No because there is not such thing as "Home of Bitcoin" in a decentralized currency. It is global and without any home or you could say the whole world is the "Home of Bitcoin".
What El Salvador did is only going to put them ahead of everyone else in the world in bitcoin adoption timeline.

Japan accepted bitcoin as a legal way of payment not a legal tender. There is a small difference that someone explained to me recently but I still can't explain it myself

There is no relationship between difficulty adjustment and transaction volume or price, at least none in direction you think (from adjustment to price and volume). It works the other way around meaning when price goes significantly higher or significantly lower the profit of miners change so there is either a hashrate increase or decrease respectively and that changes the difficulty too. Also when price goes up and down there is an increased number of trades which means an increased number of coins going in and out of exchanges with on-chain translations.

Other than that when difficulty changes, only newbie investors and hyped up panic buyers/sellers are going to be affected and their influence over the price is small in cases like this.

With all that said, there is one thing that  could significantly affect the price very soon. That is the end of FUD which has been keeping the price down since the drama with China and its hashrate will soon be old news.

It may not be so wise to use a website which has developers who are incapable of implementing a very simple thing after 5 years. You have to wonder what else they can not do, like the security of their website.

Well yes but you have to remember that before bitcoin was created, there were no "target" to even begin to mine a block to see how much it would take.
So at first one would write the mining code then benchmark it to see how many hashes per second it can compute using different CPUs that existed at the time, then decide on how much time one wants between the blocks and finally using these two values (hash/sec & desired time) set the target so that it takes that much time on average.

It would make very little sense to first select a random target value then see how much time it takes with your hashrate to mine that block and then set the difficulty adjustment period. It has to be the other way around.

I'm not sure what rate you have in mind when you say "ridiculously high fees" but this makes no sense!
1) If they pay a high fee (like 1000 sat/vbyte for a 10 sat/vbyte priority) it won't affect the decision of the mining pools. If any of them is ignoring the transaction they will continue ignoring it and the rest will see it as a high paying tx no matter where it is coming from. In this case if they pay the high priority fee (11 sat/vbyte) it will have the same exact effect!
2) If they pay a very high fee (like 0.1-1BTC) then it may start affecting the decision of the mining pools, for example the one that is ignoring the transaction will have enough incentive to change their mind.

Apart from a handful of transactions in second group (which were never linked to anything criminal AFAIK and were most probably mistakes) the rest are in group 1.

It takes 10 minutes (on average) to mine a block because of the selected target. If it took less time for Satoshi to mine blocks (like 5 min) then he would have simply changed the minimum target to a different value so that it took more time.

A lawsuit about CSW's identity fraud (claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto) and copyright fraud (claiming copyrights for software and paper that are clearly released under MIT license by someone else) won't have anything to do with Cobra!
At the same time winning this (with good lawyers and spending some money) would put an end to all the other scams he will try to pull in the future.

It depends on the size of the operation, a big mining farm for example that has a much bigger cost has to sell bitcoin to cover those costs because they can't keep paying out of pocket but smaller operations like individuals mining at home with an ASIC or two could easily afford to pay their electric bill out of pocket without having to sell their bitcoin reward to cover their costs but at the same time they earn smaller amounts.

And obviously as mentioned a lot of the early adopters who were also mining bitcoin haven't sold their bitcoins. In fact a lot of the coins that people guess belongs to Satoshi actually belong to a lot of early adopters who have never moved them. By the way some of these miners I'm talking about recently signed a message proving their existence while giving a middle finger to Craig Scammer Wright.

First of all 80%-90% drop is not a correction, it is a massive market crash.
Secondly it doesn't happen "after a significant new ATH", it only happens when there is a "significant bubble". For example in 2017 price went from $750 to $1687 (which is a very significant rise of 125%) but we never saw a 85% crash. Instead when price entered the bubble at nearly $20000 the big crash began.
Similarly in 2021 price went from $28800 to $64900 125% and there is no logical reason for a "significant crash".

I used the price at the start of each year for comparison but you can use any other time, no matter how you compare the cycles the current ongoing one is dwarfed in comparison.

I feel like majority of people are thinking this way these days which is why I believe the we are going to see repetition of April 2019 when price broke the resistance and we suddenly saw a 40% rise in matter of hours and by the end of the month price was 120% higher!
This is why I also believe that seeing $100k in less than a month is a strong possibility.

There are also a lot of haters who are just haters in public and behind the scenes are buying a lot of bitcoin. Most of them are also day traders who are only crawling out of their hole whenever there is a drop to panic others to sell so that their shorts can produce them better profit. In fact I recently posted a chart about it here.

Keep in mind that things are a bit more complicated than that when serializing a transaction for signing. The SE link and the explanation above works for standard outputs such as P2PK, P2PKH and for SigHash_All type, however if the SigHash type is different or if there is OP_CodeSeparator inside the output scripts being spent, things will be very different.
Basically:
- If the spending script contains the signature (eg. signature inside the pubkey script of the output being spent, or signature in redeem script of a P2SH) it is removed but only if it was being pushed correctly to the stack.
- The actual script used during serialization starts from the last executed OP_CodeSeparator so if there were other OP codes before it they will be ignored.
- SigHash types change what inputs and outputs we sign.
-- ALL signs everything and is most common
-- Single signs 1 output
-- None signs no outputs
-- AnyoneCanPay signs 1 input
-- There are other various details about how they modify the tranasction

Check out FindAndDelete and CTransactionSignatureSerializer in interpreter.cpp for details.

Actually it is true with both math and programming language simply because the amount field is a 64-bit integer not a decimal type and when you divide it by two it eventually reaches zero. For example (int64)1 / 2 = 0 and not 0.5.

This is wrong as I explained above.

There is no momentum yet. There is only small rises and the market trend is still considered "going side-way" while bitcoin remains in a reverse bubble.

Only you can answer that
I guess a combination of greed and listening to FUD.

Right now most people are waiting on the sideline with their money in hand looking for a strong signal to start buying bitcoin. This signal for them is breaking $40k so majority won't buy until price goes above $40k. Until then the market is in hands of the day-traders trying to make profit who know $40k is a resistance so they set their sell orders there creating a big wall and a lot of sell pressure there hence increasing the strength of that resistance.

From what I've seen from this scammer he wouldn't care if Satoshi signed a message today, he'll just turn it around and claim that "his" wallet was hacked, maybe even start a new lawsuit against the signer (ie. real Satoshi) claiming he is the "hacker"!

I liked the idea by @icopress, "a class-action counterclaim initiated by representatives of the Bitcoin industry". We already have a lot of big businesses too with a lot of money who can fund such a movement against this scammer. After all their business is also going to be affected by the scammer's actions.

There are still a lot of exchanges that list this scamcoin, including Huobi, Bithumb, Bitfinex, Bittrex, Kucoin, Poloniex and a lot of small insignificant exchanges. (source: coinmarketcap).

I think we have to wait and see how this is actually implemented. If you can indeed purchase bitcoin from their ATMs and be paid to your bitcoin address then this is not an issue as you would be the one holding your keys.

Otherwise the part I would be worried about is the banks purchasing bitcoin and owning some and then start their fractional reserve banking crap and end up "lending" more bitcoin than they have. Then all those participating in the centralized corrupted systems run by banks and exchanges could severely disrupt the market.

Just because you may make some profit it doesn't mean you aren't being scammed too. When you are buying garbage and that coin gets pumped, you are participating in a scam and if you made profit you will be on the scammers side and if you lose money you are on the victims side while still providing liquidity for the scammers.

Serialization is the same, but some parts of the transaction must be modified before being hashed. Your first raw bytes in the code tag with the hash = 0x7a05c6... looks correct, you replace the signature script of the transaction with the pubkey script of the output that is being spent (set the rest of the inputs signature script to empty, here there is only one) add the SigHashType at the end as 4 bytes and then hash it.

Read this for details: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/32628/redeeming-a-raw-transaction-step-by-step-example-required

Only the signed transaction is going to be included in the block not the modification or the hash of it.

That is the transaction ID and it is only used to reference transactions not to be used for signature verification.

"Bitcoin" will not morph into anything, instead additional functionality could be built on top of the secure decentralized Bitcoin protocol with its immutable ledger acting as the settlement layer. This will make a lot of altcoins obsolete, but most of them are already useless and obsolete as we speak. The only reason why they stay around is to get pumped and dumped.

As for the part about "every" altcoin I have to say it will never happen. Alternative cryptocurrencies (despite what they have turned into today) are going to stay relevant, the idea is to explore other technologies based on what Bitcoin introduced but with differences in hopes of improving the technology.
Unfortunately today the definition of altcoin has changed into something we pump and dump and has no real underlying value or technology but that doesn't change what can happen in the future with some new altcoins that may show up from some competent developers.

What some governments have not yet realized is that they should be complaint with the world and what people want not the other way around. Bitcoin and decentralization is what they want and these governments can not change that so they better catch up or be left behind from the rest of the world.

But Taproot is already locked in and can not be changed, there is no point in signalling for it anymore since full nodes stopped counting.