Well as i can see that many of the replies are about how hard it is, i do understand that, let me give you an example of bitaddress.org which was used by many people back in the day to buy bitcoin, what are the chances that someone made a wallet and transfered some bitcoins to it and forgot about it, i can refere you to this https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rli5i/if_someone_cracks_bitaddressorgs_number_generator/

How is that? Pruned nodes "benefit the network" just like any other full node, with just one exception: they are not helpful with the stupid bootstrap process in the current (experimental) implementation of the protocol, nothing else, not a tiny bit of any sign of being inferior compared to a historian full node ... I just made it up  

We can only argue that more Archival Full Nodes are going to benefit the network only if there is a shortage of them that makes syncing hard for new nodes that come online or puts extra pressure on the existing Archival Full Nodes.
I don't think this is the case since we have enough of them to supply the historical blockchain.

Mining is an all or nothing race. This is why miners join mining pools. Only a tiny fraction of the total hash power of the network is saved in the block that gets accepted. Maybe there's a more fair and efficient way to mine. What if miners could mine cooperatively, taking turns generating each block and helping to hash the same block.

When a miner joins the network the other miners respond by indicating their position in line and what position the new miner can take.

Mining happens in rounds. In each round, the next miner gets a turn to generate the next block- just the block data not the hash. They then allocate workloads to the other miners based on their speed. A workload is a range of nonce values. The miner who generates the block essentially hosts their own temporary mining pool.

As each miner completes a workload, they broadcast it to the network so that everyone can confirm it. The host credits them and supplies another.

Confirmation of work doesn't require re-checking every hash in a workload. The number of hashes checked at random can be based on the number of miners online. With every miner checking only a few random hashes, each workload gets checked a lot. If any miner finds errors in a workload, they inform the host who then scans it more thoroughly. Rewards are only allocated for actual work.

When a block is solved, it gets broadcast to the network as usual and the next round begins with the next miner in line assuming the role of host. If a miner drops from the network the round goes to the next miner.

The block reward and fees of the current block cannot be allocated among the miners in the same round so they are allocated in the block that follows it.

by studying the algos that create those wallets and patterns that may exist i think that number will be much lower, add to that if somehow you found thousands of people who are willing to brute force using a good algo for couple of years straight, then what are the chances that you maybe find a wallet with a large balance,

and for people who may say this theory is crazy and not possible i refere you to the guy who actually done just that for couple of years and found private keys of 3 small wallets.

This is like digging for gold and by technology going up i believe oneday it will be possible to brute force about 20-100 wallets each year using some crazy asic machine and a whole industry will be built around just this idea.

this is just a theory of mine which made me curious, would love to hear what you think other than no it's impossible.

I don't get it. 
Why People are so concerned about HDD capacity? We have pruning already, a pruned full node works just fine.

I agree, however wallet such as Wasabi (which uses Tor, BIP 158 or both of them) usually took some minutes for first time sync.

Few years ago I purchased 4TB HDD disc and that is now even cheaper, and SSD disc are now also affordable and much faster.
When I purchased my first SSD it was expensive and had limited storage, but now you can find 1TB or 2TB SSD M.2 like Samsung or Adata in reasonable prices with good five year warranty.
I think current size of Bitcoin blockchain is around 330 GB, and with current yearly growth of around 25% I think that having few TB disc will last for years without any issue.

I knew I would get a comment like this.

Do we really think there are ten of thousands of nodes not accepting connecting being spun up in secret?  Or can we go with the simpler explanation of not many people are bothering to spin up a node and we shouldn't be making it harder to do so because at some point it may or may not be a problem.

Samsung SN550, if a QLC drive causes it to take 4 weeks to sync something is really broken with the network.  But like I said when I manually added a bunch of nodes that had either TELUS or Google Fiber as their ISPs my sync time dropped to 40 hours.  Slowly as they disconnect and I go back to the 8-9 nodes my sync time goes back to 3 weeks.

Based on the estimate and how much I've managed to sync over the last three days.

More importantly when I added a bunch of Nodes manually the estimate dropped to 40 hours. and speed of sync dropped dramatically.

1) how much of these transaction details do I need to share, and/or should I share publicly, without potentially being duped by someone else allocating my bitcoins (if the bitcoins are even retrievable)

2) At the time I entered my coinbase wallet 'address', or so I thought, but nothing showed up, even after weeks of checking. so if I did end putting in the wrong coinbase number - does this mean coinbase could potentially help me in retrieving the bitcoins, or does this simply mean the bitcoins are lost in the deep ether of the internet?

So without RBF I guess I can still use Electrum to manually delete the transaction and re-broadcast it with a higher fee and differenr outputs? Is that because miners take higher fees with priority? I thought a non-RBF tx automatically means a re-broadcasted one will be invalid.

does anyone know if coinjoin , wasabi, whirpool technology prevent tainted coins from entering mix pool?  

but you would have the same level of security as when every single computer on Earth gets automatic windows software update every day from a THRUST worthy address such as Microsoft.com (instead of NorthKorea.com). Otherwise all of Earth's computers would presently be infected by viruses but they are not.

Then your private keys would never touch an online environment.  The problem is that the USD device to move the signed transaction might be a vector as well.

Exactly what I meant, but it is normal to critize the network, but the criticism are not true. Also, bitcoin itself is said to be ponzi and all sort of things like that, all because it is open source. If it is close source like the monetary system that is centralized, it will not be critizied because they think govements will protect such but not knowing it is not perfect as open source and decentralized like bitcoin specifically. Check my quotes above to get the total picture of my post.

It is normal to critize anything open source, but the true design of Bitcoin makes 51% attack not to have occurred.