It's funny to see keyboard warriors from their basement make fun of countries trying to improve their economy just because their GDP is low.
In any case @romero121 pointed out something interesting that seems to have gone unnoticed. In the list there are countries that have really banned bitcoin like Bangladesh. Nobody has anything to say about that?! They are all going to a place where bitcoin is going to be one of the main topics of discussion. Is it going to reverse their decision on the ban?

About a year ago someone on Reddit claimed that foreigners have already been coming to El Salvador and made investment there before bitcoin adoption. Many migrated from countries such as Sweden to live there and their security was good enough. The crimes are usually focused in certain parts of the country.

I believe Bitcoin City project could also attract more foreign investment which seems to be what they hope for too although I wish someone from El Salvador was on bitcointalk and could give us better information.

Historically whenever there is a massive shitcoin dump that is covered in the media a lot, bitcoin price has been affected by it. That still doesn't create a correlation between bitcoin price and shitcoins specially centralized ones. After all we are seeing a market with many weak hands waiting for an excuse to make an irrational decision.
In case of Terra it was a combination of both panic sell and their liquidation that helped the already falling price to go a tiny bit lower.

You can argue about the reasons behind the suggestion but not the news itself since it is direct quotes from Ukraine's president Zelensky, unless you think the comedian is lying.
He claims that French President Emmanuel Macron has been pressuring him to yield a lot of territories to Russia.
I believe this is the origin of the news:
https://www.uawire.org/zelensky-macron-suggested-to-make-concessions-on-ukraine-s-sovereignty-to-help-putin-save-face#

Not a little bit, I'm theorizing the worse case scenario while wishing something a lot less happens to our world.

One reason why I mentioned the worse case scenario and global starvation is that production everywhere is decreased due to a much lower supply of fertilizers which is something I haven't seen any analysts out there even consider! You see farmers need fertilizers so that the soil can handle more production and more frequent production. Otherwise the soil won't have enough nutrition in it to help the crops grow.
So we have a combination of decreased imports, decreased domestic production and at the same time we have an increased consumption. This sounds a lot like a recipe for disaster.

The global food situation is worsening every second and in a month or two could lead to mass unrest followed by regimes suppressing the violence and eventually a wider war between countries stealing each other's food supplies to ease their domestic unrest, something similar but worse than what we saw during the first months of pandemic where Europeans countries were stealing from each other to ease their own crisis.

Let's take a quick look at a series of events:
1. Russia and Ukraine are two big producers, Russia invades and production is ceased in Ukraine.
2. Russia is sanctioned to put economic pressure on them so their exports to 99% of the world is completely stopped
3. Other producers like India follow this trend and stop their exports
4. Price of food soars as scarcity is now a serious threat
5. Other countries are embracing for the crisis by trying desperately to increase their own production but fertilizer exports are also ceased so the domestic production has also decreased significantly in most countries.
6. China is mass purchasing any food (wheat, etc.) that are found in the world and is also pre-purchasing future production (as much as anybody would sell them) at high prices.
7. France is already telling Ukraine to give up defending so that maybe they can avert food crisis themselves!

The real question is how would each country handle this crisis. And at what scale is the conflicts going to break?

In West Asia we are producing most of our needs already but the pressure is still felt here. The biggest problem we are facing is the neighbors. The borders are already being tightened as we speak to handle immigration and prevent illegal exports that are basically stealing food!

Correct me if I'm wrong but Europe seems to be highly dependent on imports when it comes to basic food (wheat, oil, live-stock feed, etc.) and others and the supply has decreased while the prices are soaring.
US doesn't seem to be doing well either as they are currently trying to rob Ukraine and transfer all their wheat supply to reduce the crisis US itself is facing through the western border while Russia is still busy in the east and south and the world isn't looking.

This is starting to feel like WWII already when the Allies invaded India for example and how Churchil stole their food and starved more than 3 million Indians to death. The difference however is that the option to invade East to survive their European War aka WWII is no longer there for the West, so my guess would be a lot of conflict between different countries in Europe if the food crisis worsens, NATO falling apart and eventual mass migration towards East.

We are talking about a peer to peer network that is decentralized so there is no easy way of knowing the accurate number of full nodes. However, we can still come up with a good estimation.

People already introduced bitnodes.io, what they do is that they simply run a node and list those nodes that are reachable or in other words the nodes that accept incoming connection. This number has always been lower than the total number of nodes that also includes nodes that do not accept incoming connection.
Counting the second group of nodes is harder because they have to initiate the connection to the counter and they may never connect to that node ever ergo the counter may never know about them.

Think of it this way, there are nodes A, B, C, D, E, F and only A and B are accepting incoming connection. This means when C and D connect to A they will find out about B too (through gossip protocol) but B will never know about C and D unless they also connect to B since it has no reason to know about them and A doesn't tell others about C and D whereas it does tell everyone about B. Same with E and F that connect to B and A will never know about them.
In this case if node B is a counter node, it would think there is only 3 nodes in total: A, E and F.
On the other hand bitnodes.io type counter only knows about A and B since they only look for "reachable nodes" which are nodes that their "crawler" can connect to so they can never connect to C, D, E or F so they are never counted.

Others have attempted to count all nodes using different techniques:
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/historical.html

Do you mean you already have the master private key (a string starting with xprv)?
Because if you do, you don't need to have your mnemonic, passphrase, or anything else; all your keys are derived using this master private key.

I think all altcoins have always been intertwined with bitcoin, the simplest evidence is their unavoidable dump each time bitcoin price goes down. But the degree of it has changed multiple times in the past.

For example in early days where people were mostly buying shitcoins using bitcoin, their pump and dumps affected bitcoin positively and negatively in that order. People bought bitcoin with fiat (contributing to its rise) and used it to buy shitcoins then they got dumped so they sold them for bitcoin and sold bitcoin to exit specially if bitcoin was the one causing the shitcoin dumps hence contributing to bitcoin drop itself.

Then the option to buy shitcoins directly with fiat got popular and the degree of their effect decreased as people were using bitcoin less to go in and out of shitcoins but then the exchanges started enforcing a lot of KYC and started having other issues so we went back to before.

In any case the effects were always there. For example I think it was 2017 when a shitcoin exchange got hacked and millions of dollars worth of shitcoins which included ETH was stolen and caused their crash. That dump created some sell pressure on bitcoin too even though it had nothing to do with bitcoin directly.

The risks of different attacks on all cryptography algorithms are always present but we usually have a pretty good idea about cost of different attacks and the estimation is in the ballpark specially for solid old algorithms such as SHA256. This is why SHA1 was removed from a lot of places where it was used a long time before the successful attack was demonstrated by Google.

Not at all, we know that his creation is doing all that not him.

Wrong. That amount is your imagination guess. We have no way of knowing how much bitcoin anybody has, least of all someone who we don't even know their real identity!
In other words you don't even know who Satoshi is, how can you claim to know how much bitcoin he/she owns?!

Your problem is that you only know bitcoin as something you invest in and has some price whereas bitcoin is not that at all. Bitcoin is a censorship resistant currency that has been operating globally without any restrictions. What its volatile market does in short term does not affect its nature.

You can always send your transactions with any amount of fees you want from 0 to the sum of all your inputs.
But you are always in competition with others for the limited block space (regardless of its max size) so if there are more transactions than the block space you have to pay a higher fee to be prioritized by the miners for that space.

It's supply and demand at its best. There is a limited supply (block size) and if the demand for it is smaller or equal to that size the price of it (fee) remains low. If the demand increases the price goes up.

It is worth noting that the risks altcoins have is not just because they are alt-coins but because they lack real utility. Unfortunately all altcoins (except a handful like Monero) don't offer any real utilities that could be used in real world or they offer fake utilities like ethereum and that makes them lack real value hence their price always dumps in the long run.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In other words if you consider bitcoin a currency that doesn't prevent you from seeing it also as an investment. That only thing that is always there is the currency part because without bitcoin being a currency that other utilities it provides don't make much sense anymore.
If you also look at fiat, it also acts as an asset and a currency at the same time.

Actually almost all the time it is another pool that miners the empty block because they are "spy mining" and get the successful header before the block is even propagates and start working on the next block right away. Otherwise if it is their own block they don't need to "collect transactions" since they already know what transactions were included in that previous block.

This case could be the same too considering the coinbase string in the two blocks are slightly different (one has "Mined by unp1" and the other doesn't) that could mean 2 stand-alone servers.

If the block is empty why would they change time, it is not like they have to compute merkle root hash by computing a thousand hashes?!

This reminded me of the dumbest "scientific" paper I have ever seen in my life about the correlation between bitcoin price and number of posts on social media. The author was basically suggesting that if you post too many tweets on twitter for example, the price would pump and if you stop posting it would dump

Good points and I believe it is really impossible to say what the bottom was and whether $30k is going to hold (price currently is a little lower) but one thing is certain the cycle as we knew it is broken and all we have been seeing in the past 6 months are brand new. In other words nobody can claim 80% drop because it happened before because nothing of this trend is like before and even if price did drop that low like the $14K you mentioned, it still wouldn't be because "it happened before" but instead it would be because of a million different new reasons.

The mining farm would simply relocated to another country that doesn't have a dictatorship that raids their business. Even if they seize their hardware the hashrate would still increase in other places since the profitability of mining increases for them (due to lower hashrate and same difficulty before adjustment) hence previously turned off miners would come online and new ASIC purchases would be placed.

It happened with China and mining farms migrated to neighbor countries in Asia and have been operating there ever since.

Life is all about finding the balance in every aspects of it. When it comes to spending bitcoin, it is the same too. You find a balance between converting your fiat to bitcoin and storing those bitcoin and spending some of it. For example I usually have some left over fiat that I convert bitcoin anytime I can specially if there is a dip like these days but also if I find anything that I can buy with bitcoin I always jump on the opportunity.

I don't see institutional investors, etc. talk about this "correlation". All I see is regular people insisting on creating this correlation! This basically started in 2020 when someone planted the seed after the simultaneous crash and people forgot about it as soon as price recovered and reached ATH and nobody asked why other markets aren't recovering if there really was a correlation.
They are repeating it today while ignoring that recovery and ATH and lack of correlation there and only focus on the crash part in 2020!!!

I think Luna shenanigans were like the last straw that helped break the strong resistance ($30k) that might not have happened any other way.

And how would they do that?!
It is like saying "authorities are going to greatly reduce the energy consumption by your PC"! They simply can't, the technology decides how much electricity is consumed by hardware. ASICs are super efficient and the advances in ASIC production changes that consumption which is happening already.

Then total hashrate (the number of ASICs mining bitcoin) can not be changed by authorities either, because they can't tell individuals not to mine bitcoin or dictate it all over the world. For example even in China with the ban on mining, there are still home miners mining bitcoin. Or for example we don't care that China banned mining, we still continue mining bitcoin in our country.

That's what being decentralized is.

All centralized companies that keep going against users' privacy, limit accounts for arbitrary reasons such as "taint", etc. should face the same problems. I still don't think this is the end of Coinbase with bankruptcy but eventually that will happen too.