That pipeline was supposed to go from Northern Iraq (in control of separatists) to Turkey and then to Europe. Syria doesn't even come in. Even from Qatar it could go to Iraq then to Turkey then to Europe.
Syrian war was a lot more complicated game to destabilize the whole region and Russia wasn't even interested in this conflict for years. Iranians have been in that war from the start fighting against the US backed terrorists. After some time we convinced Russia to provide some air support to help speed up the process of getting rid of terrorists in Syria.

In a peer to peer network you have to run a full node in order to be able to fully participate in that network. In Bitcoin if you want to have the maximum level of security, highest possible privacy and beware of the network situation (possible chain splits, vote for protocol changes, etc.) you need to run a full node.

The miners run their own nodes or connect to a pool that runs the full node.
Since all full nodes verify everything themselves they don't worry about other nodes being dishonest because anything invalid would be rejected by them and the violating node's IP address would be banned.

Nodes also don't have to be honest, but being dishonest doesn't benefit them either.

Just because something is called "decentralized" it doesn't mean it actually is decentralized though.
Take thousands of altcoins that are centralized and claim otherwise. We have this situation all around us, for example the Binance Decentralized Exchange is a big centralized joke and yet they claim it is not centralized!

For these companies it all comes down to money, if they can make money from it they will build it.
They could even start user data mining and sell the data for extra profit. Considering the project and the company are both shady and closed the risks are high.

Pretty much the same thing:
- Message hash could be computed the same way as before (append constant, compute SHA256d)
- Compute k using Tagged hash (instead of RFC6979) by using BIP-notatether as its tag
- Generate signature using Schnorr digital signature algorithm the same way you sign a transaction hash

The important part is the second step.

We can't blame them though. Bitcoin is still very volatile which means it is not yet suitable for a complete migration from the traditional centralized fiat system to decentralized bitcoin. So people still have to trust the corrupt banking system and continue using their services despite all the reminders.

In fact the reason why the FUD works for most people is this volatility. When they tell people "bitcoin is dying" and they see price has been dropping hard, most people believe it easily.

Are you confusing WIFs with mnemonics?
In a mnemonic more than 3 missing words starts becoming very hard to recover but in a Base58 WIF it is still very easy to recover keys missing 5-6 characters and anything higher than that will start taking hours and exponentially become harder.

That is dirty but still conventional.

That is part truth, part propaganda.
The problem with superpowers of the past age is that their military strategies are stuck in WWII and they have no experience in real battlefield. This is why unconventional warfare works best against them since it is just "un"conventional in their definition, otherwise it is pretty much conventional. They also have no idea what to do against these new tactics.

For example check how US attacked Afghanistan and how they were defeated. They were fighting cavemen (literary) and tried bombing their positions that were actually strongholds in mountains. Quadrillions of dollars spent on aircraft, navy, missiles, radars, ... meant nothing.

Same with Russia. They poured tanks in Ukraine and didn't even think about bringing enough fuel. Not to mention that hitting the front runner with a hand held missile launcher halted their progress. They also had no good plans to defend against the shittiest UAVs that Turkey and US build and give Ukraine.
When I say shitty that's an understatement. They are so weak that we regularly capture or shoot them down. (There is even a big museum of all kinds of US aircraft that we have seized or shot over the past 4 decades). In other words if Russia wasn't so behind in technology, all they had to do was to capture these $170 million drones and change the targets of their hellfire missiles.

That doesn't mean no progress or 70% loss though. That's the propaganda part which is very unrealistic.

In my opinion Russia could only be defeated if NATO wasn't fighting a proxy war with Russia trying to recreate the misery US had in Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine. I'm certain that NATO will prolong this war. It's evident from the type and quality of the weapons they give Ukraine like the missiles that are all very short range!

Not to mention that they can not help more than this either. For example Turkey is already out of parts to build its shitty UAVs to send to Ukraine and they need to import them since they are incapable of domestic manufacturing!!! US storages are getting empty too. I recently read that their manufacturers need another month and another billion to build only 100 more of those shitty UAVs!

That depends on how clean or ugly the code already is. If we are dealing with a clean loosely coupled code, it is very easy and smooth to change different parts of it just like replacing a cog in a big machine.
I don't know any C++ but signature verification is already in separate methods and GenericTransactionSignatureChecker seems to be replaceable.

You are overthinking it. Only small modifications need to be made in the interpreter to verify the given script. You just evaluate it as if you were evaluating a transaction only treating certain OP codes differently meaning OP_CHECK(MULTI)SIG(VERIFY/ADD) computes hash of the message instead of tx. Multi-sigs return how many more signatures were missing. OP_CLV acts as OP_NOP, etc. Any complication in script evaluation already taken care of by the existing code.

Since this would require a new message format and @NotATether pointed out he wants to keep it Informational, I think I should stop further expansion on this idea.

Actually it makes perfect sense. When you sign a message you are actually proving ownership of any balance that is locked behind a certain locking script. In other words you claim that you can spend that output.

If you sign a message using public key in <locktime> OP_CLV OP_DROP <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG you prove you can spend this output.
If you sign a message from pubkey #1 in <OP_2> <pubkey 1> <pubkey 2> OP_2 OP_CHECKMULTISIG you prove that you are one of the 2 persons who can spend this output.

Additionally the price of the shares that is being sold on the stack market is not determined based on bitcoin price alone. Like anything else that is traded, the price of these shares are decided based on what happens in the market. If the stock is hyped up enough (bitcoin rise helps that hype too) their shares can gain a bigger value than they are worth.

It works both ways too. For example the mining pool called MARA that announced that they were censoring bitcoin blocks they mined had their stocks dump hard, which means their stock underperformed compared to bitcoin. (At least until they reversed their decision and begged for forgiveness!)

Coinbase was not even among the 50 first exchanges! The exchange service didn't even start until 2015, it was merely a custodial wallet up until then.
Bitstamp (Luxembourg) and Bitfinex (Hong Kong) are both much older exchanges.

That's the problem with P2SH, the redeem script can not be fetched from the address since it only includes the hash of it. So the redeem script has to either be guessed (like in case of wrapped SegWit) or be included in the signature+message combo. The later would significantly change the proposal since BIP-137 doesn't include the scripts.

The world is constantly reminded that authoritarian regimes will always invade your privacy and have their hands in your pocket. Bitcoin is truly the alternative for those who want to exit the corrupt systems, even if they only make a partial exit (use bitcoin alongside banking system).

For example a couple of months ago we saw how the Canadian regime shut down bank accounts of all protesters and anybody who even slightly supported them through social media. Meanwhile bitcoin was not affected and the truckers received donations through bitcoin to help their cause.

Crypto or the full name cryptocurrency refers to a much wider group that includes altcoins, tokens, CBDCs, etc. It is not the same as saying bitcoin.

Nonsense.
For starters Bitcoin is a peer to peer protocol which means it doesn't have or rely on any "servers" or even "exchanges" for that matter. The full nodes and miners and mining pools and exchanges are spread across the globe. It's true that many of the centralized businesses are located in US but bitcoin does NOT rely on centralized businesses to run!

You are confusing a bunch of things here.
First is the fact that bitcoin price falling has nothing to do with it relying on a centralized shitty exchanges. It is pure panic sell and it is purely your speculation that it would fall and a different topic.
Second is that both Euro and USD are dumping, EUR harder than USD most because US exports its inflation to countries that only use dollar as reserve currency.

LOL. sure kiddo.

I disagree with your speculation. Altcoins have always created sell pressures on bitcoin but never too high to cause any crash of any size. In the most recent case we saw this too, there was a small panic sell but nowhere near $10k drop.

You are missing all the other things that have been going on, the fact that the world economy is in a pretty bad shape these days and many other markets have been crashing too.
You got the irrational part right though but the reason for panic sell was the economy crashing not some shitcoin being dumped.

If the algorithm and the format are not going to change then it may be best to update the existing BIP-137 that already standardized message signing for P2PKH, P2WPKH-P2SH and P2WPKH.

Otherwise what is your solution to other cases that could be common but not covered here such as P2PK outputs or any other legacy P2SH script types like a simple lock-time script or multi-signature addresses or P2TR that is not using the simple single key spending route?

In my personal experience it could be because of 2 things.

First the bad explanations by some sources which means you have to try and find good sources and don't waste time on everything you find on the internet. For example Mastering Bitcoin and bitcoin wiki are both good sources while random sites that are mostly clickbaits are not.

Second is your lack of knowledge about the basics. This was my experience in early days. In your opening post you mention two topics one is basic (UTXO) another is advanced (Whirlpool). If you don't have the basic understanding of the protocol you won't be able to understand advanced topics like Whirlpool and CoinJoin.
For example I remember in early days I was trying to figure out how a P2SH address works while I had no idea how bitcoin scripts work which is a pre-requirement. I had to go back and learn more about scripts then learn what a P2SH address did and how it worked.

The problem is that some people associate short term market manipulation with what bitcoin stands for and its value. There is a really high chance that if some day Satoshi's identity became known, bitcoin price would dump. But that doesn't mean anything would change about bitcoin and its value.
These are the same people who repeat "bitcoin is dead" each time there is a drop.

Why you speak about things you have no knowledge of is beyond me.
Iran has the largest and most diverse number of missiles and unmanned vehicles (UAVs, UUVs, UGVs, etc.) in the world. The military technologies are so advanced that we are literary defining what modern warfare is. In fact the "unconventional" warfare Ukrainians are using against Russia is copied from us. But of course just like altcoins, it is a poor copy of the original. Add to that the lack of independence and you can see why Russia is still progressing instead of having been defeated a long time ago.

The hypocrisy makes him worse. Those people who invest in bitcoin for profit aren't lying about it, in fact they call bitcoin an asset not a currency. Whereas Elon has pretended to care about the technology, ran a full node, used it as a currency in his business, etc. then suddenly went back on all that and showed his true face when he started pump and dumping an altcoin.