even if that's the case people don't search for BTC, they search for "BTC Bahamas" or the full name as "Bahamas Telecommunications {Company}". not just BTC or at the very least "BTC everyday" as their logo says. but if you check google trends for these terms none of them show any kind of spike!
Bahamas Telecommunications Company is basically dead with 0 searches

unfortunately that has turned into a trend for a couple of years now. basically anybody who wants to make a ton of profit starts creating an unnecessary coin and makes money from that. they use excuses such as "helping the world" or solving some imaginary problem to do it too.
and they are going to keep doing it as long as it is profitable. if people stopped buying these useless coins, we would have never seen the altcoin count enter 4 digits let alone reach 3000!

lol i googled BTC and the first news result was a Forbes article about exactly this spike. maybe it is a bug in Google trends chart. the abriviation isn't really something people would search for.
the article had some interesting theories though!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/09/05/something-very-strange-is-going-on-with-bitcoin-and-btc-google-searches/

is it really?

and this is just as unlikely as the previous time since again you are making the same guess as i said it in your other topic too but this time you included some pictures to add some weight to that guess.

right now the market sentiment is not bearish to expect such drops. and on top of that because the last drop ended up with a reversal of going back to above $1.5k that means day traders no longer expect big drops so the buy support this time is going to be stronger than last which makes any further drops that much more unlikely.

i guess since the usage of different sighash types is in special cases which could be called "contracts", then those that are in that "contract" have to come up with agreements like the (SINGLE | ACP) hashtype has to be at index "I" beforehand to avoid problems. but they have to know the problems first.

thanks, the pictures in this link were excellent for visualization of what really happens.

is it a change in consensus or not? if it is (which i say it is) then it requires a hard fork to be enforced otherwise nodes not relaying certain transactions is already happening and it is not fixing the issue that you started the discussion with.
if you think it is an implementation bug not protocol/consensus then it is a different discussion and talking about it here is pointless, open a PR on github if you know how to fix it.

that's the thing though, they don't need to  decide they already don't include non-standard transactions and these transactions aren't being relayed in first place.
the problem was about "malicious miner" creating a "malicious block" that is valid as far as protocol/consensus is concerned.

ok. i didn't know about that, thanks for the links.
but the numbers still don't make sense enough to call it a serious issues. 2-3 minutes of confirming a valid block that is mined (which means is worth $130k at current rate) only if a malicious miner created that block is not a serious threat in my opinion and to fix that we need a possibly hard fork to change this in consensus and the drama that forks cause is more serious than this issue.

(lets call SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY ACP for short)

ACP allows you to only sign your own input and ignore the rest.
so if others can add their inputs to this transaction like so:
or
now this works fine with ALL and NONE since the index of the input_ACP doesn't matter at all.

but the problem is if it was signed with SINGLE:
in this transaction you only sign output_1 from outputs since input_ACP index is 0.
and if someone added their input like this:
it works fine.

but if someone added their input like this:
then input_ACP signature would become invalid since now the index of it is 1 and should have signed output_2 instead!

so the question is, am i understanding the way SINGLE | ACP signhash works and is this a problem or am i mistaken?

can you really call that coin "stable" though?
since fiat loses its value (purchasing power) it basically is going down because of inflation. so when you peg something to the value of fiat in a certain year you are pegging it to a value that is going down.

in other words the future of that coin looks like this but with a steeper slope down:

i am surprised with the things that some people see on the charts! it is as if they first choose a price they want (whether higher or lower) then forcefully draw lines that don't make any sense on the charts to get to those prices and then make their conclusion based on that!

for example here, the lines OP draws don't make any sense at all. specially the red ones. instead of choosing the bottom line correctly (a more horizontal one) he is drawing a completely random line just because he wants to create that downward channel with the upper line which is also chosen wrong. instead of choosing the tops he is forcing a slope that he likes.
if the lines were drawn more correctly they would actually point to $9000 not $7000! and mostly point to a converging line too as the lows are rising.

it is beginning to enter the bullish mode.

the only reason why it is taking some time (about 2 months) is because the market just finished the recovery phase by getting out of an artificially low price of $3000 that was only achieved through manipulation of the market.

as the trend changes slowly, the expectations also change and the weak hands are flushed out of the market so the rise can begin by getting rid of those who sell and slow it down.

blocks that are generated every 10 minutes on average having 1 gigantic transaction is not going to create any kind of network bottleneck! you are still verifying that 1 block by doing the same amount of checks as if there were 2000 transactions. not to mention that if that 1 transaction were a SegWit tx then the verification was actually faster than verifying 2000 transaction since you would be reusing the same hash for the most part.
that is why it is not changed at consensus level and it should not be changed.

the bottleneck you are thinking of is if "nodes" were relaying such gigantic transactions which they (by default) don't.

well there is no proof!
what you quoted is just some business trying to advertise its services by saying they are handling a lot of money from their numerous investors!!!

the fact is seen on the charts.
altcoins are getting dumped hard and that means there isn't any investor going near them anymore.
bitcoin is also staying the same price for the past 2 months which means only those who were around are accumulating while others are staying scared and watch for the rise before they start.

you need to be a lot more specific that that.
first of all the term "Bitcoin software" is ambiguous. apart from full node implementations that was mentioned there are a ton of other projects. SPV nodes, wallets (for all different platforms), block explorers, libraries, ... and there is an alternative in different languages.
and second "actively develop" is also ambiguous. how much contribution do you consider "active"? and what kind of contribution do want to check? there are different things and different levels. for example code review, testing, creating pull requests,... all are contribution. for example someone might have been reviewing all the changes that are made to the code, fixing the issues with them but doesn't have any commits that GitHub could show.

bitcoin was created so that we no longer need third parties to store our money for us, that is to remove centralization. now using a third part to store your coins ("lock them up" for you) is like taking back all the steps that bitcoin took and undoing everything.
the biggest problem is also the fact that centralization like this creates risks. how to trust that service not to scam you or not to get hacked and go under?

the only thing that comes to my mind when i read this question is that back in 2013 the same question was asked maybe by you or someone like you with the only difference being it was asking about time machine to 2010. and before you know it someone else is going to ask the same question in 2020 about going back to 2018!
maybe it is time to stop thinking about changing the past and doing the impossible and think about how you are losing the opportunity to get in right NOW without needing a time machine.

every private key is just a number in a very big range. every time you generate a new key you are selecting a number at random in this range. like wanting to select a random number between 1 and 100 each time. now imagine if you had a formula that helped you choose that number in that range by only knowing 1 value as its input. a formula like this: number = c²+x³ for x = 0,1,2,... if you had your c=5 then you could get different random numbers in range of 1 to 100 with your different c.

now that range is so much bigger than 1 to 100, and it is from 1 to a little less than 2²⁵⁶ and that "formula" is so much more complicated and pseudorandom, it is a series of hashed message authentication codes aka HMAC using SHA512 hash function and your "c" is itself a very big number.

Youtube is mostly a place for entertainment nothing more. the only videos worth watching is the funny ones that are good to waste some time and have a laugh or two. anything else is just misleading specially if it is regarding money (investment, analysis of  the market and trading advice!) and it is coming from some random dude in his parent's basement who has never even made a trade in his life.

i don't think it has anything  to do with the amount of money people have, basically anybody who is not stuck in 1980 and has been moving along with the technologies and advancement of the world has already expressed their interest in bitcoin one way or another. and all those who are "technologically challenged" have been having a hard time understanding bitcoin's potential.

bitcoin is a currency, and it has always been a currency from the start. then a lot of speculators came along because price was going up constantly and they could make profit and they started calling bitcoin "gold 2.0" otherwise bitcoin is still the same "digital peer to peer cash" that Satoshi created back in 2008.
store of value alone doesn't mean anything if bitcoin weren't a currency in first place.