Aimlessness is wasting whether it is aimless saving or anything else. In other words saving itself is a good thing as long as you have a good plan. For example you can't and shouldn't save up to buy a house because it is too expensive and it takes too long and during that time inflation would render your money less-valuable. But if you are saving to invest in something smaller like bitcoin or a gold coin then that makes sense. Your investment should also be wise and well planned.
Then you can slowly grow your investment (from 0.001BTC to 0.1BTC then 1 ...) and then use that investment for a bigger investment like the house you wanted to buy at the start.

That is not true at all.
For starters trading is very different from investing long term. What you do also depends a lot on the market. For example a shitcoin that is dumping should be avoided like the plague. There is no reason for them to get pumped again.

You are also working in reverse in "pump participation strategy". When you see the shitcoin pumping you should buy in and sell it before it starts dumping. If you buy after the dump begins hoping for another pump, you are heading for disaster.

Cryptokitties and similar garbage didn't bring any kind of real demand for the platforms they were on. I don't see how Ordinals is going to be any different! Not to mention that we already had better ways of creating tokens in sidechains and so far a handful of people even talked about them and the only reason why Ordinals is being discussed is because it is spamming the chain and is a threat to the real demand bitcoin has.

A couple of years ago someone called Craig Wright starts claiming to be the real creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Then this person starts contacting different bitcoin experts to convince them to support his claims. One of them is Gavin Adresen. Only Gavin is convinced after the meeting with the scammer and without seeing any reliable proof. Gavin then starts supporting his claim (read the article in OP).

Someone who does this is either an idiot or malicious. I tend to think the later.

It is always funny to see heads of the banking cartels around the world criticize bitcoin while they are knee deep in corruption and all kinds of illegal activities. Their statements and so called "predictions" are also always their hopes. For example here, they are hoping that bitcoin falls down and they will do everything in their power to make that happen. Hence this article.

In any case the article shared here is the prime example of a propaganda. They use some facts to convince you of the bullshit conclusion they want to make. For example they point out the fall from $69k but never tell you that price went from $3k to the current $20k if you zoom out!

Of course in case of ECB they have no answer for how Euro is dumping and how it will dump a lot more in the future when all the money they've been printing starts showing up in inflation rates. So they have to bash bitcoin hoping nobody chooses BTC trying to escape EUR dump.

It's not about that. Their politicians are faced with all bad options, some are worse than others so they try to choose the option with the least negative consequences. Unfortunately that option is to not-complete this pipeline (which leads to energy shortage, high prices, inflation and economical hardship).

Interesting result of the poll shows how bullish people are. This I believe shows the significance of the $20k resistance that was broken because for all we've seen the fantastic momentum that broke that resistance more than 20 days ago died and despite a couple of attempts $25k (which should have been broken already) remains a strong resistance for no reason!

That's a fact that you and I know but if we look through the eyes of newcomers Andresen is someone who could be made to look like an "expert" who knows what he is talking about. Lest we forget that we live in a society that average people tend to easily believe random stuff they read on the internet.

It means nothing if you ask me since it is already too late. It's not like he needed that much time to figure it out! It takes a second to know if someone is lying when they can't provide any kind of proof not this many years. I don't buy the NDA thing either since he could have not-say he is Satoshi in first place!

Something definitely shady is going on behind the scene between Andresen and Wright and in my opinion the only reason why Gavin went back on his words is the fallout between them, possibly Craig scammed him or refused to pay the money he promised Gavin after his support or something similar.

My ass. You can't rewrite history, specially on the internet that is "written in ink". Nothing is going to wash the following shame from Gavin's forehead:

The only important question we should ask is "what was the benefit of supporting a clear scammer in 2016 and what is the benefit in going back on his words today?
Was it money? Position? Government favor? Threat of prosecution by government? Something else?

Next thing Binance is going to reveal is the govtool where the governments have been logging into all these years to receive all the information of all the users so that they can detect their activities, find their addresses balances, etc. and bust anybody who they don't like

The best way and the most correct way of inserting an arbitrary data into bitcoin blockchain is using an OP_RETURN output. The transaction size depends mainly on the number of inputs you are going to have and their type. For example if you are spending a simple single P2WPKH output and creating a new P2WPKH output with a single OP_RETURN output you would need to pay less than 200 satoshi fee which is about $0.04 with today's price.

The benefit of this is that it doesn't put a burden on full nodes for having to keep the output in their UTXO database but if you use Taproot, they will have to keep it in there and load it in memory when verifying blocks.

There are two ways of looking at this. What SPV (short for Simplified Payment Verification) clients do and what they can do.
There are different implementations of SPV protocol, some are very centralized and what we can all "server dependent". These usually work on phones. In this type they heavily depends on what the single centralized server tells them. So they don't really connect to the bitcoin network directly to know much about it and any possible forks.
But there are other implementations that connect to multiple "servers" (that are full nodes with the chain indexed so that it can be searched) like Electrum which performs more verifications on headers they receive hence are capable detecting chain-splits, etc.

Technically when a full node wants to sync with the network they connect to other random full nodes (multiple peers) and after a handshake they send a "locator" in a getheaders message to download their block headers. They receive a reply containing the headers the "locator" was missing ie. any new header that were mined recently.
This is what a SPV client can do too.

Then the full node performs a series of verification on these headers (version, time, PoW using target, verify target itself using difficulty adjustment, etc.) that way they make sure the headers are actually valid (put simply they are mined correctly).
This is what a SPV client can do too.

Finally they check each batch of headers with what they've stored locally so that they can know what headers (and blocks) they are missing, what they already have and if there is any kind of chain-split, stale block, orphan, etc.
This is what a SPV client can do too.

The only thing that the SPV client doesn't do is the full node's next step which is to download the block itself to verify the transactions and update the chainstate (ie. UTXO database). Which has nothing to do with chain-splits, etc.

We have been stopping them successfully before Taproot by making them non-standard which discourages such spam. Otherwise you could create a scriptpub with an arbitrary input that is a little smaller than 1 MB.

A Schnorr signature is 64 bytes and with the public key it becomes 96 bytes. 80 byte limit is not enough for any type of Taproot witness. You also can't use OP_CHECKMULTISIG in Taproot scripts, OP_CHEKSIGADD is used so the 15-of-15 size is not the same as before needing all 15 keys and signatures.

You are wrong. A lot of forward compatible code existed in bitcoin from day one. That is how BIP16 was enabled too. It allows us to remain backward compatible in each soft fork.
Another example is the the simplest OP codes called OP_NOPs that were used in 2 soft-forks to enable OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (BIP65) and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIP112).

That's the correct link and that was the original quote I mentioned in my previous post and it says "an official" without saying who they were or what their position were in the ministry! This is the problem with this type of news in the mainstream media. They never mention their source. It is always a "reliable source" an "official", etc.

The fact is that the contract has been in place for years and Iran has been pushing Pakistan to finish the project so that they can help their own economy by importing cheap Iranian gas for just as long. The thing about paying a fine is also not a new thing and as I said to this day Iran hasn't enforced it even though legally speaking Pakistan should have paid the fine 7 years ago.

Rolling back a consensus rule change doesn't necessarily need rolling back blocks specially when months have gone by and it requires thousands of blocks to be rolled back. Not that it would happen but something like that would be like disabling the soft fork by removing the extra rules. So in case of Taproot all the Taproot outputs become anyone-can-spend.

I'm surprised to keep seeing this statement on the bitcoin forum from old bitcoin users.
Do you guys think Satoshi created Bitcoin because he was under sanctions too? Or do you think he saw the flaws in the existing payment systems and fiat currencies and decided to create an alternative that addresses those flaws?
What does Satoshi explain in the first part of the whitepaper? Is it not the flaws in the existing systems and how Bitcoin fixes them?

That's the same when it come to dedollarisation or dumping US dollar.

There is a big flaw in using dollar which is why no country in the world including US want to use dollar, so they all seek a replacement. The flaw is pretty simple to understand too, US keeps printing dollar without any kind of limit, at any time they want. Then they use all the dollars that were printed out of thin air to other countries to purchase actual goods, energy, services, etc.
(Imagine that next time you want to go to the grocery store instead of using your hard earned cash you use your printer to print some money and then use that to buy groceries!)
What this cases is inflation in any country that uses dollar (including US) because they use dollar and this is exactly why everyone would love to dump it.

In short this is how United States exports its inflation.

The only reasons why they haven't done it completely yet are the fear of US (see Iraq, Libya, Syria, and a dozen other countries that were destroyed when they "thought" about dumping dollar) and also because they couldn't come to agreement about the replacement.... until now...

FWIW the source of the news you shared is not a reliable source at all, additionally those behind it are considered as members of a terrorist organization.

The news itself is manipulated quote of a quote from an unknown source in Pakistani local media so it also is not reliable. Besides the contract they are talking about mandated Pakistan to pay a fine ever since January 2015 and Iran hasn't been enforcing that to this day (that's 7 years) and there is no reason to suddenly start demanding a penalty out of nowhere now that the eastern neighbor is already in some economical hardship.

I sincerely hope they don't end up pushing this domestically because it has a high chance of failing and it is pointless anyways. But on the other hand if it is used internationally and if it is backed by gold and/or energy that would be fantastic. In that case it would have the potential to easily replace USD in international trades since that is exactly what dollar through SWIFT etc is, a CBDC that is not backed by anything except that this new one would be backed by a lot.

What's being created here seems to be stand alone but I wouldn't be so sure about governments always being so wise as to not use existing shitcoin chains. I've even heard about possibility of using Tether (aka one of the most centralized altcoins) even though it doesn't seem to have actually happened but it shows how little some governments know.

I'm not that interested in "investing" in bitcoin. From the day I found out about bitcoin which was back in 2014, I have been interested in it as a decentralized currency that I can use for a lot of things. Consequently I'm more interested in using bitcoin and earning it as you would any other currency.
The reason for that is the uniqueness of bitcoin as a currency. And of course the increased purchase power, which you could call "profit" is the cherry on top.

How many of these "private keys" do you have? It seems like every now and then you come here with another key missing arbitrary number of characters trying to "find" or sometimes try to sell.