It has turned into a common misconception that people think message signing is not "standardized". As a matter of fact there are two standards for it among the improvement proposals called BIP-137 and BIP-322 where wallets mostly implement BIP-137.
The fact that some implementations of Bitcoin haven't bothered fully implementing message signing algorithms is a different discussion.

In any case this issue is just like wanting to withdraw your bitcoins from a centralized service to a bech32 address. A lot of services didn't used to support that a couple of years ago so people were forced to use a "workaround" (legacy or wrapped addresses).
So similar to that, you have to find a workaround. If the wallet software you use or the service you want to send the signed message to has limited options you have to choose from those. Most wallets have easy features for switching between wallets so storing a P2PKH one for signing purposes shouldn't be a problem.

The problem is that altcoins don't go up 20x-50x in a few years, they do that in a few days or weeks when they are getting pumped. Bagholding them for years hoping that some day someone comes along and pumps them that much is not going to end well as the history suggests.

It is worth knowing that a lot of them aren't actually "victims" but simple gamblers who knowingly make "bets" on these shitcoins hoping to make a profit. It is just like using a dice site to roll and try their luck except that you don't lose all your money if you get unlucky.

Actually Sybil attack is about "gaining large influence in a network". For example you could create a lot of identities in a network using different Email addresses and user names. But in Bitcoin, this "influence" is basically translated into hashrate ergo the way Proof of Work is defined prevents that already because you can't magically summon computing power to gain a significant amount of influence on the network.

This has always been a proxy war between United States and Russia before it even began. It is not about supply of components or anything like that. Think of it this way: every Russian soldier that falls is one less soldier to fight US. Every bullet that Russia fires at another direction is one less bullet they have to shoot at US.

In fact this is not the only proxy war that the Americans have started or are trying to start. Basically they have pulled anybody who threatened their global hegemony into a similar war. The proxy war through ISIS against Iran, the proxy war through Taiwan against China and the proxy war through Ukraine against Russia are the 3 main ones.

LOL it's like saying "Russian invasion of Ukraine is sheer propaganda"!!!
Things that are already happening are not propaganda. The food war is already happening just like the invasion of Ukraine. The only thing left open for discussion is whether this food war is going to lead to more armed conflict to which I say there is a pretty good chance it does.

Oil production does not have a switch that you can flip to increase the cap specially when you are production at maximum capacity possible. Even more so when you are at war. The situation with Saudis is actually very similar to Russians. They too have invaded their neighbor and have been at war for a long time. The only difference is that their neighbor is not desperately begging Americans to give them very short range missiles that could barely reach 300 km range, but with the help of their allies they've managed to manufacture long range ballistic missiles with a range higher than 1500 km that has allowed them to hit their invader's infrastructure.
Hence the attack on Saudi oil production facilities and the decreased production that has not gone back up again.

P.S. This morning Saudis bombed Al Hudaydah and the armed forces of Yemen threatened to retaliate. We have to wait and see if Aramco goes up in smokes again and how much oil production is going to decrease this time if it does. Last time it was cut by half if I'm not mistaken.

Altcoin profit is only huge in short term (during the pumps) not in the long term (due to the dumps). In comparison bitcoin will always be a lot more profitable because it doesn't get dumped the same way altcoins do. That's because of the pump and dump nature of the altcoins. In short term you could see 1000% pump where for instance price of a shitcoin goes from 100 satoshi to 1100 satoshi, this means a massive profit during that pump. But the problem with altcoins is that they follow that up with a massive dump where that same price goes back down from 1100 satoshi to 100 satoshi in best case scenario and in worse case it goes down lower to 10 satoshi (lower than the initial price). Any subsequent pump is going to always be smaller (eg. from 10 to 50 or 400% instead of the previous 1000%) and never go back to the peak.

But in comparison bitcoin price is always going up regardless of its short term swings. Take 2013 for example, price goes to $1200 but falls down to $150. But it recovers back to $1200 and continues rising and reaches $20,000. The next time there is a drop it is to a higher low of $3200 and it also recovers that by going back up to $20,000 again and will continue rising after that too.

This is all based on one simple fact: bitcoin is useful in real world while altcoins aren't.

The respond is actually pretty simple, just ask them to show you a real use case of shitcoins like ethereum in real world that is not for gamblers and speculators. There is none! All they end up doing is listing a bunch of useless tokens that are created only for one purpose: fundraising and scamming people. Something that does not need a "smart contract platform" to be done.

It always comes down to utilities. The problem is that altcoins don't have any utilities, they are just there to be pumped and dumped. Majority of them are copy coins without any innovations which is why they die in a very short time. The rest that stick around aren't that different either, they just had better pumping teams that kept them alive otherwise with the flaws that some of them have like ethereum, they should have died long ago.

In short if people are looking for an "investment" they should not consider anything other than bitcoin. If they want something to trade (in short term) and make quick profit, then altcoins are a useful option to consider as long as they accept the risks of getting into pump an dump schemes.

When you convert the result of a dice roll which is from ~3 bits (1 to 6) to a byte which is 8 bit (0 to 256) you are padding each value with unnecessary bits. I don't think there is any "security" issue with this method but it is just a strange way of doing things.

Things are still very unpredictable considering how unpredictable global economy has become so going sideways is the most possible trend. Most traders are too scared to sell or buy so only day traders rule the market these days.
It is also worth mentioning that it could go in either direction at any time too. All it takes is a small nudge to kick start the market action again.

You are making a big leap from Samsung building being hit to changing sanctions stance on Russia. Not to mention that there are a lot of other ways to procure any components that are needed (most things aren't really as vital as you think they are).

How can the capital be "doing good" when the country is still at war?

Not just Ukraine but in a lot of other places the colonizers have occupied. I've already said it before and something that the US State Department has already admitted to doesn't leave any room for discussion!

Iraq not Iran.

There is nothing to refute when you said what I've been saying all this time. All these fake superpowers like US and Russia invade any country they can or want to. During their invasion, the more battles they lose the more aggressive they get.

It was 2 or 3 months ago that I said here that Russians are going to do the same thing in Ukraine that Americans did in Afghanistan. I even mentioned the MOAB they dropped on Afghanistan and said Russia is going to do something similar...

The word is "follow" not "compare". The thing that some people say and is wrong is claiming that price follows the hashrate. In other words it is wrong to say that if hashrate goes up price goes up later or if hashrate drops, price drops later following that.

It is wrong because the exact opposite is true meaning when price goes up, hashrate goes up too and vice versa.
But it doesn't happen immediately. There is a delay because you can't just flip a switch and start mining bitcoin with what you find at home. You have to buy ASICs (which is special hardware that you don't have at home like a PC or graphics cards) and have it delivered to start mining, this takes time.
There is also hardware technology that is improving meaning new ASICs come along that are more efficient and produce higher hashrate so when miners buy these new ones and have them delivered the hashrate increases.

To be fair "advertisement" has always been about lying, or better say to "bend the truth" about a product or service. Cryptocurrency exchanges are obviously doing that in order to attract more users and most of their methods are obvious too so you can't really complain. For example you can't really expect them to just give you free money (like $1500) for just signing up! They aren't running a charity, it is business and be sure that the money is not free, they have to earn 10 times that much from you to be able to afford it otherwise they will go under.

That's a weird code! It basically generates the random bits but uses it as a string instead of binary! The computed hash is the hash of that string not exactly the same as using the bits directly. The developed possibly had no idea how to convert bits to bytes and compute that hash

P.S. Using HMACSHA would be useful to combine entropies. For example if you don't want to rely fully on computer generated random or fully on user (dice) generated random you could generate both and  then compute HMACSHA256 of them using one as the key and the other as the message. I haven't seen anybody do this either though.

I don't think that much is going to change with passage of time alone. It is evident that people are too lazy to make a change. Take web browsers for example. The closed source proprietary software called Chrome that is mining user personal info has more than 65% of the total number of users on all platforms while the far superior and open source Firefox has less than 4% (according to Wikipedia).

The thing is people don't buy computers or their hardware to be dedicated all to bitcoin. For example my 4 TB HDD space is used for my files and it doesn't have that much space left for blockchain, same as my SDD which I use for 2 operating systems and their installed programs and their related files which take up a lot of space. So not much space is left for me to dedicate to bitcoin's full blockchain, this is where pruned mode is very useful.

Good point. Another major reason is the first mover advantage that Windows has though. Not to mention the fact that Linux has major differences that has discouraged many regular users from making that migration.