It's cute that you think I care about USSR or Russia for that matter

First we have to see if they actually increase production that much and if Aramco is going to blow up again cutting the current production by another 50% dropping 10 million to 5!
By the way EU imports between 13 to 15 million barrels of oil per day.

None of it will go to the West though.
Iran is selling some small amounts to the West which there is no plan to increase it in near term. For example we recently learned from the US senator that the US Navy, the same Navy that idiot called Trump threatened Iran with, has been running on Iranian fuel LOL.

Same with gas, none of it will go to the West.

Although when it comes to politics we can't talk in absolutes but this is not possible. You see the problem is that more than 60% of the world is under US sanctions one way or another. So at some point it is US that is under sanction by the majority of the world.

What you are also forgetting is that the current war is between East and West not between Russia and Ukraine.
In this face off, Iran is in the Eastern bloc and is becoming the center of all trades. In other words there hasn't been any need to export anything (more than what existed for years) to the "West".
South America is also a region that US has been losing for some time, almost all countries there are moving to Anti-US governments and most of them are playing with the Eastern bloc too. Fun fact: for the first time in history a foreign super power (Iran) is going to hold military drills close to US waters next month with Venezuela (bye bye Monroe Doctrine haha).

Russian economy is harmed and will be harmed but nowhere near as much as EU economy is and will be.
Remember the Iranian tanker that Greece seized and was later forced to give back? That is carrying Russian oil to Western Europe.
In other words EU will continue funding the Russian invasion.

No because there is an alliance between Iran and China which India also wants to be part of. Not to mention that the increased production is because of increased demand, all of which came from the East not the West since Iran is still under Western sanctions (or as I said West is under Iranian sanctions, yesterday alone 61 Americans were sanctioned by Iran).

Iran has been selling its energy to more than a hundred different countries including United States.

It's been 5 moths bro, how much longer is "short term"?

History has proven that after a big drop people are scared and will wait for a positive signal. That positive signal is breaking a major resistance and going above that with a strong momentum. We have had this many times in the past like in 2019 when price was stuck in $3k range and wasn't going up but as soon as the resistance at $4k was broken a large number of buyers poured into the market and started FOMO buying. Their influx caused a massive rise from $4k to nearly $14k, that is 250% rise in only 2 months.

That's nonsense.
You don't sign a message from your address for the address type to be making a difference in your ability to do it. You sign it from your private key so you an do it regardless of what address type you are using (legacy or SegWit version 0 or 1 or any other future ones).

The problem is laziness of some developers to implement the feature for the users in GUI. For example Electrum devs added this option from early days while others including core devs didn't. Some wallets still don't have the option. That is not a flaw in protocol.
That would be like saying "the protocol is flawed because my wallet doesn't let me create a multi-sig address".

Nothing has changed about that project, last commit is from 2012. The procedure doesn't have to be that hard though, it is just that it doesn't have a GUI so you have to type in the commands. The simplest way is to just add your starting letters like running:
And the code will search and give you your key + address starting with 1MVP in the end.

You don't know how much bitcoin Satoshi really owns, you are just repeating a very weak guess made by someone many years ago. As a matter of fact a lot of coins from early days have already been moved not to mention all those early miners who came together to sign a message calling out the known scammer Craig.

Actually one of the ways to brute force seed phrases (like when you are missing 1 or 2 words and don't have any addresses) is to check the derived key against a database of addresses not just one type. It's trivial to turn that database into hashes (eg. hash160 of pubkey and hash160 of wit program 0) to not even care about the type.

P2PKH has been around for a long time and any software that is old enough is already safe. But when they implement P2TR they could introduce this vulnerability without knowing it.

It is trivial to recover all at different derivation paths. Lets say you use P2PKH and P2WPKH, all you have to do is to tell the wallet you used these two (like checking 2 checkboxes in UI) and the wallet simply derives both branches and their respective children in the background.
The complication is in the implementation and balance checking which is not a concern for the end user.

Technically yes but practically no.

What you need to know is that when signing a message you are signing it with your private key and it is verified with your public key. So technically the address doesn't even come in, regardless of the address type you sign any arbitrary message with your private key and reveal the signature + public key to prove ownership.

But in practice the wallets only support signing a message from addresses and only a subset of address types. Majority support P2PKH and a handful support P2WPKH and even less support P2SH-P2WPKH and I have not seen any wallet that supports signing from any other address.

I disagree with part of what you said.
It is true that Satoshi not being around and being anonymous has removed that "authority figure" that people may want to look up to to see what his decisions are on everything (like waiting for Satoshi to decide what scaling solution to use instead of thinking for themselves) but that is one of the reasons why bitcoin is fully decentralized.
Similarly the reason why majority of altcoins are very centralized isn't only because their creator is known.

For example one of the key factors is the algorithm used in bitcoin, PoW and the way hashrate is distributed has ensured decentralization while in other altcoins same PoW and lack of incentive to mine that altcoin has centralized the hashing power and the altcoin itself. Or other algorithms such as PoS accompanied by large premines has ensured centralization of such altcoins.
We also have altcoins that are designed to be centralized like CBDCs (eg. Petro), stable coins (eg. USDT), exchange coins (eg. BNB), ... because they can not operate any other way not because their creator is known.

Taproot is actually using a slightly different version of Bech32 encoding (Bech32m) so in order to support Taproot addresses these services would have to upgrade their backend so that it can verify these addresses using the new rules.

I don't think a "slight change" in a Bech32 address could create a valid address due to the way checksum works, although you can't test it by hand since you need a way to quickly check thousands of permutations to be sure. Something like this where I replaced 2 characters and checked 719,872 permutations and none of them were valid.

It is hard to say which one is better because it depends on what you want to achieve. Generally speaking it is more convenient to have one deterministic wallet where you store a single seed phrase so that you can recover everything with that one.
Also after 5 years there shouldn't be anybody left who doesn't accept a simple native SegWit address. But if you have no other choice it is best to keep things to a minimum, like 2 wallets one Nested SegWit and another Native SegWit.

Yes.
If you are receiving payments you don't need to sweep the keys though. Just spend the coins whenever you need to. If you want to combine the outputs from your 2 wallets as I explained above and you are using Electrum, you could create a new wallet from private keys that contain those coins from each of those addresses and combine UTXOs that way. Although this is a privacy hazard as it would link your addresses.

Yes. These are like "special scripts", when the interpreter sees one of these scripts it goes through a different route for the rest of the evaluation. Each new rule requires a soft-fork.

For example when the interpreter sees a P2SH output (OP_HASH160 <20 bytes> OP_EQUAL) it looks on the stack for the redeem script, after evaluating the redeem script if it is a legacy type, it follows the legacy rules to evaluate the rest but if it is a SegWit type (OP_0 <20/32 bytes>) it's considered as a program version 0 and requires witnesses according to version 0. This was added with the SegWit soft-fork. If the redeem script is any other program version (eg. OP_1 <32 bytes>) there is no rules defined. So it simply returns true. If we want to add that, there has to be a proposal then voting and reaching consensus followed by the soft-fork locking it in.

Sweep and import are fundamentally the same operation, they both receive a private key and either check for all possible addresses derived from that key or let the user explicitly define the address type (like Electrum does), then fetch all the UTXOs from each address.
Only the last step is different, in sweeping the wallet creates a transaction where it sends all the UTXOs to one of the addresses from your wallet but in importing it just creates an entry inside the wallet file.

To add to this, in order to add Nested Taproot we would need to perform another soft-fork because unlike the previous soft-fork in 2017, the rules to spend a Nested Taproot output are not defined in the protocol. This is why I don't think we would ever add such feature.

It will need at least a decade for quantum resistant algorithms be considered seriously or even make their way into bitcoin. Right now we have no reason to want to think about any kind of fork whatsoever.

Not a flaw, but laziness or maliciousness of some services like exchanges that refused to adopt SegWit for a long time so that their users needed a way to still receive their funds when they were withdrawing coins from exchanges to a SegWit address.

It is more like a workaround but yes it is being used less and less.

Yes, P2SH-P2WPKH and P2SH-P2WSH are parts of the protocol now and they can not be removed.

That depends on the software. For example if you use bitcoin core, because it is implemented properly and by competent developers then you are fine but if you are using some other implementation that is done by incompetent developers (like blockchain.com) then you are never fine regardless of what you do.

That's correct.

If you read my comment again I used two big "ifs" there that should be correct at the same time. That is normal in cryptography. If you use cryptography the way it is supposed to then you are safe; if not you are not safe!

First big IF is if you use the same private key for a P2TR (Schnorr signature) and any of the older addresses using ECDSA.
Second big IF is if the implementation of Schnorr is flawed so that it uses the same nonce generation algorithm used in ECDSA, ie. RFC6979 instead of using a different algorithm such as the the new proposal using Tagged hashes.

Two words: backward compatibility.

SegWit was a soft-fork and soft-forks need to be backward compatible. Meaning your old node that didn't upgrade needs to be able to send bitcoin to a SegWit address too which is where nested SegWit addresses come in. They wrap the witness in a P2SH script so that the corresponding address is looking like the same old P2SH addresses and can be used by old clients that don't recognize Bech32 addresses.

There is nothing technically wrong with doing something like that.

Also considering privacy and security, as long as each address type is derived from a different key then you are fine. Meaning you should never use key at m/0/0 for both P2PKH and P2TR addresses, instead you should use keys at different paths like this: m/0/0 for P2PKH and m/0/1 for P2TR.
If this is not followed and the implementation is flawed, you could easily leak your private key each time you spend from both P2TR and P2PKH/P2WPKH addresses.
Note that it only works for Taproot (Schnorr sigs) and any of the older address types that use ECDSA.

The other problem would be recovering the wallet from seed. The wallet that offers you such an option to generate multiple types of addresses from the same seed, should also offer you an easy way of recovering that wallet. I don't think any wallet has that option.
If you did it manually by forcing the wallet to generate such address types then you have to remember the derivation paths you used to be able to recover the wallet later.