I'll skip my comments and focus on this:

Wait a sec, isn't this an absurd idea? Why should I require money to get self-sovereignty and privacy? Aren't those enough to cover my disk's and memory's expenditures? It sounds like they want to expand their network in the wrong way.

They asked for the best solution.

Bitcoin Core is an implementation of a Bitcoin client, and the most popular. But, to understand how it works you don't have to look into the source code; you'll understand few things there, especially if your programming skills aren't the best.

I recommend you to take a look on developer.bitcoin.org/devguide.

That's a very difficult thing to do, unless you follow a tutorial and understand little things of each step.

The good of the case is that some have become concerned about the way money works[1]. Especially Russians, who saw their savings gone in just one week, because their "master" decided to start a war. Among this SWIFT nonsense, there are Russians and Ukrainians who've become obsessed by the idea of digital cash that is none's control.

[1] "I often wonder how money is stored".

What are you trying to accomplish?

This doesn't sound right.

If you have 200 UTXOs from 200 different addresses, you don't have to cluster them all in one transaction. That's why there's coin selection. OP may not want to cash them out all at the same time. Therefore, they can gain a little privacy. On the other hand, if they have 200 UTXOs in 1 address, it won't matter if they coin-select or not as they'll have revealed that all these outputs are owned by the same person from the beginning.

Plus, they may not want from their people to know how much money there are donated. If they use 1 address, they're doomed to reveal it.

A fourth option is to use a decentralized exchange such as Bisq.

This isn't just inflation, that's the worst case scenario for a currency. To be issued from a country that is currently rejected by everyone. Some Russians are gonna starve to death...

Besides the currency devaluation, they spend billions of dollars on military expenditures. Specifically, it's known that they're giving $15 billion per day on devastating missiles. I think he knows very well what he's doing, although humanitarian speaking, he's an asshole.

Why would Grayscale or any other organization/company know such thing? And what's the evidence that it's "under the Federal Reserve"?

So, you want to combine both your RNG and a "provably" random number generator, such as a dice. Why would you want to do that? What's the benefit? If you don't mind.

Don't use closed-source wallets such as Trust. They have a bad fame. If you've decided to hold those for the long term, then just buy a hardware wallet and sleep easy. Again, it's not necessary, but you may not want to download every wallet software for each altcoin.

Trezor is open-source, which is weird, 'cause you've said it is few sentences later.

Wow, I'm impressed. While it's oxymoron it nowadays makes sense. 

And the Beginners & Help the best place to make your questions. If you either want to "invest" in ICOs or unknown tokens, you're most likely a newbie who has no idea what, how, why.

What's "crypto accounts"? You've already said to not use exchanges, so I assume that's something else, but I don't understand what'd be sensitive and crypto-related if it isn't your money.

In summary: Setup a BTCPay server and mix each UTXO individually when you'll have to spend from the donations. This way you'll have accomplished maximized anonymity with Bitcoin. If each user is not meant to donate much, consider using Lightning for better privacy and efficiency.

If we assume that there are ~10⁷⁸ atoms in the Universe, then yes, it's a "little" greater than that. Your chances of finding a collision aren't that many, though. Remember, there are ~2⁹⁶ different private keys for each single-sig address on average. That leaves you with less than 10⁵⁰ different addresses.

You're describing a situation where a person sells something, in this case Bitcoin, for fiat. It doesn't have to do straightly with Bitcoin. Obviously, due to the censorship of Russian banking, they won't.

They can't be used until you find an internet connection. Therefore, you can't use them in a location where internet providers have been seized and their business is shut down due to a war, but once you resort to another country, you can normally use them.

Even if you could use them without internet, you wouldn't; the first thing you must do is to leave your country.

You didn't answer to my question. I asked you if it's desirable to have a structure that brings centralization over time. Your response has to do with the "gathering" of the hash rate while it's been repeatedly told you that it's a false way to detect faulty behavior.

By the same reasoning, I also trust the government for not deciding to allocate the required resources to destroy Bitcoin. It's a game theory.

I presume that during a war, it'd gain value. In WW1 & WW2, gold's demand had risen, the fiat currencies were devalued into absolute nothingness. In such times, people back as much as assets they can, but mainly gold. Stocks drop since there's financial crisis and housing is even worse as there's seizure. Gold has stood in the first place due to its particular characteristics, such as durability, divisibility and ease in transfer.

If only there was another asset that had a better performance in those three. 

The core principle of having a cryptocurrency is to avoid central points of failure; in other words, it's decentralization. As I've already mentioned:
If the mechanism that is used centralizes the economy, then the system is faulty. I'm not saying that it doesn't work, but in the long term, it's going to be problematic. We've already covered that PoW decentralizes the economy due to uncertainty and mitigation of voting's unequal distribution. It has already been underlined that it's resistant to subjectivity opposed to PoS.

In which of the above do you disagree?

Which introduces trust, a problem that is meant to be solved. That's the purpose of a cryptocurrency after all.

That's not a testnet Bitcoin address. It should either start with 2, m or tb1.

It's impossible to censor the transactions, realistically. Let's assume the miners could understand in what part of the world the money go to, and that's a big assumption as it's nearly impossible: Miners are scattered.

Alright, so even if the United States were able to censor every transaction their citizens received, they wouldn't be able to control the network. There are also miners in Europe, Russia, China etc.; if their intention is to kick Russians out of Bitcoin, they'll fail. Initially, one Russian pool will be able to include transactions that aren't approved by the United States.

You can't censor others from using Bitcoin unless you also censor yourself by attacking to your own money.

You only enter the private key. The address is automatically calculated from the Electrum client. You can either enter p2pkh: plus the private key that starts with 5 or the private key alone. It couldn't be a type other than pay-to-public-key-hash starting with 5 either.

You can't send money if you're having a watch-only wallet. The phrase says it itself; watch-only.