You are wrong because different years have been different.
Additionally what you call "miserable" is your point of view otherwise as far as altcoins go, the dumps are their natural expected behavior that happens all days every year. And as far as bitcoin goes this is just a dip to accumulate cheap coins under the intrinsic value.

Majority of cryptocurrencies are not going to recover, just like majority of them including the top 20 alt coins never recovered from their dumps in 2018 even though 4 years has passed.

Keeping a backup of user data is the solution to this problem. Using blockchain is the same exact thing as keeping a backup but only with extra complications that increase the cost for absolutely no reason or benefit!

Same as above. Not to mention that "distributed backup" has nothing to do with blockchain.

It won't work because the world wide data should be modified by individual entities then shared amongst themselves. For example a country should be able to modify their own data and then share it instead of having to always coordinate with others and change it globally.
Again even a global database, even a distributed one has nothing to do with blockchain.

No they don't. If extra layer of security is needed, it can be and is added on top of existing database solutions without needing the complications of blockchain.

That's not a blockchain anymore, that is the traditional definition of a database that can be updated.

No internet means no $$ either unless they put all the $$ in big bags and transferred it to Tonga LOL

Not just Binance chain but Binance itself. The Pancakeswap like its creator Binance is centralized and that creates a single point of failure. When the government shuts down Binance for a lot of different reasons, all their products including the exchange, token swap platforms, centralized tokens (BNB), etc. all will go bust.

The number is more interesting when compared to the El Salvador's population which was 6.4 million according to Google and that puts 4 million users to 62.5% of the population.
But I'm afraid this is not something that we can celebrate since this is a closed source custodial wallet that the government controls and more importantly the majority of this wallet's users went there to only receive the free $30 not so much to use bitcoin.

The point of using 2 of 3 multi signature scheme is so that if you lost one of the keys that you regularly use (like if your PC blew up or you lost your phone) you can still use the other regularly used key with your third key that you never use to recover your funds. The chances of losing both keys is small and remember we are only reducing the chance of losses not eliminating them.

I also like to suggest using QR codes to transfer transactions. For example you can create the transaction and sign it once with your first key on PC then create a QR code of the half-signed transaction and scan it with your phone instead of transferring it by connecting your phone to your PC or other digital ways. Then sign it with your phone.

Not completely blindly though. A SPV client will still verify everything there is to a bitcoin block header and also can fetch merkle trees and verify existence of a transaction in a block. They can also connect to multiple full nodes and monitor the situation with the bitcoin network (forks, stale blocks, reorgs,...) and know whether the block it has are still part of the chain or not.

This is not a light-wallet specific problem. A 51% attack affects full nodes and SPV clients the same. And invalid transactions ("infinite coins") are not part of the valid chain anyways and both full nodes (by full verification) and SPV clients (by querying multiple nodes and following the longest header chain) will recognize it.

I'd like to point out that I've been hearing this statement from different users ever since 2014 that I got involved with bitcoin and they will repeat it in the future too. Funny thing is that if they bought bitcoin in 2014-2015 instead of nagging they would have bought it at about $400 and now the price is about $40,000 which is 100 times higher.
Funnier thing is that those who are nagging today and not buying bitcoin will complain in the near future when price is $400,000!

We are not limited to only 2 categories, but if we were limited I would categorize them as hot wallets since it doesn't matter if they are connected whenever you need them or there is some protection measures in place, they are still being connected to the internet. Additionally there has been exploits that could have led to losses when the user connected their hardware wallet to the internet.

In any case we should either call them hardware wallets (as the category) if at least a semi-cold wallet.

Nothing about the seed generation algorithm changed between versions 3.x and 4.x so there is no reason for the new version to not recognize the seed phrases generated by that old version. Additionally Electrum like most softwares will try to always keep backward compatibility so that you can always use any seed phrase or wallet file created by the older versions (that includes version 1.8+) in the new versions.

Technically those who use centralized third parties aren't even using bitcoin in first place. So it doesn't affect bitcoin adoption at all.

Basically bitcoin fees haven't been high ever since 2017!

You are paying the exchanges (and any other similar centralized services like Bitpay) to use their service. It is the cost of using them. It has nothing to do with bitcoin or its transaction fees though.

Interesting statement because most altcoins that had a small increase in their usage had a much bigger fee spike than bitcoin. Specially these days that they are facing huge fees due to the altcoin bloodbath. For example ETH fee that you mentioned earlier has reached more than $80 on average!

I don't think they are.
Despite what it may look like, majority of people don't use exchanges or custodial wallets.

It does but the freshly mined coins entering the market are also supply and the point OP is trying to make is that unlike something like gold, when bitcoin price goes up you can't mine more of it to dump on the market because there is more incentive to do so.

Yeah but it doesn't have to be scams though. We are talking about investing and viability of projects. There has been a lot of projects with known developers and even big "foundations" with a big team that turned out to be the worst projects of all times. They basically use their faces to advertise the "shitcoin" and gain popularity for different benefits.

For example I'd say one of the oldest coins that is without any innovation is Litecoin and the developer used it as a stepping stone to gain a resume and join companies like Coinbase to make a lot of money.
Or Ripple which created a useless garbage which they used to create partnerships with banks and make money that way (among other things).
The list goes on...

I'd like to think that one of the reasons why Satoshi went away was so that people stop focusing on what he thinks about bitcoin. You see, bitcoin is a decentralized currency that doesn't have one centralized authority deciding what opinion matters and what doesn't. The whole network does.
So to answer your question, it doesn't matter if Satoshi was "liberal" or not, he is not the decision maker, he is just the inventor.

Unlike you, the countries don't care about short term volatility. They look at the bigger picture where price was $4k last year and it is $40k this year.

Bitcoin price cannot be manipulated in the way you think it is. The effects are small and most of the times short lived. Also more importantly as the market grows the manipulation becomes increasingly harder. For example we don't have the same market manipulation in 2020+ that we had in 2010 to 2014. It has decreased in effectiveness by a lot.

The governments can ban bitcoin and a handful of them have already banned bitcoin. But the important distinction is that you can never prevent anyone from using a decentralized money.

That's a bad example because it is a negative thing all over the world and by any logic. Whereas bitcoin is not only positive but also it is accepted in most of the world. A better example would be banning certain P2P networks such as banning torrent that is not negative by nature.

The funny thing about people who wait for a bigger drop after an already big drop is that these people would wait if that bigger dip happened too! For example I remember clearly when price was $6k they were waiting for a bigger drop and as it happened the price did drop down to $3.2k but they still didn't buy. Instead they waited and wished for $1.5k. You can still find their topics on bitcointalk and how they are "wishing" for such a big drop.
Suffice it to say that these people bought back when price reached $7k+!!!

A public key P(x,y) is computed from one and only one private key.
Keep in mind that P(x,-y) is computed from a different private key too which is equal to n-k.

It is pretty easy to verify actually.
The shitcoin in question here has a blockchain and a couple of online block explorers. All you have to do is point out the corresponding transactions on Algorand with proof that the bitcoin transactions in Chivo correspond to those transactions.

Until then I stand on my initial judgement and avoid any different conclusion.

I already did.

The definition of solo mining is someone who isn't sharing/pooling the "work". Whether or not they run their own node isn't changing that.
However, you can and should criticize that these miners are not independent since they don't run their own node and rely on a third party.

By analyzing the blockchain. They don't have to receive the data from the exchange, knowing some of their addresses will help linking transactions. Besides most of their service for exchanges includes taint analysis which doesn't need that, they just report anything that looks like a mixed coin and it is not like their reports have been accurate! They are mostly nonsense anyway.

Good point. Maybe "court order" was a strong statement, an "official request" might have been better. It is not like Binance has pledged customer privacy protection. If a government of a country from which they are getting a minimum revenue requests data, Binance will comply without resistance.

I completely agree.

Identity of the developers should not change anything about the project. Look at bitcoin, nobody knows who Satoshi is and yet it is the only viable cryptocurrency that exists in real world. Now look at loads of altcoins with known developers that only exist in exchanges to be pumped and dumped.