The problem with your idea is its practicality otherwise it is pretty trivial to implement.
Normally you don't know when exactly you've received bitcoin and when exactly you've spent those coins. Even knowing a range is not going to help much because you'd have to download roughly 6 blocks per hour or 144 blocks per day which is high enough for a light client.

There is no trust needed, just knowing that you are on the correct chain which is easy to do. You basically have to play around in the net_processing part of bitcoin core:
Step 1:
Initial connection is the same as a full node, fetching a list from seed nodes and building a listening node IP address database for future usages using the getaddr and addr messages.

Step 2:
Exactly as a full node, start by downloading the blockheader list from the hard-coded Genesis block to the tip from multiple different nodes with enough distance that makes it safe. You can also add hard-coded checkpoints to add an additional verification for the "map" of the chain you are downloading.
You can also do full verification on these headers just like a full node does (SPV clients should also do this). The verification includes version verification, PoW verification using the header hash and the shortened target in the header, difficulty verification with the target and finally time verifications.

The network messages involved are: version+verack (handshake), sendheaders, getheaders, and ping pong messages.

Step 3:
Now that you have a "map" of the whole blockchain use the time field in the headers to select the block(s) you want to download then send a getdata message (with the inventory set to block type and the hash(es) of the block(s) you want to download) to any full node from your connection list to download the full block from that node.
Then you can perform a limited verification on the block you received to make sure it is "correct". The important ones are deserializing and merkle root hash. This way you make sure all the transactions in the block you requested are received correctly and are associated with the header you requested. Here we rely on PoW and SHA256 both being secure.

Step 4:
Now that you have a block that you are sure is "correct" with the trust you put in the PoW, you can go through the inputs and outputs of each tx to see which one belongs to you and update your balance accordingly.

No, there were no flag+marker bytes before SegWit in the transactions. Immediately after the 4 byte version were the input count. After SegWit these two bytes were introduced.

The way we stay backward compatible is by stripping the transactions of their "new fields" before sending them to old clients.

Yes. 1 witness for each input only if there were at least one SegWit output being spent. The non-SegWit witnesses are going to be empty witness. The order is the same as the input order, all placed before locktime.

Flag byte is mandatory not optional. It must exist if the transaction contains any witness and it must not exist if the transaction doesn't contain any witnesses.
It should not be confused with "stripped transaction" that we sent to old clients that can not interpret SegWit at all. In those cases we strip everything (flag and witnesses).

Flag is a fixed size value (2 bytes) that starts with zero. That makes it impossible to interpret it any other way. The interpreter seeing the first 0x00 byte can not interpret it as input count (that would be 0 inputs and the tx will be invalid and rejected). It has to see the next byte and it must be 0x01 hence completing the flag. Then it reads the input count as a variable length integer.

Edit: For compatibility sake the BIP calls the 0x00 a "marker" and the flag to be "0x01" while in my comment I refer to the 2 byte (0x0001) to be the flag since there is no alternative.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#specification

Witness is part of the inputs, it should also be the same count as the number of inputs (eg. 3 inputs needs 3 witnesses) or be omitted entirely if the transaction isn't spending any SegWit outputs.
Only its position inside the serialized transaction is before the locktime.

These equipment you named aren't the "latest military hardware" not to mention that everything else they've sent so far, at least majority of it is old and in some cases outdated hardware close to expiration. For example US forces Greece to purchase newest equipment from US and donate the old and expired arms they had to Ukraine.

And the 6 Ukrainian citizens who posted the video were sentenced to 8 years in prison for publishing the video proof of the useless Patriot system being destroyed easily which harms the US arms industry

To be fair Electrum was never introduced as a "privacy wallet" whereas Wasabi was and still is.
Electrum is always introduced as SPV client and it is a well known fact that SPV clients are weak when it comes to privacy.

We may argue that removing it is not the best approach but the page should definitely change the privacy from "Good" to "Caution" with a warning that instead of saying "Improved privacy" should say "it cooperates with chain-analysis aka anti-privacy agencies".

We should take a moment and appreciate the recent shenanigans involving Wagner group. Keep in mind that it doesn't matter what this group is and what the real story was. What matters and what falls under the topic of discussion here is the reaction of the Western propaganda machines and the brainwashed sheeple that were repeating it mainly in social media. It was both funny and showed the dire situation that the European regimes are in because of the conflict NATO started over a year ago.

There was a certain bafflement with the mouthpieces specially in UK that I was monitoring with rushed propaganda that they were producing every second. It went from changing the terminology they used for Wagner group from "terrorist" to "freedom fighters" to crazy fake news they reported from the usual "unnamed reliable sources" about how Russian government has fallen and Putin has fled the country because Moscow is occupied by the Wagner group!!!

Such a high level of confusion with rushed propaganda where their contents are all over the place and even contradicting each other at times, is very rare in Western Propaganda agencies which are the leaders of brainwashing techniques.
Historically speaking such a situation only happens when they are too desperate and all their previous plans have failed (clear from the increasing number of anti-NATO protests across Europe) so they have to go back to old schemes they've already tried in the past or in other countries.

This is exactly why I called Ordinals as it is: a malicious attack on bitcoin.
Weirdly enough some users were claiming that this attack "helps bitcoin adoption and future survival" and yet I don't see any of them in this topic responding to OP's concerns!

It depends a lot on the country and their local regulations involving bitcoin and sometimes the bank that they are using. This is not something global, some countries don't have nasty banks that would just shut down your account if you withdraw even a tiny amount of fiat from a bitcoin exchange, some others do.

FWIW the Electrum project was released on 4 November 2011 and as far as I can tell the seed phrase algorithm was present from first releases (nothing in 2010 though).
Basically the first version seems to be using some sort of "brainwallet" using the password used as seed[1] to generate addresses (double SHA256 of index|pass). Then the mnemonic algorithm was introduced in later versions[2] (2012 I think) where random words were selected out of a 1626 word long word-list and improved in later versions[3] which is what we use today.

[1] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/6db1a31e58ee15c448448139e7d3a9e72b14268f/client/electrum#L258
[2] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/old_mnemonic.py
[3] https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/mnemonic.py

Not the most accurate comparison because when you burn bitcoins you are actually decreasing the supply by effectively removing a part of the limited circulating supply. Obviously that is a contribution to the rest of bitcoin users as their bitcoins become a little more scarce and valuable.
In comparison there is no limit on the number of spacecrafts you can build. Destroying one means you can still build another. But you can never re-print those coins that were burnt.

The global economical situation will definitely affect bitcoin but the degree and type of effect depends on a lot of things. We can't say it is all negative or all positive. And lets not forget that economy is not exactly "global" while bitcoin is. Even during the economic crisis like the one in 2008, there were countries that were either unaffected or were setting positive growth. Even during the 2022 onward economic crisis the world is split into parts, the Western countries specifically Europe have started seeing increased inflation and decreased economic growth whereas the Eastern bloc started seeing less inflation and higher economic growth.

Bitcoin.org is also open source and the way to suggest changes is like any other open source software, it is by opening a new issue on their github page that can be found here:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/issues/new/choose

Simply explain why it should be removed in that issue and try to get the discussion rolling there. You can also include a link to this topic.

I disagree because Wasabi is not a wallet, it is a privacy oriented wallet and the main purpose that it serves (which is also what it is known for and used for) is its CoinJoin feature. A privacy oriented wallet that is cooperating with anti-privacy organizations can not be trusted.

To be clear hash collision (even with weak algorithms) has nothing to do with finding a mnemonic collision.
The hash algorithms that are used under the hood of BIP39/BIP32 are there to give us a deterministic way of deriving child keys from an entropy and the security of this whole setup is determined by the size of that entropy not by the collision strength of the underlying hash algorithm. In other words in a 12-word seed you still have to face 2¹²⁸ possibilities even if the scheme was using a hash algorithm that is weak against collision attack like SHA1/MD5 (ignoring their small digest size).

I'd say as long as the hash algorithm doesn't produce biased digests, any algorithm can be used but there is no reason to since SHA256/512 are both fast and efficient for the job.

Making profit from trading (and not losing money) does not depend on the platform you are using, assuming the exchange you use is not a scammy one. Trading is about experience in reading the market correctly and acting wisely at the correct time. For example when you are trading altcoins it is of utmost importance to know when to enter (buy the altcoin) and when to exit (dump the altcoin). In almost all cases where people lost money in altcoin market, they bought the coin but could never decide on when to dump it so they end up bag holding it and losing money in the process.

Such experience is only acquired through lots of analysis of the market and figuring out what makes altcoins pump and when they get dumped.

Generally speaking it is because of cheap(er) labor. Immigrants work twice as hard and get paid less, not to mention that they work jobs that a regular "citizen" of that country may not be willing to do specially with its very low pay rate.

That's the problem with centralized platforms, specially anything located in US. They have a very twisted definition of "freedom of speech". You can basically say anything and do anything as long as the US regime likes.
COVID policies they had is nothing compared to their political agenda against certain countries. For example right now you can easily go on any of those platforms (Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) and spread hate speech, incite violence, post detailed guide for terrorism as long as you do it in for example Russian encouraging Russian citizens to do these things. Do the same thing in English for Americans or French who are protesting for their basic rights and you'll be arrested within minutes!

A lot of these things have been going on for a long time like the lack of privacy, so I don't think the "old world" has really changed. We just encounter newer challenges like the shenanigans of AI that some are predicting to be more deadly than invention of nukes...

There is no reason to keep that message up anymore since this attack practically finished 4 years ago (in early 2019) with the release of 3.3.4, also there shouldn't be any malicious servers left running since there aren't any active users who run such old clients anymore.

That's a good point about US and its allies running around the world like headless chickens but I gotta say the talks with Iran are only about nuclear program in name but have very little to do with it. For example one of the main topics over the past couple of months is that they have been begging Iran not to sell any missiles to Russia and in return they have been giving Iran a lot of things.
Two main ones that we know of so far are the tens of billions of dollars that they had stolen from Iran over the past decade which is now being returned with interest.
Second one is European anti-terrorism forces cracking down hard on a terrorist cult called MEK (responsible for murdering 317000 Iranians directly and indirectly) that they were forced to give sanctuary to by United States ever since 2014. Two main news involving this are the terrorist's rally in France being prohibited and their leaders being arrested; and the Albanian anti-terrorist forces raiding the main cult's base in Tirana (capital of Albania) and arresting about a hundred of these terrorist while killing or wounding dozens more.

I honestly don't think there is a "renewed interest" in ETFs just because it is being mentioned in the media once again. If anything the interest is diminished compared to a couple of years ago when we saw a lot of discussion and "excitement" (unreasonable excitement!) about them.

At the end of the day ETF is centralized and when you put your money there you don't own any bitcoin in reality.

Actually losing bitcoins is an event with decreasing number of occurrence. In early days price was low and people were less careful so there were more cases of losing keys. As time went up and bitcoin gained more value people also became more careful hence the number of cases where people lose their keys diminished significantly.
So you can't say it gets "lost all the time".

Wrong. Nobody knows how many bitcoins were actually lost. This is just an estimation you posted.

There are two problems with this:
1. Not having any activity is not the same as being lost. For example there are people who have coins from 2009 that they haven't touched but they still own the private key.
2. You can't really talk about what people should do in 100 years from now!