100 years is a long time, but we're expected to be experiencing the effects far sooner. There is no point arguing from the perspective that we won't be using fiat in the future because it doesn't make sense. No one wants to make a transaction with a fees that takes a large proportion of their transaction value. The argument stays regardless. Rather, I'm more inclined to think that the transaction volume would rise to compensate for it. It is simply impossible for the transaction volume to stay at ~7TPS or else we'll never attain mass adoption. The capacity of the network can and will increase, if we were to still use Bitcoin as a mainstream currency by that time.

No. Directly. ElectrumX depends on Core, but it is a separate server by itself.
If running Bitcoin Core slows your computer down, then you probably have more problems to worry about . VNC would probably be your only option though, so yeah. 
That is correct.
Core needs to be able to be able to obtain a lock on the directory so you cannot possibly run it in the first place.

Just to address this question, the answer is yes. The inputs within a transaction are not dependent on one another. A transaction is valid as long as you can fulfill the requirements being specified by the script (either, P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH, etc). They can all be in the same transaction, the execution of each of the stack should not affect each other.

Why wouldn't it be safe? They are just features being added throughout the different versions, there isn't anything wrong if you don't use them and they don't pose any security risks either.

Electrum runs on proprietary servers, so no. I'm talking about those that are able to use Core as a data source, but I don't think that is what you need?
Then I'm not really sure why the lack of GUI is a big deal. There is nothing that can only be done within GUI, other than the fact that it is nicer and more user-friendly. Most of the more advanced commands are mostly done through the console anyways, so no real need for a GUI.

I've never really thought of something like this, or at least I didn't think about this specific scenario being a problem. Are you unable to run a GUI on your own computer as well? If you need the GUI and can only choose between RPi and your own computer (maybe cause of storage constraints?), then I would probably just run it on my own computer.

Sorry. Meant to say that for all intents and purposes, RPC would be enough. If you need, then use the Bitcoin node as a server and connect an SPV wallet to it. I'm sure it isn't very hard to find any GUIs that relies on the RPC.

A little difficult to type on a phone.

Wouldn't that just make it a remote desktop? As in the GUI has to be run on the Pi but what this merely does is just to relay the graphical interface between Windows and Pi so you're not really running the GUI on Windows, but still on Pi.

Anyways, I don't think there is a way to do so. Unless you're talking about sharing data directory, for which only one of the two instances can access it at any one time. I think it's more convenient to use a RPC connect another wallet to your node.

It is actually quite important to state that this only applies if you are sure that Ledger isn't intentionally trying to compromise your security, but rather only acts as a safeguard against a wrongly implemented CSPRNG. If Ledger wants to actually compromise your seeds, they won't limit themselves to just compromising the RNG, that would be fairly covert but to intentionally include loopholes within the device itself. There are far more avenues for Ledger to compromise your device, and most people don't have the technical expertise or ability to check it as well.

It all boils down to; do you trust that someone else would be actively checking for any loopholes, do you trust that they won't turn rogue and do you trust that their external audits are transparent and done in a comprehensive manner.

Probably not. An overwhelming majority of Binance transactions are still legacy. Their hot wallet is here: 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s. You can see that a huge bulk of consolidations all originate from v1 Bitcoin addresses. Default, CMIIW is still legacy addresses and you can toggle between those and which most people probably won't because it doesn't benefit them. I'll probably assume that Binance has nothing to do with this but rather because of the drop in TX volume recently, then you're seeing lesser of the groups of people who are not concerned about using Segwit.

There is simply no one that would threaten the dominance of their own currency by allowing an alternative currency to take root within their society. This is mostly a bipartisan issue, where none of the parties in the state would willingly tarnish their economy just for the sake of a few groups of people who are pro-Bitcoin. First of all, you won't get elected and second of all, any bills that actively pushes for Bitcoin to legitimately be recognized and endorsed as a legal tender will face oppositions from both sides of the senate or the house for that matter.

No. Okay, politics aside, there isn't any reason why Bitcoin would do so.

Bitcoin is fundamentally a PoW coin and there is no immediate downsides that would affect the security or the integrity of the chain. As the saying goes, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. A sudden shift to PoS, especially when the specific industry is so established will cause an extended period of instability within Bitcoin, be it concerning the security or the economics. I'd rather not have to go through this phase and overcomplicate anything. You don't really have to care what the developers say, just what the community consensus on the issue is. The answer is no, it isn't going to happen.

Yes. Ledger uses multiple sources of entropy to generate it. IIRC, you can see the functions within their github firmware source code.

It depends on your threat model. If you're at the stage where you aren't confident of eliminating your threat surface or have proper security habits, then it would be far better to be using a hardware wallet. They are dummy proof and designed to eliminate the attack vectors for the regular Joe.

A Raspberry Pi can definitely be compromised, more so if the user cannot maintain an airgap between the device and the internet.

You're not using Tor. Bitcoin Core cannot connect to the Tor instance, are you running Tor at all?

You have to use -onlynet=onion and -bind=127.0.0.1 to force Bitcoin Core to only connect to onion nodes and for incoming connections to go through Tor. If done correctly, bitcoin-cli getnetworkinfo should return reachable for onion and have a network score.

When a proxy is enabled, Core automatically sets listen=0 unless specified otherwise.

I suspect that it might be due to the partitions being allocated wrongly. You might've to resize the volumes to the correct sizes.

As in symmetric cryptography isn't in the equation because there isn't any algorithms to effectively break them, so AES is just one of them. The problem we're looking at with QC is asymmetric cryptography, which hasn't been sufficiently developed as an alternative or some of them involves more tradeoffs.

It sounds like snakeoil to me. Your radioactive decay, which can be measured with a Geiger counter has an uncertainty which serves to be sufficiently secure as a source of randomness. Radioactivity is already a function of quantum mechanics, so not sure why it would be a big deal.

df -h would return the output with the free space, could you try that? Are you pointing Core to the correct directory? Can you navigate to your data directory and run ls -l? It should show the permissions for the file and whether you can write to it.

That is correct. Electrum doesn't follow BIP39 standards, though they use the same wordlist for convenience sake, they are not interchangable though. The entropy is used to determine the mnemonics, which is the 12 words given to you. That is the sole purpose of the wordlist. There is thus no point restricting the passphrase (aka. 13th word) at all, Electrum also doesn't restrict the length (IIRC).

Yes it is safe. I would argue that the best practice is to keep the first 12 words safe as well, though not such a huge risk if the 13th word is  complex and long enough. You should keep the entire seed safe, losing the last word can potentially mean losing everything as it is not covered by a checksum.

I think I might've been a bit wrong with my phrasing. There is nothing wrong with paper wallets as a form of backup, that I agree because there is obviously no downsides to paper wallets as a backup or a storage medium. Paper wallets, as defined by OP seems to be in the sense that they're generated by browser based scripts which can be poorly implemented or have fundamental insecurities. If you were to generate it on Electrum, Bitcoin Core or most of the other wallets, then there should be nothing wrong because they go through rigorous reviews and have test vectors implemented.

Same cannot be said for some paper wallet *generator* (or any web-based generator), where vulnerabilities can potentially be introduced when the user loads the page dynamically and are thus unable to verify if they were indeed reviewed before or if an MITM or the person controlling the website introduces vulnerabilities, which has happened a lot of times. The myth that I was referring to is that users seems to assume that it is safer than your average software wallets, just because they generated it as a paper wallet, but it is just untrue.

AFAICT, the capital costs seems to assume the depreciation of it but doesn't necessarily consider the fact that they become practically useless after any forms of attack, completely. Attacking the hardest chain would only serve as a warning to the rest and your ASICs can all go to the scrapyard right after. Instead, take into the account the costs of the ASICs rather than the running costs due to depreciation. The chip suppliers are fairly inelastic at the moment and ASIC chips aren't the focus of chipmakers right now. In fact, the majority wafers are almost always allocated to the bigger manufacturers and there isn't a lot left for ASIC manufacturers. Whether you can scale up the production through the years, and race against the network is another issue.
For a fact, mining pools cannot sustain the attack. The miners in a mining pool has vested interest to ensure that they can continue to run pools, and their miners want to continue to mine and not have their equipment becoming useless. At the first sign of any possible attacks, the miners can easily just point their ASICs somewhere else, and not continue to mine with them. You can't do the same if your funds are trapped with an exchange.

At the end of the day, I'm not going to be name-calling, whether they favour PoS or not. It isn't the purpose of my posts. I'm only here to provide my 2 cents and it is totally up to you to do your own research and come up with your own conclusion. Be objective and consider both sides of the camp, but DYOR and don't get misled.