Maybe I'm having trouble with the English language but "to restrict" sounds like limiting the existing rules, I prefer calling it "to change" the rules which may even include expansion of the rules. For example sigop count was already a restriction in protocol and SegWit didn't restrict it more, instead it changed how it works.

Lets consider SegWit transactions; to a pre-SegWit node any transaction that starts with 010000000001... (has the 2 byte SegWit flag) is an invalid transaction because the decoder sees this as a tx with 0 inputs. So we changed the existing restrictions or rather expanded "the set of things considered valid" we didn't restrict/limit it.

Or the block size which answers the following too:
Before SegWit any block that was bigger than 1,000,000 bytes in size was invalid, this rule was completely removed and new computation took its place and today blocks can be as big as almost 4,000,000 byte in size (I'm not talking about weight but raw bytes).

This is why I think definition of a soft/hard fork should not be about these restrictions but about whether or not the old nodes are forced to upgrade.

Value of everything is based on supply and demand even USD itself. When they print a lot of it (increase supply) while demand remains roughly the same the value of USD drops. But when bitcoin's supply is fixed and demand for it is increasing that means its value keeps rising. It rises more when you measure it in an inflationary currency such as USD and when that currency loses its value.

It is partly based on past behavior, some technical analysis, some fundamental analysis, some extrapolation, and finally some guesswork.

If your goal is to buy bitcoin at current price then hold to make profit when you dump it at a future price (eg. the guesstimate at $250k) then the answer is no it is not worth it. Bitcoin is not created to be bought and held for profit making.

Bitcoin is made to give you financial sovereignty, if you can covert your centralized inflation riddled fiat to the decentralized censorship resistant currency with a capped supply that is worth a lot. It is worth a lot more when you can do it at a discount when price is lower than intrinsic value.

No, this has nothing to do with some random political activity in the world such as the "G7 summit" as you suggest and this is not the first time bitcoin market is calm, they are more common than you'd think. This is also not so boring for those who are accumulating bitcoin at a discount. They love this low price to stay around longer so that they can buy more bitcoin before it launches to the moon.

Not necessarily true. The change can be anything, whether expansion or restriction of the rules.
I don't like different definitions of soft/hard fork because they usually don't match the reality. The best definition of a soft/hard fork IMO is this:
A soft fork is a change in protocol where old clients don't have to upgrade but in a hard fork they have to upgrade.

Generally speaking when you have a "hot wallet" that contains your private keys and your coins and it is exposed to the internet 24/7 as you validate transactions to get paid for it, you are at a very high risk regardless of the cryptocurrency and whether it is a clone coin or not. Not to mention the risks involved when such coins with terrible supply distribution design get dumped hard.

Revisions (ie. vx.x.1 -> x.x.2) sometimes come out quite fast since they usually involve some small bug fix or an improvement. for example 4.0.9 was also released a day after 4.0.8 (we had 4 new versions in December, almost once a week).

I second this. We only need topics about new versions if we are going to discuss their changes not just to inform about the existence of it.

Could you not call the same method as is called through the GUI? I have seen other methods that are not GUI commands be called this way and I'm not familiar with python.

I hope you know that bitcoin blockchain is not a message storage database.

It is not accurate because it contains a lot of "fake nodes" that are usually placed on top of the list and are only there to "spy".
As for the version I believe that it should only be 0.21.1 since it has the Taproot activation code not 0.21.0 which makes the percentage 24.23%. It also doesn't have Bech32m which may not be as important since Taproot won't be activated for months but without it your client won't be able to recognize witness version 1 addresses.

Actually bitcoin fees are never X dollar
You also can't predict the sat/vbyte value based on the dollar value of the fee because you have no idea what the size of their transaction is. It may contain a lot of inputs and/or outputs that has increased its total size hence the total fee even with a small sat/vbyte fee rate.
And finally since Coinbase is a custodial wallet the fee you pay may not exactly be related to network fee and transaction size since the "centralized company" is charging this fee.

We have been seeing higher lows but the uptrend is not yet that strong to break the resistance. The last low was with a lot of sell pressure but a very small drop at $38095. If price goes above $40k again the next 48 hours the upward triangle could be completed and the breakout will become more plausible.
In any case there is still not even a single indication of a bear market as before and we are either going sideways some more or turn into bull market real fast.

This is the classic shitcoin advertisers technique, they use a lot of technobabble to advertise their own shitcoin while spreading misinformation about bitcoin. Anyone who is familiar with Bitcoin protocol, altcoins, cryptography or even programming usually sees through their nonsense very quickly.
For example take the following part you quoted:
Bitcoin is not some plaything that we can just change without enough testing and reviews. We are talking about trillions of dollars here for millions of people worldwide. Imagine if we rushed an upgrade and accidentally introduced a vulnerability that could have been caught with enough time and review!

It is not just vulnerabilities, it is efficiency too. For example take BIP340 (part of Taproot soft fork). There was a wrong benchmark that was giving false results, it was caught and the algorithm to encode signatures and pubkeys in Schnorr signatures changed slightly. If we had rushed it we would have missed this and this inefficiency would have existed in bitcoin forever!

It seems like OP wants a magical thing with a magical autopilot button where you only press once and sit back to enjoy the 24/7 profit fill your pockets! That is now how the world or the market works, otherwise everyone would have done it and then we would see a hyper inflation hit the whole world as the liquidity (the money generated through that magical thing) enters circulation.

You are missing too many words, with 5 out of 12 you have to check 36,028,797,018,963,968 permutation with roughly 6% of it being valid mnemonics. We are talking about a lot of operations, even with btcrecover and using multiple GPUs it should still take an impossibly long time to recover.

The record time I've seen is from this link that claims to have checked 1 trillion in 30 hours (missing 4) also its derivation path is a moderately easy one. That means it would take you 1,080,863 hours with the same exact setup which is 123 years.

Actually many newbies do indeed "buy and hold" but the problem is that is two things:
1. When instead of choosing bitcoin and bitcoin alone, they decide to buy altcoins and then start losing money as they get dumped in long term.
2. They do buy bitcoin but they panic sell it the first time there is some sort of FUD and small drop and lose a ton of money making that bad mistake, some of them panic buy at a higher price to lose more money and end up with a lot less bitcoin than they initially had.

This is wrong. There is no "flag". The old clients simple don't know that they have to take additional steps. This has been true about all previous soft forks that changed something in scripts.
For example:
- P2SH: old clients don't know they have to interpret top stack element as a redeem script, they see it as a simple hash and equality comparison.
- OP_CLV: old client don't know they have to interpret the stack element as a locktime, they treat it as OP_NOP
- SegWit: old clients simply see it as 2 push OPs (OP_0 and some arbitrary data that casts to true), they don't know it has to be converted to a script
- Taproot: old clients simply ignore anything in witness

Among these SegWit is slightly difference since the actual translation has to be stripped, but after that the behavior is the same.

Yes but at a slightly reduced security because the (miner's) node that is not upgraded can not fully verify previous block that the miner wants to build on so they will essentially rely on cost of mining a bad block being high.
They can also reject the non-standard new transactions (eg. the transactions spending a SegWit output) to avoid risking inclusion of a fake transaction in the block they mine.

Technically if an old client receives a block containing SegWit transactions rejects it because it can not deserialize that block (SegWit txs have a 0001 flag that old client would interpret as tx having 0 inputs and be invalid). But old clients receive stripped blocks that don't contain any witness (or that flag) and they will accept these blocks as valid. Which is why there is no chain split as you suggested after SegWit softfork and any old client is still on the same chain as others.

You mean bitcoin "principles" never changed otherwise bitcoin (consensus) rules have changed multiple times. For example in early days we introduced P2SH scripts (a big change in rules), in 2017  SegWit and a couple of days ago Taproot.
That is also not the reason for bitcoin's security (not just a sense of it). Bitcoin is secure because its protocol is secure and without flaws, it is fully decentralized so it can not be controlled or maliciously altered, any attack vector in bitcoin is either impossible due to its choice of protocol (eg. ECDSA) or costs a lot that becomes practically impossible (eg. 51% attack).

Ethereum is also centralization, inflationary, has severely flawed protocol with a lot of attack vectors, has no real world utility, has a massive premine, is super expensive to use due to its serious scaling flaws and its blockchain lacks immutability.

Nobody has some magic ball that can predict the future, most people on the internet are posting random nonsense when it comes to price specially on places like 4chan and only some are actually putting some thought into it and can be called "speculation".
We all know that the price is going to rise significantly based on past performances, the bitcoin potential, how adoption has been growing, the volume of fiat that keeps pouring in, all the positive news and finally with technical analysis. But we can't predict how much and when of it.

Let me put it this way:
We simply have a key derivation function that takes 2 inputs, A and B. If A is created from a 128 (or 132) bits of entropy and B has 0 entropy (no extension word) then your KDF is deriving its keys using that much entropy. If B also has 128 (or 132) bits of entropy then your KDF is deriving its keys using A + B bits of entropy.
Additionally we can say that in order to brute force this to get the BIP32 seed you'll have to generate and check both A and B so the entropy size is A+B.