Another concern people should always have when it comes to light wallets (which in this case is at the bottom of the list due to more serious issues) is the server they are using. Doubly so if they are closed source. In this case you may have control over your keys but you may not be the only one with access, the company could also have all your keys!

The only case I could see Coinbase being useful is their custodial wallet (the account you create on their website) for the absolute beginners who have a hard time grasping how bitcoin works. They can give up their privacy, control, security,... for the convenience that Coinbase provides and the ability to easily buy bitcoin. They can always learn more in the future and move away.
But if someone has gotten over that hump, there is no reason to use anything that Coinbase creates! Including what they claim to be non-custodial.

That sounds like overkill to me because the dice has to be really broken to create a bias big enough to make the end result weak, same with the RNG. But hey it never hurts to add more cost to your process as long as you can endure the extra time it needs.
In that case I'd suggest using an expensive KDF such as scrypt to derive the key instead of increasing the number of hashes you compute. You can change scrypt parameters to use a lot of memory to maximize the expense.

Yes, this was the reason why I guessed that the initial Base64 string is modified and also considering that the code doesn't seem to do such a thing, there is a good chance that what OP had was actually some sort of a puzzle that could have been solved this way.

You have very good points but Binance could pay its users back because they didn't really leave the exchange behind due to lack of better alternatives and since they weren't still enforcing KYC like they do today. So they could continue making money and paid them back slowly.
This may not be repeated if such hacks happen again, users may leave the exchange behind as it would be another incentive for them to seek an alternative (KYC enforcement being the first, shutting down accounts or blocking deposits for "taint" would be next).

You are contradicting yourself here.
Even if we agree that PoW should be replaced, the replacement is never going to be a weaker algorithm such as PoS that has many flaws. You see when you are trying to solve one problem you should do it in a way that it doesn't introduce 50 new issues.

I've got a feeling that you never owned any bitcoin to begin with, considering you claim that you have met a completely random person on a "hookup app" and they created everything for you including your bitcoin wallet!
You may only had a watch-only address that contained some bitcoins that didn't belong to you (you didn't have the key to from the start).

It is wrong to only use one option if you ask me. I personally prefer multiple options and multiple backups.
For example you could have a hot wallet on your desktop or your phone containing a small amount of bitcoin that you may need quick access to whenever you want to spend some bitcoin.
Then you also want a secure storage to keep the bulk of your bitcoins which is when cold storage comes in. For backup you could use paper wallets alongside your digital storage (burnt on a disk or a USB stick or old computer,... all airgap).
If you rely on one solution (digital storage for example) you could end up losing access (e.g. data decay in this case).

Where did Satoshi say this?

This is one of the oldest and most used strategies both invented and mainly used in United States. The bogeyman strategy. If they want sheeple to fear something, they have to build a big bogeyman out of it and to do that they need to convince them somehow specially if there is no truth to that. The main part of this strategy is telling the biggest lie they can.

They tried telling sheeple bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, too risky to buy, is gonna die, China (the other bogeyman strategy) controls bitcoin, is used for illegal shit, ... and all of them failed.
Now they are trying a new lie about the energy consumption and it is a good one since a lot of places including US itself are having a lot of energy related problems (they either have problem keeping the lights on or the prices are soaring or both!). They also can't just tell you "bitcoin is using a lot of energy" because sheeple won't feel it to their bones, they have to tell them "a single bitcoin tx uses more electricity than single one of you the sheeple".

First of all the term "dominance" is wrong, it is "market cap ratio" and it is the most useless metric that has ever existed in any market. Even if you are making the correct conclusion based on it!
You have a good point about solo bitcoin being compared against total of thousands of shitcoins though.

The big fundamental flaw in market cap and their ratio is that you can not control what "supply" value is the correct value to use and less importantly what "price" is actually the correct price.
Take the biggest shitcoin of all times ethereum for example. It has 72 million premine so it is not part of its supply. Same with BNB, XRP, etc. they all have "fake circulating supply" and when you remove that their market cap drops significantly.

The same problem happens to price but mostly about new shitcoins. In simple terms you can create a new token for virtually no cost and then sell it for a billion dollar to yourself (you don't have to pay anything just say the transaction took place or put the money from your left pocket into your right pocket) and that means you shitcoin's market cap is $1 billion * whatever supply it has!

That's not true, I believe it was 2017 when a shitcoin nobody had ever heard of surpassed bitcoin's marketcap because someone did what I explained above

The main problem I see here is that you are assuming that the price of a pump and dump shitcoin you are bag holding is going to move in your favor. That is not realistic specially because of the type of the coin. In other words if you are bag holding something at $2 the most probably outcome is that it stays there and slowly loses value ($2 > $1.99 > $1.98) and it encourages more bag holding because you can't just sell at a small loss while continue losing money little by little.

The better strategy in my opinion is to not bag hold such shitcoins in first place but only buy them when you see the price is pumping from $2. This way you may think you are losing on a little bit of profit but you are actually reducing the risk you are taking and tremendously reducing the losses you could have experienced. You just buy at something like $2.2 then dump at $2.9.
The best thing about this strategy is that your money is not locked up in some shitcoin forever wishing it would pump so that you can sell it. You always have your liquidity ready and can jump from shitcoin A to shitcoin B all the way to shitcoin Z and make small profit from all of them consistently.
Obviously this is a lot of work but making money is never easy!

This is not quite correct.
Going up alone does not guarantee the next step (coming down). If that were true then bitcoin price should have never gone past the $0.01 price ever because by this logic whenever it went up it should have come down again!
The correct statement is depending on why and how it went up it could come back down. For example a shitcoin that is pumped is going up and that guarantees 100% that the dump comes and price of that pumped shitcoin comes down.
But for another example last year bitcoin went from $10k to $30k and it never went back down below it.

I wonder how you deal with exchange rates and the extra fees they entail.

As long as this "opportunity" is real and not some fake shitcoin advertisement telling you to buy it because it is "bitcoin 2.0".

That's true but the problem is that you can never predict the future what is happening in their business. For example mtgox wasn't #3 CEX, it was #1 and didn't have silly 10%-20% of total daily trading volume it had more than 85% of the total trading volume among all existing CEXes and yet we saw what happened to it in the end.

I don't see how bitcoin could do that, at least not directly.
The only indirect effect I could see, and that's just a possibility, is if bitcoin could help the economy of these countries, attract foreign investors, etc. and the improvement of economy could help reduce the poverty.
Otherwise if you think poor people are going to invest in bitcoin and become rich, that's not going to happen.

It's starting a good movement in my opinion. We all know that bitcoin is decentralized and censorship resistant so it doesn't need anyone's approval (eg. legalization) to work but also we can't deny the fact that legalization of it (specially as legal tender not an asset or silly things like that) tremendously help bitcoin adoption.

P.S. Google tells me SEZ is a special economic zone in Honduras so it doesn't look like this is a country wide legalization. Which makes it a smaller version of El Salvador case.

Mainly everything that centralized exchanges like Binance do is to make money. The fact that they advertise shitcoins as "cheaper options to withdraw bitcoin" is because they want to advertise their own shitcoin called BNB. In fact there are a lot of things they encourage people to do using BNB which is the only reason this shitcoin has been pumped. Who makes the most profit when it pumps? Obviously Binance since they create it out of thin air and sell it to newbies.

I wouldn't say it is completely without reason.
Bitcoin is used by many travel agencies, not to mention that it is the best currency to use by travelers since it is the only truly global currency that has the same value everywhere in the world (almost everywhere since during short periods price could go up in certain countries like what happened in India a couple of years ago).
At the end of the day bitcoin adoption is constantly growing.

You can't really begin to compare the highly efficient and expensive fuel used in an airplane like Boeing 747 with the lowest quality dirt cheap gasoil with a lot of impurities used here. Not to mention that the plane would emit CO2 while this is emitting SO2 which is worse.

When you go to the grocery store and pay with your credit card for example, do you wait for 6 months for the transaction to be confirmed?

What if you pulled a credit card fraud or reversed the payment before 6 months?

You see bitcoin is just a payment system with well known characteristics that is actually so much better than any other payment system. But just because it is new and decentralized people think it should be treated differently until you get used to it.
The fact is that scamming using any other payment method is so much easier than scamming using bitcoin payment in most cases. For example if you pay the store with a decent amount of fee and not use RBF in your transaction the confidence in such a transaction is high and chances of scam is so much lower. The store's node could also be set up in a way to monitor the mempool and analyze the payment transaction for confidence.

Anything you see centralization, there are pretty much the same risks involved. It doesn't matter if it is an exchange or any other service like that. They always comply with the governments and won't need that much pressure either, as long as the simplest request comes they jump to obey. As I said this is not just for CEX either, we saw how the privacy oriented tool called Wasabi wallet obeyed and started censoring transactions in their CoinJoin coordinator!

They share it with all governments of all countries that demanded it because they don't want to be shut down or lose any portion of the market.

Is it open source because I couldn't find any source code (although I only looked a little). If you can't see the source code and can not compile it yourself then you should avoid such wallets and stick to other wallets that are open source such as Electrum.

You shouldn't read anybody's posts out of context least of which Satoshi's.
In short the discussion there is about whether the miners connecting to a pool need to run their own software (whether the original or modified or whatever else).
@ribuck explains why in a mining pool (the first of) only the pool runs the client and there is no need for others (the miners connecting to it) run their own Bitcoin clients. @grondilu is arguing that others can run their own [modified] software, connect to the pool and both mine the block to receive the block reward and receive the pool's reward at the same time.
To this Satoshi states that it is not possible due to the way pool is designed and continues to say users don't even have to run the software to use a pool, they can use a shitty centralized exchange to get an address and receive the funds. He isn't saying they should!