized companies? I think it is obvious that it can not do anything let alone prevent dedollarisation! Such companies can be easily shut down not to mention that they are practically releasing dollar just in digital form.

You are also forgetting that the countries are decreasing their dependence on dollar (aka dedollarisation) because they want to reduce the effects that dollar (in any form it has) on their economy and country as a whole.
For example they don't want to have their funds frozen in off-shore accounts or services like SWIFT just because they didn't fully obey what US had ordered them to do. So whether it is SWIFT or iFinex (releasing tether) or Circle or PayPal or whatever is not going to change that.

Did it show any kind of error message? It may just be a broadcasting or connectivity to remote server error, in which case you can use an explorer like blockcypher to try and rebroadcast the same transaction if the signing was successful and the issue was only when broadcasting it.

There is no need to post it here if it looks like the following (the bold part should be the same and the rest should be of the same size which is 40 characters equal to HASH160 of your pubkey):
001479091972186c449eb1ded22b78e40d009bdf0089

BRICS is already created 17 years ago and the members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa while Iran is more like an unofficial official member!
 
Directly it will have no impact on bitcoin. Indirectly it might.
My argument is mainly regarding dollar value since we all know that dedollarisation is happening and that has decreased the value of dollar (mostly negated by heavily increasing the interest rate as a short term remedy) and the more dollar goes down the more other currencies such as bitcoin have to go up against it.
Now with BRICS being on the brink of introducing a new currency, if they do reveal it in this month's summit, this could be the start of a much faster dedollarisation and a bigger dump of the dollar which could lead to bitcoin price going higher.

This is why I'm eagerly looking forward to see what happens since also this can technically be a significant global economic event and another step in the direction of new world order.

In bitcoin, unlike other payment systems like your bank, we are paying for a portion of the finite amount of space called a "block". So when you want to buy more space in that block (ie. when your transaction size is bigger) you have to pay a higher "fee" and when there is more competition for that limited space (ie. network congestion) you also have to compete and pay a higher "fee".
And as others pointed out, your transaction size depends on how many inputs and outputs it has. So it doesn't matter if you are transferring $10 or $1000 as long as the tx size is the same.

Compared to "whatever you can find", sure it can be safer but the choice is not between your own code and random code on github. There are other options such as well reviewed and well tested wallets such as bitcoin core and electrum that can be used to generate a key or mnemonic respectively then printing that on a paper which is way safer than your own code.

People should always treat altcoins as they are which is pump and dump schemes. It doesn't matter if we are in a bitcoin bull or bear market, we know at any time there are multiple altcoins that are being pumped and they are always dumped afterwards.
Knowing this, people can learn to ride the waves without being dumped on to lose money. Otherwise the biggest problem is when people think these useless projects have a "potential" so they end up buying them and bag holding them for long, hoping for profit while watching their capital melt away slowly.

Since WIFs don't have the address type information inside, you have to find a way to tell the wallet you are using what type of address it should derive. This is a wallet specific thing that you should ask the developers of that wallet or users of it.

Most probably you'll have a hard time reclaiming them but they aren't gone.
Try checking out the https://coinb.in/#newTransaction section of the website and try to create a transaction spending your coins by entering your redeem script in the first box and setting a destination address.
Then sign it using the https://coinb.in/#sign page with your private key.

You really shouldn't use this type of tools for anything serious though, specially if you used it online. They are usually complicated and for "advanced" usages, not to mention could have vulnerabilities.
Try to stick to wallets.

P.S. Your address is a P2SH and I personally couldn't reproduce this type of SegWit address (ie. wrapped witness) which makes me think your address could be a multi-sig not SegWit. In any case are you sure your "redeem script" is a SegWit one? It should be OP_0 followed by a 20 or 32 byte data.

This month the biggest thing I'm looking for is the new BRICS currency that is going to be announced soon. Based on the effects it is going to have, we may see some effects on bitcoin. It will either do nothing to the dollar value or it will kick start its downward spiral, only in the second scenario we can start seeing an interesting bitcoin market with a good potential of big rises.

That's true but I believe the biggest problem Ukraine has is not having an actual politician in the office.
You see, in this world there are "strong" countries and proxy countries. Ukraine is the later while US and Russia are the former. It's not a bad or negative thing to be a "proxy" country, it's just a country that is not as strong as the world powers but it is caught between them (meaning both sides want a piece of it just to compete with each other!).

A good example of such countries is Turkey, a country with little to no natural resources or industries that is geographically located between East and West. But look at the politicians it has. The president called Erdogan as an expert politician who has been Turkey's president ever since 2014 and previously was prime minister and before that was mayor. He basically started in politics ever since 1976. Despite all his dumb mistakes, has beautifully played the role of a proxy country for Turkey. He is neither a full NATO member going against the Eastern powers (eg. blocking Russian exports, obeying US sanctions on Iran, cutting ties with China) nor is he a full Eastern bloc player (eg. cutting ties with US, not participating in NATO wars, etc.). Each time he tries to lean too much on one side, Turkey suffers the consequences. He buys Russian air defense, he loses US weapons; he plays the NATO game the grain deal and energy exports through Turkey fall through, ...

Ukraine can be categorized as the same type of country. But the difference is lack of an actual politician. Compare Erdogan with Zenesky! He has absolutely no idea what "politics" means simply because he has no experience in the field. He is just an actor who has experience to be a comedian not a politician and yet he was "installed" in office. Now Ukraine suffers the consequences of it.
The same problem was with the previous one. He was a politician with experience but he made the mistake of playing too much in favor of Russia so US invaded and orchestrated a coup to remove him.

These are theories not rules. In other words the market doesn't have to follow these stages strictly.

In my opinion we are in uncharted waters because if you truly analyze the previous bull runs and the way they were growing, you can see these cycles had a repeating pattern which was broken in the last cycle since price could not go higher than $70k even though it had to go up to around $400k and have a "bubble" there then a bear market.
This is why what we have from that point, is a new trend that sometimes resembles the previous cycles and unless we can see a solid pattern again we can't start talking about repetition.

We also have the terrible situation with the global economy being in recession+inflation phase that makes bull runs harder.

That's right. In other words you can think of the "number" of confirmation as the "depth" of that transaction into the blockchain or the distance the block containing that transaction has from the tip.

That would be one reason but in my opinion the main reason should always be that any general purpose implementation of ECC runs the risk of having "weird" behavior which is not necessarily bug or weakness, just a weird behavior that is not suitable for a consensus critical protocol such as bitcoin that needs to be strict.
The best example of "weird" behavior is OpenSSL that used to be used by bitcoin core. One issue was its value parsing rules in places such as signatures (DER), etc. That doesn't cause any issues when the library used for something like parsing a website certificate in your browser, but that can be the source of a lot of issues in something like Bitcoin.

BTW Electrum used to use pure python implementation of ECC called python-ecdsa before they migrated to libsecp256k1.

Electrum doesn't use this particular library (libbitcoin) but being written in Python doesn't mean it doesn't need or use dependencies written in other languages like C++. In fact one of the dependencies Electrum has is libsec256k1 which is written in C. Some of its other dependencies (specially involving hardware wallets) utilize C++ libraries.

^^ Even though the numbers using 62¹² is correct but you guys are missing the fact that the entropy size depends on the size of the character list as I said above. The total of 62 characters (lower/upper a to z and numbers) is the simplest list of characters that doesn't even include regular symbols (*.,/\'":; and so on). Not to mention that technically speaking UTF8 encoding which is common for character representation can encode more than a million characters (not just the 62) ergo depending on the list you used, each of your characters can indeed represent a lot more than just 72-ish bits.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the code you posted since I can't tell if after computing "cs" it is replacing the whole word or just the extra bits.
Basically when you generate words like this you are generating 11 bits at a time so your last word is also 11 "generated" bits but the last word in a BIP39 mnemonic is partly the checksum and partly the generated bits so the extra bits you generated should be discarded or changed.
If you keep randomly selecting the last word then validating the checksum until you get a correct sequence, that is brute forcing. Otherwise if you are discarding the extra bits and replacing them with checksum, it is not.

This is not how we generate a seed phrase, we don't pick words then brute force the last one to have a correct checksum. Instead we generate a fixed length entropy and compute the checksum on that, then encode the whole thing into words.

If you want to see how it's done and use the source code that is already available, check out the BIPs page. It has 4 implementation in JavaScript that you can use: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki#other-implementations

Isn't "bx seed" supposed to be weak? I mean the docs clearly state that this is generating a "pseudorandom" seed and can "introduce cryptographic weakness". Why would a wallet use this in first place?
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-explorer/wiki/bx-seed

Or is the problem somewhere in the code affecting other commands like "bx hd-new" because the doc doesn't say anything about being weak there.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-explorer/wiki/bx-hd-new

If you are talking about the proposal by Salvatore Ingala regarding MATT opcodes then it is not part of the Bitcoin protocol so the only "resource" you will find is going to be the one found on bitcoin-dev mailing list[1] and the links posted in there including the reference implementation of the proposal on github[2].

[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-July/021827.html
[2] https://github.com/Merkleize/bitcoin/tree/checkcontractverify