Keep in mind that the amount of energy consumed is not important on its own. That amount should be put into perspective by comparing it to what bitcoin does. Bitcoin is not a payment system for a handful of people in one small city, it is a payment system for the whole world and it is working globally to currently server at least a couple of million people daily. According to bitinfocharts.com $1.2 million is sent using bitcoin every hour ($30 billion daily).

Your comparison is like saying "Why eating a meal at a 5-star restaurant is better than eating dog shit".

When you invest throw your money away in a Ponzi scheme you are begging to be scammed. There is no return, just a whole lot of risk and a whole lot of losses. That is the design of such schemes and yet people insist on eating the "dog shit"!

That is nonsense. You can convert your fiat to any fiat at any amount. For example you can swap 10 dollar for 8.3 euro, or 10 dollar for 17170 satoshi.

There is no risk in Ponzi schemes, there is a guarantee of loss.

FTFY

FTFY

There has been a very good momentum in the market from April 25 after price reached $47k and for the past 7 days the price has been slowly rising but with a strong buy support and a solid volume. The new FUD didn't seem to be successful and so far the bear-manipulators lost a lot of money for the whole week.
If the momentum is kept the price could be above $65k by the end of next week.

You mean your "watch only" wallet that only contains your address or public key or master public key?
Then apart from your privacy being lost, nothing else. They gain access to anything that is inside that wallet (address(es), public key(s), bookmarks, labels) and your transaction history from blockchain.

If you also continue leaking other things then you may be in trouble, for example leaking your master private key or mnemonic, or in certain cases with master public key in non-hardened derivation paths if you reveal both master public key and a single child private key then all your keys will be revealed.

If all your inputs are native SegWit then checking the transaction ID from the start takes care of that since the TxID never changes from the moment you create the transaction and if the outputs change (or basically anything that is not the witness) the TxID changes too. This is assuming the client you are using is computing TxID correctly and doesn't put any placeholders in txin's scripts.
Transaction ID of the following 2 are the same (first one is unsigned while second is signed):
[Version][TxInCount=n][txIn{0 to n}][[TxOutCount=m][txOut{0 to m}][Locktime]
[Version][SegWit flag][TxInCount=n][txIn{0 to n}][[TxOutCount=m][txOut{0 to m}][Witness{0 to n}][Locktime]

If the inputs are not all SegWit, then you're out of luck and still have to do it manually .

Please clarify something here.
You have a bitcoin address or a custodial wallet that is linked to your identity and have (legally) received 0.09BTC before.
You also have received 2 bitcoins in the same address/wallet that were stolen, right?
According to you saying "buying and selling digital currencies online" you seem to have already paid the thief the fiat for those 2 bitcoins. In that case you must have a bank record and an account number of the culprit which you should hand over to the authorities to bring that person into the investigation.
If you haven't paid the fiat then just pay the BTC back and provide the authorities with evidence that you have been trading bitcoin and have received BTC in the past from many other people also.

And like always you should consult a professional that is familiar with Iranian laws specifically involving bitcoin. We aren't experts here.

As a rule of thumb whenever you are replying to a topic and your comment has a number that is above #40 (page 3+) there is a good chance that you are participating in a spam-mega-thread and the post you are making has a low quality.

You just got the short end of the stick here but the topic itself should either be trashed or if the moderator feels generous they have to lock it.

For now because of the big panic sell that caused a bigger than normal correction we are in an accumulation phase where price goes sideways. There is also a lot of FUD they have been spreading (some of it new) to prevent the rise from happening sooner than they want it to.

This means if bitcoin stays in this small range for a little bit longer OP may get his wish in seeing some shitcoins get pumped until bitcoin makes its next move and they get dumped again.

This is the problem with closed source light wallets that use a centralized server to connect to and synchronize. They have a centralized point of failure (among other things such as lack of privacy) and when that server has issues their service become unusable.
Yet another reason to avoid using Coinomi.

This is a move in the right direction which is more peer to peer exchanging of fiat to bitcoin. So in the  end this is good news. I suspect we will have a transition phase to decentralized exchanges and then back to centralized exchanges in some parts of the world soon, as first CEX starts and gains popularity, then they crack down on them and push people to DEX then after the DEX volume grows and government sees they can't do anything about it and have lost the little power they had with CEXes they go back to letting CEX start up again.
This kind of transition will be even more palpable in corrupt systems with huge inflations.

This doesn't look right to me. The problem is that I don't think we have division defined in modular arithmetic. In the following 3 divided by 7 is 0.4 and we can't work with that. However we have modular multiplicative inverse that can't be converted to a division:

3/7 ≡ 6 (mod 13)

7*2 ≡ 1 -> 7^-1 ≡ 2 (mod 13)
3/7 ≡ 3 * 7^-1 ≡ 3 * 2 ≡ 6 (mod 13)

Always is a long time and we can't predict what the future holds specially if we are talking about far away future. If you are talking about a year or two for example then the answer is yes, backward compatibility will be kept but if you are talking about a much longer time like 10 to 20 years then we can't really predict it, most probably the backward compatibility will be kept but there are a lot of things that can change in a decade or two about bitcoin that may break that may require significant changes in the protocol.

I'm a big fan of using smaller units to report bitcoin amounts, specifically Satoshi. They did it with gold, as you don't buy a ton of gold, or a big ass bar of gold but you can see the price or buy it in small increments with all those weird units such as "oz"! In comparison bitcoin units using the SI system like micro, mili, etc.

But the real question is "do we even care?"
The answer is no. The dominance market cap ratio is meaningless and if some people want to focus on it and invest their money in useless altcoins that will lose them a lot of money, then it is their choice. The altcoin pump and dump will always continue and since it costs nothing to create trillions of circulating coins every day they will continue doing it decreasing this ration further.

For starters a lot of the programs you download are not open source, specially when you are downloading a .exe file for your Windows operating system. So there is nothing to check apart from blindly trusting the application that you find on the internet.
Secondly when it comes to open source software, the point is that you are downloading something that could be verified and when the project is popular we can safely assume that the code was looked at by some developers. For example when you download Electrum or Ubuntu,... you can be sure that these projects are already reviewed and are safe.

To predict the fee market it is more accurate to predict the price because the main thing affecting the number of on-chain transactions hence the fee spikes seems to be the price. Whenever there is a big jump or a big drop there is a lot of people buying and selling bitcoin which requires moving a lot of bitcoin (to and from exchanges) that creates the on-chain traffic hence the fee spike.
Recently the fees came down mainly because the panic sell ended (of course partly because the hashrate went back to normal).

In a couple of days even if hashrate increases and difficulty drops so that miners find more blocks per day, if the price starts jumping up (eg. reaching $70k) we will end up seeing a fee that is higher than the fee from past week.

That's true but when the "correction" happens after a large scale FUD campaign (in this case: hashrate drop, China controls bitcoin, bitcoin is dead campaign) then it is not such of a correction but a manipulation panic sell.
There is also difference between the time it took for the drop. A correction is always slower and for example a 10% drop takes much longer than half an hour. A panic sell due to FUD on the other hand is always super fast like this case.
Also we already had a correction after going above $60k between March 13 to March 25. Having another one in April doesn't make much sense.

We already have centralized currencies that are working A LOT better then centralized cryptocurrencies. The existence of a centralized cryptocurrency makes no sense.

So does PayPal and VISA and ...

3 major security flaws:
EDA: difficulty manipulation
Fork at will multiple times to change the protocol without caring what everyone else thinks
Successful 51% attacks to reverse blocks that the centralized controllers of bcash didn't like.

This is not a coin comparison topic but Cardano also has a lot of traces of centralization. Starting from its ICO-premine.

As long as you count the bytes of your transaction correction, you'd be fine. The problem is wallets migrated to virtual byte and you have to do it manually and also when you sign the transaction if the code isn't grinding for low r you can end up with 1 or 2 bytes difference (both core and electrum do this so you don't have to worry about the difference).

They are also advertising the shitcoin called BCash and attack bitcoin a little bit if you read the text on the acceleration page.

Falling days are over and the chance to buy bitcoin at a 20% discount is too.
But they are trying to push some new FUD for the following week(s) to try and keep the price down and maybe even short it a little more. It is impossible to predict how the market is going to react to this new FUD though, so we may end up seeing yet another bear massacre where they lost a ton of money relying on their FUD strategy soon.

Your list consists of exaggerations of reality or twisting the reality in a way that turns it into an FUD. These aren't "arguments against bitcoin" or "disadvantages" of it.

Bitcoin does have a scaling issue and will continue to have it but it can't be compared with Visa when they serve different purposes. One is decentralized and the other isn't. Also it is not as significant as some people make it to be.

Bitcoin IS being used in commerce and it is increasing every day. The problem is that because it is decentralized an transactions despite being public don't tell us where they go to, we have no way of knowing how much of it is being used that way. However if you check centralized services' statistics, like a merchant or the payment processors, you can see that it is growing.

There has never been any KYC in bitcoin and there will never be any in the future either and none of it has anything to do with Schnorr.
What some centralized services such as exchanges do has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin!