That's not sarcasm, that's the effects of being severely brainwashed. One of the side effects of it is seeing the world in complete black or white with nothing in between.
This is why over a year ago when Russia was cut from SWIFT these people claimed it is the "end of Russia", they even set a deadline of a couple of weeks and stuff like that. And whenever other people disagreed with their extreme views they could only interpret them as meaning the other end of the spectrum (as in "everything is fine without a single problem") because as I said they have lost the ability to think or see anything between totally black and totally white.

I wouldn't say the country that sells the weapons but instead the company that sells them. Take a look at US for example. As the biggest weapons seller in this war the arms manufacturers and the arms dealers are making tons of money but US itself is experiencing inflation and recession at the same time with the national debt growing by the trillions every couple of months as the government can not keep up with its massive expenses while the banks keep shutting down one at a time and people who can no longer pay their debt due to high interest rates and the inflation that eats through their income.

Your definition of speed is wrong because you probably don't really understand what confirmation means and what its relationship with reversibility is.

A confirmation is when a transaction is included in a block. From that point as newer blocks are found, the confirmed transaction goes deeper into the chain or gets more confirmation.
What matters here is to find a number of confirmation where the chances of the confirmed transaction being reversed by performing an attack on the chain (eg. 51% attack on PoW chains and other forms on PoS) is nearly zero.
Depending on the algorithm, the hashrate, level of decentralization, security of the protocol itself (in simple terms being bug free), and the network state this number can be different.

For example for a centralized shitcoin with a weak protocol where mining is performed by centralized powers this number can be in the thousands. In fact if you look at the deposit page of most exchanges, they require very high number of confirmation for a lot of altcoins for this reason, although not all of their values are accurate or safe but it is a good practical example.
But for a decentralized cryptocurrency like bitcoin with a solid protocol and a well spread miners and a very big hashrate this number is the lowest.

In other words, as others also pointed out, for a centralized shitcoin like ETH having only one confirmation (even with the new flawed PoS algorithm) doesn't provide nearly enough security as one bitcoin confirmation provides.

The global economy is still not stable enough to predict things and this month (August) we are going to have a major event with the BRICS currency possibly being revealed which could be another huge step in the dollar dumping process.

For bitcoin this is both good news and bad news in my opinion.
It is a bad news because in short term it could cause more recession ergo put additional sell pressure on the market that prevents the further rises for the time being.
But it is also good news since it continues pushing the dollar value down and as US prints more dollars to cover the enormous budget deficit  and the additional costs in the trillions, that dump helps shoot up the bitcoin price.

Generally speaking ETF is in my opinion an over-hyped thing which doesn't have nearly as much an impact as some people have been saying it should have over the past 5-6 years. Specially since there have been a bunch of different ETFs in different countries around the globe without much impact.

Besides I'd go as far as saying ETF by definition is the exact opposite of what Bitcoin is made for. When you want to buy bitcoin, you should buy bitcoin directly instead of buying the garbage some investment company sells to you in the name of bitcoin as a middle man. After all Bitcoin was created to eliminate the middle man not add more of them.

That does not matter for address generation because your x value does not change when negating a public key meaning P(x,y) = -P(x,y) = P(x,-y) and we only use the x coordinate in the address.
Even y coordinate is something you should check and take some extra steps when signing and verifying ECSDSA signatures.

Two questions come to mind here. First is whether companies hiring "blockchain experts" require such certificates or care if you have one or not. Second is whether these hiring companies even recognize the issuer of such certificates!

I haven't really looked for the jobs in this industry but from what I've seen from startups and other small businesses in this field, the experts themselves create these small companies and then they hire regular programmers, etc. to help build the business.
Not to mention that when anybody hires employees, they look for experience not certificates. For example when they hire a programmer, they don't ask them who taught them c++. Instead they ask them how many lines of c++ they have written and what programs they've created, and stuff like that.

The same problems apply here.
We can't decide what people should do in a hundred years from now when we aren't even around.
You also significantly decreased the incentive and also re-introduced a decreasing reward since the amount of coins "lost" or amount that hasn't moved in a long time is decreasing per year as price goes up and more people get in. That means after a couple of "periods" we could theoretically end up with a fraction of bitcoin as the total amount "lost", which is like halving all over again.

At some point as you keep increasing the complexity of this idea, it raises the question of why not just increase the supply in the year 2140?

Hash is computed from the data (not exactly assigned to it) and one of the usage of computing a hash is ensuring integrity of the data which means not a single bit inside the data can change without the resulting hash also changing. In other words even if the bit length remains the same but the bits change, the hash changes too.

A block header hash must be smaller than or equal to a globally enforced target (hash <= target).


Mining is similar to a competition where each miner tries to find the hash faster than others, so they need the most efficient hardware to perform the most number of computations in the shortest time possible.
Otherwise the hash itself (and the whole process of mining) can be performed on any device, even the least efficient or ancient computer you can find that performs something like 1 hash per hour using one of those computers that were as big as a room!

Doing that would make thins worse because RFK would easily deflect by saying it is a violation of privacy of his children and that is against bitcoin ethos and wouldn't provide anything. Then you wouldn't know if he is lying about this or having bought bitcoin in first place.

We can not even begin to imagine what the situation is going to be like 100 years from now.

And what would we do when we run out of such coins to "steal" and pay miners? It is a finite number after all.

Saudi dictatorship and the artificially created micro-countries like UAE, Qatar, etc needed United States for existing. Otherwise you can't just brutally murder a Washington Post journalist in broad daylight or even attack and destroy 2 trade centers in US and still continue "existing"!

Now the thing is, US is getting weaker every day and they realize this. Which is why they are trying to distance themselves from US like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

The fact that they are extending a hand toward Iran is just them realizing the super power in the region but also many believe that they may be buying time hoping US would recover so that they can go back to doing what they were doing before, because in short neither Iran (nor other countries like China which they are also getting close to) would stay silent about their atrocities.

Don't underestimate the power of brainwash. After all US regime spends billions annually on it specially in mainstream media and in hollywood.

Lucky? People who had any success or wealth out of luck are extremely rare if they exist at all and they definitely won't keep such success or wealth.
Any solid success or wealth is acquired through hard work and experience.

You are assuming that people "buy" and "dump" bitcoin, which is a wrong assumption. Many people "earn" and "spend" bitcoin like any other currency.

Your preface makes no sense but I agree with this. You should always try to help others however you can. It is not always financial aid either.

P2C2P

To be peer-to-peer network the whole network should consist of "peers" which means participants or nodes that are at equal level with equal privileges. If any part of the network has more privilege than others (eg. the server that everyone relies on) that stops being P2P.

Otherwise if we start bending the definition we start calling a lot of other things P2P that aren't P2P for example CEX like Coinbase since you are technically trading with other people not with the company!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

If you don't have an advanced understanding of the Bitcoin protocol you should not attempt implementing any part of it, specially security critical parts like address generation. Not to mention that using it in browser and using Javascript is already a terrible idea.

Case in point:
Creating Taproot addresses is slightly different from other addresses. It is not a simple matter of pubkey to address since a Taproot address can be both a "pay to key" and a "pay to script" at the same time (imagine a combination of both P2PKH and P2SH but with only one address format). So there are also two ways of creating the address.
One is the simple and quick way of "pay to key" where the address encodes the pubkey you have:

The other is creating a "dummy" script with the single key to use that for spending. This requires computing the tweak hash
and tweak key
and computing the address using the tweaked pubkey

This means depending on how you created the address, the way you spend the coins sent to the address is going to be different.

SegWit falls under the first group (main scaling should occur on second layer and the first layer should scale without hard fork), otherwise you are right that SegWit also offers an on-chain scaling by increasing the block size but it is through the soft-fork as I said in the first category which makes it a limited scaling.

It's a bit off-topic but bcash has implemented more of SegWit than you know. From the SegWit way of transaction serialization for sighash all the way to the bech32 address format.

US is already in a deep ditch with no exit and the only way they could go back to gold standard or similar standards is to first bring dollar to its realistic value which is a lot lower than this. The US debt alone is $32.6 trillion, in today's bitcoin exchange rate that is 1.1 billion bitcoins! Obviously with bitcoin's max supply being 21 million even if US regime were to store all the bitcoins in the world (mined and yet to be mined) it still wouldn't be nearly enough to cover that.

The closest thing I can think of is the collision reward scripts that created by another core dev Peter Todd (not Mike Hearn) and can be found on bitcointalk in this topic.

You forgot the first rule, you shouldn't believe what politicians say. They say all kinds of lies. For all we know he may not even know how to spell Bitcoin let alone having bought anything. After all he is a multi millionaire who doesn't really care about "profit" to buy bitcoin, such people also are already living "above the system" so they don't need the privacy and sovereignty that decentralized money gives them. In other words bitcoin doesn't have any benefit for them which means there is a good chance that he is simply lying to try and get some votes.