In what world 165 quintillion hashes per second is considered "piss in the ocean"?

Tell that to the million+ dollar worth of bitcoin that was stolen in total from brainwallets.

If by a lot of money you mean a huge liquidity, then you are right and everyone know it for a long time. The day the governments decided to print a ton of money out of thin air we knew that the economy is going to turn into shit. The crises that we see today are the product of those days.
The funny thing is that the financial crisis happened in some eastern countries in early days of Covid as they printed money too but it was small since it happened early. In Europe and US it seems to be hitting them harder as it was accumulated and postponed a lot.

And yet you just signed up on this forum!

There is, as it has always been only one "branch" of bitcoin, its consensus rules, its blockchain and one whitepaper.

You wanted this "digital currency" to succeed and yet you stored it with a third party?!

Only a 128 bit entropy entered into a cryptography function can provide the same security as a randomly generated private key. Human beings are terrible at memorizing things in general and they are even worse when the length of what they have to memorize is too long.
In other words the whole idea for a brainwallet is moot if you are using such a big entropy.

There is no easy answer to this. But for your information we are currently computing 165 exa double_SHA256 hashes in bitcoin mining. That is:

Don't just focus on one exchange and try to write a scalable code. I was screwed by this a long time ago when my code that was tightly coupled with a certain exchange became basically obsolete as that exchange shut down. Later on I tried rebuilding everything with scalability in mind but I abandoned the project due to being busy in life...

Taproot alone (or any upgrade for that matter) is not enough for a rise. We are seeing a lot of hype and that hype alone is not enough either. What makes it so that I speculate a big jump after activation is the timing. If you look at the price, we have been ready for the next leg up for some time now and $100k has been the next target. With the accumulation phase these days and the fact that bull market started a couple of months ago and is going strong, we can expect that a catalyst like Taproot activation could be the ignition the next big rise needs.

There is no point in removing this feature from wallets.
Your wallet (assuming it is not watch-only) needs to be able to produce new keypairs anytime it needs to. In order to do that, the wallet requires the "master key" which is the "extended private key" usually starting with xprv. This master key is derived from your "recovery words" so not storing those words provides no security but storing them provides a useful option for users who may lose their physical backup and want to write down their words again.

Technically nobody should ever have access to your device otherwise you have more serious things to worry about.
Additionally 2FA that only lets you enter the wallet and access the keys is not going to help either. If the wallet is encrypted it is already secure and if you want additional security you can use multi-signature schemes where more than one signer is needed to spend coins and keep each signer on a different device.
For example one wallet on your phone has 1 key and the other wallet on your PC has the another key making a 2of2 multi sig.

You can build this script and this type of wallet easily using Electrum.

User creates the transaction and signs it with their own key then sends it to the "admin" so that they can sign and broadcast it if they wanted to allow the coins to get to that destination.

This script could change to add more ability to the "admin" and let them spend coins without the user's permission by adding a condition:

The flaw in this idea is the communication part. Now the "admin" has to have a way to trust the PSBT file they receive. For example if it is done over the internet then anybody can create a PSBT and ask for payment pretending to be the user.

No because as I said this is highly unlikely. You are basically looking for an input (seed variable) that could produce a SHA256 hash that is between N and 2²⁵⁶ and that range is very small in comparison to 1 to N range. We don't know any message that produces such a hash.

What you could do for this test is to split the "create_key_pair" method into two parts, one computes the hash and the other creates the key pair. Now you can feed any hash result you want to the second method like 2²⁵⁶ and see how it fails.

It goes without saying that brainwallets, specially those that perform a single SHA256 hash on a user given password, are not safe at all. Collection of 18.509 found and used Brainwallets.

I don't know how Rust works but if it "throws exceptions" you should get in the habit of handling them without letting your program crash. For example the following line may throw an exception if seed_bytes value is not in range defined by secp256k1 curve. Even though this particular case is very unlikely but it is a good habit to have "error handling" in your code.

That makes more sense but only if these litecoin miners were actually solo miners running their own node instead of connecting to a mining pool (similar to bitcoin miners). I don't really follow LTC scene to know how things were back in 2016 but since LTC follows bitcoin in most things, pools might have been what everyone connected to, in which case the rate depends on the pool's connection quality not the miners.

Page 7 of their user agreement (https://www.gate.io/docs/agreement.pdf) has a list of countries which they don't accept. I don't see Pakistan among them.
However, you should know that centralized exchanges can always change their rules overnight so you should always plan accordingly (don't store your cryptocurrencies there for longer than needed and use a balance that you are comfortable losing if something happened).

There are 195 countries in the world and only some like US are like this. Miners will always choose the best option available to them based on electricity cost, labor cost, regulations, taxes, climate, etc. When things get hard in a country, the hashrate located in that country drops while it increases elsewhere.

BTW the grid can only detect big mining farms that use a lot of electricity which is abnormal not all miners that are smaller and use far less electricity which is not so different from normal usage.

There are a lot of countries with super cheap electricity and price hasn't changed that much in the past couple of years either. For example the electric company where I live recently released the detailed price rates and for home users it is about 0.002 $/KWH (for big cities such as the capital with higher cost), there are cities with lower price of 0.00074 $/KWH.
The above values are for home users and there are certain conditions (such as overusing electricity) where the price rises but only slightly. The last electric bill I paid was about 30 cents (google tells me the average electric bill in US in 2019 was $115 per month LOL).
The price for certain industries are even lower, for example the rate for agriculture field is as low as about 0.0005 $/KWH.
Unfortunately the document didn't mention the rate they are giving bitcoin miners (the big farms) but it is in the same range and shouldn't be higher than 1 cent/KWH.

My argument is that what a certain centralized entities do, does not define the attributes of that object.

Let me give you another example. Where I live we had a big inflation about 2.5 years ago and during that time many people started exchanging their cash for USD, some time later they sold it. One problem some people faced was that some exchanges didn't accept dollar bills that had an old date.
So with OP's logic we should claim that US dollar (cash) is not fungible which makes no sense! Not to mention that they could dump their USD elsewhere that didn't have that dumb rule.

If you go to a grocery store you can pay with any "coins" you have in your wallet regardless of its "imaginary taint".
If I lend you 1BTC you don't have to pay me the same coins, you can use a different set of UTXOs to pay the 1BTC back.
If you have 1BTC it can be split into the same smaller denomination as any other 1BTC
That means BTC is fungible.

Now if you go to a centralized exchange and deposit some coins that exchange can suddenly decide that it doesn't want to give any services to your country and block your account and money (see it had nothing to do with "taint", etc.) but that doesn't change anything about fungibility of bitcoin.

To be clear there is no connection whatsoever between price of bitcoin and price of any other centralized shitcoin such as WBTC. There is only a promise given to users by the centralized owner that they would swap it with a 1:1 ratio but that promise can be broken any time.

Step-by-step guide to make a shitton of money from the shitcoin market:
Step 1: be popular or semi-popular with a large number of brainless followers on social media.
Step 2: choose a random low value, low volume shitcoin that can get good pumps.
Step 3: buy as much of that shitcoin as you can over a long period of time in order not to change its price or let anyone know.
Step 4: start advertising the crap out of that shitcoin to those brainless followers so that they end up buying that shitcoin
Step 5: dump and make a huge profit

Congratulations you are now a scammer and in many jurisdictions you are considered a criminal for market manipulation.
/s

Orphan rate (or I believe you mean stale block rate) is a universal thing that depends on miners not something that individual nodes would experience based on their connectivity. If a shorter chain is created then all nodes would technically find out about it, a node with bad connection finds it later.

I'm not familiar with either language but they look pretty similar to me. There is a "BigInteger" class in both that supports constructing from a string while setting the base of that input. You just construct it using new BigInteger(input, 6) where input is the string (like "113125215") then convert that bigint instance to any other format like byte array then encode with Base58.

Base-6 encoding is pretty straight forward too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senary

Go to https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org and clone the repository (it is written in JavaScript).
On a preferably air-gap computer run the bitaddress.org.html file.
Click on the tab saying "Wallet Details" and enter the base6 string in the first text box.
Click "View Details" button.

You will see both compressed and uncompressed private/public keys and the corresponding P2PKH addresses in this page.

Well I don't read dailymail. There are a couple of factories and suppliers that shut down. There are multiple industries that have warned that they cannot remain open for much longer specially if gas prices go any higher. The food prices are soaring, and a lot more. These are all signs of collapsing (not collapsed) economy.

True, I never said the problems are only in UK.
As for food price elsewhere it is because of inflation that happens everywhere specially with COVID and the stupid money printing policies that all governments seem to have. But in UK all of it is being intensified by this recent energy crisis.

Are they really "supporters" or believers in CSW lies just because they are talking about him? Have you ever looked through social media about other shitcoins from the biggest ones like ETH, XRP, DASH,... to smallest shittokens? There is a lot of posts about them too.

I'd argue that they aren't exactly "supporting CSW" or "believing" him, they are just pursuing their own interests which is their investment in a "bet" that they hope to get pumped so they can make money. They know very well that smaller shitcoins will get biggest pumps and if their advertisement works they can make a good amount of money.
99% of those who are advertising shitcoins don't even run the full node or even own an actual wallet of that shitcoin. They store it on exchanges! Why? Because they don't trust the software that shitcoin developers produce and also they want to be able to dump it immediately when the pump comes.