It is stupid to store anything in closed source wallets since you have no idea what is happening in the background. The best case scenario is that they aren't malicious and you lose your funds due to a bug and worst case scenario is that they are malicious and not only they are monitoring everything you do but also they have all your private keys.

Ownr is completely closed source
Lumi has some libraries on Github but not a proper source code and it is not popular at all

You don't have to change Genesis block or change the code even. All you have to do is to change network by running bitcoin core in RegTest or the new SigNet network and mine there. In RegTest the difficulty will not change so it won't take hours to mine, you can mine hundreds of blocks in seconds.

That is an extreme example for an extreme case so obviously it would also require extreme actions to mitigate it, something such as an emergency patch to do something about the difficulty manually or even in a more extreme case to change the mining algorithm.
In reality malicious changes only have a minority support (eg. bitcoin unlimited or bitcoin cash) and they are simply rejected by the super majority. Worst case scenario is a slower main chain until the difficulty adjustment.

Their strength should be seen in relation to the size and maturity of the market.
For example if you have something like 0.02BTC you can be considered a big whale in a lot of altcoins and can effectively manipulate their price. Bitcoin market has been growing and maturing over the years so much so that it has made FUD less effective. Take the recent drama we had with the small hashrate drop due to power outage in China, it would have crashed the price for 40% back in 2014 but in 2021 it could only cause a small drop, I think it was 7% or something like that. FUD was strong during it too, they brought out all the big guns of "China controls bitcoin", "bitcoin will be dead soon", etc. People even started panic selling to the point where fees went over 150 sat/byte.

This is not to mention the massive FUD campaign of 2017 sponsored by a lot of malicious people with deep pockets including the bcash scammers, Ripple foundation, Dash pumpers and Ethereum foundation who even funded a lot of the spam attacks during 2017 to congest the network more and spike the fees. We still saw the >2000% rise during that year!

What you mean "beginning"? LOL
The "FUD propaganda war" has been a part of the bitcoin community for as long as I can think of and people have been trying to debunk them just as long; basically starting the same day bitcoin started being traded and had a price of 1 US cent. The earliest I've experienced was back in 2014-15 where they spread FUD about bitcoin that it is dead and will no longer go up and causes a 40% drop all the way down to $150.

He is not even in the top 20 FUD dumps of all time with the panic sell of about 17%.

You are right, I didn't consider that. The wallet file will be the watch-only one without the keys so you'd be only able to see the balance and histories without being able to spend using this file.

Essentially that is what it all comes down to, 1 CPU 1 Vote. But it is slightly more complicated than that. You see bitcoin is not just the miners, it is all the people that are using it. More specifically the full nodes that are securing the network and the economy that is built on top of it.
For example if all miners decided to do a malicious fork today it won't be accepted by anyone and they would be mining something worthless and their chain won't grow because all nodes (except the ones that they run) will reject their chain.

The idea is to generate seeds separately and keep them separately. The problem is that most people would just generate their seeds on the same machine and store them in the same place (like writing all 3 seed phrases in a 2of3 design on a single piece of paper, or written on different papers but kept in the same home) which is why the author suggests using a third party service so that at least one signer is kept separately.
This is a bad suggestion not just for security and relying on third party being bad but also for privacy reasons since they (and by extension anybody else they sell give your information to) will know all your addresses and sees your transactions.

You could just copy the wallet file and move that to the offline machine and load it through File > Open option since the file already contains the transaction history and can have an updated balance (specially if there is a huge history). But that way the "air-gap" "cold storage" can no longer be considered safe because it is not "air-gap" anymore.

As long as the wallet(s) that the key is being imported into don't have some crazy vulnerabilities that would cost you all the funds in that key you are importing. This particular risk is even higher when the wallet that is being used is not old or popular enough to be considered "safe".

This is wrong. A fork can do either whether it is considered soft or hard. The distinctive factor that makes one soft fork and the other hard fork is backward compatibility. In other words if all the nodes have to upgrade to continue syncing then it is a hard fork, otherwise if they can still validate without needing to upgrade then it is a soft fork.

Whenever something is changed in consensus rules through a soft/hard fork, in a decentralized system like bitcoin the consensus has to be reached before that change can be accepted. That means having the majority accept that change by "casting their votes" which is done by miners changing their block versions to show their "vote".

You should read BIP-143, all the information you seek is explained there.

If by "K" you mean the corresponding point of the ephemeral key used in signing referred to "k" in some standards, then you can't do that. The whole security of ECDSA relies on the fact that this is impossible to compute.

This is not an important matter which is why it was mostly ignored by the community because for starters Binance is still an altcoin exchange not a bitcoin exchange and the fiat markets there are still pretty small in comparison to the global bitcoin markets (with fiat not Tether shitcoin).

Even if Binance shut down today bitcoin market will lose will lose about 5% of its total volume and keep the remaining 95% while the altcoin market loses more than 80% of its total volume and is only left with 20%, and as you can see nobody in the altcoin market seem to care about it either!

People spreading FUD say this about bitcoin not cryptocurrency in general and it is wrong about bitcoin but not altcoins. In fact most altcoins are very much like Ponzi schemes and worse. For example tokens that have been springing up like mushrooms under the code-name ICO, later changed to IEO, STO, and currently disguised as DeFi are pure scams. All these scam garbage coins have been crashing too. They just get short term pumps and then crash as the dumpers begin dumping.

You gotta admit that it is still interesting to see how the market reacts to obvious manipulation of someone with "influence". The more interesting thing is that you can also compare this reaction with the same reaction that the altcoin market is showing the same person. After all he didn't just manipulate bitcoin, he also did it to Dogecoin. And it is a two stage operation, first hype and pump then FUD and dump.

The situation has been like this so far:
When he was hyping bitcoin, the reaction bitcoin showed was small about 10% rise while the shitcoin got pumped over 1100%.
When he started FUDing bitcoin, the reaction was still small and price dropped only 17%
But unfortunately he hasn't yet started FUDing Doge which I hope he does soon because that would complete the experiment into the cryptocurrency market and its reaction to "influencers".

We aren't facing any kind of deadline after which bitcoin ceases to exist if it hasn't upgraded yet! We are also just in the second week after the release of v. 0.21.1 and I'd rather everyone upgraded naturally specially miners who run modified software not just bitcoin core as is.

My point was to say that it is not just miners who take time to upgrade their backend and start signalling, it is also the "community" running full nodes.
I've also made a small mistake and reported the wrong percentage, it is actually 7.6% of listening nodes running 0.21.1 (the 16% was for 0.20.1) which is still good for this short time. The other one is also 0.9% which is not as good.

You mean the current $50k and the low $45k that was reached?
Then no, I disagree with saying this is the price bitcoin should be at because I believe in a slow rise as the bitcoin value increases. The price however can sometimes go above that "intrinsic value" and sometimes below it. Right now we are at least $20k below the intrinsic value of bitcoin. In other words I believe that at this point, mid May 2021, price should be $65k building up to break $70k not struggle to keep $50k support.

That's a lie because there were no "exchange offices" in Iran to be closed. There were individuals who had created a website and were buying and selling bitcoin with huge fees without any license whatsoever. Many of them were scammers. So far some of them are shut down.

That is an exaggeration. Miners have to get a license and pay taxes in order to be allowed to put pressure on the electricity network.

You are exaggerating but the laws Iranian government keeps enforcing about cryptocurrencies are getting harsher. I suppose it is mainly because Iran is under sanctions and the government is trying to fill the gap left by US dollar with bitcoin. There is even a law saying bitcoin should be used for import/exports.

This is how the UI elements representing charts work.
Usually what these chart elements do is that they take the minimum and maximum, decide what the closest value is without spilling out of designated space, split it into multiple steps (5 in this case: 48268, 51095, 53923,....) and use those on UI to represent the chart.
For example if data for Y axis is >=11 and <=15 it could use values on the axis from 10 to 16 but if data went from 11 to 999 then it can use values from 0 to 1000 for the Y axis. The data doesn't change though, just the representation.

In second case since the top value is changed, so it has to change the steps and the range to match that. Due to rounding it ends up using a different minimum.