Split-key vanity generation basically fulfills all that you're looking for, without additional complexity. By introducing complex derivation paths and indexes, you risk losing your funds if you don't know the exact path and index. In addition, because there is an extra step when converting your seed and an arbitrary derivation path and index during the generation, there is likely some additional resources needed in the process as well.

I can see a point if you're looking for multiple vanity addresses in succession within a seed. That would definitely be harder than just generating them individually.

You'll have two options. The first is to purchase another hardware wallet and restore your seeds using it. The second is to download one of the popular wallets out there and restore it. Most of the hardware wallets generate BIP39 seeds, but you'll still have to know the derivation path for your specific wallet. It shouldn't be a problem because that is public information.

The derivation path is m/0.

Electrum seeds are not compatible with BIP39. You have to generate the master key differently as you would from a normal BIP39 seed.

Making a currency a legal tender doesn't necessarily means that the citizens HAVE to use it, it is merely a currency that the country recognizes and endorses. Fiat would probably still be a more dominant currency in use, and governments wouldn't give up their fiat for that. The problem isn't with how the citizens manage their financials but it is about how the volatility affects the user dis-proportionally. As for the point about transaction finality, it is hardly a case to be concerned about; you are responsible for your own funds and no one has to babysit them.

But again, any country recognizing it as a legal tender has an ulterior motive. That is to generate positive PR and distract others from the issues that they're facing. It is hardly a point to argue about.

Casascius started to sell unloaded ones AFAIK. The market for collectibles isn't really all that big. People buy them as a novelty, especially so when Bitcoin is starting out. The thing about loaded coins is that they are difficult to trade. If you need to sell the Bitcoin due to the higher Bitcoin prices, then you're going to be losing out because you need to either peel the coin or bite the bullet and sell it for a lower price. The mark up that you see are often tied to fiat prices.

I occasionally still collect them, but I wouldn't really pay that much for it.

You cannot regulate Bitcoin to that extent. Governments don't have and will not have an iron grip on Bitcoin. It is possible to be pseudonymous with Bitcoin because it is so hard to shut down and regulate every mixers out there. They are either out of reach of their jurisdiction or won't even have to comply with court orders.

P2P exchange won't die, because that is not illegal. Making it illegal is just unconstitutional.

Correct. Many a times, they are the ones that fail first and contributes mainly to the e-waste problem. The silicon in the chips are difficult to recycle because of the purity needed.
I get the point about aluminium being recyclable. That isn't really much of a concern given that we've already been recycling such a huge percentage of our aluminium cans and other miscellaneous stuff made from aluminium. The problem lies not only with the recycling aspect of it, as I've mentioned but rather the demand of it. We are incurring significant environmental impact by producing specific chips and boards that are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... Which is to mine a specific algorithm and afterwards there is no use for it. Great, it is recyclable. Does that mean it is environmentally friendly just because it can be recycled?

The answer is no. It might be feasible to recycle them(depending on their area and the parts we're concerned with), but that would only solve part of the problem, which is trying to mitigate part of the e-waste problem. The problem with this is that it is a multi-dimensional problem. We have to calculate both the carbon footprint for producing these ASICs, and recycling them as well to factor in the true derived carbon footprint of a single transaction. I want to bring the attention to the efficiency of a transaction instead, for which is it more efficient for Visa to process a transaction or for Bitcoin to process a transaction?

Just because it can be recycled doesn't mean that it would be. Recycling metal is quite a tedious task and many a times, it makes far more sense economically to just throw them to a landfill and mine for new material than trying to waste money and recycle them. E-waste is quite a prominent issue because parts of it are either hard to recycle or expensive to do so, due to the miscellaneous costs incurred in the process as well. Recycling doesn't really do all that much, it doesn't offset the environmental impact from mining it in the first place and incurs even more through the process of recycling it.

It's quite absurd that people are not acknowledging the fact that these argument actually have some substance and makes sense. Instead, they are dismissing it as a "propaganda" or fake news and instead shift their argument towards other activities which generate far more utility. Come on, it is just a Bitcoin cult defending the coin for the sake of doing so .

There are two additional block-only relay nodes ontop of the usual 8 nodes, which is why there is 10 now. Anchor nodes were introduced in the more recent versions to protect against eclipse attack. You cannot increase the outgoing connections through addnodes.
You don't need incoming peers. Your connections are bidirectional, meaning that you will receive and send data like any other nodes, be it block data or transactions, regardless of your incoming/outgoing connection counts. The incoming nodes only means that certain nodes are connecting to you, to receive and transmit information. In a similar sense, you are connecting to nodes that allows incoming connections.

You definitely don't need incoming peers to use Bitcoin. If you're behind a NAT, you have to port forward your port 8333.

The network cannot survive if there is no peers that would accept incoming connections, because that would simply mean no one can connect to each other. Privacy is unaffected by your incoming/outgoing connection counts. There are countermeasures against topological analysis within Bitcoin Core.

Your payment increases, in the case of the coins that you're mining only when the difficulty decreases or the price increases. It doesn't matter how many people left, because the profitability is not a function of the number of people that is currently mining. It is only affected by the two factors as mentioned.

Your network doesn't direct any workload to the user, that is not how any crypto work by directing workload. You will never be more profitable than the larger farms with hundreds of thousands of dollars at their disposal and cheap electrical fees.

Why do you need a full node? For the majority, any SPV clients would suffice and it wouldn't incur that much resource usage as well.

The problem with a snapshot is that someone has to define the interval or the block height for which it occurs, and the consensus will never be reached on that. The decision will ultimately fall with a certain group of people instead of the community as a whole. Satoshi's genesis block was universally defined as the block zero, for which the first Bitcoin client was shipped with, there was no consensus about that. I find having to trust someone on the state of the blockchain, instead of verifying it as a whole would just be akin to me using a SPV client.

The issue that you've stated so far is not a pressing issue at all. The HDD argument is not very valid; areal density is improving year on year and the reason the price has decreased is due to the cost of production and the increase in HDD density.

Not saying that we shouldn't follow that but it really doesn't make sense. Bitcoin belongs to the community, not to Satoshi. It really doesn't matter what he says, just look at the issue on its practicality as well as the ethics of it. On this issue, the problem lies with the ethics.

No such thing. There is no such thing as a coordinator in regular Bitcoin transactions, nor do you have to care about other participants. The only time it involves multiple parties is if you're doing a MultiSignature, where the conditions for the spending is for the minimum number of parties to sign it and for the signatures to be concatenated. You can't get defraud, because you are able to see what you're signing for. PSBT is a format which allows for people to sign their individual signatures and for individual signatures to be combined and used in a single transaction. It is not a form of transaction.
I disagree. You need to research on the topic more and clear your misunderstandings. It is difficult to explain concepts to people if they have no idea what is going on, and it isn't what I'm here to do. I would love to discuss and clear any misconceptions, but it doesn't help if the user doesn't have an idea of what is happening.

For starters, you need to understand how Bitcoin works: https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin actually works. It might be better for you to start reading up on it before asking questions, so it'll be clearer for you as well.

PSBT in the sense of a MultiSig is with an address that has a Multisig script hash, that address will have the specific requirements (ie. the signatures) required for a transaction to be valid. We don't add addresses to the PSBT, the PSBT contains the information needed for someone to generate a valid signature for the transaction that they've created.

No chance.
No. Privacy has nothing to do with this. You are supposed to authenticate and be sure of the people that you're doing a MultiSig with. If you don't you might be dealing with the wrong people and could possibly lead you to getting scammed. Whoever is signing their part are supposed to be aware of and know what they are signing for, we don't sign anything blindly.

Yes. It is highly unlikely that a recovery tool with detailed instructions wouldn't be available for a wallet as popular as Electrum. Even when Multibit was discontinued, there were detailed steps to extract the keys.

Do you get solar panels without having to mine for the silicon used in the PV cells? It's quite easy to get greenwashed by the major corporations or those that simply wants to ignore the obvious to suit their narrative.

Renewable energy are not free of environmental impact, infact there is no such thing. An increase in demand brings about the cost to the environment, in terms of sourcing of the raw material or deploying the actual setup. Whether the benefit outweighs the cost is a whole other issue altogether.

No risk to PoW if you don't have a feasible collision.

Electrum or practically any other wallet has always maintained backwards compatibility, wherever possible. In the case of a seed, it wouldn't take much to preserve the backwards compatibility of it especially when the versioning is already clearly defined.

You actually don't have to store the source code at all. It is quite trivial to derive the private keys from the seeds and can be done easily with a little research and some programming skills. Rest assured, if some day the current seed system gets deprecated, then someone would probably just make a tool to derive the master private key regardless.

It wasn't really a rhetorical question. Given how the argument is centered about UTXO size, I was wondering if you were concerned about blockchain size as well.

I think this "solution" has been discussed quite a few times, and I don't really find it an issue anymore. We've had pruning for quite a few years now, and it describes exactly what you're talking about. Where users choose to save how much block data they need while discarding the rest and retaining the UTXO. If you prefer to trust someone to tell you what is right at a certain point of time, instead of validating yourself, then it would be better to just use an SPV wallet. I don't expect the majority to require a full node and in the near future, SPV nodes should fulfill their needs instead of wasting their resources to run a full node if they are unable to.

Anyhow, throughout my time here, I've seen this solution being proposed more than a dozen times. The reason why the UTXO commitment or blockchain truncating isn't viable right now is that the user has to trust that the commitment is accurate and isn't intentionally manipulated. I would think that this only serves to solve the problem with regards to the storage space, for which pruning is sufficient.

That is wrong. Running a full node isn't equivalent to mining. They cannot mine a block just by running a full node, you need sufficient computational power for that, for which he definitely doesn't have. In a perfect world, economics might function on a supply-demand concept but it is hardly the case. It is just wishful thinking for people to assume that it will rise just because of it's deflationary principle.

If anything, the tweet is only to raise more awareness. It is easy to run a full node and everyone can do it. It isn't a big deal for anyone to do so.

Agreed. Electrum's implementation at it's current stage is not user-friendly enough and is quite annoying to use.

Lightning network has intrinsic benefits over the primary layer but it isn't all that applicable at this stage. Not a lot of people use LN for day-to-day transactions, or even Bitcoin for that matter. The fees are low enough right now, and we don't have to care about inbound capacity either. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, where if adoption is low, then no exchanges would adopt it and the cycle continues.

You can theoretically have more than enough derivation path to find the desired vanity addresses without having to switch keys. The prefix or the pattern of the addresses are independent of the seed or any other factors, so you'd have to keep track of the derivation path as well as the index. It can be quite tedious but it would allow you to have all of the vanity addresses being derived from a seed, but with differing path and non-sequential indexes.