1) such transactions should confirm if the fee/byte isn't lower than 1. i can't tell without knowing the transaction size though.
2) you shouldn't really believe whatever crap you read on the internet. the link you posted is a clear and desperate attempt at advertising a shitcoin called Tron.

you should add a new step before this one which is going to be the hardest step and it is the way you acquire the PGP public key of the developer. it shouldn't be just copied from the same website you download the file and the signature from. read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust

this would be my biggest concern. even though you have created a new profile and kept that one offline you are still on the same online machine and will remain on the same one later one too. so for example if some day an exploit in mac was found that allowed an attacker to gain access to all profiles they can also potentially steal your bitcoin wallet and bitcoins.
the live Linux option mentioned above is also the method i would use.
BTW don't forget to encrypt the wallet file itself and also don't forget to make physical backups (as in writing seed on multiple pieces of paper and store them safely, preferably encrypted).

when you speak of confirmation you should first define what it means. confirmation does NOT JUST mean included in a block even though that is the literal definition. when speaking of confirmation we care about the number when the transaction becomes irreversible. in bitcoin a transaction with 1 confirmation is considered already irreversible because of how extremely difficult and costly it would be to reverse that 1 block. there is no altcoin in existence that shares the same number. majority of them have to have a chain that is thousands of blocks long before the transaction is considered irreversible. you can take a quick look at the number of confirmation exchanges require before funding the user's account as an inaccurate but good example.

additionally confirmation has another meaning to it which is immutability. in simple terms it means when the blockchain is created it must not be changed. that is not true for many altcoins including ethereum. their blockchain has changed in the past due to decisions that their owners made with rollbacks, ... and there is nothing stopping them from doing the same in the future. that is another downside of being centralized!

no. this is how HD wallets work.
you have a "master-key-pair" and similar to "key-pairs" you have one public and one private. with certain settings (using non-hardened paths which Electrum uses) each master key is capable of creating the same exact set of addresses:
- the master private key creates child private keys > computes each public key > creates their corresponding address
- the master public key (cannot create private key) > creates child public key > creates their corresponding address

when you use an address, your Electrum automatically generates a new one which is the next key index (eg. if you have 10 already created it creates number 11).
- when you are online with your master public key it creates the public key and the address of it.
- when you are offline it won't know how many addresses are used (since it has no access to the internet and blockchain) so it won't create any new one BUT it can do it if it is asked to. and it is asked to create the new one as soon as you try signing a new transaction that is spending funds from those addresses.

then it has nothing to do with SegWit!
2FA wallets in Electrum are multi-signature wallets that use multiple keys and there is no defined standard for singing a message from this type of addresses. in other words there is no workaround for it.

that doesn't sound like a good idea. in normal circumstances your password is protecting an account in a centralized database which you could recover even if it were hacked by simply contacting the provider. but in bitcoin if your wallet is hacked your money is all gone and there is no going back. if such a feature existed in a wallet then it increases the risk of being hacked because it is simplifying the process of gaining access to the wallet which shouldn't be a feature at all. it is not supposed to be easy to "unlock" your wallet and that is a good thing.

we already have multiple social media platforms for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, they are all centralized though. it includes bitcointalk, reddit, stackexchange, github, IRC, and a couple of other smaller forums. there are also "groups" on telegram, etc. that are mostly scamming people with pump and dumps.
we don't need any more centralized platforms.

if you have any idea for creating a "decentralized" platform that works then feel free to expand that idea. so far i have seen some that claim at decentralization but are even more centralized than their predecessors!

it depends on what you mean by "raw transaction".
the entire bitcoin blockchain that is more than 200 GB is all raw transactions and as others have already said multiple times, you can't get private key from any of them. if you could bitcoin wouldn't have existed!

but if it is a transaction made locally, is unsigned, has other information inside to help signing, created by a weird implementation,... then it is a completely different discussion. for example Electrum unsigned raw transactions contain the master public key. even though you still can't get the private key from that but if a single private key from that wallet is known the master private key (and all other keys) can be computed from that.
or for example there were cases where the implementation was terrible (eg. blockchain.info in the past) and they reused k while signing and that led to easy computation of the private key by just having the signature (the raw tx).

when you use Trezor which is an HD wallet you can have multiple addresses that you would keep separate.
lets consider this scenario as an example:
* address1 is for payments you receive for your online jobs
* address2 is for buying groceries
* address3 is for trading
* address4 is for buying VPN,...
(when addressN is used the change is send to addressN_1 then addressN_2,...).

now when you use Trezor with something like Electrum with or without Tor and even without spending any coins (just updating balance) the Electrum node can know and log that address1, address2, address3, address4,... that weren't linked together in any way before are linked. address3 is linked to your real IP (since you were using a centralized exchange) now all addresses 1 to m are linked to your identity without even being linked together.

but if you used your own node with or without Tor other nodes on the network have very little ways of knowing if addresses 1 to m are linked together. and even little ways of knowing if a transaction coming from a certain address belongs to you. because all they see is a full node "relaying" transactions that may or may not originate from that node.

Brave browser might have started with good intentions a couple of years ago when they advertised it as a privacy focused browser but even then many experts were skeptical about its true intentions and even its reason for existence when we already have good browsers that can do the same thing (if not better) such as Firefox.

then after a very short time it started going on a downward spiral and lose that little trust it had when it started adding tokens, run ICO,... and finally the last nail in its coffin was the addition of KYC to an effing privacy oriented browser!!!

this recent attempt of pushing their own ref link is just coming from a copse of a browser. and that surprises me to see people are still using this garbage browser.

you will never achieve "full anonymity" when using bitcoin because it is not designed that way. everything you do is increasing your privacy to the point that you can be almost certain that you are anonymous. if you want full anonymity then you must use physical cash with some additional steps!!

to hide your IP address. technically a third party can figure out which transactions belong to you when you create and broadcast a transaction even though there are methods to make it harder. so using TOR would hide your IP and makes it even more difficult to figure out who you are even if they could find which transaction came from you.
running your own full node compared to using another node through your Electrum client also removes the fact that you have to send all your addresses to that node and it can link them all together.

it depends on the wallet type you are using, full nodes don't share xpub with the world since there is no reason for it.
SPV clients also shouldn't share your xpub with the nodes they connect to but that should be a case by case analysis of the implementation to be sure. but with most SPV client you are sharing all your addresses with the nodes you connect to so it still makes very little difference when privacy is involved.

keys must be generated offline on an air-gap computer and never online. if it is online then you have more things to worry about than your privacy.

hehe, there was some coins in that address which moved about 4 hours after they were deposited there. so either the puzzle was too easy to solve or the owner of the key moved the coins

i hate "image puzzles", they never make any sense. if history is any indication, these types of "puzzles" have a high chance of being fake and only for advertisement purposes. in fact the other one mentioned by other user (phemex) was fake

bitcoin.org is open source and is the result of contributors and maintainers ceaseless efforts at keeping it informative and secure. if you want to add anything new such as a wallet you should visit the repository and read the instructions there and if that wallet meets the needed "Basic Requirements" you can open a new issue.
here is the relevant link: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/blob/master/docs/managing-wallets.md

with the recent news about Coinbase coming out that they have been selling their users data and are planning on selling it more to the government agencies we now are sure that there is a good market for these things.
so it is not surprising that another company, that is blockchain.com, is now aiming to take their share of that market to add some additional revenue.

and it is not just for money, it will also be for security since they will be working for the government. for instance when they are caught doing something illegal in the future, the US government will easily bury the investigation and let them get away with it to keep their source intact.

it depends on what subject you want to learn and how deep you are planning on going. for example things listed by @mk4 such as decentralization, economy,... i consider to be basics that could be learned in an afternoon. but the technical subjects are more complicated than that.

for example you could learn about bitcoin scripts, how they work,... in about 10 to 15 minutes if you stick to the basics and only want to have a general idea of the mechanics. but if you want to learn the details (eg. FindAndDelete for OP_CHECK(MULTI)SIG(VERIFY), OP_CODESEPARATOR, conditionals,... ) then it could take a couple of days and a lot of effort at digging these information out of the source code since they are not properly documented anywhere.

that's why i always tell people who want to learn about bitcoin to first decide how much they want to learn. the basics could be found on bitcoin wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/) with a little more advanced topics and in depth learning could be found on Mastering Bitcoin by A.A. (https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook), and in depth learning can only be achieved by a combination of all the above + dev docs (https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/) and reference implementation (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/)

there are still other implementation of Electrum nodes that clients can connect to even if ElectrumX implementation stopped being developed and used some day. your Electrum client is also capable of knowing which network it is connected to and keep remaining on bitcoin network even if a malicious altcoin node tried giving you irrelevant data.

secret sharing (splitting a secret) =/= encryption

if you are looking for security for your secrets (including mnemonic words) then try finding an actual encryption method (such as AES) to actually encrypt them instead of trying to re-invent the wheel. specifically speaking unless you are a cryptography expert you should not attempt at coming up with your own methods, because there is a good chance that you'll end up with a lot of flaws even if they aren't apparent in the beginning.

those "special" cases should already have their seed phrase which can be imported in any wallet that supports them such as Electrum and then they can safely spend their money without any issues since as i said above the bug is in hardware wallet not in SegWit.

OK. but the effects of OTC trading, no matter its volume, on bitcoin market hence its price is so small that it is negligible. so we shouldn't really care how much Chinese or any other group of people in different parts of the word are trading bitcoin using USDT off the market.

don't confuse "implementation" bugs with "protocol" bugs which the article fails to clarify too.
this has absolutely nothing to do with SegWit or even the way we sign transactions that spend SegWit outputs. it is all about the bug that the "implementation" used by hardware wallets such as Trezor have and also in how they use BIP174.